Table 2 Setting, context and implementation feature of restorative practice interventions from evidence-base [23]
Reference; Study Type | Settinga | Contextb | Implementation | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Implementation Theoryc | Implementation Processd | Implementation Strategye | Implementation Agentsf | Implementation Outcomesg | |||
Bitel (2005) National evaluation report [20] | 28 schools (19 restorative approaches & 9 control); mixed urban and rural locations in England and Wales, UK | • Political: National commitment to addressing bullying and anti-social behaviour • Ethical: Britain values the idea of citizenship. Included in PSHE, part of the educational curriculum | Unclear | Intervention components varied, process of implementation unclear, but involved collaborations with youth offending teams and training | Schools determined the restorative approach they chose to adopt. Senior leadership commitment encouraged | Government funding, youth offending team staff, third sector staff (e.g. Connexions), school staff, students and parents | High levels of staff and student satisfaction with approach. Whole school approach seen as more effective to address antisocial behaviour than partial adoption |
Bonell et al. (2015; 2019) Randomised controlled pilot trial; effectiveness trial [12, 17] | 8 schools; “satisfactory” or “good” performance as determined by the schools regulatory body (Ofsted) in London and south east England, UK | • Political: WHO recognition of bullying and significant impact on adolescent health. British policy context and national initiatives aim to reduce bullying in schools (e.g. 2009 Steer review reported on wide variation in approaches taken by schools to address bullying) | Unclear | Intervention inputs provided and school responsible for implementing these | External facilitator to build commitment among staff, specialist training for staff, training for students | Funding body, external facilitator, school staff and students | Intervention inputs reported as acceptable to staff and students |
Kane et al. (2009) [24] McClusky et al. (2008) [18] Pilot evaluation report | 18 primary, secondary and special schools; varying rates of exclusion; situated across 3 rural and urban locations with varying degrees of deprivation in Scotland, UK. | • Political: Scotland has distinctive social history and educational priorities that draw on humanistic perspectives and sociological understandings of schooling and academic attainment. Most local authorities practice restorative justice to complement Children’s Hearing system. Policy context well aligned with restorative principles, including initiative Better Behaviour, Better Learning • Ethical: Recognition that restorative practice is fair and just e.g. approaches advocated | Unclear | Initiation of restorative practice through a government funded pilot scheme. Adaptation to local school needs depending on existing ethos and practice | Training and skill development of school, staff and students | Scottish government; local authorities; school staff and students. | Mixed responses from staff. Some evidence of uptake, but unclear acceptability of implementation processes. |
Skinns et al. (2009) [21] Evaluation report | 6 schools; mixed gender comprehensives (700–1200 pupils) in South Bristol, UK | • Epidemiological: Local: South Bristol location chosen as schools here had the highest rates of exclusion across all schools in Wales and England. Schools described as “problematic” | Unclear | One school integrated approach into school policies and focused on all staff training. Other schools aimed to embed practice in small “pockets” | Training provided for staff | Community interest group, funders, school staff and students | Quality of restorative practice reported to be higher in schools that adopted a whole school approach compared to those that adopted “pockets” of practice. Mixed reception by staff to the model |
Wong et al. (2011) [22] Natural experiment | 4 secondary schools; equivalent academic attainment records in Hong Kong | • Epidemiological: Increase in bullying at school in Hong Kong • Ethical: Social preference not to criminalise bullying and aggression in Hong Kong | Unclear | Unclear | All staff trained in a whole school restorative approach | Unclear, but varied. In one school staff and students | One school adopted approach fully, 2 adopted approach partially and 1 did not adopt approach. Unclear how approach was experienced |