Search results

Recognizing the potentially deleterious consequences of criminalizing school discipline, schools are increasingly turning to alternative methods for holding students accountable for misbehavior. Restorative justice (RJ) practices--which seek to hold students who cause harm accountable without removing them from their learning environment--ostensibly represent an antidote to traditional discipline. However, RJ practices have been the subject of limited high quality scientific inquiry. This study aims to fill this gap through the implementation and evaluation of a restorative program in a school district (District 18) that struggles with the highest suspension rates in New York City.

Related literature presents inconclusive results regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice (RJ) in schools (Anyon et al. 2016; Augustine et al. 2018; Gonz?lez 2015; Gonz?lez et al. 2019). There is little uniformity in restorative justice implementation, although some key components of successful implementation (e.g., staff buy-in, resources) have been identified. Because no two schools are likely to implement restorative practices identically, evaluating them with scientific rigor--typically requiring large samples--has been inherently challenging. As such, randomized controlled trials of restorative justice in schools were virtually non-existent in 2015 (at the time the current study was proposed), and most existing research relied on qualitative, quasi-experimental or pre-post designs. The push for quantitative rigor resulted in the present study, a mixed method randomized controlled trial, along with other recently published or ongoing rigorous evaluations.

The restorative justice program in question aimed to improve school climate, strengthen relationships schoolwide, prevent and intervene in conflict, reduce incidents and suspensions, and enhance any existing restorative practices already in place. Restorative justice has the potential to reduce dependency on punitive measures (e.g., suspension) when an incident occurs at school. Additionally, given the priority placed on building community and providing mental health support, restorative justice may also reduce such incidents altogether, while creating a positive school climate. As such, the primary quantitative outcomes in this study were incident rates, suspension rates, and school climate. This study was a randomized control trial that included a treatment group (enrolled in RJ program), comparison group (no RJ program enrollment), and control groups (general restorative justice practices). The research team hypothesized the following:

• • Hypothesis 1: Students in the treatment group would have fewer incidents and suspensions than the control group.
  • Hypothesis 2: Students in the treatment group would have fewer incidents and suspensions than the comparison group.
  • Hypothesis 3: Students in all of District 18 would have fewer incidents and suspensions than the comparison group.
  • Hypothesis 4: The treatment group would have a more positive school climate than the control group.

The objective of this study was to systematically review and statistically synthesize all available research that, at a minimum, compared participants in a restorative justice program to participants processed in a more traditional way using meta-analytic methods. Ideally, these studies would include research designs with random assignment to condition groups, as this provides the most credible evidence of program effectiveness.

The systematic search identified 99 publications, both published and unpublished, reporting on the results of 84 evaluations nested within 60 unique research projects or studies. Results were extracted from these studies, related to delinquency, non-delinquency, and victim outcomes for the youth and victims participating in these programs.

This project studied the capacity of family group conferencing (FGC) to enhance public safety by equipping returning citizens with the skills and insight to repair relationships and reintegrate successfully into their communities and families. FGC is guided by the philosophy of restorative justice, meaning that crime primarily causes harm to people and relationships and, in turn, creates an obligation to repair that harm. FGC brings together the people most affected by a crime to discuss what happened, learn how people have been affected, and decide what needs to be done to repair the harm.

The project evaluated an FGC program implemented by Supporting Restorative Reentry in Detroit at a residential reentry center in Detroit, Michigan. Researchers used a randomized control trial with high-risk, formerly incarcerated participants still under Michigan Department of Corrections supervision with the goal of assessing the programs ability to reduce recidivism and increase quality of life for returning citizens, their families, and their communities. Variables include measures of criminal identity, optimism, personal agency, social bonds, the FGC process, risk scores, and twelve-month recidivism follow-up. Participants' age, gender, and race demographics are also collected.

Across the United States (U.S.), school districts have grappled with how to create safe community- and achievement-oriented schools and how to ensure the necessary discipline is applied transparently, fairly, and without bias. Two programs that many schools have turned to in order to achieve these goals are Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Restorative Justice (RJ). PBIS is an evidence-driven schoolwide behavioral management approach that aims to outline clear expectations for students and to cultivate shared norms and practices across classrooms and school spaces. PBIS has become a popular approach in schools and districts: as of 2020; over 19,000 schools in the U.S. have implemented PBIS.

A second program, Restorative Justice (RJ), has grown in popularity in recent years. RJ typically focuses on restorative relationship building between affected parties, peaceful reconciliation, and non-punitive approaches to rectifying harm, using a structured circle discussion format. RJ schools use both community circles, designed to build a safe space for students and staff to share and listen to each other, and restorative circles, designed to share perspectives on and redress a behavioral issue.

Working with a large school district in a mid-Atlantic state, researchers set out to test whether these two programs substitute for or complement each other. In partnership with the school district researchers conducted two separate school-level randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The first RCT (RCT 1) sought to uncover the marginal impact of RJ by adding the program to a set of randomly selected schools that were already implementing PBIS. The second RCT (RCT 2) was designed to discover the impact of introducing both programs together into schools that had neither program at baseline. Researchers conducted student and staff surveys to collect measures of school climate, teacher logs to record program implementation, and researchers also received administrative data from the district on student test scores, teacher and student absences, student disciplinary infractions, and school costs.

There is growing evidence of the effectiveness of each of these programs in isolation. A recent meta-analysis of 32 experimental and quasi-experimental impact studies of PBIS found that PBIS reduced disciplinary exclusions and problem behavior and increased academic achievement. The findings were statistically significant and showed small to medium effect sizes. Individual studies have found that PBIS reduces the use of office disciplinary referrals and other exclusionary disciplinary measures (including the use of in-school and out-of-school suspensions), while improving student behavior and attitudes across school levels. Individual studies show variable--some statistically significant and some null--impacts on academic outcomes.

The empirical evidence on the effect of RJ in U.S. schools is more limited, with little rigorous casual evidence published to date. Based on patterns across rigorous and non-rigorous research, restorative justice is associated with decreases in suspension rates and disciplinary disparities, improved student behavior, and improved school climate and relationships.

This study uses quantitative and qualitative research to fill a gap in the scholarly literature on "what works" in school discipline, climate, and safety and has important implications for educators and justice policymakers nationwide. The quantitative analysis utilized data from 2010-2015 of middle and high school students (N=87,471 students nested within 804 schools and 74 neighborhoods) in New York City. Researchers applied hierarchical modeling methods to analyze effects of neighborhood, school, and student characteristics on: 1) future school disciplinary outcomes; 2) future arrest; and 3) grade advancement. Demographic variables for individual participants include race, gender, and if they are an English language learner.

Demographic variables for neighborhoods include race, median income, crime rates, and education levels.

The goal of this National Institute of Justice-funded research study was to determine the impact of High-Risk Victim Offender Dialogue (HR-VOD) on victims of serious or violent crimes and criminal offenders currently or previously under the supervision of a Colorado correctional facility or community supervision agency. Specifically, the research team conducted a longitudinal, mixed-methods cohort-control study, comparing the wellbeing of victims and offenders who participated in a facilitated restorative justice dialogue to the wellbeing of those who did not participate. Wellbeing of crime victims were measured by validated psychometric scales capturing trauma indicators, PTSD, depression, substance abuse behaviors, and physical and emotional health.

In addition, qualitative interviews with participants built a multi-faceted contextual understanding of the impact of HR-VOD on victim trauma and healing and offender development. Interviews took place at enrollment in the VOD program, within 72 hours of the VOD intervention, and six months following the VOD intervention. This study was designed to inform practice and policy decisions about the use of HR-VOD in criminal justice settings in Colorado and nationally to improve criminal justice outcomes and ameliorate the effects of crime.

Since 2008, the Youth Restoration Project (YRP) and the Central Falls School District (CFSD) in Rhode Island have collaborated to implement a multi-level restorative justice intervention focused on building partnerships among police, schools, social services, families, and communities through training and dialogue. Restorative justice (RJ) encompasses a broad framework of practices aimed at repairing harm and achieving accountability rather than imposing punishment. In criminal justice contexts, RJ models include victim-offender mediation, peer courts, and RJ conferences. The current project undertaken by the Urban Institute focused on evaluating the impact of restorative justice conferences conducted by the YRP in partnership with Family Services of Rhode Island. A restorative justice conference (RJC) is a highly structured, facilitated meeting that allows affected parties (e.g., offending student, victim, teacher) and their allies (e.g., parents/guardians, peers) to arrive at the best possible solution for all parties following a negative event or behavior. Three different types of student misbehavior were considered for referral to restorative conferencing as an alternative to more formal processes: (1) arrestable offenses (with or without victims), (2) chronic unexcused absenteeism (truancy), or (3) chronic disruptive behavior.

The Urban Institute began implementing a conference observation pilot in a CFSD middle school and high school in fall 2014; the 2015-2016 school year was the first full year of implementation. Starting in 2016-2017, a middle school and high school in Providence also participated; conference observations were also conducted in a charter high school in the area. At these 5 schools between 2015-2016 and 2017-2018, 786 cases were referred for RJ conferencing; conferences were held in about half of these cases (379). A total of 105 conferences were observed by trained field staff. Post-conference interviews were conducted in the months following RJCs and allowed adult conference participants to share feedback regarding their experience and satisfaction with the conference process. Additionally, an outcome evaluation was conducted using student administrative data to assess the impact of conferences on student behavior. Finally, teacher surveys and focus groups were conducted in 4 participating schools to assess teacher perceptions of overall school climate as well as attitudes toward restorative practices and RJCs.

This collection includes data from restorative justice conference observation (DS1) and teacher surveys (DS2). Administrative data from the outcome evaluation and qualitative data from post-conference interviews and teacher focus groups were not deposited and are not included in the ICPSR release.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

This National Institute of Justice (NIJ)-funded study was designed to provide an in-depth examination of a batterer intervention program (BIP) and an alternative treatment approach using restorative justice (RJ) for domestic violence (DV) offenders. The study design provided an in-depth content analysis to complement a National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded randomized controlled trial (RCT) in Salt Lake City, Utah that used an intention to treat method of analysis to determine which treatment program has the lowest arrest outcomes: a traditional BIP or a BIP plus RJ approach called Circles of Peace (CP). Utah requires a minimum of 16 weeks of treatment for domestic violence offenders mandated to treatment. BIP, a 16-week group-based treatment approach for offenders only, is largely didactic and focuses on changing sexist attitudes for the purpose of altering the behavior of offenders. BIP plus CP provides 12 weeks of offender-only group sessions (with RJ principles infused throughout), encouraging offenders to focus on behavioral and attitudinal change. Following the initial 12 group sessions, offenders participated in four weeks of individual circles with a willing victim or a victim advocate (if the victim does not want to participate), family members or other support people, and trained community volunteers.

The collection contains 2 SPSS data files: Case-Record-Review---BIP--CP-n-68-.sav (n=68, 313 variables) and Case-Record-Review---BIP-Only-n-92-.sav (n=92, 398 variables).

Data related to respondents' qualitative interviews are not available as part of this collection.

Project SOARS (Student Ownership, Accountability, and Responsibility for School Safety) utilized a mixed-methods study design to develop and test a student-centered and technology-driven school safety framework to address peer victimization, violent behavior, and student reluctance to share critical safety information within high school settings. SOARS was a project of IRIS Media, Inc. and consisted of 4 phases implemented between 2016 and 2020. Activities for each phase were carried out in Oregon and Illinois high schools in order to facilitate inter-site replication of outcomes. Phase 1 was conducted in 2016 and consisted of focus groups and key informant interviews with students, school personnel, and parents to gather perceptions of current school safety practices. Phase 2 was undertaken in 2017 and asked students, school personnel, and parents to assess the acceptability and usability of prototypes of the SOARS framework. The SOARS framework consisted of (a) the Advocatr mobile app, which allowed students to report positive and negative behaviors in their school environment; (b) a 9-week curriculum engaging students with the concepts of student ownership of school safety, advocacy/self-advocacy, physical and emotional safety, and restorative conflict resolution; (c) informational briefs for school personnel and parents about the framework components and their rationale; and (d) guidelines for a student-led school-wide safety campaign. Phase 3 was rolled out in 2018 and 2019 and consisted of feasibility testing conducted with a small subset of teachers and students in those teachers' classrooms. Participants were surveyed before and after implementation of the SOARS framework. The focus of the feasibility test was on student access and use of the Advocatr app and the accompanying curriculum. During Phase 4 implementation in 2019 and 2020, researchers conducted a pilot test with students, school personnel, and parents from 4 high schools, 2 assigned to the intervention and 2 to the control condition. The focus of the pilot was to test the effectiveness of the SOARS framework.

Demographic information was collected from all informants and includes gender (sex male or female; transgender identification), ethnicity, and race. Additional demographic information about students includes sexual orientation, approximate age (over/under 18 years), primary language, GPA, and grade. Parent demographics also include education level and student's grade, while school personnel (teachers and staff) also provided information regarding education level, school role, job title, years in current position, grades taught, and subjects taught.

Users should note that qualitative data collected during phase 1 focus groups and phase 2 user acceptance tests are not included in version 1 of the ICPSR release. Additionally, in the quantitative datasets, character variables featuring open-ended string responses have been masked by ICPSR. This study will be updated at a later date to include qualitative data files and character variables in the quantitative datasets.

The purpose of this project was to develop a culturally relevant crime seriousness index specific to the Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate (SWO) tribe while working closely with community partners. Informal background interviews with key stakeholders provided a foundation on traditional crime management by the community. These interviews informed the creation of an SWO-specific adaptation of the Sellin-Wolfgang crime seriousness index following an online survey conducted in 2022 with SWO community members (n=44 completed surveys).

Aggregated survey data have been released as a zipped package as it was received by ICPSR. Please refer to the study documentation for details on the index items and instructions on how to obtain the raw research data. The Final Report released by NIJ contains the full SRO crime seriousness index as Appendix D.