One way of assessing restorativeness is to consider the extent to which its structure, components and outcomes reflect the definition and principles of restorative justice.

1. View of crime and justice.  What is the perspective on crime?  Is crime understood to harm the community and the victim, or merely to transgress a criminal law?  Is the social harmfulness of the offence addressed and not merely the wrongdoing of the offender? Does it focus on the needs created by the offence? While recognizing the danger of crime, does it also focus on the opportunities for growth afforded by the chance to repair harm and find solutions? Does it recognize the relational as well as the public dimensions of crime?
2. Community/State orientation.  In a restorative response, state intervention provides a backdrop, or foundation, for extensive community involvement.  It serves as a safeguard and a safety net as necessary.  What is the Network’s community orientation?  Does it work to build community, allow community participation in decision-making, empower and enable the community, increase its capacity, and have a bias for responding locally?
3. Processes used.  Do the processes, as much as possible, include all parties, offer opportunities for constructive encounter, address the interests of all parties, ensure their physical, psychological and emotional safety and their voluntary participation, and encourage joint decision-making?
4. Outcomes sought and achieved.  When people have gone through the Network, will they have been invited to identify and solve problems, made or received amends, had the opportunity to explain their experiences, learned the perspectives of the other parties, and become integrated back into the community?

Another way of assessing restorativeness is to assess the extent to which restorative values are experienced. Four normative values (the way the world ought to be) are given in RJ in the City: peaceful social life, respect, solidarity and active responsibility. Ten operational values (the way our interventions should work) were proposed as key to achieving the normative values: resolution, protection, encounter, empowerment, inclusion, assistance, moral education, amends, collaboration and reparation.

Therefore, restorativeness of interventions by the Network might be measured by considering the extent to which the operational values are present:

1. Amends: To what extent are those responsible for the harm resulting from an offence also held accountable for taking steps to repair it?
2. Assistance: To what extent do affected parties receive needed aid in becoming contributing members of their communities?
3. Collaboration: To what extent are the affected parties offered processes involving mutual, consensual decision-making in the aftermath of the offence? To what extent do they accept the offer?
4. Empowerment: To what extent are affected parties able to effectively influence and participate in the response to the offence
5. Encounter: To what extent are affected parties invited to participate in person or indirectly in making decisions that affect them? To what extent are they compelled to do so?
6. Inclusion: To what extent are affected parties invited to directly shape and engage in restorative processes? To what extent do they accept that invitation?
7. Moral education: To what extent are community standards reinforced as the values and norms of the parties, their communities, and their societies are considered in determining how to respond to particular offences?
8. Protection: To what extent is the physical, psychological and emotional safety of affected parties a primary consideration?
9. Reintegration: To what extent are the parties given the means and opportunity to rejoin their communities as whole, contributing members?
10. Resolution: To what extent are the issues and people surrounding the offence and its aftermath are addressed?