Can Restorative Practices Improve School Climate and Curb Suspensions? An Evaluation of the Impact of Restorative Practices in a Mid-Sized Urban School District. Research Report. RR-2840-DOJ
Augustine, Catherine H.; Engberg, John; Grimm, Geoffrey E.; Lee, Emma; Wang, Elaine Lin; Christianson, Karen; Joseph, Andrea A. (2018). RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED594828
-
examining17,661Students, grades2-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Tripod Trust scale score |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 2-12;
|
-0.01 |
0.17 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Tripod Peer support scale score |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 2-12;
|
-0.10 |
0.14 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Tripod Bullying scale score |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 6-12;
|
-0.16 |
-0.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Tripod School Climate scale score |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 6-12;
|
-0.02 |
-0.04 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Absences |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 7-8;
|
11.39 |
11.29 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Days lost due to out-of-school suspension |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 2-12;
|
0.40 |
0.57 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Days lost due to out-of-school suspension |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 10-12;
|
0.47 |
1.07 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Days lost due to out-of-school suspension |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 2-5;
|
0.22 |
0.36 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Suspended during school year for reasons other than violence or weapons |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 2-12;
|
0.09 |
0.13 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Days lost due to out-of-school suspension |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Black;
|
0.62 |
0.83 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Days lost due to out-of-school suspension |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Economically disadvantaged;
|
0.56 |
0.78 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Days lost due to out-of-school suspension |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students without IEPs;
|
0.38 |
0.57 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of out-of-school suspensions |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 2-12;
|
0.20 |
0.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Suspended two or more times during the school year |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 2-12;
|
0.05 |
0.07 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Suspended during school year |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 2-12;
|
0.12 |
0.17 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Suspended during school year for violence or weapons |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 2-12;
|
0.05 |
0.07 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Days lost due to out-of-school suspension |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Male;
|
0.52 |
0.63 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Days lost due to out-of-school suspension |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students not economically disadvantaged;
|
0.23 |
0.27 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Days lost due to out-of-school suspension |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
White;
|
0.21 |
0.19 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Days lost due to out-of-school suspension |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students with IEPs;
|
0.52 |
0.58 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Days lost due to out-of-school suspension |
International Institute for Restorative Practices SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change Program vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 7-8;
|
0.56 |
0.62 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 50%
Male: 50% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Pennsylvania
-
Race Black 50% Other or unknown 13% White 37%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 44 public schools in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Study sample
The study included youth in grades 2-12 and examined outcomes for up to 17,661 students assigned to 537 teachers in 44 schools. In the study sample, 50 percent of students were Black, 37 percent were White, and 13 percent were of unspecified race. The sample was evenly split between male and female students (50 percent each). Twenty percent of youth had an Individualized Education Plan, and 55 percent were certified by the state as economically disadvantaged.
Intervention Group
The intervention is a schoolwide restorative practice termed Pursuing Equitable and Restorative Communities (PERC). Pittsburgh Public Schools teamed with International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) to implement the IIRP’s SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change program. The program aims to build a positive school environment and respond constructively to disruptions with the goals of improving attendance and rule adherence, reducing racial disparities in suspensions, reducing juvenile justice involvement, and improving school safety. The program includes 11 essential elements which focus on improving communication among students and between students and school staff, inculcating a sense of responsibility, and welcoming students back into the community after suspensions. The intervention as assessed in the study spanned two school years.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business as usual, which may have included restorative practices according to the study authors.
Support for implementation
Staff in schools that implemented PERC received four days (two of which were mandatory) of professional development provided by IIRP. IIRP also distributed books and other supporting materials on restorative practices, and each principal was assigned a coach who conducted monthly phone check-ins and bi-annual visits. School staff were also asked to attend monthly staff professional learning groups.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).