The Effect of School Conditions on the Use of Restorative Justice in Schools

• Author: Kelly Welch,Allison Ann Payne
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204016681414
• Published date: 01 April 2018
• Date: 01 April 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

The Effect of School

Conditions on the Use of

Restorative Justice in Schools

Allison Ann Payne

1

and Kelly Welch

1

Abstract

Previous research has demonstrated beneficial outcomes of using restorative justice techniques,

rather than traditional punitive approaches, in response to student misbehavior. As with the use of

restorative justice in criminal justice contexts, restorative discipline shifts the focus from punish-

ment and isolation to reconciliation and reintegration. Although the use of restorative justice

techniques has decreased student delinquency, resulted in better academic outcomes, and improved

school climate, many schools today continue to implement punitive practices to control student

behavior. The current research uses data from a nationally representative sample of schools to

examine school conditions that influence the use of restorative responses to violence and mis-

behavior. Identifying the characteristics of a school that affect the likelihood that specific restorative

justice techniques will be implemented can reveal opportunities for diminishing disparities,

improving outcomes for students, and reducing the odds that students will subsequently become

involved in the juvenile justice system.

Keywords

restorative justice, school discipline, student violence

Student discipline in American schools has grown increasingly harsh, as evidenced by the greater

use of exclusionary punishments like expulsion and suspension, despite clear indications that student

delinquency, violence, and victimization have been decl ining (Gregory, Bell, & Pollock, 2014;

Kupchik & Monahan, 2006; Payne & Welch, 2010; Skiba & Rausch, 2006; Welch & Payne,

2010). The use of exclusionary discipline in K–12 public schools increased sharply from the early

1970s to the early 2000s, at which time it grew more gradually. Although the last few years have

seen these increases level off, the rates of expulsion and suspension are still remarkably high. The

most recent statistics available from the U.S. Department of Education indicate that in the 2011–

2012 school year, of the 49 million students enrolled in public schools, an astounding 3.5 million

students were suspended in school, another 3.5 million students were suspended out of school, and

1

Department of Sociology and Criminology, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Allison Ann Payne, Department of Sociology and Criminology, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova,

PA 19085, USA.

Email: allison.payne@villanova.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2018, Vol. 16(2) 224-240

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204016681414

journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

130,000 were expelled (U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, 2014). Much of this

exclusionary discipline (in fact, nearly 30,000 of the expulsions in the 2011–2012 academic year)

has been the result of government-mandated zero tolerance policies that were developed in the wake

of high-profile school-based offenses (U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, 2014).

Thus, zero tolerance policies that suspend or expel students for the possession of contraband like

guns, drugs, knives, and even some prescription medications, as well as for certain behaviors, may

be partially responsible for expanding school punitiveness (Beger, 2002).

Schools are now responding to student violations—even minor ones—as if they are criminal

infractions, with various punishments and banishments that can be likened to those experienced in

the criminal justice system (Giroux, 2003; Kupchik & Monahan, 2006). The negative consequences

of exclusionary responses to misbehavior can be harmful in a number of ways. Students who

experience punitive discipline are more likely to experience poor school performance, grade reten-

tion, negative attitudes toward schools, and dropping out (Gardella, 2015; Skiba & Rausch, 2006).

Their graduation rates are lower and subsequent professional opportunities are limited (Lasnover,

2015; Vincent & Tobin, 2011). These students are also more likely to engage in physical fighting,

weapon-carrying, smoking, alcohol and drug use, and other delinquent acts (Lasnover, 2015;

Nichols, 2004; Skiba & Rausch, 2006), and ultimately more likely to end up in the school-to-

prison pipeline and eventually experience punishment by the juvenile and/or criminal justice system

(Fabelo et al., 2011; Wald & Losen, 2003). Regardless of school-based misbehavior, research shows

that these effects are even more pronounced for Black and Hispanic students in schools with

proportionally more minority students (Beger, 2002; Gregory & Weinstein, 2008; Welch & Payne,

2012). Statistics show that Black and Hispanic students are much more likely than White students to

receive every type of discipline—from minor office referrals to suspension and expulsions—for the

same or lesser offenses (Anyon et al., 2014; Gregory & Weinstein, 2008; Schollenberger, 2015; U.S.

Department of Education, 2013). And minority students are less likely to receive mild disciplinary

alternatives than White students (Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002). Thus, punitive and

exclusionary discipline not only fails to reduce school violence and misbehavior, but it may actually

increase the frequency and intensity of these incidents.

Alternately, research has shown many promi sing outcomes in schools that use a restorative

justice rather than punitive approach to student violations, including reduced recidivism and higher

academic achievement (Gardella, 2015; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Yet, very little is known

about what influences the implementation of a restorative disciplinary framework and under what

conditions it is most likely to be applied. Given the substantial positive opportunity that restorative

justice may represent for both students and schools, this information could be critically valuable.

This study is the first to examine how various school structural factors, student and faculty charac-

teristics, and community traits affect the likelihood that a restorative justice approach, which can

include restitution, peer mediation, community service, and student conferences, will be adopted.

Restorative Justice in Schools

Given these negative consequences for both students and schools, it is clear that schools need to

reconsider their responses to student misbehavior. Restorative justice approaches have been iden-

tified by many as a successful alternative to punitive discipline (Gardella, 2015; Morrison &

Vaandering, 2012; Payne & Welch, 2015; Skiba &Rausch, 2006; Stinchcomb, Bazemore, & Ries-

tenberg, 2006). Restorative justice is rooted in the practices of many premodern native cultures of

the South Pacific and Americas, as well as the community-based Mennonite initiatives that emerged

in Canada in the early 1970s (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Originally used in the criminal justice

system, restorative practices strive to repair the harm caused by an offense while preventing further

offenses from occurring, generally through reconciliation conferences involving offenders, victims,

Payne and Welch 225