DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37432
title: Implementing Restorative Justice in Rhode Island Schools, 2015-2018
title: Archival Version

description: 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.
description: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the process and impact of restorative justice conferencing in middle schools and high schools and to assess teacher perceptions of school climate, restorative practices, and restorative justice conferences.
description: <strong><em>Conference Observation</em></strong> During pre-conference initial meetings, facilitators asked student offenders and parents/guardians if they were willing to participate in RJ conferencing. Initial meetings were also conducted with victims and parents/guardians; however, not all cases referred for conferencing included direct victims. All willing parties signed agreements to participate in the conference. Facilitators also explained that the conference was being offered as part of a grant that included a research component to study the impact of RJ conferencing. Each participant was asked if they were willing to allow trained field staff to observe the conference, and participant consent for conference observation was obtained during these meetings. Adult participants were also asked if they were willing to be contacted months after the conference to gather feedback regarding their experience and satisfaction with the conference. Adults who agreed to be contacted by the research team were not obligated to participate in future research activities. Conference scheduling often needed to be adjusted to accommodate parent work schedules. In many instances where conferences were rescheduled observers were no longer available to attend. On average, observed conferences were held 39 days after the referral. In total, the Urban Institute and its team of trained field staff observed 105 conferences involving both middle school (n=51) and high-school (n=54) students. RJ conference observation ratings were made on tablet computers programmed with Qualtrics software. Occasional technical problems led to incomplete observations for several additional cases which were excluded from the observation dataset. <strong><em>Teacher Surveys</em></strong> Two waves of the teacher survey were conducted in May 2017 and March-April 2018. The survey was administered through Qualtrics survey software. Principals at participating schools were sent survey links and instructions to distribute the survey to teachers. At most schools, principals set aside professional development or meeting time for survey administration. Teachers were also able to access the survey at any time during the survey window. Qualtrics data shows that the survey took an average of 6 minutes and 30 seconds to complete. The final teacher survey instrument featured a maximum of 34 questions dependent on skip logic. There were 26 statements to which teachers agreed or disagreed on a 4-point scale (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly Agree, scored from 1 to 4), 4 yes/no questions, and 4 open response questions. The survey included broad questions about school climate and discipline as well as restorative practices and conference outcomes. Items were combined into six indices. The sample for each index differs based on the skip logic in each section and missingness. Pairwise deletion was used to limit missingness.
description: DS1: Variables reflect coded observation of restorative justice conferences and include information on the following: <strong>Background information:</strong> reason for conference and semester when conference was held; presence of victim(s), parents/guardians, and student supporters. <strong>Facilitator actions and procedures:</strong> participant introduction; explanation of conference purpose, participant roles, and restorative practice rules; facilitator impartiality and effective conference management; conference focused on current offense/behavior; participants empowered to resolve issues. <strong>Conference interactions:</strong> all stakeholders able to participate; participants treated with dignity and respect and spoke to one another directly; discussion was blame focused, emphasized consequences; student offender and parents made aware of legal escalation if misbehavior continued. <strong>Student response:</strong> student offender expressed remorse, apologized, became emotional/cried, was defiant or disengaged, understood the effects of misbehavior on others. <strong>Conference outputs:</strong> participant group offered forgiveness, contributed to development of action plan; consensus on action plan; problem interactions including violence or the threats of violence; conference made matters worse. DS2: Variables provide responses from teacher surveys and include information on the following: <strong>School climate:</strong> school safe for students and teachers; school environment conducive to learning; students treat teachers with respect; staff and students treated as members of one community. <strong>School discipline:</strong> effectiveness, equitability, and consistency of school discipline and responses to truancy, chronic disruption, and incidents between students; change in approaches to school discipline in the last two years. <strong>Restorative practices:</strong> restorative conferencing utilized at the school; teacher familiarity and use of restorative practices and principles; teacher trained in restorative practices; teacher observed others using restorative practices; students referred to the front office participated in restorative conferences. <strong>Conference outcomes:</strong> teacher received information about student progress in meeting the terms of the restorative agreement; students followed restorative agreements; opinions on conference effectiveness in dealing with problem behavior; preference to see restorative conferences continued, used for similar cases in the future, and restorative practices expanded at the school.
description: Not applicable.
description: Response Rates: The teacher survey response rate was 73% in 2017 (wave 1) and 64% in 2018 (wave 2).
description: Presence of Common Scales: None.
description: RJ conferences were observed in 5 schools within the CFSD, Providence, and the surrounding area. During the 2015-2016 through 2017-2018 school years, 786 cases were referred for conferencing, and conferences were held in about half of these cases (379). A total of 105 conferences were observed and involved both middle schools (n=51) and high-schools (n=54). Teacher surveys were conducted in 4 participating schools: 140 teachers responded in 2017 and 122 responded in 2018. A 5th school participated in wave 1, but only 2 teachers responded in wave 2.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Restorative Justice Conference Observation Data DS2: Teacher Survey Data
description: Teachers and restorative justice conferences in Rhode Island middle schools and high schools. Smallest Geographic Unit: None.
description: coded on-site observation; web-based survey