Student conduct, restorative justice, and student development: findings from the STARR project: a student accountability and restorative research project

Abstract

The STudent Accountability and Restorative Research (STARR) Project is a multi-campus study of college student disciplinary practices in the USA, comparing traditional conduct hearings that use restorative justice practices alongside traditional college student misconduct hearings. A coherent set of learning goals in college student conduct administration and a robust data-set capable of measuring student learning across different types of disciplinary practice, in particular, comparing traditional ‘model code’ practice with emerging restorative justice processes are examined. Integrating several student development theories, we identify six student development goals: just community/self-authorship, active accountability, interpersonal competence, social ties to institution, procedural fairness, and closure. The STARR Project includes data from 18 college and university campuses across the USA. We analyzed 659 student conduct cases based on surveys of student offenders, conduct officers, and other participants in the conduct processes. Using multiple regression to control for a variety of influences, we determined that the type of conduct process used is the single most influential factor in student learning. In addition, restorative justice practices were routinely found to have a greater impact on student learning than model code hearings.

Keywords:

• college student discipline
• restorative justice
• conduct process
• student development
• model code hearing
• student conduct administration
• higher education administration

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to many individuals who assisted with the design and data collection for this study including Peter Meagher, Gina Bata, Kyle Shum, Molly Pierson, Sarah Avery, Chelsea Muroda, Tyler Reny, Jules Dubin, and the many case administrators at participating institutions.

Notes

1. The STARR Project examined three types of conduct process: MC one-on-one hearing/board; RJ one-on-one hearing; RJ circle that includes harmed parties. Of the 18 schools in the sample, referral practices varied. Nine schools did not offer RJ, so referrals to MC would include students who would be referred to RJ elsewhere. Seven schools only offer RJ (either administrative hearings or circles). These would include students who would be referred to MC elsewhere. Three schools offer both MC and RJ. One school offers MC for on-campus cases and RJ for off-campus. Therefore, it was the location of violation that determined referral, not differences in students or their attitudes. The second school refers cases to MC as part of its AOD policy – low-level violations. All more serious cases go to RJ. Therefore, it was the type of violation that determined referral, not differences in students or their attitudes. The third school offers both and makes the referrals based on the conduct officers’ judgment. This school poses the biggest threat to validity. Therefore, we re-ran the data excluding the cases from this school and there was no change. All six student development variables remained statistically significant, with the same pattern of outcomes between the three conduct processes.