Innovations in Research and Scholarship Feature Motivation ... · Motivation and outcomes for university students in a restorative justice program. ... Innovations in Research and

JSARP 2014, 51(4) doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0038 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp © NASPA 2014364

Gallagher Dahl, M., Meagher, P., & Vander Velde, S. (2014). Motivation and outcomes for university students in a restorative justice program.Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(4), 364–379.Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2014-0038

Meghan Gallagher Dahl, Medical/Psychiatric Social Worker, MidMichigan Medical Center-Midland. University of Michigan. Peter Meagher, Core Faculty, School of Social Work, Walden University. Stacy Vander Velde, As-sociate Director, Office of Student Conflict Resolution, University of Michigan. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dahl at [email protected].

Motivation and Outcomes for University Students in a Restorative Justice Program

Meghan Gallagher Dahl, University of MichiganPeter Meagher, Walden University

Stacy Vander Velde, University of Michigan

A restorative justice program (RJP) was developed at a large university in the housing student conduct office. Students accused of miscon-duct who participated in a restorative justice (RJ) conference completed surveys regarding their motivations and perceived outcomes. Results showed that students who were motivated to make reparations to others had the best outcomes, yet these students were often additionally fo-cused on personal motivators. Students who felt pressured to participate had fewer benefits. Implications and limitations are discussed.

How colleges address student misconduct has evolved tremendously over time. While student wrongdoing is not new, student conduct as a functional area in student affairs is young (Waryold & Lancaster, 2008). Today’s student conduct model emerged during the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and progressed to what has been described as formal “legalistic ‘judicial systems’ for the adjudication of misconduct” (Dannells & Lowery, 2004, p. 181). With access to higher edu-cation bringing together more diverse learners, there has been a call to infuse conduct programs with inclusive practices that “best meet their diverse social, educational and developmental needs” (Schrage & Giacomini, 2009, p. 20). Some have suggested that the practices of restorative justice (RJ) best fit the needs of an increasingly complex campus community (Karp & Allena, 2004).

This study focused specifically on student offenders. Several questions guided this research. What motivated students to participate in RJ? Did these offenders benefit from the program? If so, how were motivations and outcomes linked? This study assessed whether motivation is associated with outcomes of students who participated in a restorative justice program (RJP). As this study is nonexperimental in design, implications of cause and effect cannot be determined. Rather, the aim is to determine if the types of motivators for students were associated with differing outcomes.

Review of ResearchResearch on student conduct has been inconsistent at best. The associated literature has mostly

focused on how to administer conduct programs, the history of conduct work, and, to a lesser

Innovations in Research and Scholarship Feature

Brought to you by | NASPAAuthenticated

Download Date | 12/3/14 2:20 PM

http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jsarp-2014-0038

JSARP 2014, 51(4) © NASPA 2014 http://journals.naspa.org/jsarp doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0038 365

Motivation and Outcomes

degree, the use of student development theory as it applies to student conduct (Stimpson & St-impson, 2008). Studies have been broad in scope and include Gregory and Janosik’s (2003) sur-vey of campus administrators regarding the impact of federal legislation on the conduct process, Dannells’ (1990, 1991) survey of campus administrators’ use of sanctions, and the construction of a theoretical model to explain why men are overrepresented in student conduct programs as of-fenders (Harper, Harris, & Mmeje, 2005). Dannells and Lowery (2004) suggested that research on conduct program outcomes and efficacy has been the exception rather than the rule. Several studies with student offenders as the subject and include Kompalla and McCarthy (2001), Mullane (1999), Howell (2005), and Meagher (2009).

Mullane (1999) surveyed students who participated in a university’s conduct program to de-termine if “undergraduate college students perceived their disciplinary process to be either fair or educational, and to examine the relationship between this perception and their moral development” (p. 87). Mullane found students generally perceived the process as educational and fair. Mullane’s study also found moderate positive correlations between moral development and perceptions of educational value and between fairness and perceptions of educational value.

Howell (2005) and Meagher (2009) conducted qualitative studies examining conduct process effects on college student offenders. Howell studied offenders involved in traditional programs, whereas Meagher interviewed offenders who participated in campus-based restorative processes. Both Howell and Meagher found “an expanded sense of understanding for the needs of those around them” an outcome of the conduct process (Howell, 2005, p. 382). Howell and Meagher, in their respective samples, also found participants who gained little from their experiences.

While there are more than 1,000 programs in noncampus settings, RJ is relatively new to the collegiate setting (Karp & Allena, 2004). One commentator indicated RJ defines wrongdoing as being a “violation of people and relationships” (Zehr, 2002, p. 21). Latimer, Dowden, and Muise (2005) defined RJ more precisely, suggesting it involves “a voluntary, community-based response to criminal behavior that attempts to bring together the victim, the offender, and the community, in an effort to address the harm caused by the criminal behavior” (p. 131).

Offender satisfaction is commonly used as a global measure to evaluate effectiveness of restorative processes. Offender satisfaction refers to whether the offender is satisfied with the process, which affects learning, perceived fairness, follow-through on sanctions, and ultimately reduced rates of recidivism. Latimer et al. (2005) found higher satisfaction among offenders in RJPs than those in a comparison group. Umbreit (1999) also found that 91% of offenders were satisfied with the process, and 80% perceived the process to be fair. Offender satisfaction with RJ processes as compared to other processes is well established in the literature (Sherman & Strang, 2007).

Another factor explored was the capacity for offenders to engage in the restorative process. Daly (2005) suggested “there were limits on offenders’ interests to repair the harm” (p. 156). Daly’s study found that 47% of offenders had thought about what they would say to the victim before their restorative conference, 61% expressed being sorry, and about half observed that the victim’s participation “had any degree of effect on them” (p. 156). The offender’s capability to authentically participate in the restorative process was an important factor.

Restorative process outcomes typically include measures of recidivism. Researchers such as Latimer et al. (2005); Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, Rooney, and McAnoy (2002); and Forgays and Demilio (2005) all showed an improvement in recidivism.





This study provides a closer look at the effect of RJP on university student participants. The in-fluence of the program was assessed by analyzing the following question: How does the motivation of each student participant interact with the potential outcomes of the program? We hypothesized participants primarily motivated to participate for selfless reasons would achieve better outcomes than those who were motivated by selfish concerns, such as expunging a record.

Program DescriptionA restorative conference program was developed at a large Midwest research institution as

an alternative to administrative hearings. During initial meetings with students, hearing officers may refer cases to the restorative conference program. Students who complete the process have the complaint expunged from their record. The RJ conference itself consists of a meeting between the respondent student(s) and affected parties, which can include other residents, friends, housing staff, security officers, or other appropriate individuals. Two trained students facilitate each conference. Each participant recounts the story of what occurred and discusses who might have been affected. Post dialogue, the group is asked to develop an agreement of restorative measures to repair the harm.

MethodRespondents were offered surveys after each conference and informed their participation was

completely voluntary, anonymous, and would not affect the outcome of their conduct cases. If stu-dents agreed to complete a paper survey, they were also given a consent form to complete.

The survey instrument was designed to measure key factors represented in the literature re-garding RJ as well as the intended outcomes of the program. These factors included how the re-spondent felt about meeting with the affected party, the likelihood of committing another offense, as well as their attitude toward the harmed party. The survey questions were written at the college level and the instrument was piloted by current students. No tests were run on the reliability of the instrument.

The time period assessed included fall term of 2008, winter term of 2009, fall term of 2009, winter term of 2010, and winter term of 2011. There were 220 students who completed the con-ference process at the university during these semesters, and 191 completed surveys for a total response rate of 86.8%. Due to the nature of the referral process, the sample was a population study as it includes student respondents who participated during these academic terms. More than half (54.5%) of the participants were male. The majority were Caucasian students (64.9%), with 12.6% identifying as Asian, Indian, or Indo-American, and 6.8% identifying as African American or Black. The majority of the students surveyed were first-year students (87.4%), with a mean age of 18.4 years (SD 0.6). The highest reported major among participants was Undecided (26.4%).

In order to assess the association between motivation for participating and individual student outcomes, several methods were employed. First, items on the survey that could be considered “outcomes” from the process were identified. These items included:Outcome 1 (O1): How satisfied were you with how your restorative conference went? O2: Do you think you have benefited from meeting with the harmed party or parties? O3: How likely do you think it is that you will commit another violation like this one? O4: I feel participating in the restorative conference strengthened my sense of community at the University.





O5: Has your attitude toward the harmed party changed since prior to participating in the restor-ative conference? O6: If you had to do it again, would you choose to participate in the restorative conference?

These questions assessed several diverse areas that would indicate potential participant ben-efits. Second, the survey assessed motivation for participation. This item, “Why did you choose to participate in the restorative conference?” consisted of nine motivation sub-items that respondents could check if they agreed, with one option for free response. The participants could pick as few or as many of the sub-items as desired. The motivation sub-items included:

Motivation 1 (M1): To pay back the harmed party for their lossesM2: To help the harmed partyM3: To take direct responsibility for making things rightM4: To let the harmed party know why I did itM5: To offer an apologyM6: To satisfy my parentsM7: To remove the offense from my recordM8: It was the best option of available choicesM9: I felt pressured to participate

First, each motivator was compared to the outcome variables to determine if groups differed using independent samples t tests of means as well as Chi Square tests. Next, a hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to understand patterns in responses to the motivation sub-items using Ward’s (1963) method to define distance. The clusters were then used as grouping variables in comparison to the outcome measures using ANOVA and Pearson Chi Square tests.

LimitationsThere were limitations to the study design. There was no control sample, so outcome measures

were difficult to analyze in isolation. Accommodating random assignment in the study design was not possible.

Another limitation involved the administration of surveys. Participants were given a post-test only. The interpretations of the data did not include causality or directionality. It may be pos-sible that their initial motivations for agreeing to participate were different. Because there was no pretest, it was not possible to interpret the outcomes as resulting from the restorative conference session (unless the question specified such). Several variables may have confounded the data, such as personality of the respondent (i.e., being an altruistic person) or level of involvement in the community.

The questionnaire itself has several limitations. Validity or reliability tests were not performed before the survey was used. Additionally, the first and second questions used a Likert scale to assess satisfaction. The scale was reverse-scored, making a 5 = very dissatisfied, and was displayed left to right in a table. Several cases were examined that had satisfaction scores indicating high dissatisfac-tion but otherwise were very positive surveys overall. It was decided that these cases would not be excluded in order to keep the dataset true. The satisfaction measure may have altered results because of this phenomenon.





ResultsIndividual Motivators

After finding the frequency for each motivator (see Table 1), each was compared to the six outcome measures. The first outcome (O1) measure was the question, “How satisfied are you with the way the restorative conference went?” Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 = very satisfied and 5 = very dissatisfied. The majority of the sample reported satisfaction with the process; 47.6% (n = 91) and 44.5% (n = 85) for very satisfied and satisfied, respectively. Seven par-ticipants indicated they were unsure, two were dissatisfied, and five were very dissatisfied. The mean score for this outcome was 1.66 (SD = 0.83).

The nine motivations were individually compared with the satisfaction outcome item using independent samples t tests (see Table 2). Three motivations were statistically significant at an al-pha level of .05, including M2: help the harmed party, M3: take direct responsibility, and M5: offer an apology. For each motivation category, those who selected “yes” had higher rates of satisfaction. Although the other motivation groups did not have statistically significant differences, the only groups that did not show higher mean satisfaction rates for “yes” responses were M6: satisfy my parents, M8: best option, and M9: felt pressured to participate. These results indicate a focus on repairing the harm is associated with a higher satisfaction for students.

Outcome 2—“Do you think you have benefited from meeting the harmed party or parties?”— responses were given on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 = not at all beneficial and 5 = very beneficial. Seven participants (3.7%) indicated that meeting with the harmed parties was not at all beneficial, 27 (14.1%) stated it was somewhat beneficial, 24 (12.6%) were unsure, 73 (38.2%) felt that it was beneficial, and 54 (28.3%) thought it was very beneficial. The mean score for the sample was 3.76 (SD = 1.14).

Using independent samples t tests, several motivations had statistically significant differences between groups: M1: pay back harmed party, M2: help harmed party, M3: take direct responsibility, M5: offer an apology, and M8: best option (see Table 2). Of the nine motivations, the first five had higher means for the “yes” group indicating higher benefit from meeting with the harmed parties,

Selected Motivation % n

M1: pay back the harmed party for their losses 48.2 92

M2: help the harmed party 40.3 77

M3: take direct responsibility for making things right 78.0 149

M4: let the harmed party know why I did it 24.1 46

M5: offer an apology 67.5 129

M6: satisfy my parents 3.1 6

M7: remove the offense from my record 81.7 156

M8: best option of available choices 59.2 113

M9: felt pressured to participate 6.8 13

Table 1

Frequency for Each Motivation





and the last four had higher means for the “no” group. These means suggest participants who fo-cused on repairing harm may have experienced greater benefits from meeting with harmed parties than those acting on personal or external pressures.

In order to assess the participants’ beliefs on future recidivism, the third outcome measure (O3) stated, “How likely do you think it is that you will commit another violation like this one?” Partici-pants could respond using a 5-point Likert scale in which 1 = very likely and 5 = very unlikely. The majority of the participants (n = 129, 67.5%) felt future behavior was very unlikely; 44 participants (23.0%) reported it was unlikely, 12 participants (6.3%) felt unsure, two participants (1.0%) stated it was likely, and one participant (0.5%) it was very likely. The mean score for this item was 4.59 (SD = 0.71).

Using independent samples t tests, statistical significance was found for five sub-items, includ-ing M2: help harmed party, M3: take direct responsibility, M4: let the harmed party know why, M5: offer an apology, and M9: felt pressured to participate (see Table 2). The means for the first five sub-items—those involving repairing harm to others—were higher for the “yes” group than the “no” group, meaning that participants felt they were less likely to recidivate in the future. Those who selected M2, M3, M4, or M5 appeared, at some point since the incident occurred, to be more committed to avoid reoffending than those who did not select those motivations. In addition, as a group, those who felt pressured to participate (M9) reported they would be more likely to reoffend than those who did not feel that pressure.

Outcome 4 indicated level of agreement with the following statement: “I feel participating in the community circle program strengthened my sense of community at the University.” Partici-

Table 2

Individual Motivations and Outcomes (t Tests)

Selected Individual Motivation

O1: How satisfied were you?

(df = 188)

O2: Do you think you have

benefited?

(df = 183)

O3: How likely to commit another

violation?

(df = 186)

O4: Participating strengthened

sense of community

(df = 186)

M SD M SD M SD M SD

M1: Pay back harmed 1.64 0.99 4.05** 1.06 4.66 0.63 1.67*** 0.76

M2: Help harmed 1.49* 0.82 4.12*** 1.01 4.71* 0.59 1.50*** 0.55

M3: Direct responsibility 1.59* 0.82 3.92*** 1.06 4.66** 0.60 1.76*** 0.75

M4: Tell harmed why 1.54 0.86 3.98 1.06 4.78* 0.56 1.73 0.84

M5: Apology 1.50*** 0.65 4.01*** 0.97 4.67* 0.62 1.79* 0.80

M6: Satisfy parents 1.67 1.21 3.67 1.03 4.20 1.30 1.60 0.89

M7: Remove offense 1.64 0.77 3.75 1.17 4.55 0.72 1.91 0.88

M8: Best option 1.69 0.69 3.53** 1.21 4.51 0.74 1.97 0.81

M9: Felt pressured 2.08 0.70 3.31 1.11 4.00** 1.16 2.62** 1.50

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001





pants could rate their level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale in which 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree. Participants were given the option to explain their answers in written comments. Most of the participants agreed with this statement; 35.1% (n = 67) strongly agreed, and 45.0% (n = 86) agreed. Twenty-four of the respondents (12.6%) were unsure, nine respondents (4.7%) disagreed, and two respondents (1.0%) strongly disagreed. The mean level of agreement was 1.90 (SD = 0.88).

Using independent samples t tests, five of the sub-items showed statistical significance, includ-ing M1: pay back harmed party, M2: help harmed party, M3: take direct responsibility, M5: offer an apology, and M9: felt pressured to participate (see Table 2). The first six sub-items had higher community rates for the “yes” group, and the last three sub-items had lower community rates for the “yes” group. This means participants who chose the repairing harm sub-items also felt their sense of community was strengthened by the process. Those who felt pressured to participate (M9) were less likely to agree they had an improved sense of community after the conference.

Outcome 5 asked: “Has your attitude toward the harmed party changed since prior to partici-pating in the restorative conference?” Respondents were able to check “yes” or “no” to the question, and write additional comments if desired. A total of 58 participants (30.4%) indicated that their attitude had changed, and 129 participants (67.5%) indicated that it had not.

The attitude change outcome variable was compared to the nine individual motivations using Chi-Square tests (see Table 3). Only one motivation showed a statistically significant difference between the groups, which was M3: take direct responsibility. Of those motivated by the chance to take direct responsibility for their actions, 26.9% experienced an attitude change toward the harmed parties during the restorative conference, while 45.2% of those who were not motivated in this way experienced an attitude change. It appears those who were not taking active accountability in the beginning of the process were more likely to experience a change in understanding towards those who were harmed than the students who came in taking full responsibility.

Table 3

Individual Motivations and Outcomes (Chi-Squares)

Selected Individual Motivation O5: Attitude toward harmed party changed (n = 187)

O6: Would you participate again? (n = 187)

# yes % χ2 # yes % χ2

M1: Pay back harmed 23 25.5 2.418 90 97.8 0.624

M2: Help harmed 19 25.3 1.89 75 98.7 1.477

M3: Direct responsibility 39 26.9 5.121* 145 99.3 13.656***

M4: Tell harmed why 13 31.2 0.216 43 95.5 0.291

M5: Apology 39 31.2 0.006 123 98.4 3.141

M6: Satisfy parents 2 40 0.194 5 100 0.17

M7: Remove offense 49 31.8 0.262 149 97.4 0.957

M8: Best option 34 30.6 0.019 107 97.3 0.199

M9: Felt pressured 2 15.4 1.596 10 76.9 17.759***

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001





For Outcome 6, “If you had to do it over again, would you choose to participate in a restor-ative conference?” participants selected “yes” or “no” and had the opportunity to write comments. The majority indicated they would participate again, with n = 181 (94.8%). Six participants (3.1%) stated they would not participate again, and four participants (2.1%) did not answer. Due to this difference in percentages, caution will be taken during interpretation.

Using Pearson Chi-Square tests, two of the sub-items showed statistical significance, includ-ing M3: take direct responsibility, and M9: felt pressured to participate (see Table 3). Of those motivated to take direct responsibility (M3), 0.6% would choose another option, while 12.2% of those who were not motivated to take direct responsibility would choose another option. Stated another way, 83.3% of those who would not participate again were not motivated to take direct responsibility. Of those who would not choose the option again, 50.0% felt that they had been pressured to participate (M9). By contrast, only 5.5% of those who would choose the option again felt the same pressure to participate. These results indicate the students who would not choose the restorative conference option again were more likely to feel pressured to participate and were less likely to desire to take direct responsibility for their actions.

Cluster Analysis for PatternsDue to the nature of the motivation item, participants were able to select as few or as many of

the sub-items as desired. Therefore, it was possible that participants were selecting motivations in common patterns and was assessed by performing a cluster analysis to group the respondents into clusters based on common response patterns (see Figures 1–4).

Descriptions of clusters. Cluster 1 (“self-focused/few motivators” cluster) consisted of 40 stu-dents (27 male, 12 female), a high percentage of whom were motivated to remove the offense from their record (M7, 85%) and felt it was the best option available (M8, 62%). This group also had the highest percentage for feeling pressured to participate (M9, 23%). Cluster 1 showed the low-est percentage for being motivated to apologize (M5, 25%) as well as taking direct responsibility (M3, 3%) and had the lowest percentage for most of the other repairing harm items. In general, this group was not motivated to make amends to harmed parties, and was motivated for personal gain or due to external factors. Also, Cluster 1 may contain those who selected very few motivators.

Cluster 2 (“self and others” cluster) consisted of 54 students (30 male, 23 female). All students (100%) were motivated to take direct responsibility for their actions, as well as by the choice being the best option available. Nearly all (98%) respondents were interested in removing the offense from their record (M7) and offering an apology (M5, 69%). Cluster 2 appeared to show a pattern for students who wanted to clear their housing disciplinary records, but were also equally moti-vated to take responsibility for their actions. Motivation to repair the harm to affected parties was represented, but not on a large scale. Cluster 2 is thusly named due to the balance between personal factors and taking responsibility.

Cluster 3 (“focus on others” cluster) consisted of 44 students (19 male, 23 female). This group’s highest motivator was to take direct responsibility for their actions (M3, 98%), followed by offering an apology (M5, 82%), and then removing the offense (M7, 55%). These participants were similar to Cluster 2 on the other repairing harm sub-items. Notably, none of the students in Cluster 3 felt pressured to participate (M9) or were motivated by the process being the best option avail-able (M8). This cluster appeared to be similar to Cluster 2, excluding the increased emphasis on apologizing to harmed parties. Cluster 3 also placed the least amount of emphasis on self-serving reasons for participating.





Figure 1. Cluster 1 of motivation sub-items (n = 40).












Cluster 4 (“restorative/many motivators” cluster) consisted of 53 students (28 male, 24 female). This group was characterized by high frequencies on many of the items. The most common sub-items were those that were arguably the most restorative; M1: pay back harmed party (100%), M3: take direct responsibility (96%), M2: help harmed party (94%), and M5: offer an apology (87%). However, this group was also motivated by personal reasons; 85% were interested in removing the offense (M7), and 64% thought it was the best option available (M8). Cluster 4 respondents also had the highest percentages for M4: let the harmed party know why, and M6: satisfy my parents.

Clusters and outcomes. The four clusters were compared on the six outcome measures de-scribed previously in order to determine if there were statistically significant differences between the groups. Outcome 1 measured satisfaction. Answers ranged from 1 = very satisfied to 5 = very dissatisfied. The means and standard deviations can be seen in Table 4. There was a statistically significant difference between groups (p = .031). Post-hoc analyses were calculated to identify the group differences. Statistical significance was found when comparing Cluster 1 (the “self-focused/few motivators” group) to Cluster 4 (the “restorative/many motivators” group), with p = .031. The rest of the comparisons were not statistically significant. These results show that overall satisfaction is higher for those who have restorative and multifaceted motivations for participating than those who have limited motivations that are mostly focused on the self.

Outcome 2 measured benefit from meeting with harmed parties. Responses ranged from 1 = not at all beneficial to 5 = very beneficial, and results can be found in Table 4. The ANOVA showed a difference between the groups (p .001). Post-hoc tests identified the specific group differences. Cluster 1 was significantly different from Cluster 3 (p .001) and Cluster 4 (p .001), as was Cluster 2 (for Cluster 3, p = .003; for Cluster 4, p = .005). The “self-focused/few motivators” group and the “self and others” group experienced fewer benefits from meeting with the harmed parties than the “focus on others” and the “restorative/many motivators” groups.

Outcome 3 asked about committing another violation. Responses ranged from 1 = very likely to 5 = very unlikely (see Table 4). An ANOVA showed that there was a statistically significant dif-ference between the groups (p = .009). Pairwise comparisons showed Cluster 1 was significantly different from Cluster 3 (p = .018) and Cluster 4 (p = .033). Therefore, the “focus on others” and the “restorative/many motivators” groups felt they were less likely to commit a similar violation in the future than the “self-focused/few motivators” group.

Outcome 4 measured sense of community from participating. Students rated their level of agreement using a Likert scale where 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree (see Table 4). An ANOVA showed a significant difference between the groups (p .001). Post-hoc analyses indi-cated there were several levels of statistically significant difference: between Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 (p = .021), Cluster 1 and Cluster 3 (p .001), Cluster 1 and Cluster 4 (p .001), and Cluster 2 and Cluster 4 (p = .026). Stated another way, the students in Cluster 1, the “self-focused/few motivators” group, were significantly less likely to believe their experience strengthened their sense of community than all other groups. The students in Cluster 2, the “self and others” group, had a lower sense of community than those in Cluster 4, the “restorative/ many motivators” group. These results suggest those participants who were more focused on the needs of others in the community felt more connected to them at the conclusion of the restorative conference.

Outcome 5 identified attitude change. In Cluster 1, 45 of the students answered yes, followed by 31.5% in Cluster 2, 28.6% in Cluster 3, and 21.6% in Cluster 4 (see Table 5). A Pearson Chi-Square test showed that these differences were not statistically significant (p = .116), although the percentages appeared to decrease with each cluster.





Outcome 6 asked if respondents would participate again. The majority of the respondents (96.8%) answered in the affirmative (see Table 5). Six respondents (3.2%) stated that they would not. Of the six students who stated that they would not participate again, five of those were grouped in Cluster 1, and the remaining participant was grouped in Cluster 4. A Pearson Chi-Square test indicates that these groups were significantly different (p = .002). The expected counts for this test were extremely low, which may invalidate the results. Five out of the six of those who would not choose to participate again were part of the “self-focused/few motivators” group.

Table 4

Cluster Analysis and Outcomes in M (SD)

O1: How satisfied were you?

(df = 3, 186)

O2: Do you think you have benefited?

(df = 3, 181)

O3: How likely to commit another

violation?

(df = 3, 184)

O4: Participating strengthened sense of

community

(df = 3, 184)

Cluster 1 1.97 (0.78) 3.23 (1.23) 4.31 (0.95) 2.49 (1.12)

Cluster 2 1.69 (0.67) 3.42 (1.13) 4.51 (0.67) 1.98 (0.72)

Cluster 3 1.55 (1.00) 4.21 (0.78) 4.77 (0.53) 1.72 (0.73)

Cluster 4 1.49 (0.80) 4.14 (1.06) 4.72 (0.60) 1.53 (0.67)

F 3.02* 9.80*** 3.94** 11.44***

partial eta squared .046 .140 .060 .157

Note: * p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001

Table 5

Cluster Analysis and Outcomes in Count (%)

O5: Attitude toward harmed party changed

O6: Would you participate again?

Cluster 1 18 (45) 34 (87.1)

Cluster 2 17 (31.5) 52 (100)

Cluster 3 12 (28.6) 43 (100)

Cluster 4 11 (21.6) 52 (98.1)

χ² 5.91 15.05**

Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001





DiscussionResults confirmed the hypothesis that students with restorative or community-oriented mo-

tivators had the best overall outcomes. We did not expect many of these students would also be motivated by personal reasons. Furthermore, not all of the outcomes had the same results.

Both the individual sub-item analyses and the cluster analyses indicated that satisfaction (O1) rates were higher for students who were motivated by restorative reasons compared to those who were motivated solely by personal goals or external pressure. This suggests that certain students may be more suited for a restorative process than others, leading to higher satisfaction rates. Even the students in Cluster 1, many of whom felt pressured to participate or were not motivated to help others, were satisfied with their restorative conference, indicating some level of satisfaction is pos-sible for all types of students. These results compliment other articles on respondent satisfaction (e.g., Umbreit, 1999).

Daly’s (2005) findings are similar in that a number of participants in both studies felt they benefited from meeting with harmed parties. The rates were highest among those who had restor-ative motivations, seen in both the individual sub-item analyses and the cluster analyses. Cluster 3, which had the least amount of focus on personal reasons for participating, had the highest mean for this outcome. Cluster 4 also had a high mean, and was not significantly different from Cluster 3, despite their higher emphasis for personal reasons along with restorative motivators. It is possible that those who understood their responsibility to others when participating experienced the most benefit. It is also possible that community-oriented students were more likely to notice or identify benefits from this meeting than those who focused on personal goals; this may not mean that they reaped higher benefits, but that they possibly were more likely to recognize it.

Recidivism has been found to generally be lower in RJ processes than traditional adjudication (Sherman & Strang, 2007). In this study, students motivated by restorative reasons felt that they were less likely to reoffend, including students also motivated by personal goals, like clearing their disciplinary record. The group that appears to have felt the least strongly about avoiding violations in the future were those who felt pressured to participate. One possible explanation is that those who were pressured to participate were less likely to internalize the messages of the affected parties and the importance of responsible community living.

The fourth outcome measure (O4) concerned community building. Results of both the indi-vidual sub-item analyses and the cluster analyses indicated a similar pattern to other outcomes: students who focused on the needs of others scored the highest, indicating a higher sense of com-munity. This remained true for students focused on personal reasons, as those in Cluster 4, who had the highest score overall. Those who were pressured experienced the least amount of community integration and awareness. It is possible that negative experiences with hearing officers led these students to feeling disconnected or disinterested in connecting with community members, which would be an implication for practitioners in their referral approach.

The outcome regarding change in attitudes towards the harmed parties (O5) highlighted an interesting growth phenomenon for students who were not motivated to take personal responsi-bility (Cluster 1). On other outcome measures, this group had less beneficial outcomes. Cluster 1 students were more likely to state that their attitudes towards others in the conference had changed after participating in the process. While only 3% of Cluster 1 students were motivated to take direct responsibility, almost half of the group experienced an attitude change. Respondents who were focused more on personal reasons for participating may have had more room to grow in their





understanding of their accountability and the harm to affected parties. The implications for this item are important, as it highlights the multidirectional nature of the term “outcomes.” Other outcome items, such as satisfaction and strengthened sense of community, may be low for these participants, yet many students developed a sense of understanding for others. This outcome could be considered a realistic success for students who were otherwise difficult to reach. Kohlberg argued that understanding another’s perspective was important to moral development (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998).

Students were asked if they would participate again (O6) in order to delve deeper into their experiences. A student may be dissatisfied with their restorative conference but still prefer it to the administrative hearing. Given this, it was noteworthy that approximately 95% of students would participate again. Yet, who were the six students who would not? The individual motivation analysis indicated that those who were not motivated to take direct responsibility or those who felt pres-sured to participate were less likely to participate again than their peers. However, it is important to note that the majority of the students in these categories would participate again if given the choice; the distinction is that the six “no” students were more likely to have had these features.

In most instances, Cluster 3 and Cluster 4 did not differ in their outcomes. Arguably, these two groups had the best outcomes in most of the categories. What is notable about this phenomenon is the difference in selection of personal goals as motivators, namely to remove the offense from their record (M7) and because it was the best option (M8) in their conduct process. Cluster 4 had a higher representation of these sub-items than Cluster 3, yet they also had a higher representa-tion of reparative motivators as well. It may be this balance between personal goals and restorative reasons for participating that allowed Cluster 4 to have beneficial outcomes. Additionally, those motivated by the removal of the offense from their records (M3) as an individual sub-item did not show any statistically significant differences on the six outcome measures. There are practical applications for this conclusion. Some practitioners may be concerned that expunging a housing conduct record is not a legitimate reason for participating and will not lead to beneficial outcomes. Our findings suggest this supposition may not be correct. Motivations are multifaceted; many students who wanted offenses removed from their records also indicated interest in taking direct responsibility (M3), offering an apology (M5), and other reparative motivations. Those who felt pressured to participate (M9) had the least beneficial outcomes in the process, although even these students experienced some benefits from the restorative conference program.

All types of participants in the restorative conference program experienced some benefits, no matter the motivations. If the level of these benefits was higher than it would be for students in a traditional adjudication process is unclear, yet the relevance is not to be overlooked. Many students would not expect any personal gain from going through a conduct process. The fact that even students who felt pressured to join the conference endorsed positive outcomes is encouraging for practitioners who wonder if their students glean anything from such a process.

Future Directions and Implications for PracticeOne consideration when establishing RJPs is whether to give students the opportunity to ex-

punge the conduct record in exchange for completing the process. A possible concern is that these students will not glean any benefit, as they might be focused only on clearing their records. As these results have indicated, however, students motivated by this chance at removal did not differ in their perceived outcomes from students motivated to right their wrongs. It is possible, therefore, that RJ allows the students to expand their views, no matter why they approached the process.





Several new directions for future research are apparent. The use of pretests and posttests would help determine if students experienced measurable outcomes from the RJ conference itself. Com-parisons between outcomes from students in a RJP and those in a traditional adjudication process would identify how these approaches differ in benefits and reveal not merely that RJ works, but rather to what extent.

Another untapped area of research concerns participant demographics. This study did not delineate the outcomes between gender, race/ethnicity, age, or college major. It is possible that one race or culture, for example, did not experience as many benefits from the process. Demographics-focused research could inform the creation of culturally appropriate programs responsive to par-ticipant identities. The majority of the participants in this study were first-year students. There may be differences between the outcomes for younger and older students, which could lead to more considerations of student development theory.

Another possible implication of the findings is the need for a prescreening instrument to de-termine whether a student is community-oriented or self-oriented. Such an instrument might help practitioners consider the appropriateness of a restorative intervention and what, if anything, might be more effective to reach the student. A student identified as self-oriented through prescreening might need further preparation to participate in the RJ process. Self-oriented students might ben-efit from more extensive preparation prior to the RJ session to increase their likelihood of reaping benefits from the process.

Future research can evaluate using RJ components in an administrative hearing. For the cam-pus where the research was conducted, this study supported the continued use and further de-velopment of the RJ conference program in place. The study illustrated the need to more closely examine the relationship between motivation and outcomes for other conflict resolution pathways available on this campus. Short of creating a formal conference program, campuses might want to consider other ways to infuse elements of RJ into their current administrative hearing processes. The authors believe many student conduct administrators would like their respective processes to yield students taking direct responsibility for their actions and developing a stronger sense of com-munity. These outcomes could be achieved through the administrative hearing process by tweaking some of the questions that are asked or allowing harmed parties to submit impact statements that might be shared during the administrative hearing process. These restorative practices hold promise to promote reflection, empathy, and accountability among our student respondents. Adjustments to the administrative hearing such as those suggested have the potential for affecting satisfaction and recidivism as well as the educational experience. Exploring the efficacy of restorative administrative hearings offers a rich area for future research. Further studies comparing restorative administrative hearings, restorative conferences, and traditional conduct hearings would be a valuable addition to the research on student conduct.

ReferencesBonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., Rooney, J., & McAnoy, K. (2002). An outcome evaluation of a restorative justice alternative to

incarceration. Contemporary Justice Review, 5(4), 319–338. Daly, K. (2005). A tale of two studies: Restorative justice from a victim’s perspective. In E. Elliot & R. M. Gordon (Eds.), New

directions in restorative justice: Issues, practice, evaluation (pp. 153–174). Portland, OR: Willan.Dannells, M. (1990). Changes in disciplinary policies and practices over 10 years. Journal of College Student Development,

31(5), 408–414. Retrieved from http://www.jcsdonline.orgDannells, M. (1991). Changes in student misconduct and institutional response over 10 years. Journal of College Student

Development, 32(2), 166–170. Dannells, M., & Lowery, J. W. (2004). Discipline and judicial affairs. In F. J. D. Mackinon & Associates (Eds.), Student affairs

practice and higher education (3rd ed., pp. 178–217). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.



http://www.jcsdonline.org



Evans, J. E., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Forgays, D. K., & DeMilio, L. (2005). Is teen court effective for repeat offenders? A test of the restorative justice approach. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 49(1), 107–118.

Gregory, D. E., & Janosik, S. M. (2003). The effect of the Clery Act on campus judicial practices. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 763–778.

Harper, S. R., Harris, F., III, & Mmeje, K. C. (2005). A theoretical model to explain the overrepresentation of college men among campus judicial offenders: Implications for campus administrators. NASPA Journal, 42(4), 565–588.

Howell, M. T. (2005). Students’ perceived learning and anticipated future behaviors as a result of participation in the student judicial process. Journal of College Student Development, 46(4), 374–392.

Karp, D. R., & Allena, T. (Eds.). (2004). Restorative justice on the college campus: Promoting student growth and responsibility, and reawakening the spirit of campus community. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Kompalla, S. L., & McCarthy, M. C. (2001). The effect of judicial sanctions on recidivism and retention. College Student Journal, 35(2), 223–231.

Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127–144.

Meagher, P. J. (2009). A phenomenological study of the experience of respondents in campus-based restorative justice pro-grams (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://etd.ohiolink.edu/etd/

Mullane, S. P. (1999). Fairness, educational value, and moral development in the student disciplinary process. NASPA Journal, 36(2), 86–95.

Schrage, J. M. & Giacomini, N.G. (Eds.). (2009). Reframing campus conflict: student conduct practice through a social justice lens. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Sherman, W. L., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. London, England: The Smith Institute. Retrieved from http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/publications/restorative_justice_the-evidence.htm

Stimpson, M., & Stimpson, R. (2008). Twenty-seven years of student conduct literature: Implications for practice, scholarship and ASJA. Journal of Student Conduct Administration, 1(1), 14–31.

Umbreit, M. S. (1999). Victim-offender mediation in Canada: The impact of an emerging social work intervention. International Social Work, 42(2), 215–227.

Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical groupings to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301), 236–244.

Waryold, D. M., & Lancaster, J. M. (2008). The professional philosophy of student conduct administration. In J. M. Lancaster & D. M. Waryold (Eds.), Student conduct practice: The complete guide for student affairs professionals (pp. 6–13). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.



http://etd.ohiolink.edu/etd/

http://www.smith-institute.org.uk/publications/restorative_justice_the-evidence.htm

Documents

Innovations in Research and Scholarship Feature Motivation ... · Motivation and outcomes for university students in a restorative justice program. ... Innovations in Research and