Background Domestic, family, and sexual violence (DFSV) is a widespread public health and human rights issue that disproportionately affects structurally marginalised communities. Mainstream justice responses—focused on policing, criminalisation, and incarceration—frequently do not meet the needs of victim-survivors. Transformative justice (TJ) offers community-led, non-carceral responses that promote harm reduction by seeking to reduce the harms of criminalisation, prevent further violence, promote healing and accountability, and transform the structural conditions that lead to violence. This scoping review maps the characteristics and applications of TJ in the context of DFSV. Methods Led by victim-survivors of DFSV, this review followed Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2005 and 2025 was sourced from eight databases and Google. Sources were included if they described the characteristics of TJ in non-carceral contexts. Sixty-one sources met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a customised tool and synthesised thematically. Results Most included sources originated in the United States and were situated outside academic publishing, reflecting TJ’s community-based origins. TJ was consistently defined as an abolitionist approach rooted in community accountability, survivor autonomy, and structural transformation. Core principles included anticarceral and feminist commitments, trauma-informed care, and relational accountability. Goals focused on building safety within communities, creating justice processes not reliant on punitive measures, and transforming systemic conditions. Practices included pod mapping, transformative education, and knowledge-building activities such as storytelling and creative expression. The literature highlighted tensions around scalability, consistency, and engagement with state systems. Conclusions TJ is an evolving field that remains resistant to formal institutionalisation and centres the leadership of those most affected by violence and criminalisation. Its relevance to harm reduction lies in its focus on preventing violence and criminalisation while building community prevention capacities. Research, policy, and practice should prioritise investment in grassroots infrastructures and the leadership of victim-survivors and marginalised communities. The reviewed literature argues that applications of TJ resist being reduced to static models or assimilated into carceral frameworks. Rather, their potential is founded on collective support and sustained political organising, and the long-term work of community transformation. Registration This review followed a pre-specified protocol developed by the research team in accordance with JBI methodology (Peters M et al. in E. Aromataris (eds) Joanna Briggs Institute: South Australia, 2015) and PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Tricco AC et al. in Ann Intern Med 169:467-673, 2018). The protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (2025) doi: <a href="https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FTSR4">https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FTSR4</a>.

Transformative justice approaches to domestic, family, and sexual violence: a scoping review

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年4月28日

查看全文

Jade Lane,
Amy Kirwan,
Nina Storey,
Georgina Sutherland,
Mark Stoove

摘要

Background

Domestic, family, and sexual violence (DFSV) is a widespread public health and human rights issue that disproportionately affects structurally marginalised communities. Mainstream justice responses—focused on policing, criminalisation, and incarceration—frequently do not meet the needs of victim-survivors. Transformative justice (TJ) offers community-led, non-carceral responses that promote harm reduction by seeking to reduce the harms of criminalisation, prevent further violence, promote healing and accountability, and transform the structural conditions that lead to violence. This scoping review maps the characteristics and applications of TJ in the context of DFSV.

Methods

Led by victim-survivors of DFSV, this review followed Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Peer-reviewed and grey literature published between 2005 and 2025 was sourced from eight databases and Google. Sources were included if they described the characteristics of TJ in non-carceral contexts. Sixty-one sources met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a customised tool and synthesised thematically.

Results

Most included sources originated in the United States and were situated outside academic publishing, reflecting TJ’s community-based origins. TJ was consistently defined as an abolitionist approach rooted in community accountability, survivor autonomy, and structural transformation. Core principles included anticarceral and feminist commitments, trauma-informed care, and relational accountability. Goals focused on building safety within communities, creating justice processes not reliant on punitive measures, and transforming systemic conditions. Practices included pod mapping, transformative education, and knowledge-building activities such as storytelling and creative expression. The literature highlighted tensions around scalability, consistency, and engagement with state systems.

Conclusions

TJ is an evolving field that remains resistant to formal institutionalisation and centres the leadership of those most affected by violence and criminalisation. Its relevance to harm reduction lies in its focus on preventing violence and criminalisation while building community prevention capacities. Research, policy, and practice should prioritise investment in grassroots infrastructures and the leadership of victim-survivors and marginalised communities. The reviewed literature argues that applications of TJ resist being reduced to static models or assimilated into carceral frameworks. Rather, their potential is founded on collective support and sustained political organising, and the long-term work of community transformation.

Registration

This review followed a pre-specified protocol developed by the research team in accordance with JBI methodology (Peters M et al. in E. Aromataris (eds) Joanna Briggs Institute: South Australia, 2015) and PRISMA-ScR guidelines (Tricco AC et al. in Ann Intern Med 169:467-673, 2018). The protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework (2025) doi: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FTSR4.