Restorative Justice - Does It Work?
A common practice in K-12 schooling promotes more equitable discipline practices. But does it work?
Background
A popular trend among private and public K-12 school administrators and school boards eager to signal their commitment to equity and social justice is the implementation of restorative justice (RJ), or where the rubber meets the road in discipline policies, restorative practices. What is RJ and what are restorative practices? As with many other practices and principles in the social justice movement, phrases that have anodyne meanings when interpreted according to the plain meaning of the constituent words take on entirely different meanings when you dig into the social justice extended definition.
Though RJ can trace its roots to indigenous peoples of the present-day Canada and New Zealand,1 its modern usage is attributed to Albert Eglash and his work in the 1950s through 1970s, who distinguished retributive forms of justice based on punishment from restorative justice, which is based on restitution with input from both victims and offenders.2 RJ was initially applied to adult criminal justice system reform in English-speaking countries. However, in the 1990s it was broadened to application in the education sphere. Defined broadly, restorative justice is “an approach to justice in which one of the responses to a crime is to organize a meeting between the victim and the offender, sometimes with representatives of the wider community.” The more encompassing term restorative practices , which is how RJ is implemented in policies and practices, began to spread widely in the United States in the 2010s when it was recommended as a K-12 school discipline policy reform to disrupt the so-called school-to-prison pipeline.3
Thus what began as a practice with much promise in criminal justice was adapted to other institutions and applications in society. In the current culture war, restorative practices is one of the most common policy reform tools in the social justice reformers’ toolbox.4 Public schools that adopt diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racist programs typically employ restorative practices among the specific policy changes prescribed to achieve equity and racial justice. Typical of this recommendation is the following policy brief from the Learning Policy Institute:
The compounding effects of systemic racism and the coronavirus pandemic have posed significant challenges to students, practitioners, and schools, particularly for Black and Latinx students who have borne the brunt of structural inequities. But these events have also created an opportunity for educational leaders to rethink school structures to better address the needs and nurture the assets of young people in the short and long term. This brief describes how schools can ameliorate—rather than exacerbate—racial inequities with research-based practices that advance a restorative approach to schooling and make learning environments more supportive, equitable, and anti-racist.5
What are Restorative Practices in K-12?
In schools that implement restorative practices, teachers and administrators are discouraged or prohibited from using retributive forms of school discipline such as suspensions and expulsions. Instead, educators are instructed to use restorative inquiry, restorative conferencing, peer juries, and, most popularly, justice circles when faced with alleged student misbehavior. The practices are also recommended to be done proactively instead of just reactively to diffuse or deter possible future student misbehaviors. Here is how the International Institute for Restorative Practices defines student justice circles:
A circle is a versatile restorative practice that can be used proactively, to develop relationships and build community or reactively, to respond to wrongdoing, conflicts and problems. Circles give people an opportunity to speak and listen to one another in an atmosphere of safety, decorum and equality.
The circle process allows people to tell their stories and offer their own perspectives (Pranis, 2005). The circle has a wide variety of purposes: conflict resolution, healing, support, decision making, information exchange and relationship development. Circles offer an alternative to contemporary meeting processes that often rely on hierarchy, win-lose positioning and argument (Roca, Inc., n.d.).…
Circles may use a sequential format. One person speaks at a time, and the opportunity to speak moves in one direction around the circle. Each person must wait to speak until his or her turn, and no one may interrupt. Optionally, a talking piece—a small object that is easily held and passed from person to person—may be used to facilitate this process. Only the person who is holding the talking piece has the right to speak (Costello, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 2010). Both the circle and the talking piece have roots in ancient and indigenous practices (Mirsky, 2004a, 2004b; Roca, Inc., n.d.)6
While justice circles and peer juries sound appealing in theory, they are not without potential deleterious consequences. Juvenile victims are forced to confront their alleged tormentors and assailants without their parents or another adult representative present, mediated by teachers who are not trained in counseling or judicial mediation. In the United States, the adult criminal justice system does not force adult victims of certain types of crimes such as sexual assault or abuse to face their assailants. RJ assumes children are better able to handle such trauma and should not be given the right to representation that adults enjoy. Teacher surveys in districts that implement RJ typically find teacher anxiety and uncertainty about being thrust into the role of justice circle mediator. As but one example of how justice circles can go wrong, consider the experience of a former high school principal who fully supported RJ in her education school training and in the schools she administered, but came to revise her outlook after her own son’s experience:
“Restorative Justice Gone Wrong: One Mother’s Horror Story”
Julia Carson, Thomas Fordham Institute, Oct. 4, 2019.
Efficacy Research
Aside from the potential problems of restorative practices gone wrong, what does the research say about their effectiveness in K-12 settings within the United States? Fortunately, the educational research community has conducted several high quality studies (and many low quality ones as well) over the past twenty or so years. The majority of studies show positive effects when just looking at metrics like suspensions before and after implementing an RJ program in a school or district. This is to be expected. As stated above, RJ at its core recommends or prohibits teachers and administrators from using traditional forms of retributive discipline like suspensions and expulsions, and recommends or requires using alternative restorative practice instead. The most oft-cited meta study on the efficacy of RJ in K-12 schools in the US is:
“Restorative Justice in US Schools: A Research Review”
Trevor Fronius, Hannah Perrson, et al, WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Center (2016)
Overview:
This report presents information garnered from a comprehensive review of the literature on restorative justice (RJ) in U.S. schools. The purpose of our review is to capture key issues, describe models of RJ, and summarize results from studies conducted in the field. The review was conducted on research reports and other relevant literature published, or made publicly available, between 1999 and mid-2014.
Note that this is not a peer-reviewed study and WestEd describes itself as “a nonpartisan, nonprofit research, development, and service agency — works with education and other communities throughout the United States and abroad to promote excellence, achieve equity, and improve learning for children, youth, and adults.” The report presents very little actual research data, rather summarizes best practices and qualitative descriptions of research. In fact, they admit in the report:
“Despite the popularity of RJ in the United States, most programs are still at the infancy stage (Guckenburg et al., 2015). As such, there are a limited number of evaluations and other studies. One trend that we discovered in our searches of the available literature was the prevalence of RJ program descriptions rather than evaluation studies. Although these descriptive accounts do not bear on the question of whether RJ ‘works,’ they provide valuable information that should be considered, particularly by those attempting to implement RJ in their school settings.”
Lack of quantitative results aside, the researchers found:
Disparities in exclusionary punishment for racial minorities and students with disabilities before implementing RJ.
Improved school climate as measured by student and faculty qualitative surveys in schools after implementing RJ. More recent studies present conflicting results.
“All empirical studies we reviewed report a decrease in exclusionary discipline and harmful behavior (e.g. violence) after implementing some type of RJ programs.”
School attendance improved, chronic absenteeism and tardiness decreased at schools after implementing RJ programs.
Mixed results on academic outcomes from schools that implemented RJ programs. One study showed a slight increase in students GPAs. Another study showed a sizable gain in graduation rates. But other studies found no change in GPA between schools that implemented and did not implement RJ programs.
However, a number of rigorous studies that have been published since the Fronius and Perrson meta-study show negative or no positive effects from implementing RJ or reducing suspensions as a discipline method in K-12 schools. A summary of these recent studies is here:
“The Promise of Restorative Justice Starts to Falter Under Rigorous Research”
Jill Barshay, The Hechinger Report (May 6, 2019)
Specific studies cited in the above article include:
Catherine H. Augustine, John Engberg, et al., “Can Restorative Practices Improve School Climate and Curb Suspensions? An Evaluation of the Impact of Restorative Practices in a Mid-Sized Urban School District,” RAND Institute (2018), Sponsored by the National Institute for Justice.
Abstract:
This study of the implementation of restorative practices in the Pittsburgh Public Schools district (PPS) in school years 2015–16 and 2016–17 represents one of the first randomized controlled trials of the effects of restorative practices on classroom and school climates and suspension rates. The authors examined a specific restorative practices program — the International Institute for Restorative Practices' SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change program — implemented in a selected group of PPS schools under a program called Pursuing Equitable and Restorative Communities, or PERC. The researchers found that PERC achieved several positive effects, including an improvement in overall school climates (as rated by teachers), a reduction in overall suspension rates, and a reduction in the disparities in suspension rates between African American and white students and between low- and higher-income students.
Key Findings:
Effects of the Pursuing Equitable and Restorative Communities (PERC) program in Pittsburgh Public Schools
• Implementation of restorative practices through PERC improved overall school climates, as rated by teachers.
• Implementation of restorative practices reduced the average suspension rate: During the study period, average suspension rates decreased in both PERC and non-PERC schools, but rates decreased more in PERC schools.
• Suspension rates of African American students and of those from low-income families also went down in PERC schools, shrinking the disparities in suspension rates between African American and white students and between low- and higher-income students.
• Academic outcomes did not improve in PERC schools, and actually worsened for grades 6–8.
• Arrest rates among PERC schools did not decrease.
Joie Acosta, Matthew Chinman, et al., “Evaluation of a Whole-School Change Intervention: Findings from a Two-Year Cluster-Randomized Trial of the Restorative Practices Intervention,” RAND Institute (2019)
Abstract:
This study fills a gap in research on multi-level school-based approaches to promoting positive youth development and reducing bullying, in particular cyberbullying, among middle school youth. The study evaluates the Restorative Practices Intervention, a novel whole-school intervention designed to build a supportive environment through the use of 11 restorative practices (e.g., communication approaches that aim to build stronger bonds among leadership, staff, and students such as using “I” statements, encouraging students to express their feelings) that had only quasi-experimental evidence prior to this study. Studying multilevel (e.g., individual, peer group, school) approaches like the Restorative Practices Intervention is important because they are hypothesized to address a more complex interaction of risk factors than single level efforts, which are more common. Baseline and two-year post survey data was collected from 2771 students at 13 middle schools evenly split between grades 6 (48 percent) and 7 (52 percent), and primarily ages 11 (38 percent) or 12 (41 percent). Gender was evenly split (51 percent male), and 92 percent of students were white. The intervention did not yield significant changes in the treatment schools. However, student self-reported experience with restorative practices significantly predicted improved school climate and connectedness, peer attachment, and social skills, and reduced cyberbullying victimization. While more work is needed on how interventions can reliably produce restorative experiences, this study suggests that the restorative model can be useful in promoting positive behaviors and addressing bullying.
However, though not in the abstract, the report found no difference in school climate between middle schools that tried restorative justice and those that didn’t.
There are also numerous studies on the efficacy of policy reforms that reduce traditional forms of discipline that show no effect or negative effects:
Johanna Lacoe, Matthew P. Steinberg, “Rolling Back Zero Tolerance: The Effect of Discipline Policy Reform on Suspension Usage and Student Outcomes,” Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 93 (2018)
Abstract:
Beginning in the early 1990s, states and districts enacted zero-tolerance discipline policies that relied heavily on out-of-school suspensions. Recently, districts nationwide have revised these policies in favor of more tempered disciplinary responses. In 2012–2013, Philadelphia reformed its discipline policy to limit suspensions for nonviolent student misconduct and granted principals greater discretion in responding to more serious occurrences of student misconduct. Employing a difference-in-differences approach, we find that Philadelphia’s reform resulted in a modest decline in suspensions for nonviolent infractions in the year of reform; however, total suspensions remained unchanged while serious incidents of student misconduct increased. Further, the truancy rate increased and district math and English language arts achievement declined following the policy reform. These findings should inform policymakers and practitioners on the implications of district-level reforms for suspension usage and the potential consequences for student outcomes.
Scott E. Carrell, Mark Hoekstra, Elira Kuka, “The Long Run of Disruptive Peers,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 22042 (Feb. 2016)
Abstract:
A large and growing literature has documented the importance of peer effects in education. However, there is relatively little evidence on the long-run educational and labor market consequences of childhood peers. We examine this question by linking administrative data on elementary school students to subsequent test scores, college attendance and completion, and earnings. To distinguish the effect of peers from confounding factors, we exploit the population variation in the proportion of children from families linked to domestic violence, who were shown by Carrell and Hoekstra (2010, 2012) to disrupt contemporaneous behavior and learning. Results show that exposure to a disruptive peer in classes of 25 during elementary school reduces earnings at age 26 by 3 to 4 percent. We estimate that differential exposure to children linked to domestic violence explains 5 to 6 percent of the rich-poor earnings gap in our data, and that removing one disruptive peer from a classroom for one year would raise the present discounted value of classmates' future earnings by $100,000.
Dominic Zarecki, “Banning Progress: Suspension Bans and Schoolwide Academic Growth,” Boston University (2018)
Abstract:
The past decade has seen a burgeoning practical and theoretical interest in reforming how schools manage discipline. A growing number of states and school districts have banned or limited suspensions for all but the most serious offenses. This paper analyzes a natural experiment: the 2013 suspension ban in Los Angeles Unified School District. The ban led to a substantial, 0.2 standard deviation decrease in academic growth among middle schools that had previously issued the banned suspensions. Four subsequent suspension bans – in San Francisco, Pasadena, Oakland, and (grades K-3) all of California – also appear to have harmed academic growth. Education leaders considering a suspension ban should carefully weigh this trade-off; other policy options may decrease suspension rates without harming academic growth.
Na Young Hwang, Thurston Domina, “Peer Disruption and Learning: Links between Suspensions and the Educational Achievement of Non-Suspended Students,” Education Finance and Policy (2016)
Abstract:
To evaluate the net effects of classroom disciplinary practices, policy makers and educators must understand not only their effects on disciplined students but also their effects on non-disciplined peers. In this study, we estimate the link between peer suspensions and non-suspended students’ learning trajectories in a California school district where middle and high school students took up to twelve basic skills tests in mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) over the course of the 2009–10, 2010–11, and 2011–12 school years. We find that Hispanic students, students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, English language learners, students enrolled in special education, and low-achieving students are disproportionately exposed to classmate suspensions. Analyses with student and classroom fixed effects show that student achievement in mathematics increases when their classmates receive suspensions, particularly suspensions attributed to disruptive behavior. We find no association between classmate suspension and ELA achievement. Because these results come from schools in which suspensions are relatively rare events, they may not generalize to settings with draconian disciplinary cultures. Nonetheless, our findings imply that suspensions, when used appropriately, can improve the academic achievement of non-suspended students, particularly for students from vulnerable populations.
Digging deeper in the Hwang & Domina study, Fordham Institute Senior Vice-President of Research Amber Northern wrote:
Hwang and Donima find that Hispanic students, low-income students, and English language learners were more likely to be exposed to suspended classmates. Neither schoolmate in-school suspensions (ISS) nor schoolmate out-of-school suspensions (OSS) were linked to the achievement of non-suspended students. However, at the classroom level, classmate suspensions are associated on average with improved math achievement. For example, an increase in OSS in a classroom is associated with a 0.024 standard deviation increase in the math achievement of non-suspended students. Neither classmate nor schoolmate suspensions are linked to ELA achievement. Analysts posit that orderly learning environments may be more important in math since many kids find math challenging. They also find suggestive evidence that the associations between classmate suspensions and increased math achievement are driven by suspensions attributed to major and disruptive infractions—not minor infractions, which appear to be more trivial.7
In summary, research studies show RJ and restorative practices may reduce suspensions and other punitive disciplinary measures, but have a negative effect on learning outcomes, show no differences in school climate to schools in random control trials (RCTs) with schools that did not implement RJ, and impose huge costs in terms of training and lost learning time to schools that implement RJ.
Given the lack of clear positive outcomes and recent evidence of unintended negative outcomes, school administrators should give serious pause when asked to overhaul their discipline policies in favor of a philosophy and practices that require considerable investment of time and resources to implement.
Zehr, Howard. Changing Lenses – A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottdale, PA, (2005), pp.268–69.
See for example the 2019 US Commission on Civil Rights briefing report, “Beyond Suspensions: Examining School Discipline Policies and Connections to the School-to-Prison Pipeline for Students of Color with Disabilities.”
See for example, Cory Collins, “Toolkit: The Foundations of Restorative Justice,” Learning for Justice, (Spring 2021.)
Jennifer DePaoli , Laura E. Hernández, et al., “A Restorative Approach for Equitable Education,” Learning Policy Institute (Mar. 16, 2021.)