# data[].attributes.body
Suspension is a tool schools use for punishment. It is designed to remove students from class for a period of time in hopes that students self reflect and correct behavior. Many recent studies, however, have shown that there are many negative effects of isolating students. Studies show adolescents being suspended or expelled from school is associated with a host of adverse consequences which includes disengagement from school community, increased odds for depressive symptoms, and victimization/incarceration in adulthood. Students are more likely to fall behind academically, repeat grades or even drop out of school. Should schools ban suspension and look for more restorative ways to correct poor behavior? Or does suspension as a punishment still serve a purpose for our students? The articles discussed will help in coming to a conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
Eyllon, M., Salhi, C., Griffith, J. L., & Lincoln, A. K. (2022). Exclusionary School Discipline Policies and Mental Health in a National Sample of Adolescents without Histories of Suspension or Expulsion. Youth & Society, 54(1), 84-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X20959591

In this 2020 article, data from 8,876 adolescents is examined to see the effects of suspension on children receiving the punishment as well as peers who are not. Using collaterall consequences and social stress framework, researchers examine whether exclusionary school discipline strategies associated with the mental health and wellbeing of adolescents who have never been suspended or expelled. They concluded that discipline policies may have collateral consequences for the mental health of non-excluded students. The study shows a significant positive association with depressive symptoms. Concluding that suspension can create a stressful environment for all students, including those are are not receiving the discipline.

# data[].attributes.body
Rosenbaum, J. (2020). Educational and Criminal Justice Outcomes 12 Years After School Suspension. Youth & Society, 52(4), 515-547. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X17752208

This study shows that suspended youth have worse adult outcomes than non-suspended youth. According to some estimates nearly three million students are suspended each year. These numbers effecting minority students far more than their non-minority peers. This study aims to compare educational and criminal justice outcomes of 480 youth suspended for the first time with those of 1,193 matched non-suspended youth from a nationally representative sample. Twelve years after suspension (ages 25-32), suspended youth were less likely than matched nonsuspended youth to have earned bachelor’s degrees or high school diplomas, and were more likely to have been arrested and on probation, suggesting that suspension rather than selection bias explains negative outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
Silver, H. C., & Zinsser, K. M. (2020). The Interplay among Early Childhood Teachers’ Social and Emotional Well-Being, Mental Health Consultation, and Preschool Expulsion. Early Education and Development, 31(7), 1133–1150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1785267

This 2020 article explores the relationship between teacher well being and the increase of expulsion/suspension. Using a self-report surgery, researchers studied preschools in a large Midwestern city (N = 124), logistic regressions predicting teachers’ expulsion requests shed light on associated factors. Findings indicated that teachers with depression were much more likely to be expelled. Teacher-reported emotional intelligence, perceptions of their students’ externalizing behaviors, and center climate were not significantly associated with expulsion requests. In conclusion attending to teacher mental health and early childhood mental health consultants may be important in reducing rates of exclusionary discipline in early education settings.

# data[].attributes.body
Research shows mental health access is critical in to supporting and developing the whole learner, as well as creating a safe, supportive environment where learning can occur. According to According to the National Association of School Psychologists, mental health services are a growing and unmet need among children and youth, and mentally healthy children are more successful in school and life. Through grants, schools can hire more mental health staff which can lead to less disciplinary needs.

# data[].attributes.body
The federal Every Student Succeeds act looks at restorative justice to prevent the need for suspension in schools. ESSA plans encourage states to spotlight holistic support systems that can improve outcomes for students. Positive schools=less suspension, decreased absenteeism, and substance abuse. Schools with positive school climates have also been shown to narrow achievement gaps based on income and academic ability.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The federal Every Student Succeeds Act was an opportunity for states to rethink their education systems, including how they classify and improve school performance. But beyond accountability, ESSA plans encourage states to spotlight holistic support systems that can improve outcomes for students.

Indeed, states highlight a variety of policies and programs to improve conditions for student learning, particularly around school climate. Positive school climates correlate with a host of desirable student outcomes, including decreased absenteeism, suspension rates, and substance abuse. Schools with positive school climates have also been shown to narrow achievement gaps based on income and academic ability. There is no question, then, that states should devote resources to improving school environments.

In Texas, for instance, schools have seen success with restorative justice practices. Using this alternative to traditional discipline - think student conflict resolution approaches like circle discussions - schools in Dallas and San Antonio have experienced significant drops in in-school and out-of-school suspensions. In fact, Texas's ESSA plan features a statewide restorative discipline initiative, launched in 2015 in partnership with the University of Texas at Austin's School of Social Work, and by the 2016-17 school year, the state had trained 1,800 school and district administrators to take a relational approach to addressing student behavior.

Texas's initiative is but one example of state efforts to improve school environment, many of which prioritize tracking leading climate indicators. New York, for example, will use ESSA block grant funds to administer school climate surveys to students, parents, and school personnel. The surveys, along with chronic absenteeism rates and a measure of school violence, will be part of a new statewide school climate index. Kentucky's plan describes a newly launched tool that provides educators with early warning data in real time, predicting which students are most at risk of dropping out based on factors such as attendance and behavior. Connecticut, similarly, has committed to developing an early warning dashboard with statistics on bullying and suspensions.

Armed with student data, states are implementing a variety of programs, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) programs, to improve school environments. PBIS practices use three tiers of student support to foster appropriate behavior. Texas, which implements PBIS in addition to restorative justice practices, has seen positive effects ranging from increased attendance to decreased disciplinary referrals. Nebraska has a decade-long history of implementing PBIS and has secured funding for its work through 2021. And the Georgia Department of Education, which has a dedicated PBIS team to implement and scale up the program, is partnering with the Georgia Department of Early Care and Learning to support a PBIS model for pre-K through second grade.

States are also supporting programs to decrease bullying, improve mental health, and reduce the overuse of discipline practices. Hawaii's plan, for example, describes the state's support for student health and safety, including efforts such as peer mediation and campaigns to reduce harassment. The New Hampshire Department of Education is using a project grant from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to increase access to mental health services, improve school climate, and reduce school violence. And the Ohio Department of Education is partnering with the state's Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services to provide a preschool expulsion prevention program across the state.

These examples are merely a selection of school climate initiatives that states have highlighted in their ESSA plans, which are not the be-all and end-all of state policy - nor should they be. States began to implement many of these programs before ESSA, and they will they continue to develop new initiatives to improve school environments, student safety, and mental health regardless of federal law.

Nonetheless, given the national attention ESSA plans receive, it is promising to see states taking advantage of the spotlight to communicate their broader visions for improving student outcomes. And as states begin to turn their plans into action, it will be important to pay attention to what happens for students, classrooms, and school environments.
Samantha Batel is senior policy analyst for K-12 Education at the Center for American Progress.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ESSA Analysis: How States Are Looking to Drive Stronger School Climate Through New Education Plans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The federal Every Student Succeeds Act was an opportunity for states to rethink their education systems, including how they classify and improve school performance. But beyond accountability, ESSA plans encourage states to spotlight holistic support systems that can improve outcomes for students. Indeed, states highlight a variety of policies and programs to improve conditions for [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The suspension or expulsion of students with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD) has been problematic and controversial. Requirements of IDEA, and case law before that, have indicated that long-term suspension or expulsion violate the Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) guarantee for students with disabilities. Schools have struggled to meet these requirements, but the problems with suspension and expulsion are larger than issues of EBD or disability.

Today, many schools are rightfully concerned about the numbers of all types of students who are being suspended or expelled for their behavior. This concern is driven by the over-representation of some minority groups among those who are suspended or expelled from school (Wu, Pink, Crain & Moles, 1982; Townsend, 2000; Skiba, Michael, Nardo & Peterson, 2002). Equally important is the emerging research that indicates that these consequences are not likely to change the inappropriate behavior of the students involved, nor do they serve to deter other students from engaging in the same behaviors (Skiba, Peterson & Williams, 1999, 1997). Instead, these consequences make the suspended student's academic progress more difficult, and they may increase the likelihood of the student dropping out of school or having other negative outcomes.

As a result, many schools are beginning to examine their school discipline policies with an eye to making them both more effective and less reliant on traditional exclusionary consequences. These changes may also help schools to better serve students with EBD. Schools that try to improve their discipline system ask the questions "What do we use in place of exclusionary consequences in our discipline policies?" and "What are some disciplinary consequences which might be more effective?" The examples that follow illustrate the kinds of actions that could be built into a school's formal disciplinary code of conduct as part of an array of consequences for inappropriate behavior. Each of these examples has at least some research demonstrating positive behavioral-change outcomes for students, and is an opportunity to maintain or re-engage students in school rather than pushing them out of school. While additional information beyond that provided here will be needed for appropriate implementation, the examples below describe multiple promising alternatives to suspension:

Problem solving/contracting. Negotiation and problem-solving approaches can be used to assist students in identifying alternative behavior choices. The next step should involve developing a contract that reminds the student to engage in a problem-solving process, and which includes reinforcers for success and consequences for continuing problem behaviors.

Restitution. In-kind restitution (rather than financial restitution, which often falls on the parents) permits the student to help to restore or improve the school environment either by directly addressing the problems caused by the student's behavior (e.g., in cases of vandalism students can work to repair things they damaged), or by having the student improve the school environment more broadly (e.g., picking up trash, washing lockers).

Mini-courses or skill modules. Short courses or self-study modules can be assigned as a disciplinary consequence. These should be on topics related to the student's inappropriate behavior, and should be designed to teach the student to have increased awareness or knowledge about the topic, thus facilitating behavior change. These modules might include readings, videos, workbooks, tests, and oral reports on a range of topics such as alcohol/drug use or abuse, strategies for conflict resolution, anger control strategies, social skills (e.g., getting along with peers, making behavior appropriate for the setting), and appropriate communication skills (e.g., appropriate and inappropriate language, how to express disagreement).

Parent involvement/supervision. Parents should be invited to brainstorm ways they can provide closer supervision or be more involved in their child's schooling. Better communication and more frequent contacts between teachers and parents, as well as coordinated behavior-change approaches, are very useful and could be formalized into a disciplinary consequence.

Counseling. Students may be required to receive additional supports or individual counseling from trained helping professionals (e.g., counselor, school psychologist) focused on problem solving or personal issues interfering with learning.

Community service. Programs that permit the student to perform a required amount of time in supervised community service outside of school hours (e.g., volunteer at another school or an organization) should be created.

Behavior monitoring. Closely monitoring behavior and academic progress (e.g., self-charting of behaviors, feedback sessions for the student) will permit rewards to be provided for successful performance.

Coordinated behavior plans. Creation of a structured, coordinated behavior support plan specific to the student and based on a hypothesis about the function of the target behavior to be reduced should be created. It should focus on increasing desirable behavior, and replacing inappropriate behaviors.

Alternative programming. Provide short- or long-term changes in the student schedule, classes or course content or offer the option of participating in an independent study or work-experience program. Programming should be tailored to student needs, and permit appropriate credit accrual and progress toward graduation. Change of placement or programming must be made by the IEP (Individualized Education Program) team for students with EBD or other disabilities.

Appropriate in-school suspension. In-school suspension should be provided and include academic tutoring, instruction on skill-building related to the student behavior problem (e.g., social skills), and a clearly defined procedure for returning to class contingent on student progress or behavior. The environment should be carefully managed to guard against using in-school suspension as a way to avoid attending classes.

Many of these will be familiar to teachers who have worked with students who have EBD and there is a promising research base for these alternatives. Other alternatives might also be generated. Some schools are already using some of these, but few are using very many of these, and fewer yet use these systematically as a coordinated behavior improvement strategy built into their disciplinary codes of conduct.

To make these alternative options work as a disciplinary consequence, some "prerequisites" may also be needed. A school climate supportive of positive behavior, efforts to build positive interactions, appropriate instruction, and ongoing close supervision may prevent behavior problems from growing to crisis proportions and requiring disciplinary consequences. Here are several examples of programs that support the previous alternatives to suspension:

Creating a caring school community and climate. Programs that attend to patterns of good communication and problem solving, having clear patterns of authority and decision making, procedures for developing and implementing rules, helping students feel they belong and are welcome, good curriculum and instructional practices, and having a clean and positive physical environment.

Efforts to build adult-student relationships. Programs offering opportunities for students to develop individual relationships with staff.

Increased parent involvement. Programs that involve a variety of parents and community members in functions and activities within the school, and maintain communication about their children.

Character education/consistent school values. School curriculum and organization features that promote the development of fundamental values in children. Typically these list desirable goals for student behavior.

Early identification and intervention. Programs that permit systematic screening of students for potential behavior problems, and which provide interventions for the students identified as at "risk."

Mediation programs. Programs that teach students about non-violent conflict resolution and permit students to use and experience these in school. Peer-mediation is one example.

Bullying prevention and intervention. Programs that teach students about bullying behaviors and how they can be reported to teachers. Specific interventions are created for both bullies and victims.

Conflict de-escalation training. Programs that teach staff and students to recognize and to disengage from escalating conflict.

School-wide discipline program. Programs that develop a common terminology and consistent approach to discipline across school staff. Responsibilities of students and staff are identified, consistency in rule enforcement is increased, and consequences are identified for positive and negative behaviors occurring anywhere in school.

Positive office referrals/recognition. Programs that "catch students being good" and identify, reward, and celebrate individual students for appropriate behavior (e.g., attendance, being on-time, improving grades, meeting behavior goals).

Each of these "prerequisites" is also supported by a body of research that indicates positive, promising effects on student behavior in school. If they are to be effective, these "foundations" must be implemented in such a way as to become a normal part of that school's culture. They enable the "disciplinary alternatives" listed earlier to be effective by providing the context and skills for appropriate behavior. They may permit a substantial reduction in the use of suspension and expulsion as disciplinary options, and have the side effect of decreasing staff stress related to behavior, and increasing academic achievement for all students. They may also provide a way to reduce the involvement of students with emotional or behavioral disorders in the problems associated with suspension and expulsion.

Note: The contributions of Russell Skiba and Courtney Miller toward the ideas in this manuscript are gratefully acknowledged.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Impact | Volume 18, Number 2 | Ten Alternatives to Suspension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The suspension or expulsion of students with emotional/behavioral disorders (EBD) has been problematic and controversial. Requirements of IDEA, and case law before that, have indicated that long-term suspension or expulsion violate the Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) guarantee for students with disabilities.

# data[].attributes.body
Lodi, E.; Perrella, L.; Lepri, G.L.; Scarpa, M.L.; Patrizi, P. Use of Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices at School: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010096

The literature from the article above underlines the importance of training students in this practice as it could represent a beneficial process for the whole school: through peer mediation, students can experiment using their conflict resolution skills, become able to independently manage problems, conflicts, differences, repair and build relationships, and feel being an active part of the decision-making process by building shared solutions themselves and not letting the school solve problems for them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

1. Introduction

The perspectives of the current international debate, also in the wake of the recent Recommendation CM/Rec (2018) 8, aim at encouraging not only the development and use of restorative justice in criminal matters, but also the development of innovative restorative approaches to be placed outside the justice systems, highlighting how justice and restorative practices do not only concern behaviours of criminal relevance. Indeed, restorative justice and practices may also have a role in the various conflicts arising in different communities (such as schools) not only as a response to conflict, but also as a preventive approach aiming at building relationships and communities. Therefore, it is possible that after harm suffered, there is a need to rebuild the sense of trust and heal conflicts to heal people's wounds and fractures in the social fabric. The aim is to prevent harmful behaviours towards the expected prospect of a better future: a future of safety, trust, responsibility, and well-being of all the parties involved. In this sense, restorative justice can be presented as a justice for people and relationships, when a crime has been committed, a harm produced, a pain suffered, to prevent harmful behaviour [ 1].

Current zero-tolerance policies represent systems that use punitive and exclusionary practices (e.g., suspensions) to control and manage student behaviour. These policies very often aggravate disciplinary problems and exacerbate racial, gender, and socioeconomic status disparities, underlining the need for alternative approaches to the management of school discipline, as well as approaches that aim at promoting well-being in the whole school community.

Restorative justice could represent one of these alternatives. Its practices are oriented not only at the alternative management of incorrect and violent behaviours, for example, bullying, but mainly at the promotion of prosocial behaviours through the development of social and emotional skills (e.g., empathy, awareness, and responsibility), with the broader goal of building safe school communities that promote well-being.

In recent years, the use of restorative justice and restorative practices in schools has grown rapidly. This encourages a better understanding of how theory and research address this question to further improve practices and ensure their application is based on scientific knowledge. Starting from existing qualitative and quantitative research, the aim of this study was the evaluation of the practices implemented and the results obtained through a systematic literature review on the use of RJ and RP implemented at school. We wish to support practices by the existing findings in scientific research, listing the benefits of applying restorative justice and restorative practice in schools and analysing the impact of these approaches in educational settings.

1.1. Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices

Restorative justice is preliminarily a paradigm, not identifiable in a specific program [ 2, 3, 4, 5] or in a specific field of application [ 6]. Its possible declinations correspond to different programs, which share some key dimensions: (a) a proactive and promotional vision; (b) the offense is not identified with the behaviour, of which it is only a legal definition; (c) the person who carried out the action is a person rather than a judicial role (investigated, accused, convicted); (d) whoever has suffered the consequences is, even before being an offended party or victim, a harmed person.

This does not mean ignoring the legal significance of the crimes and the people involved (perpetrators and victims), but considering them as persons rather than perpetrators and victims, behaviours that produce harm rather than crimes, consequences rather than victimization, judgment, conviction, punishment [ 1].

Restorative justice proposes a radically different reading from that of criminal justice. For the latter, crime is a violation of the law and the State, while for restorative justice, crime is a violation of persons and obligations, of harm caused and suffered, of social crises, and this means recognizing people and their actions for what they are. For criminal justice, a violation creates guilt and requires paying with suffering, there must be a punishment. For criminal justice, the focus is on the perpetrator who must pay their debt to justice and to the State who, in this way, completely replaces the victim, giving the latter the role of initiator of the criminal action. For the restorative justice, a violation creates new obligations, through which justice and relational balance can be restored. Restorative justice acts by questioning the assumptions of the judicial system without denying them, emphasizing harm reparation as a means of restoring justice and relational balance rather than punishing incorrect behaviour. Therefore, restorative justice involves those who have suffered the harm, those who are responsible for it, and members of the community in a commitment to make "right" what is wrong, restore justice that is respectful of everyone, of people, and of coexistence [ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Restorative justice focuses on the need of all the involved parties [ 9]. Victims need to have access to nonjudicial information relating to what has happened: why and what follows the fact that happened (information that often only the perpetrator of the crime possesses); to tell the personal truth on what happened through a space to be heard and tell one's story; to make sure that those who have acted against them know the consequences they have produced; to regain control over one's life; to have a compensation. The needs of those who have committed the crime can be to take responsibility for the consequences of their action on the victim and support to progress towards change in view of reintegration into the community. The needs of the community, which must protect its members and itself, are to restore trust in bonds, take care of the person who has suffered, of the person responsible, of all the parties who have an interest in rebalancing and supporting positive relationships. The broadest form of restorative justice is the one that takes place in the encounter and interaction of the three areas of needs.

The paradigm shift represented by restorative justice is evident: crime generates harm and determines needs; justice should work to repair the harm and address these needs. Different conceptions of restorative justice can coexist, but they all share the basic assumptions: encounter, reparation, transformation. These three elements are in agreement with the values of restorative processes and with the needs they are addressing, but each one of them includes aspects that are not necessarily considered by the others: centrality of the encounter and use of restorative processes even in the absence of a crime; centrality of reparation even outside of a restorative process, as in those cases where the victim does not intend to participate; focus on social justice by addressing structural and individual injustices as possible preconditions for crime.

Within the paradigm of restorative justice, different programs can be devised depending on the vision assumed, the protagonists who take part in it, and the social, economic, and cultural context, as well as the ability to accept alternative conflict management formulas. These programs can be family group conferences; restorative conferences; circles of peace; victim/offender mediation; community-building circles. The possible programs of restorative justice must be, in any case, designed with the awareness that the three protagonists with those three areas of needs must be able to meet and interact within the area of shared principles, even where the specific program does not include all parts.

Such a broad and inclusive vision makes it possible to highlight the fundamental dimensions of the approach since, transversally, they can go beyond the criminal question: restorative justice and restorative practices do not only affect behaviour of criminal relevance, but also conflicts, offenses, and transgressions that can take place in the community and in everyday contexts, and not only as a response to the conflict, but in a preventive approach to care for relationships. In this perspective, restorative justice represents an approach aimed at promoting lifestyles and ability to perform peaceful conflict management oriented towards a social sense of justice in relationships and in communities, trust, inclusion, cohesion, equity, peace, and social support in accordance with the internationally shared values of restorative justice: justice and accountability, solidarity and responsibility, respect for human dignity, search for truth through dialogue (the experience of history for each of the parties involved) [ 12]. Therefore, the relationships between people represent the main resource for building social bonds, interactions, and opportunities to prevent discomfort and deviance, generate connections of well-being.

1.2. Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices at School

Traditionally, school systems use prescriptive and punitive methods to manage, respond, and deal with bad behaviours that students display. These methods, known as zero-tolerance policies, involve actions of exclusion (e.g., suspensions and expulsions) that lead to the removal and isolation of students that commit illegal behaviour from both the school context and the community and that are put in place to enforce order within the schools themselves [ 13].

The American Psychological Association (APA) Zero Tolerance Task Force [ 14], analysing zero-tolerance policies, highlighted the negative consequences of these practices: intensification of the inequality of treatment with respect to Black students and urban school students with low socioeconomic status, higher likelihood of recurrence of deviant behaviour, dropout, higher likelihood of crime [ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18]. To address these consequences, it is critical that schools promote and experiment with alternative disciplinary methods, like restorative approaches and practices, to substitute zero-tolerance policies and punitive practices. However, it is essential to think of an approach that is promoted throughout the school, that should be focused not only on repairing harm in the event of conflicts and harmful/violent behaviours (e.g., bullying), but also on building and cultivating relationships, promoting both relational/emotional and peaceful conflict management skills, nonviolent communication, a sense of security, respect, well-being. In this sense, the interventions carried out in the context of restorative justice programs are framed in its promotional perspective, which is a proactive vision that, while acting on the conflict triggered by a harmful behaviour or other illicit actions (e.g., crime), looks at future development of people and their relationships, at their ability to prevent and deal with conflict as the best solution for coexistence. When this approach is applied to contexts such as schools, the aim of promotional prevention is perhaps more immediately visible: some behaviours cause harm, which creates needs, which require restorative responses; restorative responses meet needs, which repair harm; repairing the harm may or may not lead to the prevention of crime and/or harmful behaviour [ 19]. Indeed, many programs developed in schools "can provide an opportunity for the community to provide an appropriate educational response to minor offences and other conflicts without formally criminalizing the behaviour or the individual" [ 20].

In the international context, in recent years, more schools have launched and tested initiatives and projects aimed at promoting the restorative approach and restorative practices: (a) in terms of cultural and disciplinary policy of the entire school, supporting students, teachers, non-teaching staff with specific training; (b) as an approach capable of promoting and developing social and emotional skills (e.g., empathy, self-esteem, nonviolent communication, peaceful conflict management); (c) as practices specifically activated, with the involvement of external facilitators, to manage and respond to episodes of bullying, conflicts, inappropriate and/or offensive and/or violent behaviour. Figure 1 is an example of this. Therefore, involvement of the school community in the resolution of conflicts that may arise within the same is based on the idea that members of the community need and want to repair the harm suffered and/or acted upon and that they have the skills and opportunities to do it, promoting the development of creative resolution strategies, nonviolent communication, and non-judgmental listening. The starting point is that the promotion of the restorative approach to the whole school, through the activation of practices such as peer mediation, circle time, restorative conferencing, family group conferencing, community-building circles, can represent an approach aimed not only at repairing harm in case of conflicts and/or incorrect behaviour, but which allows building and strengthening relationships, as well as promoting and developing relational and personal skills such as empathy, assertiveness, self-efficacy.

2. Materials and Methods

For the purposes of the systematic review of the literature, those studies that activated restorative justice interventions at school were taken into consideration. By interventions we mean activation of restorative practices, such as circles, conferences, mediation, peer mediation, restorative conversations, community-building circles, conducted by:

(a)

external experts, such as facilitators and/or a mediator;

(b)

teachers and students trained on the use of restorative practices;

(c)

researchers as experts in restorative practices.

A systematic review of the literature was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and the PRISMA flow diagram ( http://www.prisma-statement.org accessed on 8 March 2021) adapted to the type of synthesis proposed by this review. Indeed, a qualitative summary and not a meta-analysis summary was performed in this review.

A systematic literature search was conducted between March 2021 and June 2021. To answer the research questions, only articles that met these inclusion criteria were selected:

Documents: scientific articles published in the selected databases;

Population: age of 6-18 years, schools, males, females;

Interventions: restorative justice and restorative practices;

Sources of information: databases (Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, APA PsycInfo, APA PsycArticles, Psychology & Behavioural Sciences Collection, Education Research Complete);

Type of publications: full-text papers already published or accessible on request through contact with the authors;

Years of publication: 2010-2021.

Consequently, documents such as conference proceedings, books, book reviews, and dissertations were excluded.

The research was performed in the different selected databases (Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, APA PsycInfo, APA PsycArticles, Psychology & Behavioural Sciences Collection, Education Research Complete), limiting the search to the publications published in the years 2010-2021; 602 articles were found based on the search carried out with the keywords "school" and/or "restorative justice" and/or "restorative practices" and/or "children" and/or "adolescents". Figure 2 presents a PRISMA flow diagram of the article's selection process.

For the scoring process, the PRISMA Checklist was used for the items to be included in the reporting of a systematic review. All the records were downloaded and inserted in an Excel file, indicating for each full-text availability/non-availability. The full-text articles were downloaded while the unavailable articles were requested from the authors (n = 22).

All the 602 articles were subjected to the initial manual selection (title and abstract) with the involvement of two professional figures. The articles were further examined by two other professional figures: out of the 602 articles found, 40 duplicates were removed, and 492 were excluded (conference proceedings, books, book reviews, doctoral theses). There were 70 records evaluated for admissibility; of these, 21 records were excluded because full texts were not available: none of the requested articles were sent.

Additional 15 articles were excluded from the final analysis as they are systematic reviews and theoretical articles. As academic scientific literature on the topics covered by this review, these 15 articles are reported in Appendix A ( Table A1) as a qualitative summary as a possible object of interest to the reader.

There were two articles which the research team did not agree to include in the review, therefore an opinion was sought from an external expert with international experience on restorative justice: their answer was discussed by the entire research team, and finally two articles were included in the review.

Thirty-four articles were assessed as eligible and therefore included in the qualitative summary. A codebook was created for the 34 selected articles using Microsoft Excel v16.56 (21121100) and the IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) for graphs and percentages. The first version of the module was created of the selected articles (50%) and then verified (the remaining 50%) by two independent coders [ 22]. Some categories of results were modified, separating and/or summarizing them (e.g., risky behaviours for health; promotion of well-being; interpersonal relationship improvement; disparities; safety; school climate; academic results; absenteeism).

The two independent experts coded the articles according to the constructed categories. Only in five articles, there were different modes of interpretation by independent coders (only one category interpreted differently by coders for each article). The five articles were submitted to two other independent coders and subsequently to the research supervisor. The final discussion with the supervisor and research team resolved the doubts on these five articles.

3. Results

Thirty-four studies conducted in seven countries (USA, 23; UK, 4; Australia, 2; Canada, 2; Croatia, 1; Japan, 1; Scotland, 1) were included in this systematic review. Of these, six studies are randomized controlled trials (RCT) [ 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28]; one study is a follow-up survey [ 29]; one study is a correlational study [ 30]; one study is an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis [ 31]; two studies are nonexperimental design studies [ 32, 33]; one study is quasi-experimental pre-post design study [ 34]; 17 studies are qualitative studies (in these, we considered single-case studies) [ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51]; one study is both literature review and a qualitative research study [ 52]; two studies are qualitative and quantitative studies [ 53, 54]; two studies are quantitative studies [ 55, 56].

The characteristics of the 34 included studies and the qualitative synthesis are reported in Appendix B ( Table A2) following the PICOS scheme: participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.

Twenty-six studies [ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54] within the projects for the implementation of restorative justice and restorative practices at school provided for the activation of training courses in restorative justice and the use of its practices. The training of teachers, school staff, and students has made it possible to sensitize the entire school to the restorative approach; supporting openness to change in school policy and facilitating the application of the restorative approach to the whole school; transferring knowledge and skills; making students and teachers autonomous in the activation and management of restorative practices; develop skills to manage and deal with conflicts independently; enable students to become active members of school life and decision-making processes on issues that concern them. Of these 26 studies, 20 studies [ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 48, 51, 52, 54] envisaged the involvement of external experts both to support students and/or teachers in the management of the practices and because they were called to be their facilitators. In eight studies [ 23, 29, 40, 46, 47, 53, 55, 56], the RP were provided directly by the researchers as experts in restorative practices.

The people involved in the studies as the participants were students, teachers, principals, non-teaching staff, parents, for a total 22,383 participants from about 900 schools.

The definition of the school level involved in RP intervention is not a consistent concept across different studies with different jurisdictions. However, we summarised the school level in the following categories: primary school/elementary school (14.7%); middle school/secondary school (20.6%); high school (17.6%); elementary/primary, middle/secondary and high school (5.9); middle/secondary and high school (17.6%); primary/elementary school and middle/secondary school (17.6%); not available (5.9%). This result seems consistent with the age range of the students involved: 6-11 (11.8%), from 9-12 to 11-14 (35.3%), 14-18 (17.6%), 11-18 (17.6%), 5-18 (11.8%), not available (5.9%).

The studies included in this review dealt with analysing the impact at the individual and/or school level of the implementation of restorative justice and restorative practices, both as a whole school-oriented approach and as practices activated to respond to specific cases through comparison with the period prior to implementation or with schools that promote traditional and/or punitive school disciplinary policies (e.g., zero-tolerance policies); in particular, in 47.1% of the studies, the schools envisaged traditional disciplinary practices; in 20.6% of the studies, the schools had zero-tolerance policies; in 20.6% of the studies, the schools envisaged traditional disciplinary practices oriented towards punitive and exclusive approaches; in one study (2.9%), the comparison was made with the nonapplication of action groups formed in restorative justice; in 8.8% of the cases, it was not possible to identify the disciplinary approach prior to the study.

3.1. Restorative Practices Used in School

In all the 34 articles examined, it emerged that each school had activated and implemented at least one restorative practice both as daily educational practices that teachers can use in classrooms and as practices to manage, deal with, and respond to minor and/or moderate and/or serious gravity; harmful behaviours; violence; school crimes.

As you can see in Figure 3, the most used RP was circles (n = 26), followed by restorative conferences (n = 17), peer mediation (n = 10), restorative conversations (n = 8), mediation (n = 7), community-building circles (n = 5).

These practices, inserted within a project to implement the restorative approach across the whole school, can become practices inserted within the didactic school curriculum as they can lead to an increase in students' social skills (e.g., empathy, awareness, responsibility), foster ability to express and manage emotions, promote the development of fair and positive relationships. For example, several schools implemented community-building circles in classrooms. Therefore, community-building circles represent preventive methods that can be designed and activated to support students and teachers in developing strong and positive relationships between them: these circles allow creating a safe relational space in which students can tell their own stories of life and experiences, thus encouraging learning and mutual knowledge. Furthermore, in some schools, it is sometimes the students themselves who lead the circles rather than the teachers.

Restorative conversations were activated to discuss general life issues (e.g., politics, sports, etc.), issues concerning teaching and/or school in general, but also as moments of listening and preparation for students in view of a restorative process.

It emerged that many schools activated mediation with the support and guidance of qualified external staff (e.g., facilitators as a neutral third party) to address mostly serious conflicts between students. Peer mediation and restorative circles were activated to manage and respond to minor conflicts. With respect to peer mediation, the literature underlines the importance of training students in this practice as it could represent a beneficial process for the whole school: through peer mediation, students can experiment using their conflict resolution skills, become able to independently manage problems, conflicts, differences, repair and build relationships, and feel being an active part of the decision-making process by building shared solutions themselves and not letting the school solve problems for them.

Restorative circles and conferences can represent alternative approaches to managing student behaviour problems, creating a space for reflection and discussion to find alternative disciplinary responses to suspensions and exclusions. As with mediation, restorative conferences are mostly implemented as a response to serious conflicts, while restorative circles are mostly implemented in response to minor conflicts. Both practices, very often facilitated by external personnel, allow building listening moments and spaces in which to co-construct the assumption of responsibility, actions, constructive responses. Circles are mainly activated to address specific problems (e.g., racism and bullying in the classroom), while conferences-to address the most serious incidents (e.g., school crimes, violence) involving all the parties involved and/or affected by the harmful behaviour: the participants always include the victim, the perpetrator, and the facilitator, but also other members of the school community, such as students, families and, if and/or when necessary, external agencies as well.

Harm and support circles are activated to manage and respond to conflicts and/or other issues (e.g., absenteeism), involving both the interested parties and the key support stakeholders. Harm and support circles are also generally run by trained staff, most of the time-by a facilitator.

Some schools, in parallel or within an RJ intervention, planned to include individual and group counselling moments. Sometimes, counselling represented a moment of tutoring between the school staff and the student, including in terms of activating a process to support students for school reintegration following a disciplinary measure of suspension or exclusion from the class.

3.2. Effects of the Restorative Approach and Restorative Practices

Positive results emerged with respect to different aspects: school climate, discipline, positive conflict management through actions that aim at preventing suspensions, exclusions, conflicts, and misbehaviour (e.g., bullying); positive relationships between peers and between students and teachers; prosocial behaviours; social and emotional skills; school-community-family ties; well-being (through restorative culture as a whole-school approach).

The effects of the restorative approach and restorative practices most reported in the studies concern, as you can see in the Figure 4, discipline (19 studies); school climate and safety (n = 17); social, interpersonal, emotional skills (n = 16). The other results reported by the studies concern conflict (n = 11), interpersonal relationship (n = 16); disparities (n = 8), well-being promotion (n = 5); health risk behaviours (n = 4); academic achievement (n = 4), absenteeism (n = 4).

3.2.2. Conflict Management

The restorative approach applied to the school context can be effective in the face of various types of difficulties, including conflicts (between students, between students and teachers, between teachers and parents, between managers and teachers, etc.). The restorative approach and practices represent a working methodology for the resolution of the different conflicts that may emerge as well.

Indeed, 11 studies show that the application of restorative practices and, more generally, of the restorative approach to the whole school, favours the development of alternative practices, strategies, and methods of conflict management and resolution [ 27, 29, 31, 37, 38, 41, 45, 46, 48, 52, 53]. Therefore, according to these studies, an increased proactive conflict management capability emerges, a high level of success of restorative practices in conflict resolution, development of nonviolent conflict resolution strategies, nonviolent problem-solving strategies, and development of skills for peaceful conflict resolution. In these programs, it is very often school staff, sometimes even with the help of external facilitators, who engage students in using restorative practices to resolve, manage, and respond to peer members without using punitive practices; re-establish the rules violated by the behaviour; repair harm; encourage the re-entry into the school for students who have been suspended and/or expelled; teaching students to resolve their conflicts on their own in a peaceful way; promote the ability to identify needs and actions useful to repair the relationship and/or harm between all the parties involved. Among these 11 studies, only from the study of A. Gregory [ 38] it emerged that restorative practices are also used in schools to resolve and manage conflicts between school staff members.

As pointed out by Peurača et al. [ 52], sometimes, conflicts are an integral part of community life, such as school, and can represent valid opportunities for growth, but very often the inability to manage and face them or manage them and deal with them with punitive practices, leads to opposite effect. On the other hand, it is fundamental to promote alternative and nonviolent methods that can favour the possibility for people to confront each other with respect to different opinions, beliefs, and values as well as have greater awareness of the situation and work together to find solutions. Restorative processes can be a nonviolent response: they help to prevent and reduce conflicts and resolve them peacefully.

González et al. [ 37] and K.E. Reimer [ 46] explored the association between restorative justice and student well-being, and as regards the perception of students about conflicts, the restorative approach implemented at school allowed students to reread conflict as a normal and natural aspect in relationships if it is addressed and managed as a moment of mutual growth. Therefore, students reported that conflict management-oriented restorative practices allowed the school community to work together in a proactive, constructive, and respectful way, exposing various problems and finding together strategies and solutions to solve them: the restorative approach and practices can promote participatory and cocreative decision-making processes between students and school staff.

Of the 11 studies, five studies found that student engagement by teachers in conflict resolution or respect issues that deal with conflicting topics and/or experiences promotes dialogue and reflection on how to resolve them in a different and peaceful way, bringing out a greater capacity for proactive management. The importance of promoting proactive practices that are used in everyday life, both in the classroom and at school, is highlighted to foster positive relationships and prevent the onset of conflicts [ 27, 45, 46, 48, 53]. Furthermore, Sandwick et al. [ 48] spoke of the restorative approach in terms of a "holistic framework" since, precisely because of its transversality, it does not promote the building of relationships and the resolution of conflicts only when disciplinary incidents occur but is perfectly integrated into the functioning of the school.

3.2.3. Health Risk Behaviours

3.2.4. Well-Being

Five studies [ 28, 33, 42, 46, 56] investigated the impact of restorative justice and restorative practices on well-being. The research by Norris [ 33] focused on evaluating the impact of the restorative approach on two areas of psychological well-being, happiness, and school commitment. The authors stressed, on the one hand, the potential of the restorative approach in positively influencing the outcomes, finding higher levels of happiness and scholastic commitment in schools that have implemented the restorative approach to the whole school; on the other hand, the author highlighted the lack of empirical evidence to support this thesis, especially with respect to the positive influence of restorative programs on happiness: it is not clear which restorative practices are responsible for this positive influence. Reimer [ 46] suggests that the restorative approach and practices, aiming to build solid, positive, lasting, and quality relationships, helped students to give and understand the meaning of their daily existence, generating and promoting feelings and perceptions of individual and collective well-being. Even Warren et al. [ 28] showed positive outcomes of the restorative justice approach in greater mental well-being, better psychological functioning, and quality of life, with an increase in health and well-being throughout the school in their study. Furthermore, from the study by Todic et al. [ 56], it appears that in schools that have implemented restorative justice, students are less likely to be absent from school due to health problems and, according to Kehoe et al. [ 42], there is also a decrease in the rates of anxiety and depression.

3.2.6. Disparities

3.2.8. Academic Outcomes and Absenteeism

Four studies [ 28, 37, 50, 56] showed positive results in schools that had implemented the restorative approach and practices with respect to academic outcomes. Consequently, it emerged that higher school performance can contribute to lowering levels of school absenteeism [ 28, 37, 50, 56]. Restorative practices as an alternative school disciplinary model can also lead to positive results with respect to academic outcomes with higher student engagement in education, supporting educational approaches to improve school performance, and absenteeism at school. Indeed, the studies showed improvements in academic achievement and lower levels of student absenteeism, although there is still limited and conflicting evidence. According to Weaver et al. [ 50], the increase in academic achievement in classes that implement restorative justice could be because in those classes, the teachers, through restorative justice, are able to create an equitable, safe, inclusive classroom climate which allows, consequently, the students to express themselves, engage, and confront each other and the teachers themselves.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this article was to analyse which restorative justice practices have been implemented at school and what kind of results have been achieved, starting from the analysis of the qualitative and quantitative research in the field. It emerged that the most used restorative practices concern the involvement of more people (circles and restorative conferences) rather than simply involvement of the victim and the perpetrator of a harmful behaviour, confirming a broader, more systemic, and relational approach to restorative justice. Some schools have promoted the implementation of restorative justice as a whole school-oriented approach in order to change the school and the disciplinary policy that had characterized the schools up to that time, such as traditional approaches and zero-tolerance policies. In this sense, several reflections on punitive and exclusionary school disciplinary policies have emerged, defining them as a matter of health justice and underlining the importance of implementing alternative disciplinary practices, such as restorative justice practices. Traditional approaches and/or zero-tolerance policies very often exaggerate the inequalities of treatment of students of different races, gender, socioeconomic status and increase the likelihood of recurrence of deviant behaviours and criminal behaviours, as well as school dropout. These modalities involve actions of exclusion that lead to stigmatization even more, distancing, and isolation of young people from the school context and from people in general, increasing fragility and vulnerability even more.

In line with the scientific literature on the subject, restorative practices not only represent alternative practices to managing and responding to incorrect and violent behaviours (e.g., bullying and school crimes), but also significant spaces and opportunities to tell one's opinions and emotions, lower the level of disciplinary disparity between students of different races, cultures, and gender, proactively participate in decision-making processes. In addition, some studies showed better academic performance, resulting in lower levels of absenteeism. In this sense, in line with the academic scientific literature, in schools that have implemented restorative justice and restorative practices, there is a slight increase in the average grade, an increase in graduation rates, and a more than double decrease in dropout rates [ 60]. Therefore, the implementation of the restorative approach and restorative practices is expressed not only as a response to conflict, but in a preventive key to welcome and care for people, relationships, communities.

Furthermore, the restorative approach allows promoting prosocial behaviours through the development of social and emotional skills (e.g., responsibility), listening skills, and peaceful conflict resolution, positive interpersonal relationships, and trust, greater collaboration between school, police, justice system, families. This approach, by changing the entire school environment, could be one of the most effective and efficient ways to build safe, equitable, and inclusive school communities that promote empowerment, well-being, and better quality of life of all members. In addition, the restorative approach can contribute to a significant reduction in school exclusion and inequalities of gender, race, and socioeconomic status [ 61]. In this perspective, a more general focus can be found in the use of the restorative approach for the management and promotion of interpersonal relationships: positive relationships in the school context (with parents, teachers, peers) are associated with positive outcomes in many spheres of children's and adolescents' individual and educational development, affecting school engagement, achievement, and well-being [ 62]. Scientific research on youth well-being adopts perspectives that aim at improving the quality of life of people, with a specific focus on those protective factors at an individual and contextual level (for example, positive school adaptation) that can promote well-being and/or favour factors and behaviours harmful to health [ 63, 64]. It is also a social level issue "since understanding adolescents' needs related to mental health is a basilar issue to let young people not only to fulfil their potential but also to contribute to the development of our communities" [ 63] (p. 125). For this reason, the effects of restorative justice and restorative practices on the management and containment of health risk behaviours should also be emphasized. Therefore, it was found that the use of the restorative approach at school reduces the likelihood of students engaging in harmful behaviours for health such as the use of substances, such as alcohol and drugs, smoking, and dangerous sexual relations.

The possibility of activating training courses for RJ and its practices represents an important opportunity to obtain long-term benefits as it allows sensitizing the entire school to the restorative approach, supporting the openness to change of the school policy, transferring knowledge and skills, making students and teachers independent in the activation and management of restorative practices. In fact, in 26 schools, within the implementation projects of restorative justice and restorative practices at school, awareness-raising training courses were provided for students, teachers, school staff and specific in-depth courses for some staff members for timely conflict management. In 20 of these 26 studies, the involvement of external RJ professionals, such as facilitators, psychologists, social workers, emerged both for the intervention in cases of bullying, conflicts of medium/serious gravity, other harmful behaviours, and to support teachers and/or students in the activation and management of restorative practices. Sometimes, RP were provided directly by the researchers as experts in restorative practices (n = 8).

Training students in restorative practices allows them to develop skills to manage and deal with conflicts independently, making them active members of school life and decision-making processes on issues that affect them and makes it possible to promote and develop openness to change in school policies, thus facilitating the application of the restorative approach to the whole school. Conversely, schools that did not provide specific training encountered many difficulties in implementing the restorative approach within the school due to a lack of knowledge of the approach and practices. This underlines the importance of adequate training and support to help teachers, principals, students to gain confidence and become capable in using RJ and its practices and implement the restorative approach as a school policy.

In addition, complexity has emerged in implementation of the restorative approach and restorative practices at school. First, not all schools are ready and willing to change disciplinary and school policies, and not all schools believe this is possible. In addition, the complexity of implementing restorative justice may be underestimated: it is essential to carry out a careful assessment of the needs and contextual characteristics of the school/community in advance to assess the effective possibility of implementing restorative justice and practices. Although it is essential to establish qualitative models and evaluation systems with respect to the application of these practices, it is not always possible (if ever possible) to apply a standard and unambiguous model. Difficulties have emerged in implementing restorative justice as an alternative disciplinary strategy if one chooses to integrate it into the school without taking action to eliminate one system over the other. Furthermore, it is essential to customize the programs and procedures through a context analysis that identifies the strengths and possible areas to be exploited, starting with small changes up to extending the intervention to the whole school through an action plan shared by the whole school community.

From the studies examined, results of great interest emerged regarding the benefits of applying restorative justice and practices in schools, as also confirmed by the theoretical articles and reviews reported in the Appendix A [ 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74]. However, there is still limited evidence in terms of direct correlation, which suggests further studies.

5. Conclusions

This review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The methodological rigor that we tried to follow allowed us to provide an overview of the use of the restorative approach and practices in schools and, at the same time, highlight its benefits. Restorative justice and restorative practices, as well as the restorative approach as a whole school-oriented disciplinary approach, provides a framework for prevention and intervention with respect to different aspects of school community life. The scientific literature on the subject underlines the importance of regularly evaluating the context and the availability of resources to strategically implement restorative justice programs and interventions in schools, especially in cases where the goal is to promote the restorative approach to the whole school as an alternative to traditional disciplinary policies and/or zero tolerance. It is essential to train all members of the school in restorative justice and practices, as well as a common and shared line among all members of the school community, also including families and external stakeholders who in various capacities work and/or collaborate with schools.

Although this review indicates positive outcomes for schools, teachers, students, and the school community at large, the criteria for the realization and implementation of the restorative approach and restorative practices in schools are changeable. For this reason, a systematic examination would allow, on the one hand, understanding more clearly the impact of restorative justice and practices in favouring the expected outcomes and, on the other hand, supporting schools in selecting and implementing effective projects and interventions to the objectives that they set themselves to ensure a positive, safe, respectful, fair, supportive, inclusive, well-being-oriented educational context. Furthermore, a qualitative summary, and not a meta-analysis summary, was performed in this review. Therefore, it should be emphasized that since this is a review of the literature, a systematic review including meta-analyses would certainly be necessary: this would allow detecting an exhaustive systematic search framework of the available evidence on the benefits and effectiveness of using RJ and PR at every level of school education.

Finally, further research in the field could focus on the specific challenges that school communities are experiencing nowadays. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased polarisation and hate in our communities, schools included, where conflicts arise between young people, teachers, parents, administrative staff. With such a common experience across schools, further research could focus on samples of schools adopting traditional methods or the restorative approach in their school culture to evaluate the potential differences in the way these community members react to and experience the situation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.L., L.P., G.L.L. and P.P.; methodology, E.L., L.P. and P.P.; investigation, E.L., L.P., G.L.L., M.L.S. and P.P.; data curation, E.L. and L.P.; writing-original draft preparation, E.L., L.P. and P.P.; writing-review and editing, E.L., L.P., G.L.L., M.L.S. and P.P.; supervision, P.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Sassari (FAR-Fondo di Ateneo per la ricerca, 2020/University Research Fund, 2020). The University of Sassari, in line with its Policies and the Integrated Strategic Plan, has provided for the allocation of an extraordinary "una tantum" funding. The FAR 2020 represents an internal contribution assigned to researchers to support the expenses associated with the research activity.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix B

Table A2. Characteristics of the included studies (n = 34).

Updates to the original trial protocol [ 24]

students, school teachers and teaching assistants from 40 English secondary schools

Restorative approach implemented throughout the school to counter and manage incorrect behavior (e.g., bullying, aggression) through the formation of school action groups and external facilitation, staff training, and promotion of a new curriculum on social and emotional skills

normal practice

Reduction in bullying and aggression; reduction in healthrisk outcomes (e.g., substance use); promotion of mental health, emotional well-being, and QoL; reduction in NHS and social costs (e.g., costs of the justice system); increased access to restorative training; improved school environment; new opportunities for learning; more self-efficacy

Qualitative case study design (on-site observation, policy analysis, and semi-structured interviews)

12-15 educators
in two schools in Ontario

Exploration of ways to implement restorative justice in school education settings to promote relational and peaceful school culture

normal practice

Little attention to the structural elements of the school; difficulty in dealing with structural and institutional influences on the school community and RJ; little awareness of the importance of the professional contribution of the whole school to changing its culture and system; importance of providing professional tools for more effective implementation of alternative educational practices

References

1. Patrizi, P. La giustizia riparativa. In Psicologia e Diritto per il Benessere di Persone e Comunità; Carocci: Roma, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]

2. Wright, M. Restoring Respect for Justice; Waterside Press: Winchester, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]

3. McCold, P.; Wachtel, T. In Pursuit of Paradigm: A Theory of Restorative Justice. In Proceedings of the XIII World Congress of Criminology, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 10-15 August 2003; International Institute for Restorative Practices: Bethlehem, PA, USA. Available online: http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/paradigm.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2021).

4. Johnstone, G.; Van Ness, D.W. Handbook of Restorative Justice; Willan Publishing: Cullompton, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]

5. Zehr, H. A Restorative Lens, in Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice; Herald Press: Waterloo, ON, Canada, 1990; pp. 177-214. [Google Scholar]

6. Zehr, H. The Little Book of Restorative Justice, 1st ed.; Good Books: Intercourse, PA, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]

7. Wright, M. Towards a Restorative Society: A Problem-Solving Response to Harm; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]

8. EFRJ (European Forum for Restorative Justice). Expanding the restorative imagination. Restorative justice between realities and visions in Europe and beyond. In Proceedings of the 10th International EFRJ Conference, Tirana, Albania, 14-16 June 2018. [Google Scholar]

9. American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. Am. Psychol. 2008, 63, 852-862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]

10. McCold, P. A Barebones Causal Theory of Restorative Justice. In Proceedings of the IIRP's 6th International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia, 3-5 March 2005; International Institute for Restorative Practices: Bethlehem, PA, USA. Available online: www.realjustice.org (accessed on 7 June 2021).

11. UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime). Handbook on Restorative Justice Programs; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]

12. Losito, G. Analisi del Contenuto Nella Ricerca Sociale; Franco Angeli: Roma, Italy, 2002. [Google Scholar]

13. Bonell, C.; Allen, E.; Christie, D.; Elbourne, D.; Fletcher, A.; Grieve, R.; LeGood, R.; Mathiot, A.; Scott, S.; Wiggins, M.; et al. Initiating change locally in bullying and aggression through the school environment (INCLUSIVE): Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials 2014, 15, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]

14. Bonell, C.; Mathiot, A.; Allen, E.; Bevilacqua, L.; Christie, D.; Elbourne, D.; Fletcher, A.; Grieve, R.; Legood, R.; Scott, S.; et al. Initiating change locally in bullying and aggression through the school environment (INCLUSIVE) trial: Update to cluster randomized controlled trial protocol. Trials 2017, 18, 238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]

15. Romano, A.; Almengor, R.A. It's Deeper Than That!: Restorative Justice and the Challenge of Racial Reflexivity in White-led Schools. Urban Educ. 2021, 0042085921998419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Lodi E, Perrella L, Lepri GL, Scarpa ML, Patrizi P. Use of Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices at School: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(1):96. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010096

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lodi, Ernesto, Lucrezia Perrella, Gian Luigi Lepri, Maria Luisa Scarpa, and Patrizia Patrizi. 2022. "Use of Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices at School: A Systematic Literature Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 1: 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010096

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Use of Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices at School: A Systematic Literature Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Background: In recent years, the use of restorative justice (RJ) and restorative practices (RP) in schools has grown rapidly. Understanding how theory and research address this topic is important for its practical implementation based on scientific knowledge. The aim of this article was to analyse the practices derived from RJ implemented in school and what kinds of results have been achieved.

# data[].attributes.body
In conclusion it is highly researched that suspension can have very negative associations with student's mental health. Many cities across the nation have been moving towards restorative justice programs which includes better access to mental health, early indicators, peer mediation and circle discussions. This has proven that if we create a positive culture in our schools, the outcomes will be positive as well.