Skip to main content

Table 3 Logic model for Restorative Practice Intervention

From: Developing a whole-school mental health and wellbeing intervention through pragmatic formative process evaluation: a case-study of innovative local practice within The School Health Research network

Inputs Whole school restorative activities Causal Mechanisms Intermediate Outcomes Outcomes
Initiation funding
Staff training in restorative approach
Policy and systems alignment
Student-staff: Restorative conversations; Student needs-led approach to learning
Student –student: Peer mentoring
Staff-staff: Peer mentoring
Group level
Classroom: Circle time; Rotational seating plans
Staff: Circle time structure for meetings and policy development
Organisational level
• Distributive leadership
• Language of school reflects restorative principles
• Student involvement in high stakes school level decisions, e.g. school development planning.
Community level
• Engagement with families
• Engagement with local community
Intra-personal skill development – empathy, accountability
Enhanced confidence, self-efficacy and sense of achievement in learning among students
Enhanced confidence, self-efficacy and reduced stress among staff
Trustworthy, supportive, respectful relationships between:
• Student-staff
• Student-student
• Staff-staff
Improved relationships between school and families
Improved relationships between school and community
School connectedness for students and staff
Student engagement in learning and pride in success
Positive school culture (e.g. supportive, welcoming, trustworthy, safe and secure)
Enhanced school reputation in community and student/staff pride in school
Primary outcome: improved student mental health and wellbeing
Improved staff mental health and wellbeing.
Increase in student attendance
Reductions in student suspension & permanent exclusion.
Reduction in staff absence
Reduction in students’ referrals to youth justice
Reduction in bullying and inappropriate behaviour
Improved academic attainment
School oversubscription
Contextual characteristics that influence implementation and programme theory  
School level Re-enforce and promote cultural shift Undermine or threaten cultural shift  
• On-going senior leadership support and investment
• Monitoring and evaluation
• Self-assessment and development e.g. inset day meetings
• Revision of policy documents as active process
• Staff changes and challenge with continuity
• Sub-culture of staff resistance and challenge with consistency
Policy and political level Contextual drivers that value restorative approach (e.g. the Donaldson review recommending curriculum reform in Wales) Contextual factors that threaten the approach (e.g. school accountability measures that focus on student results at the exclusion of other metrics)