Austin Independent School District Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices: Final Evaluation Report.
Murray, O., Stargel, L., & Clinton, T. (2022). American Institutes for Research.
-
examining1,855Students, grades5-8
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR): Reading |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Students in grades 7 and 8;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR): Mathematics |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Students in grades 7 and 8;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance rate |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Students in grades 7 and 8;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Austin Independent School District student climate survey: Adult relationships subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Austin Independent School District student climate survey: Student engagement subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Austin Independent School District student climate survey: Persistence subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) survey: Achievement press subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) survey: Community support and engagement subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) survey: Student conduct subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) survey: Data use subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Austin Independent School District student climate survey: Personal development skills subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Austin Independent School District student climate survey: Behavioral environment subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Austin Independent School District student climate survey: Safety and respect subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Students in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) survey: Collaboration subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) survey: Professional development subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) survey: General school climate subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) survey: Facilities and resources subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) survey: Teacher leadership subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) survey: Principal leadership subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) survey: School leadership subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) survey: Attachment subscale |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Teachers in grades 5, 6, 7, and 8 ;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total number of disciplinary incidents |
Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Students in grades 7 and 8;
|
N/A |
N/A |
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.
-
57% English language learners -
Female: 49%
Male: 51% -
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
Texas
-
Race Black 7% Other or unknown 86% White 8% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 83% Other or unknown 17% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 26 elementary and middle schools in the Austin Independent School District in Texas in the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years.
Study sample
The study included 10 intervention group schools and 16 comparison group schools. The study includes analyses of student outcomes and teacher outcomes. All students and teachers in grades 5 to 8 were eligible for the 2020-2021 analysis, and all students and teachers in grades 7 and 8 were eligible for the 2021-2022 analysis. There were 158 teachers in the intervention group and 237 in the comparison group in the 2020-2021 analytic sample. Among the teachers in the analyses of 2020-2021 data, most were female and Hispanic. They had over 10 years of experience, on average. There were 957 students in the intervention group and 898 in the comparison group in 2020-2021 analytic sample. Among the student samples for both the 2020-2021 data and the 2021-2022 data, most had limited English proficiency and were economically disadvantaged.
Intervention Group
Schools in the intervention condition implemented Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices (CRRP), a school-wide program that blends restorative practices (a proactive and inclusionary schoolwide approach to climate and discipline) with culturally responsive pedagogical approaches aimed at influencing positive behavioral change. The CRRP model implemented in the intervention schools was embedded within the district’s multi-tiered system of supports. Tier 1 focused on building community, Tier 2 on rebuilding relationships, and Tier 3 on reintegrating students. More specifically, building on Tier 1 supports, the CRRP model sought to influence positive behavioral change among staff, students, and parents, and build school community and a positive school climate by immersing the whole school community in activities that focus on relationships and creating shared values through inclusive decision making, affective statements, respect agreements, impromptu restorative chats, and community-building circles. For Tier 2, the CRRP model included harm circles, mediation, and family-group conferencing to repair individual and relational harms. For Tier 3, a point person at each school (called a Transition Facilitator) initiated and maintained contact with students during an alternate placement, and supported successful reintegration through one-on-one conversations and reentry/welcome circles. Through these activities and supports, CRRP aimed to help students improve persistence at academic tasks and engage in positive interactions leading to higher engagement, less emotional distress, higher academic achievement, and fewer disciplinary referrals.
Comparison Group
The comparison group schools were not implementing Culturally Responsive and Restorative Practices and continued with business as usual discipline practices.
Support for implementation
Restorative practices (RP) associates were appointed to each of the intervention schools. The RP associates helped embed the intervention into the school and support the staff and students implementing CRPP. This included establishing a team to guide implementation at the school. In addition, a leadership team at the district office supported the RP associates and encouraged collaboration across the RP associates at all the intervention schools.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Fayles, Cason. (2021). Education Innovation and Research Grant: Culturally Responsive Restorative Practices--Preliminary Data from Participating Schools, 2019-2020. Publication 19.54.
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).