DOI: 10.3886/icpsr39254.v1
title: Examining the Efficacy of Circles on School Safety and Student Outcomes in Boston Public Schools, Massachusetts, 2017-2020
title: Version 1

description: There is increasing evidence that promoting social-emotional learning and positive teacher-student relationships can prevent school violence. Many schools are turning to restorative practices to promote safe schools. When engaging in restorative practices, the emphasize focuses on learning and growth. When harm has occurred, restorative practices emphasize communication and accountability. Restorative practices in schools have been associated with decreased bullying and school violence, improvements in positive school climate and decreased use of suspensions. The current study presents implementation and impact findings of a cluster randomized control trial examining a school-wide restorative practices model called Circle Forward.
description: The purpose of this research was to study the effectiveness of a restorative practices intervention designed to enhance school safety through improved school climate. The Suffolk University Center for Restorative Justice (CRJ) developed a model called the Circle Forward (CF) Model of Whole-School Change. The CF model is a whole-school model in which the practice of circle is at the center of the training, implementation, and organizational change. In the CF model, the circle is the dominant practice for prevention, relationship building, and responsiveness. American Institutes for Research (AIR), in partnership with Boston Public Schools (BPS) and CRJ, examined the
effectiveness of CF on school safety and student outcomes in high-risk communities in Boston, under Category 2 of the National Institute of Justice's (NIJ's) Comprehensive School Safety Initiative.
description: The research team randomly assigned 30 schools, with schools serving 6-8 grade students and schools serving 9-12 grade students assigned separately, to either the intervention group (n=15 schools) or the business-as-usual group (n=15) in February of 2018. The intervention and business-as-usual schools were equivalent on all variables at the time of random assignment.

Full implementation of the Circle Forward (CF) model began in treatment schools during the 2018-2019 school year. During the 2018-2019 school year, a Center for Restorative Justice (CRJ) coach worked with treatment school restorative leadership team (RLT) members to implement the CF model at their school. During the 2019-2020 school year, the CRJ coach worked with RLT members to gradually transition implementation responsibilities to the RLT. By spring 2020, RLT members were expected to lead CF implementation at their school.

Implementation and impacts were intended to be analyzed during year 1 (2018-2019) and year 2 (2019-2020) of implementation in treatment schools. Before implementation began, one control school dropped out of the study and two additional treatment schools closed during the first year of the study. As it is not possible to measure outcomes in schools that no longer exist, the final analytic sample includes students in the 13 treatment schools that remained open and the 15 control schools. 

To evaluate implementation, the research team employed attendance records from the CF trainings, in-person observations of one training, implementation surveys from all intervention schools, and interviews and focus groups with staff members and students in the eight site visit schools.

To evaluate the impact, the research team relied on extant administrative data for the 2017-2018 school year to the 2019-2020 school year. Data included student-level data on suspensions, attendance, academic achievement, and demographic data. School-level variables were also calculated using the student-level data.
description: The data includes variables about students, such as attendance, days missed due to suspension incidents, and academic achievement, as well as feedback from teachers regarding their training, implementation, and outcomes related to the CF model.

Demographic data, including variables regarding race/ethnicity, gender, enrollment in individualized education programs, economic status, school type, and if the student was an English language leaner were also collected.
description: The CRJ worked with district leaders to recruit from among the highest-need middle and high schools. Schools were targeted for recruitment if they received Title I funding, had a high percentage of children from low-income families, and were among the lowest performing 20 percent of schools.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Efficacy of Circles Restricted Survey Data
DS2: Efficacy of Circles Restricted Demographic Data
DS3: Efficacy of Circles Restricted Administrative Data
DS4: Qualitative Data Documentation from Interviews and Focus Groups
description: Boston public middle and high schools that received Title I funding, had a high percentage of children from low-income families, and were among the lowest performing 20 percent of schools. Smallest Geographic Unit: None
description: face-to-face interview; mixed modeThe raw qualitative data from the Interviews and Focus Groups were not made available. The study team provided codes and response counts released as a restricted data file.