DOI: 10.3886/icpsr38200.v1
title: Applying Restorative Practices in New York City High Schools: Perceived Impact and Mixed Findings, New York, 2017-2019
title: Version 1

description: 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.
description: The purpose of this study is to provide a rigorous process evaluation of restorative justice practices, used to develop a detailed description of program implementation as well as an analysis of perceptions of impact.
description: Utilizing a randomized controlled trial and an equal status mixed method design, 10 schools were randomly assigned to either receive the restorative justice program or to the control group. Because of the Department of Education (DOE)'s ongoing work in the district, the evaluation used a three-group design that compared outcomes among: (1) randomly assigned District 18 schools that implemented the RJ program; (2) control group schools in District 18 that only received general restorative practices training; and (3) matched comparison schools from nearby school districts in Brooklyn with no exposure to RJ. Data for the process and outcome evaluations came from staff and student circle exit surveys and administrative data. Circle observations, student focus groups, and individual interviews were also conducted, though not currently included in the collection.
description: The variables in this study include descriptives of the restorative programs implemented in schools, along with demographics of students and teachers.
description: Not applicable
description: Response Rates: Not applicable
description: Presence of Common Scales: None
description: High schools in New York City's District 18 were eligible to participate in the study via random assignment. As of 2016, there were a total of 14 high schools in the District. Four schools were deemed ineligible because they were involved in other research or other intensive programming efforts (e.g., restorative justice implementation by other agencies). Ultimately, ten schools across four campuses were randomly assigned to either the control group or the treatment group. The sample includes 4,032 high school students in New York City (NYC) public school District 18 (treatment and control groups) and Districts 17 and 23 (comparison group). Of those, 1,362 are in the treatment group (5 schools); 1,605 are in the control group (5 schools); and 1,605 are in the comparison group (13 schools).
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: DOE Admin Data DS2: Program Data DS3: Staff Harm Circle Exit Surveys DS4: Staff Relationship Building Exit Surveys DS5: Student Harm Circle Exit Surveys DS6: Student Relationship Building Circle Exit Surveys
description: High school students in New York City Schools. Smallest Geographic Unit: None
description: mixed mode