Research Paper: Restorative Justice

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342480135

A Systematic Evaluation of Restorative Justice Practices: School Violence

Prevention and Response

Preprint  in  Journal of School Violence · June 2020

DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2020.1783670

CITATION

1 READS

357

3 authors:

Barbara Katic

University of California, Riverside

2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Laura A Alba

University of California, Riverside

7 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Austin Hunter Johnson

University of California, Riverside

38 PUBLICATIONS   718 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Laura A Alba on 06 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjsv20

Journal of School Violence

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20

A Systematic Evaluation of Restorative Justice Practices: School Violence Prevention and Response

Barbara Katic , Laura A. Alba & Austin H. Johnson

To cite this article: Barbara Katic , Laura A. Alba & Austin H. Johnson (2020): A Systematic Evaluation of Restorative Justice Practices: School Violence Prevention and Response, Journal of School Violence, DOI: 10.1080/15388220.2020.1783670

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2020.1783670

Published online: 26 Jun 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 115

View related articles

View Crossmark data

A Systematic Evaluation of Restorative Justice Practices: School Violence Prevention and Response Barbara Katic , Laura A. Alba , and Austin H. Johnson

Graduate School of Education, University of California, Riverside, California, USA

ABSTRACT Despite its increasing recognition and use in U.S. schools, a limited amount of research has evaluated the effect of restorative justice (RJ) for school violence prevention and response. To date, there is no standardized method for RJ implementation. Therefore, this systematic literature review investigates peer-reviewed studies on the application of RJ practices in K-12 school settings. Ten articles were included in the review. Results of the review indicate a high degree of variability regarding the implementation and evaluation of RJ practices in schools. However, the majority of studies reported positive outcomes, including improved social relationships and reductions in office discipline referrals. The utility of RJ as a school violence prevention and intervention approach are discussed, along with future research directions.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 12 October 2019 Accepted 13 June 2020

KEYWORDS School violence prevention; restorative justice; restorative practices; school- based intervention; social justice

Introduction

The frequency and intensity of violence in U.S. schools is a cause for alarm and concern (Leary et al., 2003). Violence in schools encompass a range of experiences such as bullying, assault, and victimiza- tion, as well as crimes against the school community, such as school shootings and vandalism (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Cook et al., 2010; Tillyer et al., 2010). Some consider school violence to be a national and international emergency (Astor et al., 2001; Shapiro et al., 2002) given the high percentage of youth who experience school violence (44% of teens; Flannery et al., 2004). In a national survey conducted with 3,391 children (ages 5–17 years) to evaluate school violence, 48% of children reported exposure to at least one form of victimization (e.g., robbery, physical assault) within school (Finkelhor et al., 2016). School violence is a pressing issue which highlights the need for the implementation of effective prevention strategies.

School violence prevention and response

Several national organizations, such as the National Association of School Psychologists and the School Social Work Association of America, outline evidence-based practices and policies for improv- ing school safety (Cowan, Vaillancourt, Rossen, & Pollitt, 2013 ). These organizations express that while schools are considered a safe place for children, school-based violence prevention efforts must be made a priority. It is recommended that best practices for school violence prevention include strategies that address individual, relationship, community, and societal factors (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2019). Indeed, over two decades of research suggest that a comprehensive approach to school safety integrates both scientific evidence and implementation strategies that may reduce school violence (Kingston et al., 2018).

CONTACT Barbara Katic [email protected] Graduate School of Education, University of California, Riverside, CA, 92521

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2020.1783670

© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Despite the existing literature on school violence prevention, there are extensive challenges faced by schools to bridge the gap between research and practice (Kingston et al., 2018). These challenges are particularly evident in school-based discipline policies. For example, the dissemination of exclusionary discipline policies (i.e., zero tolerance policies) present harmful consequences for students. Research suggests that, when students are excluded from school over time, they will seek out antisocial peers, subsequently “accelerating the course towards juvenile offending” (American Psychological Association [APA] Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008, p. 79).

Although overall suspension rates have declined in the U.S., racial disparities still persist (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). Disproportionality in discipline practices occur when members of a particular minority group (whether it be representation by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or gender) are overrepresented in suspension and expulsion (Skiba et al., 2002). In California, Black students were suspended at a higher rate, compared to White students, from 2012 to 2018 (California Department of Education [CDE], 2019). Data demonstrates that students of minority groups are at a higher risk of being excluded from school, subsequently perpetuating the school-to-prison pipeline. Therefore, it is paramount to examine alternative methods to zero-tolerance policies to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline and the disproportionality of current discipline practices.

Moreover, alternatives to zero-tolerance policies are delineated in school codes; for instance, California Education Code §48900 (California Code, 2013) explicitly suggests the use of restorative justice (RJ). The U.S. Department of Education and Justice (2014) recommends that discipline practices in schools should not only hold students accountable, but also provide them with opportu- nities to learn problem solving skills. These recommendations may be implemented through a RJ framework within schools.

RJ has been traditionally defined through these concepts: (a) a focus on harm done, (b) under- standing that wrongs or harms result in obligations, and (c) the promotion of engagement and participation (Zehr, 2015). First, RJ views crime as harm done to people and communities. RJ provides the victims an opportunity to define their needs, on their own terms, as opposed to having their needs defined for them by an external system (e.g., traditional criminal justice system). Second, RJ recognizes that obligations result from harm that was caused while holding individuals accountable and respon- sible. Third, all primary parties affected by a conflict are provided with significant roles in the process of justice. Each party is identified as a “stakeholder” and plays a role in outlining how justice will be achieved.

Restorative justice practices

The central concepts of RJ are implemented through RJ practices, including restorative conversations, circles, conferences, and peer mediation. These practices are viewed along a continuum, ranging from informal to formal (International Institute for Restorative Practices [IIRP], 2019). At the informal end of the continuum are restorative conversations, which involve a discussion between a school staff member and a student following an incident (Winslade et al., 2014). Restorative conversations include both affective statements and questions, which explore how the parties involved have been affected by the incident (IIRP, 2019). Next, restorative circles may be used as both a prevention and intervention strategy. In terms of prevention, restorative circles may be used as community-building exercises. For example, community-building circles are used in classrooms to help build connections among students and open possibilities for collaboration and mutual understanding (Winslade et al., 2014). Circles may be used in classrooms to develop a “unique classroom identity” and “consolidate positive values” (Winslade & Williams, 2012, p. 113). Once these relationships have been established, restora- tive circles may be used as a response to problem issues within the classroom (Winslade et al., 2014).

Near the formal end of the continuum are restorative conferences, which include building a community of care, increasing the number of voices in the conversation, addressing the need for relationship healing, and avoiding labeling language (Winslade & Williams, 2012). Conferences involve more planning and preparation, as they involve a variety of stakeholders (the offender, victim,

2 B. KATIC ET AL.

and a community of care) and may serve multiple purposes. First, they may be used as a response to a serious conflict that has occurred (Winslade et al., 2014). Second, they may be used for reentry into a school community after a suspension or expulsion. The process includes having each participant identify the problem and the impact, addressing what needs to be done to make things right, asking everyone to contribute ideas toward a solution, and assigning responsibility to participants for plan implementation (Winslade & Williams, 2012).

Next, peer mediation may be used as a response to a conflict within a school community, where students mediate conflicts between two or more individuals (Pavelka, 2013). Training and guidance are provided to students who will act as peer mediators (Winslade & Williams, 2012). Students utilize conflict resolution skills in order to improve relationships and reduce the threat of violence (Pavelka, 2013). Peer mediation is intended to provide students with the opportunity to independently work out their differences in a constructive manner, as opposed to having disciplinary systems resolve their differences for them (Varnham, 2005).

The current study

RJ has become a substantial part of the educational landscape. School districts throughout the US (e.g., Oakland Unified School District, Minnesota Public Schools, and Denver Metropolitan Schools) have developed and implemented school-wide RJ programs in response to school violence (Evans & Vaandering, 2016). The Oakland Unified School District implemented RJ practices as an alternative to zero-tolerance policies and showed a decrease in behavioral concerns, which in turn resulted in RJ becoming a district-wide policy (Oakland Unified School District, 2014). Other schools have followed by adding RJ as an alternative to zero-tolerance policies (e.g., San Francisco Unified, Minnesota Public Schools, Denver Public Schools).

Study purpose

Despite the widespread implementation of RJ practices in schools, no systematic reviews to date have examined published research studies of school-based RJ practices in order to identify (a) what specific RJ practices are being implemented when researchers report studying this topic, (b) what dependent variables are used to measure the effectiveness of RJ practices, and (c) what outcomes were observed for these practices. In response, this systematic review identified research explicitly examining RJ practices in K-12 school settings. The following research questions were addressed: When school- based RJ is evaluated in a research context, (1) What are the specific RJ practices used? (2) What were the outcomes of the RJ practice(s) and how were they measured?

Methods

A systematic literature review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was conducted. Research studies implementing RJ practices in schools were included in this review. The steps for conducting the systematic literature review included: defining the problem, providing inclusion and exclusion criteria, search strategy, criteria for evaluation of studies, and data extraction. Systematic searches were completed using Education Source, PsycARTICLES, JSTOR, and ERIC databases with the following boolean search term: [“restorative justice in schools” OR “restorative programs” OR “restorative practices” OR “restorative justice”] AND [“school” OR “education”]. The search was limited to articles published in peer-reviewed journals. It is prudent to acknowledge that there are several unpublished manuscripts, such as dissertations and theses, highlighting RJ practices in schools (for example, Carroll, 2017; Featherston, 2014; Rubio, 2018). Since the goal of the study was to include peer-reviewed articles, they were not included in this review. The article search took place from September 2018 through August 2019.

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 3

Inclusion criteria

Articles were considered eligible for review if they were written in English, involved research that was conducted nationally or internationally, and were published between the years of 2000–2019. Articles needed to demonstrate: (a) use of all RJ principles as outlined by Zehr (2015), (b) the implementation of one or more RJ practices within a K-12 school setting, and (c) use of methods to assess outcomes of the RJ practice(s).

The following RJ principles identified by Zehr (2015) were used to evaluate if a study was eligible for inclusion: (a) a focus on harm done, (b) potential wrongs or harms resulting in obligations, and (c) the promotion of engagement and participation. The article was included if it used the same or similar terminology described in Zehr (2015). Additionally, articles were included if they described using one or a combination of the following RJ practices outlined by IIRP, 2019: conversations, circles, con- ferences, or peer mediation. Reference sections from the included articles were also reviewed to capture any additional studies meeting the above criteria.

Two PhD graduate students independently scanned all titles and abstracts, then identified relevant articles to be retrieved. From each study, we extracted information about the country of origin, sample size, number of schools used, mean age of students, school grade level, demographics (e.g., sex, ethnicity), design (e.g., quasi-experimental, cross-sectional, qualitative, case studies), RJ principles identified, RJ practices implemented, who implemented the intervention (e.g., teacher), dosage, and outcomes measured (school climate, discipline, self-esteem, academic achievement, social relation- ships). The code book used to screen each study was developed by the authors and is available through Open Science Framework (OSF).

The initial search generated 126 articles on the topic of RJ in schools. Ninety-one articles were excluded because they were a review article, an opinion piece, or a combination of both. Of the remaining 35 studies: six studies were excluded because there was no implementation of a RJ practice; four studies were excluded because the study’s purpose was to train teachers in RJ; seven were excluded because the RJ practice was not implemented in a K-12 setting and/or was not published in a peer-reviewed journal; three were excluded because the study collected data on the feasibility of implementing RJ in schools; two were excluded because they either did not report using RJ practices and/or did not collect outcome data after implementation; and three were excluded because the study examined the types of situations RJ practices dealt with and/or collected data about administrator and teacher perspectives of RJ practices. Thus, ten studies were included in the final review (see Figure 1).

Inter-rater agreement was determined between the two coders in order to evaluate the percentage of agreement for processing and extracting data from the final included articles. Both coders extracted data from the included studies and coded studies for RJ principles, practices, and outcomes. Agreement is traditionally regarded as acceptable if it meets or surpasses 80% (Kazdin, 2011). Ten articles were randomly selected in which each coder independently extracted data and added them to the codebook. Data from the codebook was then evaluated for consistency across the two coders by calculating the number of agreements and disagreements on codes. Inter-rater agreement among coders was 81% and Cohen’s kappa was.57 (Cohen, 1965) which indicates substantial agreement after correcting for chance (Viera & Garrett, 2005).

Results

Article and sample characteristics

Of the ten studies included, eight were conducted in North America in either the U.S. or Canada (Acosta et al., 2019; Anyon et al., 2016, 2014; Gregory et al., 2016, 2018; Ortega et al., 2016; Reimer, 2019; Stinchcomb et al., 2006); one was conducted in Asia (Wong et al., 2011); and one in Australia (Kehoe et al., 2018). In addition, eight studies reported some type of demographic information about the sample participants such as sex, age, race and ethnicity (Acosta et al., 2019; Anyon et al., 2014,

4 B. KATIC ET AL.

2016; Gregory et al., 2016, 2018; Kehoe et al., 2018; Ortega et al., 2016; Wong et al., 2011). Two studies reporting including a comparison or control group (Acosta et al., 2019; Wong et al., 2011). See Table 1.

Restorative justice practices

Most studies implemented RJ practices in a combination of elementary and middle schools (Kehoe et al., 2018; Reimer, 2019; Stinchcomb et al., 2006), while two studies used a combination of elementary, middle, and high schools (Anyon et al., 2016, 2014; Gregory et al., 2018). Two studies only used middle schools (Acosta et al., 2019; Wong et al., 2011) and two other studies only used high schools to implement RJ (Gregory et al., 2016; Ortega et al., 2016). Seven studies used a combination of the following RJ practices: conversations, circles, conferences, and peer mediation (Acosta et al., 2019; Anyon et al., 2016, 2014; Gregory et al., 2016, 2018; Kehoe et al., 2018; Stinchcomb et al., 2006). Moreover, three studies implemented only one RJ practice (Ortega et al., 2016; Reimer, 2019; Wong et al., 2011). For five of the studies, RJ practices were implemented for a period of time ranging from 1–5 years (Gregory, 2016; Kehoe, 2018 ; Ortega, 2016; Reimer, 2019; Wong, 2011). The remaining five

Figure 1. A visual overview of the systematic literature review process from identifying articles associated with restorative justice to the inclusion of restorative justice articles.

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 5

Ta b

le 1

. D em

og ra

p h

ic in

fo rm

at io

n r

ep or

te d

a cr

os s

th e

te n

s tu

d ie

s in

cl ud

ed in

t h

e re

vi ew

.

Fi rs

t au

th or

( ye

ar )

N o

f Sa

m p

le A

g e

of p

ar ti

ci p

an ts

G ra

d e

le ve

l Se

x Ra

ce /E

th n

ic it

y

A co

st a

(2 01

9) N

= 2

82 4

N R

M id

d le

S ch

oo l

M =

1 ,3

66 ;

F =

1 ,4

58 W

h it

e =

2 ,4

21

Bl ac

k =

5 6

A si

an =

6 4

H is

p an

ic =

9 3

N at

iv e

A m

er ic

an /A

la sk

an

N at

iv e

= 2

16

N at

iv e

H aw

ai ia

n /P

ac ifi

c Is

la n

d er

= 2

8 O

th er

= 2

14 A

n yo

n (

20 14

) N

= 8

7, 99

7 N

R El

em en

ta ry

S ch

oo l,

M id

d le

S ch

oo l,

H ig

h S

ch oo

l N

R W

h it

e =

1 7,

59 9

Bl ac

k =

1 3,

20 0

A si

an =

2 ,6

40

Pa ci

fic Is

la n

d er

= 8

80

H is

p an

ic =

5 1,

03 8

M ul

ti ra

ci al

= 2

,6 40

A n

yo n

( 20

16 )

N =

9 0,

54 6

N R

El em

en ta

ry S

ch oo

l, M

id d

le S

ch oo

l, H

ig h

S ch

oo l

M =

4 6,

23 5;

F

= 4

4, 31

1 W

h it

e =

1 8,

85 8

Bl ac

k =

1 3,

09 8

Pa ci

fic Is

la n

d er

= 3

,2 52

H

is p

an ic

= 5

1, 89

3 N

at iv

e A

m er

ic an

= 7

35

Tw o

or m

or e

= 2

,7 10

G re

g or

y (2

01 6)

N =

4 12

N R

N R

M =

2 18

; F

= 1

94 W

h it

e =

1 81

Bl

ac k

= 2

1 A

si an

/P ac

ifi c

Is la

n d

er =

8

H is

p an

ic =

8 7

N at

iv e

A m

er ic

an =

7 8

Tw o

or m

or e

= 1

03 G

re g

or y

(2 01

8) N

= 9

,0 39

N R

M id

d le

S ch

oo l,

H ig

h S

ch oo

l N

/R N

R Ke

h oe

( 20

18 )

N =

1 4

te ac

h er

s, N

= 6

p ri

n ci

p al

s, a

n d

N =

4 0

st ud

en ts

N R

El em

en ta

ry S

ch oo

l, M

id d

le S

ch oo

l M

= 1

9;

F =

2 1

N R

O rt

eg a

(2 01

6) N

= 3

5 st

ud en

ts , N

= 2

5 sc

h oo

l s ta

ff N

R H

ig h

S ch

oo l

St ud

en ts

: M =

1 5;

F

= 2

0 Bl

ac k

= 3

5

Re im

er (

20 19

) N

= 8

5 st

ud en

ts , N

= 4

8 ed

uc at

or s;

N =

3 9

st ud

en ts

, N

= 2

5 ed

uc at

or s

Ra n

g e

= 1

0– 13

y ea

rs El

em en

ta ry

S ch

oo l,

M id

d le

S ch

oo l

N R

N R

St in

ch co

m b

(2

00 6)

N /R

N R

El em

en ta

ry S

ch oo

l, M

id d

le S

ch oo

l N

R N

R

W on

g (

20 11

) N

= 1

,4 80

s tu

d en

ts Ra

n g

e =

1 2–

14 y

ea rs

M id

d le

S ch

oo l

M =

7 40

; F

= 7

40 N

R

N R

= n

ot r

ep or

te d

6 B. KATIC ET AL.

studies did not report the length of implementation (Acosta, 2019; Anyon, 2014, 2016; Gregory, 2018; Stinchcomb, 2006). See Table 2.

Restorative justice practices: combination type Studies that implemented multiple, or a combination of, RJ practices are described here. Kehoe et al. (2018) used restorative conversations, circles, conferences, and peer mediation when implementing a whole-school restorative practices approach for increasing social skills (e.g., empathy, awareness and accountability) in elementary and middle school students. Implementation of RJ practices consisted of school staff modeling prosocial behavior, affective language, and following school policy. In addition, affective language was used during restorative circles to allow students and teachers to verbally express their feelings toward the conflict. Through this approach, restorative circles are embedded within the daily classroom curriculum. The authors also used restorative conferences as a response to conflict. Kehoe et al. (2018) only included schools that had implemented RJ practices for more than four years; however, how often they were implemented throughout the years was not reported.

Gregory et al. (2016) and Acosta et al. (2019) specifically implemented a whole-school change program, known as Restorative Justice Practices Intervention, developed by the IIRP. The Restorative Practices Intervention was intended to serve multiple purposes: to build strong teacher-student relationships, promote accountability for the offender, and collaborate together toward a positive solution. Acosta et al. (2019) implemented the program for two years in 14 middle schools, while Gregory et al. (2016) examined outcomes of the program one year after it was implemented in two high schools. Through the whole-school change program, educators and school staff learned how to implement a variety of restorative practices, known as the 11 essential elements: 1) affective state- ments, 2) restorative questions, 3) small conferences, 4) proactive circles, 5) responsive circles, 6) restorative conferences, 7) fair process, 8) reintegrative management of shame, 9) restorative staff community, 10) restorative approach with families, and 11) fundamental hypothesis (maintaining high levels of support and control, while minimizing the role of staff facilitators).

Anyon et al. (2016) and Gregory et al. (2018) implemented RJ practices under the term restorative interventions. The interventions are described as problem-solving strategies used in small circles or large conferences that include people impacted by the harm done directly or indirectly. The restorative conferences were used for serious offenses such as physical violence following a four-step model. Anyon et al. (2016) examined the implementation of RJ practices during one school year. RJ practices were implemented at the beginning of the school year in semester one and outcomes were measured at the end of the semester two. Gregory et al. (2018) also examined the RJ practices during one school year to identify student factors associated with out-of- school suspensions. Neither study reported how often RJ practices were implemented throughout the school year. Similarly, Anyon et al. (2014) aimed to explore alternative approaches such as behavior contacts, in-school suspensions, and restorative approaches, such as circles and conferences, for protecting students against exclu- sionary practices during one school year.

Restorative justice practices: single type There were several studies implementing a single type of RJ practice. Specifically, four studies exclusively examined the effectiveness of restorative circles (Ortega et al., 2016; Reimer, 2019; Stinchcomb et al., 2006; Wong et al., 2011). Ortega et al. (2016) used restorative circles with a group of 35 high school students and 25 administrators and teachers. The circle process involved: the pre- circle phase in which the facilitator brought together all individuals involved in the conflict to discuss the feelings and needs associated with the problem and to explain the circle process; In the circle phase, the facilitator obtained consent from everyone involved and built conversation that supported taking responsibility, evaluating further actions, and moving forward; while post-circles were used for follow- ups and to monitor progress. Reimer (2019) used restorative circles with students and teachers that aimed to gather information about their perspective on the school environment. During 45–90 minute sessions, students facilitated circles on conflict management and peer relationships.

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 7

Ta b

le 2

. D es

cr ip

ti on

s of

s tu

d ie

s’ m

et h

od s

an d

o ut

co m

es t

o ev

al ua

te t

h e

eff ec

ti ve

n es

s of

R J

im p

le m

en ta

ti on

in s

ch oo

ls .

Fi rs

t A

ut h

or (Y

ea r)

RJ p

ra ct

ic es

Im p

le m

en te

rs D

os ag

e Ty

p e

of

In te

rv en

ti on

O ut

co m

es M

ea su

re d

Ty p

e of

S tu

d y

D es

ig n

Ty p

e of

M

ea su

re m

en t

A co

st a

(2 01

9) C

ir cl

es ; C

on fe

re n

ce s

C om

b in

at io

n N

R W

h ol

e Sc

h oo

l In

cr ea

se in

p os

it iv

e so

ci al

r el

at io

n sh

ip s

an d

s ch

oo l c

lim at

e Q

ua si

-e xp

er im

en ta

l Q

ue st

io n

n ai

re s

A n

yo n

( 20

14 )

C ir

cl es

; C on

fe re

n ce

s N

R N

R W

h ol

e Sc

h oo

l D

ec re

as e

in d

is ci

p lin

e re

fe rr

al s

(O D

Rs , s

us p

en si

on s,

ex

p ul

si on

s) a

n d

r ac

ia l d

is p

ar it

ie s

C ro

ss -s

ec ti

on al

D is

tr ic

t D

at a

A n

yo n

( 20

16 )

C ir

cl es

; C on

fe re

n ce

s C

om b

in at

io n

N R

W h

ol e

Sc h

oo l

D ec

re as

e in

d is

ci p

lin e

re fe

rr al

s (O

D Rs

, s us

p en

si on

s,

ex p

ul si

on s)

C ro

ss -s

ec ti

on al

D is

tr ic

t D

at a

G re

g or

y (2

01 6)

C ir

cl es

; C on

fe re

n ce

s Te

ac h

er s

2 ye

ar s

C la

ss ro

om /

G ro

up D

ec re

as e

in d

is ci

p lin

e re

fe rr

al s

(O D

Rs , s

us p

en si

on s,

ex

p ul

si on

s) C

ro ss

-s ec

ti on

al Q

ue st

io n

n ai

re s

G re

g or

y (2

01 8)

C ir

cl es

; C on

fe re

n ce

s N

R N

R W

h ol

e Sc

h oo

l D

ec re

as e

in d

is ci

p lin

e re

fe rr

al s

(O D

Rs , s

us p

en si

on s,

ex

p ul

si on

s) a

n d

r ac

ia l d

is p

ar it

ie s

C ro

ss -s

ec ti

on al

D is

tr ic

t D

at a

Ke h

oe (

20 18

) C

on ve

rs at

io n

; C

on fe

re n

ce s;

P ee

r M

ed ia

ti on

C om

b in

at io

n 4

ye ar

s W

h ol

e Sc

h oo

l In

cr ea

se in

a ca

d em

ic a

ch ie

ve m

en t,

p os

it iv

e so

ci al

re

la ti

on sh

ip s,

s el

f- es

te em

, a n

d p

os it

iv e

sc h

oo l c

lim at

e. Q

ua lit

at iv

e In

te rv

ie w

s

O rt

eg a

(2 01

6) C

ir cl

es C

om b

in at

io n

1 ye

ar C

la ss

ro om

/ G

ro up

In cr

ea se

in a

ca d

em ic

a ch

ie ve

m en

t an

d p

os it

iv e

so ci

al

re la

ti on

sh ip

s Q

ua lit

at iv

e In

te rv

ie w

s

Re im

er (

20 19

) C

ir cl

es Te

ac h

er s

5 ye

ar s

W h

ol e

Sc h

oo l,

C la

ss ro

om /

G ro

up

In cr

ea se

in a

ca d

em ic

a ch

ie ve

m en

t, p

os it

iv e

so ci

al

re la

ti on

sh ip

s, s

el f-

es te

em , a

n d

p os

it iv

e sc

h oo

l c lim

at e

M ix

ed D

es ig

n Q

ue st

io n

n ai

re s

an d

D is

tr ic

t D

at a

St in

ch co

m b

(2

00 6)

C ir

cl es

C om

b in

at io

n N

R W

h ol

e Sc

h oo

l In

cr ea

se in

a ca

d em

ic a

ch ie

ve m

en t,

p os

it iv

e so

ci al

re

la ti

on sh

ip s

an d

s ch

oo l c

lim at

e. A

d ec

re as

e in

d is

ci p

lin e

re fe

rr al

s

C as

e St

ud y

In te

rv ie

w s

an d

D

is tr

ic t

D at

a

W on

g (

20 11

) C

ir cl

es ; P

ee r

M ed

ia ti

on C

om b

in at

io n

2 ye

ar s

W h

ol e

Sc h

oo l

In cr

ea se

in s

el f-

es te

em , p

os it

iv e

so ci

al r

el at

io n

sh ip

s an

d

sc h

oo l c

lim at

e Ra

n d

om iz

ed C

on tr

ol Q

ue st

io n

n ai

re s

C om

b in

at io

n =

t ea

ch er

s an

d s

ch oo

l s ta

ff

D is

tr ic

t d

at a

= n

um b

er o

f O

D Rs

, s us

p en

si on

s, e

xp ul

si on

s w

it h

in t

h e

d is

tr ic

t D

os ag

e =

h ow

lo n

g w

as R

J im

p le

m en

te d

N

R =

n ot

r ep

or te

d

O D

Rs =

o ffi

ce d

is ci

p lin

e re

fe rr

al s

Ty p

e of

in te

rv en

ti on

= w

h o

d ir

ec tl

y re

ce iv

ed t

h e

in te

rv en

ti on

8 B. KATIC ET AL.

Similarly, Wong et al. (2011) used restorative circles to address bullying in middle school students. The circles included teachers, parents, students, and bystanders discussing goals to set policies and procedures that address bullying. The circles aimed to increase feelings of empathy, caring behavior, and self- esteem, as well as reduce bullying. Moreover, instances of bullying were managed through peer mediation and restorative conferences. In another study, Stinchcomb et al. (2006) implemented restorative circles as a response to conflicts. The authors reported that RJ had been implemented for about five years; however, they did not report how often RJ was used (e.g., weekly, monthly). To note, Stinchcomb et al. (2006) indicated that school administrators encouraged teachers to use peer mediation and other types of conflict management in their classroom; however, it was unclear whether they used these practices.

Restorative justice implementers

Five studies reported that the implementers of RJ practices were a combination of teachers and school staff (Acosta et al., 2019; Anyon et al., 2016; Ortega et al., 2016; Stinchcomb et al., 2006; Wong et al., 2011). Three studies indicated that selected teachers implemented the RJ practices in their schools (Gregory et al., 2016; Kehoe et al., 2018; Reimer, 2019). Two studies did not report information about the implementers (Anyon et al., 2014; Gregory et al., 2018).

Measurement and types of variables

Discipline Four studies examined the effect of RJ practices for reducing office discipline referrals (ODRs), suspensions, and expulsions rates (Anyon et al., 2016, 2014; Gregory et al., 2018; Stinchcomb et al., 2006). Anyon et al. (2016) evaluated data from a large urban school district implementing RIs in the Fall semester and found lower rates of ODRs the following semester. Similarly, Stinchcomb et al. (2006) conducted case studies with three schools in Minnesota (Lincoln Elementary School, Kaposia Elementary, South St. Paul Junior High) using RJ practices and collected pre-and-post data on ODRs, expulsions, out-of-school and in-school-suspensions. Results indicated a reduction in ODRs, out-of- school and in-school-suspensions for one school (Lincoln Elementary School) and only a decrease in out-of-school suspensions for the two other schools (Kaposia Elementary and South St. Paul Junior High). However, Kaposia Elementary School had a small reduction in expulsion rates, from one expulsion to zero. Of note, South St. Paul Junior High did not have the option of high in-school suspensions nor did it keep track of the number of ODRs across the school year.

Anyon et al. (2014) evaluated the racial disparities associated with exclusionary disciplinary practices, as well as the role of alternative approaches (e.g., RJ practices, behavior contract, and in- school suspension) to exclusionary discipline practices on the reduction of ODRs, suspensions, law enforcement referrals, and expulsions. Findings indicated that students with behavior problems placed in in-school suspension and RJ practices had a lower probability of out-of-school suspension relative to students with behavior contracts above and beyond racial or ethnic background. Subsequently, Gregory et al. (2018) expanded on the findings from Anyon et al. (2014) to explore the effect of RIs on the distribution of out-of-school suspensions. Students who participated in RIs were less likely to receive out-of-school suspensions; however, Black students were still more likely to receive out-of- school suspensions when compared to White students.

One study examined the reduction in ODRs along with social relationships and social validity (Gregory et al., 2016). Gregory et al. (2016) examined the impact of the Restorative Justice Practices Intervention on student-teacher relationships and the reduction of teacher issued ODRs. Using a researcher-developed survey, the authors found that teachers who implemented RJ practices to a higher degree had more positive relationships with ethnically diverse students (e.g., Latino and Black students). Social validity was measured using a social validity assessment created by SaferSanerSchools (www.iirp.edu/pdf/WSC-Overview.pdf) in which findings indicated positive perspectives toward RJ.

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 9

Social relationships Three studies examined the impact of RJ practices on building positive social relationships with peers and teachers and school climate (Kehoe et al., 2018; Reimer, 2019; Wong et al., 2011). Kehoe et al. (2018) explored students’ and teachers’ perspectives about the impact of RJ practices using qualitative interviews. Six elementary and middle schools participated and implemented RJ for 5 years. Interviews and focus groups were conducted, audio recorded, and transcribed. Major themes were derived from teachers and students’ interviews using qualitative analysis data software. Results found that RJ built social skills in five ways, producing the acronym H.E.A.R.T.: (a) Harmony, (b) Empathy for others, (c) Awareness and accountability of one’s own actions, (d) Respectful relationships, and (e) Thinking in a reflective way.

Similarly, Reimer (2019) conducted a comparative case study with two schools, one in Scotland and one in Canada, to explore the intersection of teachers’ and students’ perspectives of RJ implementa- tion, and its association to relationships with peers and the school. The author created a questionnaire for teachers and students asking questions about RJ implementation, teachers use of RJ, and how RJ built quality relationships. Among teachers, results showed that RJ helped build empathy and create connections with their students. In contrast, among students, results demonstrated that only 32% of students respected one another. Overall, most students felt respected by adults in their schools and over half trusted adults to help them solve their conflicts.

Wong et al. (2011) used a longitudinal design to examine the effect of a whole-school RJ program for reducing bullying in a sample of 1,480 high school students. The study included 3 groups: intervention (all aspects of RJ), partial intervention (some components of RJ), and a control group. The authors used pre-constructed measures to collect pre-and-post data on self-esteem, social skills, sense of belonging, perceptions toward teachers, school climate, caring behavior, and bullying behavior.

Results indicated that after implementation of RJ, there was a reduction in bullying behavior among the intervention and partial intervention groups relative to the control group. Results also showed that over half of the students in the control reported an increase in bullying behavior. Moreover, half of the students in the intervention group reported a reduction in bullying behavior. The intervention and partial intervention groups also had increased scores on measures of self- esteem and empathy, however no differences were found in any of the other domains (sense of belonging, caring behavior).

School climate and social relationships Two studies examined social validity along with school climate and building positive social relation- ships (Acosta et al., 2019; Ortega et al., 2016). Acosta et al. (2019) conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the Restorative Justice Practices Intervention to examine the impact of the intervention on student’s perception of school climate, school connectedness, peer attachment, social skills, and bullying behavior. The authors created an online survey and collected data in 13 middle schools with 2824 student participants. Nine hundred and seventy-seven students were in schools conducting the Restorative Justice Practices Intervention, while 1794 students were in control schools.

Acosta et al. (2019) conducted pre-and-post assessments of social validity with students. Questions asked about the use of restorative practices, affective statements, fair process, and teachers’ responses to problematic behavior. Students in the Restorative Justice Practices Intervention schools received 10 additional questions asking about specific components associated with the actual intervention (e.g., the use of restorative circles). Results suggested that students in the Restorative Justice Practices Intervention schools did not report more positive school climate, school connectedness, peer attach- ment, and bullying behavior when compared to the students in the control schools. However, results at follow-up indicated that students who reported experiencing restorative practices had more positive perspectives on school climate, school connectedness, peer attachment, and social skills and lower frequency of bullying behavior, particularly physical and cyberbullying. In regard to social validity,

10 B. KATIC ET AL.

a few students in the intervention group reported experiencing restorative practices, whereas a larger number than anticipated in the control group reported experiencing restorative practices.

Ortega et al. (2016) explored student and staff outcomes after participating in restorative circles. A semi-structured interview was developed by the researchers to evaluate the implementation of restorative circles. Interview transcripts were analyzed and coded using principles of grounded theory methodology and thematic analysis. Both positive and negative outcomes were recorded from students and teachers. Positive outcomes included ownership of the process, interrupting the school-to-prison pipeline, improved relationships, prevention of destructive ways of engaging in conflict, meaningful dialogue, and academic and social achievements. In contrast, negative outcomes included frustration and disappointment.

Discussion

This systematic literature review evaluated peer-reviewed studies that implemented RJ practices in schools. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to examine the existing literature regarding RJ practices and its measured outcomes. Despite the increasing recognition and use of RJ practices in schools, the search identified 10 peer-reviewed studies that met inclusion criteria. A comprehensive search strategy was used to capture all current peer-reviewed studies with no restrictions on study design, such that studies using qualitative methods were included.

Results from this review showed the heterogeneity of RJ practice implementation in schools that follow the RJ principles outlined by Zehr (2015). For instance, most studies reported using a combination of RJ practices such as restorative circles, peer mediation, and restorative conferences to address conflict in schools (Acosta et al., 2019; Anyon et al., 2016, 2014; Gregory et al., 2016, 2018; Kehoe et al., 2018; Stinchcomb et al., 2006; Wong et al., 2011). Of the studies implementing a combination of RJ practices, most used a whole-school approach, aligning with guidelines provided by national organizations (Cowan et al., 2013). Further, a few studies reported using restorative practices developed by organizations such as the IIRP (Acosta et al., 2019; Gregory et al., 2016), which have heavily focused on implementing RJ practices in schools.

In order for data to be interpretable at the end of the study, intervention delivery should be carefully controlled and evaluated (Kazdin, 2011). Only half of the included studies reported the dosage of RJ implementation, leading to questions regarding the accuracy and interpretation of outcomes. Information regarding dosage is not only critical to the evaluation of an intervention, it is instrumental in practice. Understanding the dosage of RJ practices would benefit practitioners, as it provides important information regarding the feasibility of RJ practices in schools (e.g., resources required, length of training, cost). Thus, we recommend future studies ensure that dosage of RJ practices are documented in detail for the purposes of both research and practice.

The types of measurement tools used to assess outcomes of RJ practice implementation varied across studies. The majority relied on researcher developed tools such as qualitative interviews or questionnaires that were tailored for the specific study. Only two studies used questionnaires with reported psychometric properties (Acosta et al., 2019; Wong et al., 2011). Overall, studies indicated that RJ practice implementation reduced the use of exclusionary practices (e.g., ODRs, suspensions), bullying behavior and increased social skills, self-esteem, as well as positive social relationships. Although the majority of studies reported positive outcomes following implementation of RJ practices, one study reported negative outcomes (Ortega et al., 2016) and another study reported no differences (Acosta et al., 2019).

Included studies used a number of different methodologies to examine RJ effectiveness. Two out of the 10 studies used RCTs to evaluate the outcomes following implementation of RJ practices (Acosta et al., 2019; Wong et al., 2011). RCTs are often deemed the “gold standard” of research, particularly when it comes to examining outcomes following an intervention (Kazdin, 2011). Moreover, RCTs allow for the comparison of differences between groups, one receiving the intervention and the other as a control, thus providing evidence that the intervention influenced the outcomes (Kazdin, 2011).

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 11

Along with the use of a rigorous study design, future research should examine outcomes of RJ implementation using measurement tools with adequate psychometric properties. In this review, only two of the ten studies used measures with previously documented psychometric evidence (Acosta et al., 2019; Wong et al., 2011).

Training procedures and treatment fidelity are important considerations for the implementation of RJ practices in schools. In our review, three studies describe the type of training received by RJ implementers (Acosta et al., 2019; Anyon et al., 2016; Gregory et al., 2016). The extent of training varied across studies; ranging from four days of training over the course of two school years (Acosta et al., 2019; Gregory et al., 2016) to a 4-hour course with a supplemental two-day training (Anyon et al., 2016). The remaining seven studies did not describe the type of training, raising questions regarding the quality of implementation. Adherence to a training manual would aid in quality implementation, and many school districts in California have developed their own training manuals (Los Angeles Unified School District, 2011; Oakland Unified School District, 2019; San Diego Unified School District, 2019; San Francisco Unified School District, 2019; Winslade et al., 2014). However, adherence to various manuals creates inconsistencies in the implementation of RJ among school districts, subsequently hindering the generalizability of results.

Implications for schools

While the included studies indicated that implementation of RJ practices results in positive student outcomes, this review outlines the variety of RJ practices used in schools. Not only is there hetero- geneity of RJ practices used, the research support for these practices is lacking. To address this problem, schools choosing to implement RJ practices may develop an evaluation plan for these practices (e.g., dosage, level of training, outcomes measured) prior to implementation. Furthermore, schools utilizing RJ manuals may consider the use of treatment fidelity checklists for each practice (e.g., circles, conferences) in order to promote high quality implementation of RJ practices. As schools continuously seek out evidence-based interventions, the ongoing evaluation of RJ practices will help determine its effectiveness for school violence prevention and response.

An important consideration is the feasibility of RJ practices in schools. For schools already implementing a multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) framework, a variety of RJ practices may be implemented at each level to provide school violence prevention and intervention services. For example, at Tier 1, community building circles may be implemented to build relationships among all students in the classroom. Within Tier 2, peer mediation or responsive restorative circles may be implemented as a response to a minor conflict between students. Lastly, at the Tier 3 level, a restorative conference may be implemented as a response to a serious conflict at school, as it is a more intensive, individualized intervention.

Limitations

Although a systematic review is likely the most appropriate method for evaluating such a methodologically diverse set of studies, this diversity also precluded our ability to conduct a meta- analysis. In other words, since few studies used a common set of procedures, outcomes, and methods, we were unable to coherently synthesize their results into an overall estimate of effect. Therefore, this study is unable to provide robust suggestions regarding the effectiveness of RJ practices.

We attempted to utilize reproducible and robust search methods to identify all relevant school- based RJ studies. However, we may still have neglected to identify some studies that would have met inclusion criteria. As noted previously, our study did not include unpublished manuscripts since the goal was to identify peer-reviewed studies. This is a limitation in our study given that unpublished manuscripts may add to the current research in RJ practices. Therefore, we urge future research to examine the outcomes observed among unpublished manuscripts to capture all relevant articles.

12 B. KATIC ET AL.

Conclusion

RJ provides school community members with a framework for the prevention and intervention of school violence. The CDC states that school violence prevention programs are most effective when they are: (a) evidence-based and rigorously evaluated, (b) strengthened by community-wide preven- tion activities that are strategically planned, implemented, and (c) evaluated through schools, com- munity leaders, organizations, and families (CDC, 2018). While our review indicates positive student outcomes within individual studies, the standards for implementing and evaluating RJ practices among schools are highly variable. We suggest that RJ practices should be systematically examined to facilitate a clearer understanding of RJ’s effectiveness in promoting its intended outcomes. Additional robust research will enhance the ability of schools to select and implement effective violence prevention practices, which are critical for ensuring that all students can participate in a safe, equitable, and positive education.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Barbara Katic, M.S., is a PhD student at the University of California, Riverside. Her research interests include restorative justice in education, school discipline policies, and school-based mental health interventions.

Laura A. Alba, M.S., is a PhD student at the University of California, Riverside. Her research interests aim to examine resilience factors among children with a history of adverse experiences and alternatives to exclusionary discipline practices in K-12 schools.

Austin H. Johnson, PhD, is an Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, Riverside. His research interests aim to provide teachers and school psychologists with tools to support children with challenging behavior.

ORCID

Barbara Katic http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2481-5509 Laura A. Alba http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5044-9741 Austin H. Johnson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6349-0049

References

Acosta, J., Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., Phillips, A., & Wilks, A. (2019). Evaluation of a whole-school change intervention: Findings from a two-year cluster-randomized trial of the restorative practices intervention. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(5), 876–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01013-2

American Psychological Association (APA) Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools?: An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0003-066X.63.9.852

Anyon, Y., Gregory, A., Stone, S., Farrar, J., Jenson, J. M., McQueen, J., Downing, B., Greer, E., & Simmons, J. (2016). Restorative interventions and school discipline sanctions in a large urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1663–1697. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216675719

Anyon, Y., Jenson, J. M., Altschul, I., Farrar, J., McQueen, J., Greer, E., Downing, B., & Simmons, J. (2014). The persistent effect of race and the promise of alternatives to suspension in school discipline outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.025

Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., & Pitner, R. O. (2001). Elementary and middle school students’ perceptions of violence-prone school subcontexts. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1086/499685

Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood, family, school, and gender. Oxford University Press.

California Code, Education Code §48900. (2013).

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 13

California Department of Education (CDE). (2019). Discipline report: 2017–18 suspension rate. Retrieved May 3, 2019, from https://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dqCensus/DisSuspRate.aspx?year=2017-18&agglevel=State&cds=00

Carroll, P. G. (2017). Evaluating attempts at the implementation of restorative justice in three alternative education high schools [Doctoral dissertation]. UC Merced.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2018). School violence: Prevention tools and resources. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2018. Retrieved May 25, 2018, from https://www.cdc.gov/ violenceprevention/youthviolence/schoolviolence/tools.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2019). School violence: Prevention. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2019. Retrieved May 1, 2019, from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/ youthviolence/schoolviolence/prevention.html

Cohen, J. (1965). Some statistical issues in psychological research. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of clinical psychology(pp.95–121). McGraw-Hill.

Cook, C. R., Williams, K. R., Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Sadek, S. (2010). Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2), 65. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0020149

Cowan, K. C., Vaillancourt, K., Rossen, E., & Pollitt, K. (2013). A framework for safe and successful schools [Brief]. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Evans, K., & Vaandering, D. (2016). The little book of restorative justice in education: Fostering responsibility, healing, and hope in schools. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.

Featherston, T. R. (2014). An experimental study on the effectiveness of a restorative justice intervention on the social aggression, social problem solving skills, and prosocial behaviors of African American adolescent girls [Doctoral dissertation]. Capella University.

Finkelhor, D., Vanderminden, J., Turner, H., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. (2016). At-school victimization and violence exposure assessed in a national household survey of children and youth. Journal of School Violence, 15(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2014.952816

Flannery, D. J., Wester, K. L., & Singer, M. I. (2004). Impact of exposure to violence in school on child and adolescent mental health and behavior. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(5), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20019

Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., & Gerewitz, J. (2016). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929950

Gregory, A., Huang, F. L., Anyon, Y., Greer, E., & Downing, B. (2018). An examination of restorative interventions and racial equity in out-of-school suspensions. School Psychology Review, 47(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR- 2017-0073.V47-2

International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP). 2019. Restorative practices continuum. Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for Restorative Practices, IIRP; 2019. https://www.iirp.edu/defining-restorative/restorative- practices-continuum

Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. Oxford University Press. Kehoe, M., Bourke-Taylor, H., & Broderick, D. (2018). Developing student social skills using restorative practices: A new

framework called HEART. Social Psychology of Education, 21(1), 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-017-9402-1 Kingston, B., Mattson, S. A., Dymnicki, A., Dymnicki, A., Spier, E., Fitzgerald, M., Shipman, K., Goodrum, S.,

Woodward, W., Witt, J., Hill, K. G., & Elliott, D. (2018). Building schools’ readiness to implement a comprehensive approach to school safety. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 21(4), 433–449. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10567-018-0264-7

Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence: Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29(3), 202–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10061

Los Angeles Unified School District. (2011) Introductory manual: Restorative justice. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District, LAUSD; 2011. https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/domain/651/pdfs/ 15-RJ%20INTRO%20Manual%2011-30-18.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups (15). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2016. Retrieved August 31, 2019, from https://nces.ed.gov/ programs/raceindicators/indicator_rda.asp

Oakland Unified School District. (2014, September). Restorative justice in Oakland schools: Implementation and impacts. Prepared for the Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education.

Oakland Unified School District. (2019). Restorative justice implementation guide: A whole school approach. Oakland, CA: Oakland Unified School District; 2019. https://www.ousd.org/cms/lib/CA01001176/Centricity/Domain/134/ BTC-OUSD1-IG-08b-web.pdf

Ortega, L., Lyubansky, M., Nettles, S., & Espelage, D. L. (2016). Outcomes of a restorative circles program in a high school setting. Psychology of Violence, 6(3), 459. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000048

Pavelka, S. (2013). Practices and policies for implementing restorative justice within schools. Prevention Researcher, 20 (1), 15–17.

14 B. KATIC ET AL.

Reimer, K. E. (2019). Relationships of control and relationships of engagement: How educator intentions intersect with student experiences of restorative justice. Journal of Peace Education, 16(1), 49–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/17400201. 2018.1472070

Rubio, R. (2018). Effective implementation practices of restorative justice: A qualitative case study [Doctoral dissertation]. University of La Verne.

San Diego Unified School District. (2019). Restorative practices. San Diego, CA: San Diego Unified School District; 2019. https://www.sandi.net/staff/restorative-practices/restorative-practices-toolkit

San Francisco Unified School District. (2019). Teaching restorative practices with classroom circles.San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Unified School District; 2019. https://www.healthiersf.org/RestorativePractices/Resources/documents/ RP%20Curriculum%20and%20Scripts%20and%20PowePoints/Classroom%20Curriculum/Teaching%20Restorative %20Practices%20in%20the%20Classroom%207%20lesson%20Curriculum.pdf

Shapiro, J. P., Burgoon, J. D., Welker, C. J., & Clough, J. B. (2002). Evaluation of the peacemakers program: School-based violence prevention for students in grades four through eight. Psychology in the Schools, 39(1), 87–100. https://doi. org/10.1002/pits.10040

Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1023/ A:1021320817372

Stinchcomb, J. B., Bazemore, G., & Riestenberg, N. (2006). Beyond zero tolerance: Restoring justice in secondary schools. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204006286287

Tillyer, M. S., Wilcox, P., & Gialopsos, B. M. (2010). Adolescent school-based sexual victimization: Exploring the role of opportunity in a gender-specific multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 1071–1081. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.010

Varnham, S. (2005). Seeing things differently: Restorative justice and school discipline. Education and the Law, 17(3), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09539960500334061

U.S. Department of Education/Department of Justice. (2014). U.S. Departments of Education and Justice release school discipline guidance package to enhance school climate and improve school discipline policies/practices. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-departments-education-and-justice-release- school-discipline-guidance-package

Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360–363.

Winslade, J., & Williams, M. (2012). Safe and peaceful schools: Addressing conflict and eliminating violence. Corwin. Winslade, J. M., Espinoza, E., Myers, M., & Yzaguirre, H. (2014). Restorative practices training manual. San Bernardino,

CA: California State University San Bernardino and San Bernardino City USD. http://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/ books/3

Wong, D. S., Cheng, C. H., Ngan, R. M., & Ma, S. K. (2011). Program effectiveness of a restorative whole-school approach for tackling school bullying in Hong Kong. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(6),846-862. doi:10.1177/0306624X10374638

Zehr, H. (2015). Changing lenses: Restorative justice for our times, 25th anniversary edition. Herald Press.

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE 15

View publication statsView publication stats