Student Outcomes from the Pilot Test of a Comprehensive School Safety Framework for High Schools: Student Ownership, Accountability, and Responsibility for School Safety (SOARS)
Vincent, Claudia G.; Walker, Hill; Espelage, Dorothy L.; Valido, Alberto; Murray, Christopher; Svanks, Rita; Marquez, Brion; Pennefather, Jordan (2022). NASSP Bulletin, v106 n4 p339-363. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1359360
-
examining201Students, grades9-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Student Ownership, Accountability, and Responsibility for School Safety (SOARS))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Peer Experiences Questionnaire: Peer Victimization Subscale |
Student Ownership, Accountability, and Responsibility for School Safety (SOARS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.23 |
1.43 |
No |
-- |
|
Peer Experiences Questionnaire: Bully Perpetration Subscale |
Student Ownership, Accountability, and Responsibility for School Safety (SOARS) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.18 |
1.26 |
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: 67%
Male: 29%
Other or unknown: 4% -
- 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
Illinois, Oregon
-
Race Asian 4% Black 18% Native American 4% Pacific Islander 1% Two or more races 13% White 60% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 11% Other or unknown 89% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 55% No FRPL 45%
Study Details
Setting
There were four high schools, 2 in Illinois and 2 in Oregon that participated in the study. One school in each state had experience implementing SOARS and made up the intervention condition. The other two high schools made up the comparison group. The schools' enrollments ranged from 1,210 students to 1,424 students. This study was conducted during 2019/20--the school year that was disrupted by COVID-19 related school closures. The school closures and transition to remote learning may have affected implementation and post-intervention response rate.
Study sample
At baseline, 2,334 students completed the seven pretest measures. Posttest measures were completed by 600 students, and the 201 students who completed both measures made up the analytic sample. The sample that completed the posttest was made up of students in all grades (9 through 12), with about 4% Asian, 18% Black, 4% American Indian, 1% Native Hawaiian, 60% White, and 13% multiracial. Eleven percent identified themselves as Hispanic. Female students made up 67% of the sample, and males made up another 29%. Forty-five percent of the sample qualified for free and reduced-price lunch.
Intervention Group
The Student Ownership, Accountability, and Responsibility for School Safety (SOARS) framework or intervention includes a comprehensive school safety framework for high schools. The first component is an online and confidential reporting tool named Advocatr. Students’ use of Advocatr allowed them to share safety information with local school adults, and school personnel who work to create a positive school environment where students feel comfortable sharing information. The tool prompts students to report something wrong (e.g., bullying, harassment, or substance use) or something right (e.g., kindness, helping others, etc.), who has been impacted, when, where, and for how long and how it has emotionally impacted the student. School-based coordinators receive an alert when reports are sent and they address the problem within the school's disciplinary policy. The second program component involves a 9-week Everyday Restorative Practices curriculum delivered by teachers to support students' use of Advocatr. Teachers focus on kindness to build strong and protective relationships among students. The third component is made up of informational briefs received by teachers and parents that inform them about the research base that supports SOARS. The fourth component consists of the resources for a student-led, school-wide safety campaign aligned with the Everyday Restorative Practices curriculum. The campaign is meant to raise awareness and use of the Advocatr app in order to empower students to make their voices heard and promote shared responsibility for the physical and emotional health and safety of all school community members. In addition, classroom teachers present the weekly lesson plans to students, and non-classroom staff engage students in conversations and discussions about the curriculum during leadership meetings and in-school suspensions, after disciplinary incidents, or during transition times.
Comparison Group
Schools in the comparison condition implemented business-as-usual.
Support for implementation
Ten staff at each intervention school administered the Everyday Restorative Practices curriculum to students. A project-funded Student Ownership, Accountability, and Responsibility for School Safety (SOARS) coordinator worked with each intervention school to support the implementation of the curriculum and respond to Advocatr student reports. Intervention staff received one-hour training with the site-based SOARS coordinators at the beginning of the school year, which reviewed (1) the SOARS components, (2) how to monitor and respond to Advocatr student reports within the school’s overall discipline policy, and (3) the schedule for on-going check-ins with participating school staff and project staff.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).