$4/;+78/9>5,+4;+7$4/;+78/9>5,+4;+7
/-/9'2533548$/-/9'2533548$
/-.+7*:)'9/545)957'2!+8+'7). 750+)98 /-.+7*:)'9/54
589+7/4-))5:49'(/2/9>'4*!+6'/7/4-'73 75-7'3589+7/4-))5:49'(/2/9>'4*!+6'/7/4-'73 75-7'3
;'2:'9/545,!+8957'9/;+:89/)+'99.+$4/;+78/9>5,+4;+7;'2:'9/545,!+8957'9/;+:89/)+'99.+$4/;+78/9>5,+4;+7
!>'4"3/9.
$4/;+78/9>5,+4;+7
7>'483/9.>'.55)53
5225<9./8'4*'**/9/54'2<5718'9.9968*/-/9'2)533548*:+*:.+&*5)957'2
'795,9.+*:)'9/54'2+'*+78./6533548/-.+7*:)'9/54533548'4*9.+"5)/'2549752
'<7/3+'4*+;/'4)+533548
!+)533+4*+*/9'9/54!+)533+4*+*/9'9/54
"3/9.!>'4589+7/4-))5:49'(/2/9>'4*!+6'/7/4-'73 75-7'3;'2:'9/545,!+8957'9/;+:89/)+
'99.+$4/;+78/9>5,+4;+7
/-.+7*:)'9/545)957'2!+8+'7). 750+)98
.9968*/-/9'2)533548*:+*:.+&*5)957'2
#./8<571/82/)+48+*:4*+7'7+'9/;+533548997/(:9/5454533+7)/'25+7/;'9/;+%571849+74'9/54'2
/)+48+
#./85)957'2!+8+'7). '6+7/8(75:-.995>5:,57,7++'4*56+4'))+88(>9.+/-.+7*:)'9/54'9/-/9'2
533548$9.'8(++4'))+69+*,57/4)2:8/54/4/-.+7*:)'9/545)957'2!+8+'7). 750+)98(>'4
':9.57/?+*'*3/4/897'9575,/-/9'2533548$57357+/4,573'9/5462+'8+)549')90+44/,+7)5=*:+*:*/-
)533548*:+*:
589+7/4-))5:49'(/2/9>'4*!+6'/7/4-'73 75-7'3;'2:'9/545,589+7/4-))5:49'(/2/9>'4*!+6'/7/4-'73 75-7'3;'2:'9/545,
!+8957'9/;+:89/)+'99.+$4/;+78/9>5,+4;+7!+8957'9/;+:89/)+'99.+$4/;+78/9>5,+4;+7
(897')9(897')9
!+8957'9/;+:89/)+/8'67')9/)+9.'9/4)57657'9+8.'73+*6'79/+8'4*9.+-7+'9+7)533:4/9>/47+852;/4-
.'7357)54B/)99.+:29/3'9+-5'25,7+8957'9/;+0:89/)+(+/4-953'1+9./4-87/-.9#./867')9/)+.'8(++4
:8+*/4)7+'8/4-2>/489:*+49)54*:)9675)+88+854)522+-+)'36:8+8')75889.+$4/9+*"9'9+8#./8
*5)957'27+8+'7).6'6+78+7;+895+;'2:'9+9.+7+8957'9/;+0:89/)+675-7'3.5:8+*'99.+$4/;+78/9>5,
+4;+7<./)..'8(++4:8/4-9./8675)+888/4)+$9/2/?/4-'7+86548/;++;'2:'9/54,7'3+<5719.+
+;'2:'9/54675)+88)548/89+*5,/49+7;/+<8</9.675-7'389'1+.52*+78:4/;+78/9>89',,'4*,'):29>
3+3(+78</9.'254-9+73/49+7+89/49.+8:))+885,9.+675-7'35(8+7;'9/5485,7+8957'9/;+0:89/)+
)54,+7+4)+8/49+7;/+<8</9.89:*+498<.5.'*-54+9.75:-.9.+7+8957'9/;+0:89/)+675)+88'4*'4'2>8/8
5,7+2+;'49*5):3+498'4*7+85:7)+8#.+9.+3+89.'9+3+7-+*,7539./8+;'2:'9/54<+7+-75:6+*/495
9.7++)'9+-57/+8+').</9.8:()'9+-57/+8#.+A789)'9+-57>/4;52;+8359/;'9/548,576:78:/4-7+8957'9/;+
0:89/)+/4)2:*/4-*/8)/62/4'7>89'9:8'4*-:/29'4*7+3578+#.+8+)54*/8)54,+7+4)/4-+=6+7/+4)+8
<./)./4)2:*+*)54,+7+4)+6'79/)/6'498'4*)533:4/9>'8<+22'8)54,+7+4)/4-25-/89/)8#.+9./7*/8
5:9)53+8<./)./4)2:*+*7+B+)9/54854.'737+B+)9/54854)533:4/9>'4*2+'74/4-,7539.+675)+88
;+7'229.+*'9'/4*/)'9+*658/9/;+6+7)+69/5485,9.+7+8957'9/;+0:89/)+675)+88,75389:*+498'4*'
-7+'9+7:4*+789'4*/4-5,9.+/36')989.'99.+/7')9/548.'*#./8/8,5225<+*(>7+)533+4*'9/548,57
675-7'389'1+.52*+787'4-/4-,753'*0:893+498959.+67+)54,+7+4)+67+6'7'9/54675)+8895'**/9/54'2
89'C4-'4*7+85:7)+8958:665799.+-75<9.5,9.+7+8957'9/;+0:89/)+675-7'3
5):3+49#>6+5):3+49#>6+
5)957'2!+8+'7). '6+7
+-7++'3++-7++'3+
*
+6'793+49+6'793+49
/-.+7*:)'9/54
/789*;/857/789*;/857
!>'4/2*+782++;+ .
"+)54**;/857"+)54**;/857
:*>/>'3' .
#./7**;/857#./7**;/857
/1/'9/45 .
+><57*8+><57*8
!+8957'9/;+0:89/)+"9:*+49)54*:)9/-.+7+*:)'9/54!+86548/;++;'2:'9/54 75-7'3+;'2:'9/54
":(0+)9'9+-57/+8":(0+)9'9+-57/+8
*:)'9/54'2+'*+78./6@/-.+7*:)'9/54@"5)/'2549752'<7/3+'4*+;/'4)+@"5)/525->
:(2/)'9/54"9'9+3+49 :(2/)'9/54"9'9+3+49
56>7/-.9/8.+2*(>9.+':9.57$8+7/87+86548/(2+,57'22)56>7/-.9)5362/'4)+
#./8*5)957'27+8+'7).6'6+7/8';'/2'(2+'9/-/9'2533548$.9968*/-/9'2)533548*:+*:.+&*5)957'2
Fostering Accountability and Repairing Harm: A Program Evaluation of Restorative Justice at
the University of Denver
A Doctoral Research Paper
Presented to
The Faculty of the Morgridge College of Education
University of Denver
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
By
Ryan Smith
November 2018
Advisor: Dr. Ryan Gildersleeve
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
2
© Copyright Ryan Smith 2018
All Rights Reserved
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
3
Author: Ryan T. Smith
Title: Fostering Accountability and Repairing Harm: A Program Evaluation of Restorative
Justice at the University of Denver
Advisor: Dr. Ryan Gildersleeve
Degree Date: November 2018
Abstract
Restorative Justice is a practice that incorporates harmed parties and the greater community in
resolving harm or conflict, the ultimate goal of restorative justice being to make things right.
This practice has been used increasingly in student conduct processes on college campuses
across the United States. This doctoral research paper serves to evaluate the restorative justice
program housed at the University of Denver, which has been using this process since 2012.
Utilizing a responsive evaluation framework, the evaluation process consisted of interviews with
program stakeholders, university staff and faculty members with a long term interest in the
success of the program; observations of restorative justice conferences; interviews with students
who had gone through the restorative justice process; and analysis of relevant documents and
resources. The themes that emerged from this evaluation were grouped into three categories,
each with subcategories. The first category involves motivations for pursuing restorative justice
including disciplinary status, and guilt and remorse. The second is conferencing experiences,
which included conference participants and community as well as conferencing logistics. The
third is outcomes, which included reflections on harm, reflections on community, and learning
from the process. Overall, the data indicated positive perceptions of the restorative justice
process from students, and a greater understanding of the impacts that their actions had. This is
followed by recommendations for program stakeholders, ranging from adjustments to the
preconference preparation process to additional staffing and resources to support the growth of
the restorative justice program.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
4
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair, Dr. Ryan Gildersleeve for his
support, encouragement, and guidance throughout this process, as well as my other committee
members, Dr. Judy Kiyama and Dr. Niki Latino. I truly could not have completed this project
without the support and guidance that my committee offered. I would also like to thank the
Higher Education faculty in the Morgridge College of Education and my fellow students for the
support, encouragement, and growth that they have fostered during my time there.
The world of Student Affairs is unique in that I have relied on professional mentors
throughout every stage of my career. I would like to thank the supervisors and mentors that I
have had over the years, namely Marie Humphrey, Dave Law, Kristin Olson, and Carl Johnson.
You have taught me professionalism, grace, and to remember that students are at the center of
the work we do.
I would like to thank my colleagues and students that I have had the pleasure to work
with. I would also like to thank each student that opted for restorative justice, and took the
opportunity to restore harm that his or her actions had caused. I would like to thank Eva and Giel
for letting us use their house while I worked on my final manuscript. I would like to thank my
mom for the time spent helping with the kids. I would also like to thank the friends and family
who accompanied me on this journey.
Lastly, and most importantly, I would like to thank Julie, Addy, and Ansel. Julie, you
sacrificed the most to allow me to complete this degree and I owe you a great debt. This could
not have been done without you, and this is for you.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
5
Table of Contents
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................7
What is Restorative Justice? .............................................................................................................................. 7
Student Conduct in Higher Education ............................................................................................................ 9
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver ....................................................................................... 10
Evaluation Problem ........................................................................................................................................... 11
Purpose Statement ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Evaluation Questions ........................................................................................................................................ 13
Evaluation Model ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Review of the Literature..................................................................................................................... 14
Theoretical Framework: Restorative Justice ........................................................................................... 14
Measures of Restorative Justice .................................................................................................................... 17
Student Conduct History and Practice ........................................................................................................ 20
Restorative Justice in Student Conduct ...................................................................................................... 30
Measures of Campus Based Restorative Justice Programs .................................................................. 34
Student Discipline and Issues of Justice ..................................................................................................... 35
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 38
Evaluator Positionality ..................................................................................................................................... 38
Defining Program Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 40
Program Evaluation Framework .................................................................................................................. 41
Design Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 44
Participants .......................................................................................................................................................... 45
Data Collection..................................................................................................................................................... 45
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................ 48
Measures of Validity and Trustworthiness ............................................................................................... 49
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................................................... 50
Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 51
Program Evaluation Site: The University of Denver .............................................................................. 51
Stakeholder Interview Information ............................................................................................................. 60
Conference Observations ................................................................................................................................. 70
Interview and Observation Themes ............................................................................................................ 90
Discussion .............................................................................................................................................103
Limitations .......................................................................................................................................................... 104
Summary of Findings....................................................................................................................................... 104
Placing these Findings in the Context of Relevant Research ............................................................ 108
Revisiting the Evaluation Questions .......................................................................................................... 110
Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................... 111
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
6
Continued Engagement with Program Stakeholders and Staff ........................................................ 118
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 119
References ............................................................................................................................................121
Appendix A: Program Stakeholder Interview Protocol ..........................................................131
Appendix B: Student Respondent Interview Protocol .............................................................132
Appendix C: RJC Observation Protocol .........................................................................................133
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
7
Introduction
The idea that members of a community can come together and engage in dialogue to
solve problems and to hold accountable those who have caused harm is one that is as old as
human civilization. It is only in recent years that scholars have attempted to understand this idea
and how it has been used. One way in which these processes have been used, termed restorative
justice, has provided a method for communities to identify ways to address wrongdoing and to
provide opportunities for community members to express the harms or impacts of one member’s
actions. Ultimately, the goal of the RJ process is to provide a means for the offender to make
amends, to regain the trust of the community, and to make things right (Zehr, 2015).
This practice has been adopted by the those who administer disciplinary processes within
higher education. The rapidly changing field of student conduct aims to develop robust and
educational responses to college student misbehavior. While university regulation of college
student misbehavior is not new, it’s professionalization and resulting research into effective
methodology and emerging best practice is relatively new. Increasingly, universities have
adopted restorative processes in order to respond to misbehavior, which roots the conversation
into the impact of the behavior on the community and facilitating a community-based response to
wrongdoing as opposed to what most conduct administrators would deem as an educational, or
administrative response.
What is Restorative Justice?
Restorative Justice is defined by Howard Zehr (2015) as “a process to involve, to the
extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and
address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible” (p.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
8
37). While Restorative Justice is not a new idea, it is one that has garnered increased interest
within various spheres in the western world. This interest has grown within the criminal justice
and legal realms, as well as in K-12 education to address conflicts and harm in educational
spaces (Karp & Breslin, 2001; Karp & Conrad, 2005; Karp, 2015). There has also been increased
interest within higher education, especially among student conduct and housing professionals for
addressing the personal and community impact resulting from wrongdoing on the part of the
student (Clark, 2014; Karp & Conrad, 2005; Goldblum, 2004; Karp, 2015; Dahl, Meager & Van
der Velde, 2014). This can manifest as both a philosophy that informs a greater process for
addressing wrongdoing, as well as through the practice of restorative justice conferencing. A
restorative justice conference is a process that intentionally incorporates perspectives of harmed
parties and community members to address policy violations (Zehr, 2015).
Braithwaite (1989) used the term reintegrative shaming to explain the phenomenon that
ultimately occurs through restorative justice. Instead of individuals being shamed through
stigmatization – which may result from the isolation achieved through institutions like prison or
separation from one’s community (disintegrative shaming), he emphasized a process that
resembles punishment as it occurs in a family through initial disapproval, followed by
reacceptance. Brathwaite (1989) noted that “the nub of deterrence is not the severity of the
sanction but its social embeddedness; shame is more deterring when administered by persons
who continue to be of importance to us; when we become outcasts, we can reject our rejectors
and the same no longer matters to us” (p. 55). This is ultimately the foundation for restorative
justice, meaning that a sense of community is important for a wrongdoer, both in terms of
effective forms of punishment, and also in terms of reducing instances of recidivism. In order for
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
9
this to happen, however, the wrongdoer must have opportunities to repair the harm caused to
both individuals and the community, as well as opportunity for reacceptance.
Student Conduct in Higher Education
Student conduct traces its roots to early American colleges, where college administrators
- then acting in loco parentis or in the place of parents - were responsible for the behavior of
college students and required a mechanism to address misbehavior (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). The
process has evolved significantly since then, navigating various external influences including
legislative and judicial pressures, the changing developmental needs of students, and the nature
of higher education. The Supreme Court decision Dixon v. Alabama in 1961 effectively ended
the idea of in loco parentis and established the need for a fair hearing process for campus
disciplinary proceedings. This decision also prompted the need for professionalization with the
practice of student conduct; the Association of Student Conduct Administration was later
established in 1987, further supporting the professionals in this field.
The adoption of restorative justice into the practice of student conduct has been a
relatively recent change, but one that generally suits the nature and community found on college
campuses (Karp, 2005). Early adopters of restorative practices in higher education; including the
University of Michigan, University of Vermont, and University of Colorado noted the success of
restorative practices in K-12 education and juvenile justice systems and introduced the process in
an attempt to create a dynamic student conduct system that was focused on student
accountability and the reparation of harm (Karp, 2015; Goldblum, 2009). Restorative justice
creates community and deepens bonds through interaction with offenders, victims, and
community members leading to further connection and options for restitution that are
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
10
meaningful, practical, and symbolic (Schweigert, 1999). Additionally, the concept of restorative
justice relies on these bonds and a sense of connectedness to be successful. The campus context
provides a good setting for these processes, as they are “well-defined communities” meaning that
they are good candidates for restorative justice processes (Karp, 2005, p. 315). Many institutions
of higher education have adopted restorative justice models, however they vary depending the
nature and size of the institution, as well as the nature of the institution’s conduct process.
In addition to restorative justice’s potential community impact, it can lead to greater
student satisfaction with the process and lower recidivism rates (Dahl, Meagher, & Vander
Velde, 2014). Institutions have used restorative justice to address a variety of issues from
neighborhood disturbances and parties to academic misconduct (Kara & McCalister, 2010). A
study of student conduct processes at 18 institutions of higher education found that restorative
conduct processes had statistically significantly greater student impact on all six of their learning
measures including self-authorship, active accountability, interpersonal competence, social ties
to the institution, procedural fairness, and closure – than did other forms of student conduct
adjudication (Karp & Sacks, 2010).
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
The Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities incorporated restorative justice into its
case resolution process in 2012, introduced and implemented by graduate students from the
Higher Education and Conflict Resolution programs at the institution. Student Rights and
Responsibilities is tasked with upholding the policies contained in the University of Denver’s
Honor Code, including academic misconduct, violations of housing policies, and other violations
of policies on the part of students (University of Denver, 2017). The restorative justice program
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
11
is coordinated by a staff member in the office with the support of graduate students from
different areas of the university. Student Rights and Responsibilities staff members train
facilitators in the process.
The office offers three pathways for case resolution. The first is an individual
administrative meeting with a student conduct administrator. This can include a member of the
Student Rights and Responsibilities staff or a member of the Housing and Residential Education
staff. The majority of violations are adjudicated in this manner. The second option is a Student
Accountability Board. This option is generally reserved for issues where there is contention,
there are facts in dispute, or a student is facing dismissal from the institution. The third option is
restorative justice. Restorative justice is a voluntary process, and students are eligible if they take
responsibility for their actions, exhibit a desire to explore and address the impact of their actions,
and exhibit a desire to move address a community need (University of Denver, 2018). The total
number of cases has been rising every year, as has the number of restorative justice conferences.
In the 2016 - 2017 academic year, there were a total of 962 conduct cases and 26 restorative
justice conferences (University of Denver, 2018).
2013-2014
2014-2015
2015-2016
2016-2017
Total Number of Cases
1168
1257
1341
962
Restorative Justice Conferences
11
26
25
26
Figure 1: Annual Cases, (University of Denver, 2018)
Evaluation Problem
While there is growing support for RJ processes broadly, the research into the value or
efficacy in addressing student misbehavior and its impact on campus communities is still limited
(Karp & Sacks, 2014). RJ has been adopted to varying degrees on a number of campuses,
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
12
however each RJ program is very different in terms of both outcomes and implementation (Karp,
2015). While RJ has been a part of the student conduct process at the University of Denver for
approximately seven years, there has been little assessment conducted on the process.
The resources that must be dedicated to a restorative justice process, however, are much
greater than resources required for the traditional conduct process. A restorative justice
conference generally requires multiple meetings with students, the involvement of individuals
from across campus to participate, as well as outcomes that require a greater level of
commitment from the student, student conduct staff members, and community members who
have volunteered to partner with the student in the execution of the outcomes. With this greater
commitment of resources, institutions of higher education must be able to evaluate and justify
the added value received in return.
Limited assessment has been conducted on both the RJ and the broader student conduct
process at DU. There is room for assessment to determine whether or not the additional resources
required for a restorative justice process manifests in significantly greater student learning or
community impact. Additionally, restorative justice has the potential to create a more inclusive
process for addressing student misbehavior, providing additional avenues for those historically
oppressed by western systems of justice with which a student conduct process is closely aligned
(Simson, 2014; Hudson, 2006). A brief review of demographic data would demonstrate,
however, that the majority of students who go through the RJ process at DU identify as white.
This leads to questions about who the process serves, and who the process is intended to serve at
a predominantly white institution.
Purpose Statement
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
13
The purpose of this program evaluation is to evaluate the worth and merit of restorative
justice to the conduct process at the University of Denver, to student respondents in the process,
as well as to the greater campus community. Given this, the evaluation will explore the way in
which students experience RJ and how the process helps students to understand the impacts of
their actions.
Evaluation Questions
The questions that served to guide the evaluation process include:
1. How do students experience the RJ process?
2. How do students understand the impacts of their actions as a result of their participation in
the RJ process?
Evaluation Model
This program was evaluated using a responsive standards-based evaluation model (Stake,
1973; 2004). This model of program evaluation at its core relies on a process of observing and
reacting. Even at the risk of sacrificing precision and some evaluator objectivity, the purpose of
responsive evaluation is to engage stakeholders and participants in a process of reacting to the
data that emerges from the evaluation process (Stake, 1973). The amount of structure, and even
the final product of the evaluation process will be dependent on the needs of the stakeholders.
This allows for and requires some degree of flexibility in terms of planning and structure,
allowing the evaluation to focus on issues as they emerge throughout the evaluation process
(Stake, 1973).
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
14
Review of the Literature
As the study of student conduct is relatively nascent, only recently have scholars begun to
focus on measuring outcomes from these processes (Stimpson & Stimpson, 2008). Much of the
literature on student conduct focuses on due process, legislative impacts, and historical study that
provides context into its evolution (Swinton, 2008). Restorative justice literature, on the other
hand, is broad and incorporates a wide array of restorative practices, including peace circles,
victim offender mediation, and family group conferencing (Zehr, 2015). Much of this literature is
relevant to the college setting, especially studies that focus on the impacts of RJ to victims,
offenders, and the greater community (Karp, 2015). Literature more closely aligned to the
college environment, educational spaces, and notions of justice in education provide analysis of
the role that restorative justice can play in the educational system, and especially within higher
education.
Theoretical Framework: Restorative Justice
For the purpose of this study, restorative justice within student conduct is both the topic
being studied and also the theoretical lens through which to view the problem and the process.
Restorative justice literature will be discussed, as it presents the context through with the process
will be evaluated. Restorative justice is a practice for addressing wrongdoing that shifts the
focus on harm caused, and those impacted rather than simply punishment of the offender. It
creates opportunities for offenders, victims, and communities to engage in the process to redress
wrongdoing and it gives them a voice in the outcome of the process (Zehr, 2005; Zehr, 2015).
While the focus of student conduct has traditionally been to educate and prevent reoffending
(Karp & Frank, 2016), the nature of colleges and universities provide good opportunities to
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
15
implement restorative practices, thus creating space for impacted parties to be involved in the
conduct process, and to provide avenues through which community can be built and fostered
(Karp & Conrad, 2005).
Howard Zehr (2015) defines restorative justice as “an approach to achieving justice that
involves, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense or harm to
collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations in order to heal and put things as
right as possible” (p. 50). Zehr cautions against rigid definitions of RJ, instead encouraging
scholars and practitioners to focus on unifying values (Zehr, 2015). Restorative justice can be
conceptualized resting on three pillars: harms and needs, obligations, and engagement (Zehr,
2015). These are the three elements that must be addressed through RJ, including conferencing
and other forms. This leads to what Zehr calls the “skeletal outline” of RJ, “restorative justice
requires, at a minimum, that we address the harms and needs of those harmed, hold those causing
harm accountable to “put right” those harms, and involve both of these parties as well as relevant
communities in this process” (p. 37).
Restorative justice is grounded in Braithwaite’s (1989) concept of reintegrative shaming,
or the idea that a wrongdoer can be punished, and then reintegrated back into the community
rather than stigmatized. A closely-knit community provides an element of accountability,
something people without community are lacking. When wrongdoers are stigmatized as a result
of their actions, these accountability measures are not in place to prevent reoccurrences
(Braithwaite, 1989). Viewing wrongdoing through a traditional retributive lens – one that simply
sees punishment as recourse for wrongdoing - causes further isolation and stigmatization of
wrongdoers, or disintegrative shaming (Braithwaite, 1989; Zehr, 1990). When individuals are
stigmatized for their wrongdoing, according to Braithwaite, they will create communities
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
16
centered around this deviance, identifying with others who have been stigmatized (1989). When
one views wrongdoing through the lens of restorative justice, however, not only do they
acknowledge the individuals and communities impacted by the wrongdoing, but they put into
effect a process to involve the wrongdoer in working to repair the harm caused. This, in effect,
brings the wrongdoer back into the community, thus further strengthening bonds and more
deeply integrating them (Zehr, 2005, p. 181).
Above anything else, RJ can be grounded in its fundamental values. Pranis (2007)
identified the themes of “respect, individual dignity, inclusion, responsibility, humility, mutual
care, reparation, and non-denomination” (p. 62). Additional underlying beliefs of RJ
practitioners include the importance of relationships, interconnection and interdependence,
“wisdom resides in each person,” and justice is healing (pp. 65-66). Additionally, Pranis
emphasizes the role of values to RJ, which is essentially a values driven process. One could
consider the drawbacks of such a broad definition of restorative justice but recognize that various
restorative processes are connected through these values (Pranis, 2007).
Critiques of the restorative justice movement exist as well. Levrant, Cullen, Fulton &
Wozniak (1999) caution that correctional reforms implemented in the past with the best of
intentions have been corrupted by political forces. Restorative justice can weaken due process
protections by circumnavigating current protections for individuals in the criminal justice
system. Additionally, the possibility exists that offenders may be coerced into participating, and
that harsher sanctions, or those that may be more difficult for offenders to complete, can be
issued as a result. The authors also point out to racial or class biases that may impact who gets to
participate in restorative justice, pointing out that minoritized or disenfranchised groups may not
have the access to restorative justice, or may be treated unfairly without the protections and due
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
17
process built into the traditional criminal justice process (Leverant, Cullen, Fulton & Wozniak,
1999). Morris (2002) provided response to this critique, however, noting that critics tend to
ignore much of the empirical data supporting the restorative justice, noting that current literature
on restorative justice does allow for some misunderstandings to occur (Morris, 2002).
Measures of Restorative Justice
Research pertaining to the effectiveness of RJ for both victims and offenders of crime has
been fairly extensive. Connection to community, especially for youth going through restorative
processes if vital (Willis, 2016). Additionally, studies have examined the impacts upon
offenders, noting that race, class and other social considerations must be accounted for in RJ
processes (Cook, 2006). One two-part study examined long term effects of RJ, including the
chances of reoffending, noting that rates of recidivism were lower among RJ participants than
offenders in traditional justice systems, however long-term predictors of recidivism were
associated with the degree to which the process was considered to be restorative and the
perceived fairness of the RJ process (Hipple, Gruenwald, & McGarrell, 2011; 2015).
Rodriguez (2007) used juvenile court data to study recidivism rates, comparing youth
who went through a restorative justice process with those that had gone through a traditional
juvenile justice system. When controlling for legal and extralegal variables, juveniles in the
restorative justice system were .704 times less likely than offenders in the comparison group to
recidivate (p. 366). Szmania and Mangis (2005) used a case study to examine expressions of
remorse on the part of the offender. Comparing three expressions of remorse - one taking place
in the courtroom, another in documented in a newspaper article written by the offender, and a
third via victim offender mediation - the authors identified that restorative justice can “offer the
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
18
properly prepared criminal offender the best opportunity to offer an expression of remorse in his
or her own voice” (p. 358). Remorse is an important element in harm reparation, allowing an
offender to offer a sincere gesture and apology to those impacted by his or her actions (Szmania
& Mangis, 2005).
Multiple meta analyses have also been conducted on restorative justice. One analysis
conducted by Latimer, Dowden & Muise (2005) examined 22 unique studies that examined 35
restorative justice programs. Among the major conclusions were a high degree of satisfaction
among victims, noting that in all but one of the thirteen studies of victims, victim satisfaction
rates were higher than with traditional approaches. Offenders were also more satisfied with
restorative justice processes, however less so than victims. Additionally, offenders required to
pay restitution as a result of restorative justice complied at a higher rate, and recidivism was
lower than other processes (Latimer, Dowden, & Muise, 2005).
Poulson (2003) reviewed seven studies that specifically examined twelve psychological
outcomes of restorative justice including:
● the perception that the criminal justice system was fair;
● satisfaction with the handling of the case;
● whether the participant felt that he or she has an opportunity to tell his or
her story;
● the perception that his or her opinion was adequately considered;
● the perception that the judge or mediator was fair;
● the belief that the offender was held accountable;
● whether an apology was offered by the offender for forgiveness expressed
by the victim;
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
19
● the participants perception that the outcome was fair;
● the participant’s satisfaction with the outcome;
● whether the participant’s of the other party’s behavior improved;
● whether the victim was still upset about crime;
● whether the victim was afraid of revictimization (p. 177).
In comparing results, Poulson noted that restorative justice outperformed the criminal justice
system on all counts. Only in the measure of outcome satisfaction was the outcome not
statistically significant, however in every other measure it was (Poulson, 2003).
Umbreit, Coates, & Vos (2002) examined 63 empirical studies in five countries and
identified similar findings, noting that “taken as a whole, the studies reviewed here reflect
remarkably consistent levels of victim and offender satisfaction with conferencing strategies”
when victim offender mediation, family group conferencing, and restorative justice circles were
compared (p. 13). Umbreit, Coates, & Vos (2002) reflect on issues of policy, definition, and
expectations; noting that policy makers and restorative justice practitioners need to establish
clear definitions of and uses for restorative justice within the wider criminal justice system.
Additionally, the authors note the dangers of relying too much on measures of recidivism in
evaluating programs, noting that programs that are simply striving for lower recidivism rates do
not have to be restorative in nature, and also emphasizing the other factors that may contribute to
recidivism outside of the adjudicatory process (Umbreit, Coates & Vos, 2002, p. 15).
The vast majority of the research on restorative justice contains promising, highly
positive results (Bazemore & Ellis, 397). The measurement of restorative justice, however, is
complex. Measures of RJ generally compare results to alternative processes, like court or
incarceration. There are many external factors which cannot be controlled for when evaluating
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
20
restorative justice. Additionally, as the definition of what restorative justice is is inherently
vague, evaluators must ensure that they are measuring the same thing consistently. Additionally,
as stated previously, over reliance on recidivism as the sole measure to assess restorative justice
also presents additional danger (Umbreit, Coates & Vos, 2002). As the field matures,
measurement of restorative processes will also further develop, however practitioners must be
mindful that the roots of restorative justice lie in its own values and principles, and measures of
assessment must reflect this (Bazemore & Ellis, 397).
Student Conduct History and Practice
As colleges were founded in the early colonies, their purpose was a broad based,
generally religiously rooted education. Colonial America was heavily puritanical, and colleges,
were interested in both intellectual and character formation of their charges (Cohen & Kisker,
2010). These early colleges, influenced by the English residential college, involved a high degree
of interaction both inside and outside of the classroom (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). Additionally,
students were young boys the age of today’s high school student, and sometimes younger
(Dannels, 1997). What developed was what Dannels (1997) calls the ‘collegiate way’,
defined by its residential nature, away from the distractions of the town and
permeated by paternalism required rigorous and extensive regulation of
conduct… The early colonial college trustees, presidents, and faculty set about
shaping the moral character and social manners of their students through long
and detailed codes of conduct and rigid scheduling. No portion of the day was
unaccounted for, and no misbehavior was too small to go unrecognized and
unpunished. (p. 15).
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
21
These early conduct systems also embraced the idea of in loco parentis, meaning that college
authorities had the same rights and responsibilities as parents to impose discipline. Colleges
could use corporal punishment, and in some cases were protected if this caused the death of a
student (Dannels, 1997, p. 16).
Flogging was standard practice at Harvard University until the practice was eliminated in
1718 (Dannels, 1997). After this, the practice of “boxing,” where a student was required to kneel
before his tutor who would then proceed to smack him on the ear was widely used (Dannels,
1997). With time, colleges were forced to adapt conduct processes to meet the needs and
expectations of both new students and parents. As Cohen (2010) states “although the colleges at
one time might have been places where families sent their unruly boys to be disciplined, the
purposes of college-going and social strata from which the students came had broadened so that
the repressive rules seem to have outlived their necessity” (75). Especially after independence,
society had changed dramatically, and so had expectations on American colleges. Punishments
such as public reprimands, confessions, fines, and loss of privileges were more widely used
(Dannels, 1997).
One example of the challenges and multifaceted nature of the early conduct process can
be seen at Harvard. Moore (1976) states that “the system of student discipline developed as a
support for the educational purpose of the college, which was to train up a select group of young
men to assume leadership roles in the ministry and magistracy of the Puritan Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.” (650). The disciplinary system at Harvard reflected the rigid hierarchical social
structure in place at the institution. Disciplinary processes evolved in a way that was ritualistic
and reform oriented (Moore, 1976). What emerged from this structure was an unspoken
agreement between students and administrators, where students did not challenge the university’s
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
22
right to make rules that governed their conduct, but they would “acknowledge the existence of
the laws by breaking them with regularity” (Moore, 1976, p. 658). In response, the students
accepted the punishments doled out by university administration as long as they did not involve
expulsion or physical abuse (Moore, 1976).
Harvard University set precedent for how university conduct systems are administered,
and the relationship that these systems have with local judicial systems (Buron, 2004). In their
attempts to regulate students, and to maintain the relationship with the local community, tutors at
Harvard were given broad authority in administering discipline to students both on and off
campus, some tutors even becoming justices of the peace with the authority to hear cases
involving students and non-students alike (Burton, 2004). Eventually this practice ended, and
tutors narrowed their focus solely on student behaviors. The institution had a high degree of
autonomy, however, and resisted judicial oversight of the process (Burton, 2004). This
relationship between the university disciplinary process local authorities is still seen today,
where universities have a lot of discretion in disciplining students that have violated local laws,
with local or campus police referring students into this system rather than into local courts
(Burton, 2004).
Thomas Jefferson, when founding the University of Virginia, initially rejected the
paternalistic approaches of Harvard and European institutions, implementing a system of self-
regulation among students (Wagoner, 1986). Jefferson, however struggled with how to structure
the conduct system as well, and as early as 1822, Jefferson wrote to his friend Thomas Cooper:
The article of discipline is the most difficult in American education. Premature
ideas of independence, too little repressed by parents, beget a spirit of
insubordination, which is the great obstacle to science with us, and a principle
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
23
cause of it’s decay since the revolution. I look to it with dismay in our institution,
as a breaker ahead, which I am far from being confident we shall be able to
weather (Jefferson, quoted in Wagoner, 1986, p, 165).
An alcohol fueled student rebellion took place in 1825, where a group of students broke
windows, threw bottles of urine, and assaulted faculty members who attempted to intervene.
Self-governance failed when the student body largely protected the students who were
responsible, and the faculty threatened to resign en masse if the matter were not addressed.
Jefferson convened a special session of the Board of Visitors - including former presidents James
Madison and James Monroe - to examine the matter, requesting that the responsible students
present themselves, in a hearing of sorts. Ultimately the responsible students came forward, and
the ringleaders were expelled from the University (Wagoneer, 1986).
As the population of the United States shifted in the 19th century, becoming more
egalitarian, the old methods of discipline, based upon a rigid hierarchy were no longer as
effective (Dannels, 1997; Hessinger, 1999). In addition, students were older, and colleges were
increasingly complex institutions, struggling for enrollment. Processes were developed to play
into students’ drive for recognition in a meritocratic system. This, in turn, a system of honors and
demerits was created, with the University of Pennsylvania being one of the first institutions to
implement what we would today call a conduct process (Hessinger, 1999).
A number of factors shaped the nature of the process into the second half of the 19th
century and to today. These factors include the rise in influence of the German model, the
subsequent evolution of the field of Student Development, and the increase of federal oversight
in colleges and universities (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). The German university model, with
increased focus on faculty research and academics, meant less focus on student behavior outside
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
24
of the classroom, including disciplinary matters (Cohen & Kisker, 2010). This, taken in
combination with a university president’s time spent elsewhere, ultimately led to the selection of
specialists to address non-academic misbehavior (Dannels & Lowery, 2004). This led to the
development of more subtle methods for student discipline. Sanctions became less severe over
time, and there was an increase in the influence of student governments and honor systems on
the disciplinary process (Hessinger, 1999; Dannels, 1997).
As the field of student development matured, discipline, ultimately carried out by Deans
of Men and Deans of Women, and eventually Deans of Students, became increasingly nuanced
and student centered (Schwartz, 1997). With the passage of the twenty sixth amendment in 1971,
which lowered the voting age to 18 and essentially defined the age of adulthood, the idea of in
loco parentis died (Cohen & Kisker, 2010, p. 344). Student Conduct eventually fell within the
greater umbrella of student development and student-centered approaches to conduct were taken,
a move away from punitive sanctioning of the past (Dannels, 1997).
In the 1960’s, greater federal oversight through the courts made an impact on student
conduct, including the 1961 Supreme Court decision of Dixon v. Alabama outlining procedural
due process requirements for students at tax supported institutions (Marianelli, 1973, p. 125), and
the General Order on Judicial Standards of Procedure and Substance in Review of Student
Discipline, which further clarified the guidelines presented in Dixon. These mandates introduced
due process and fundamental fairness (Marianelli, 1973). Additionally, in creating process and
accountability measures, they pushed conduct processes to be more legalistic (Stoner & Lowery,
2004). Colleges established what they called “judicial systems” that were adversarial in nature,
mirrored the criminal process, and “focused primarily on the mechanism of disciplinary process
to the detriment of the educative purpose” (Dannels & Lowery, 2004, p. 181).
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
25
Today, the field of student conduct continues to balance student development with
“creeping legalism,” even though courts have historically provided colleges and universities with
deference in conduct processes (Stoner and Lowery 2004). While there has been some movement
towards increased court oversight, there are three trends that can still be observed in the
relationship between courts and student conduct. The first is that courts recognize that an
institutional student conduct process is not a court proceeding, and that they tend to be
educational in nature. The second is that judicial procedures, including rules of evidence and
other criminal procedures do not have a place within conduct processes. The third is that
“educational models need to be applied when fact finding occurs in the student conduct arena”
(Stoner & Lowery, 2004, p.7). Ultimately, overly legalistic conduct systems create an adversarial
environment in which learning and development from the process are lost (Stoner & Lowery,
2004).
Colleges and universities have historically struggled with this balance between due
process and development (Stoner & Lowery, 2004; Gehring, 2001). Gehring (2001) states that
due process is a flexible concept, and can take many forms, including a meeting with a university
administrator or a more formal hearing in front of a board of university community members.
Each process will maintain a mix of procedural and developmental elements, however the least
adversarial, and most developmental process allowable is recommended (Gehring, 2001).
Additionally, elements such as formal rules of evidence, the right to counsel or cross
examination are not necessary and would only add to the adversarial nature that conduct
administrators should avoid (Gehring, 2001).
Conduct systems can fall into one of three classifications including formal, informal, or a
mix of the two elements (Fitch & Murry, 2001). Formal conduct systems tend to be more
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
26
“legalistic and formal in nature” (Fitch & Murry, 2001, p. 190), and reflect the criminal court
system. This is reflected in the language used in the process, and they tend to have higher
elements of due process. This is contrasted with more informal conduct systems. Informal
systems refrain from using words like guilty or innocent and may instead opt for words like
responsible and not responsible. Lastly, mixed systems are a hybrid of the two, containing some
formal and some informal procedural elements. Fitch & Murry (2001) compared these three
systems based upon factors including number of cases, number of appeals, sanctions modified as
a result of an appeal, recidivism, and lawsuits filed as a result of disciplinary action. Based upon
these outcomes, the authors found no statistically significant differences within the processes
(Fitch & Murry, 2001).
Neumeister (2017) advocates for a new conceptual framework for student conduct
practice, based in Rest’s (1984) model of moral development, transformational leadership, and
the transtheoretical (stages of change) model. Neumeister outlines four components of moral
development, and outlines interventions tailored to the student’s own developmental level. These
components include moral awakening, moral discernment, moral efficacy, and moral action
(Neumeister, 2017). They range from a precontemplative state in moral awakening to moral
action, where the student is ready to take action and to make behavioral changes (Neumeister,
2017). Neumeister (2017) asserts that in order to promote movement through the changes, a
conduct process must create and maintain dissonance in students. After undergoing a conduct
process, students will often engage in a modest, temporary behavior change, but not enough to
engage in any meaningful long-term change (Neumeister, 2017).
Incorporating these elements, Neumeister (2017) then encourages a model where conduct
officers will assess a student’s readiness for change, and to apply methods that will encourage
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
27
long term dissonance and behavior change. Students in the moral awakening stage, for example,
may not be aware that their behavior is a problem. Sanctions for students in this stage may be
based in brief motivational interviewing, BASICS (Brief Alcohol Screening and Intervention for
College Students), and counseling referrals (Neumeister, 2017). Students in the moral
discernment stage require interventions that provoke intellectual stimulation and self-reflection.
Neumeister encourages the use of restorative justice for students at this stage. Students at the
moral efficacy stage have made the decision to make changes but require the help of a conduct
administrator to commit to and act on those changes. Neumeister suggests mastery experiences -
like cognitive behavioral therapy, community service or mentoring relationships as helpful for
students at this stage. Lastly, students in the moral action stage may not require a high-level
intervention, as they have already made the decision to make changes and will likely have begun
the process outside of the conduct process (Neumeister, 2017).
Effectiveness of Student Conduct Practice
Given this history, as institutions have responded to student behavior, limited scholarship
has been conducted around the ultimate goals and outcomes of student conduct processes,
although some scholarship has been conducted on the extent that students are able to develop or
demonstrate learning as a result of the conduct process (Stimpson & Stimpson, 2008; Swinton,
2008). Early studies of the conduct process indicated that students generally felt that their
conduct process was fair and had been conducted in a courteous manner (Dollar, 1969). These
studies also found, however, that a third of disciplined students did not identify anyone at the
institution with whom they had established a connection, and a quarter did not establish a rapport
with the individual who they had met with regarding for their disciplinary process (Dollar, 1969).
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
28
More recent studies have provided some mixed results. Howell (2005) conducted a
multiple case study analysis incorporating ten students on three different campuses, identifying
mixed results in terms of student learning. While most students expressed that they had learned
in some capacity, it sometimes did not extend beyond institutional policies and how to avoid
punishment in the future (Howell, 2005). Additional research as a part of a doctoral dissertation
by Nelson (2017) could not conclude that learning happened as a result of the conduct process
but did expand on undesirable results that emerge from a student conduct process, including
“abilities to feign honesty and remorse,” and attempts to “manipulate procedural outcomes for
the student’s own benefit” (p. 125).
Mullane (1999) examined the relationship between the process and educational
outcomes. Mullane (1999) sampled students held responsible for minor policy violations, using a
Defining Issues Test (DIT) to measure moral development, and an alternate measure of
perceived procedural fairness. Higher DIT scores were correlated with higher perceptions of
procedural fairness and educational value. It was ultimately found that educational value was a
function of moral development, leaving room to question the effectiveness of the process itself
when compared with the developmental states of the students (Mullane, 1999).
King (2012) expanded on Mullane’s work, using the same questionnaire designed to
assess procedural fairness, and measured additional variables, including student’s perceptions on
the value of sanctions, educational value, and fairness of the process. She identified the most
significant positive relationship between the variables of educational value and fairness. Those
students who perceived the process to be fair also noted the highest educational value. Additional
results included the fact that students shared they found no value in the majority of sanctions
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
29
issued; the more frequently students engaged in a conduct process, the less value they ascribed to
it; and women sampled found more value in the process than did men (King, 2012; Tyler, 2006).
When a student conduct process is examined through an alternative dispute resolution
framework, it allows for a different perspective on the process and its evaluation. When
considered a dispute resolution process, for example, student conduct most resembles binding
arbitration (Rohrbacker, 2016). It is important to examine the student conduct process through
multiple lenses, as Rohrbacher states that dispute resolution processes do not exist within a
vacuum, however student conduct has existed in a vacuum for several decades (Rohrbacher,
2016, p. 194). The examination of student conduct processes through alternative lenses is an
important practice, as not to establish a quasi-judicial proceeding, but to consider various aspects
of student conduct that consider the goals of the process and allow them to be met (Rohrbacker,
2016).
Harper, Harris, and Mmeje (2005) synthesized research to better understand the
overrepresentation of men among campus judicial offenders. These include pre-college
socialization, the social construction of masculinities, male gender role conflict, developing
competence and self-efficacy, context bound gendered social norms, and the environmental ethos
and corresponding social behaviors. These past experiences, combined with the socialization that
college men are exposed to once they arrive on campus, combine to create a culture that
encourages men to fulfill these expectations. The authors encourage the evolution of
developmental approaches to preventing and addressing detrimental male behavior, including the
reconsideration of adversarial processes and the development of conduct processes that mitigate
negative behaviors and further student development (Harper, Harris, & Mmeje, 2005, p. 580).
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
30
Ultimately, the degree to which conduct systems are utilized on college campuses, as
opposed to referrals to the criminal justice system, lead to higher retention and graduation rates
(Schuck, 2017). High rates of violent crime on campuses lead to decreased levels of student
engagement. Schuck (2017) noted, however, that higher rates of referrals to a conduct system
can explain a lot of the variation in graduation rates and can be used as a predictor of these rates,
and notes the importance of aspects such as procedural justice (Tyler, 2006) and campus
engagement in contributing to this finding (Schuck, 2017). The limited nature of these studies
have helped somewhat to better understand what may increase the effectiveness of student
conduct practice. Long term, or more comprehensive study of student conduct practice is made
difficult by both the nature and the limited time of the interaction between students and the
conduct process.
Restorative Justice in Student Conduct
Multiple scholars have argued for the incorporation of Restorative Justice into student
conduct processes (Allena, 2014; Clark, 2014; Karp & Conrad, 2005; Goldbloom, 2009; Karp,
2009, Neumeister, 2017). Karp and Conrad (2005) emphasize the university environment as a
“well defined community,” facilitating internally coherent communities, and the ability to
address behavior through restorative approaches. Similar to Zehr, Karp and Conrad (2005)
outline three components necessary for restorative justice in campus communities, including
repairing harm, earning trust, and building community (p. 315).
There are three disciplinary philosophies embedded in codes of student conduct, punitive,
rehabilitative, and restorative (Karp & Frank, 2016). Punitive sanctions include warnings,
probations, and loss of privileges; rehabilitative sanctions will typically include referrals to
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
31
counseling or educational opportunities; while restorative sanctions offer opportunities to repair
harm, like community service or restitution (Karp & Frank, 2016). In addition, sanctions are
typically structured in an hierarchy, starting with the most lenient, and gradually increasing in
severity. This may cause increasing isolation as a student moves through a conduct process
(Karp & Frank, 2016).
Through restorative justice, crime and wrongdoing can thus be approached through the
creation of relational ecologies. Instead of focusing on sanctioning systems or deterrence
measures, restorative justice “grounded in relational pedagogy, praxis, and discipline, employs a
responsive regulatory approach that identifies social engagement as the key element for creating
rich motivational ecologies that nurture bonds of belonging” (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012, p.
139). This relational approach can also be compounded with the idea of rehabilitation. Relational
rehabilitation, as opposed to individual treatment, remove the isolation and stigma of
rehabilitation, grounding it in community, thus increasing the chances of rehabilitation and
reintegration (Karp & Frank, 2016).
There are three generally accepted models of practice for restorative justice in conduct
processes (Karp, 2015 p, 24). The first is conferencing, where offenders and harmed parties
come together to discuss the incident, it’s impact, and then to arrive at consensus on what the
offender can to do address these impacts and to repair the harm (Karp, 2015). The second option
is a restorative justice circle, which is similar to conferencing but involves a larger number of
people, and may be more reflective of talking circles, processes adapted from Indigenous
traditions to discuss issues that have impacted the greater community (Karp, 2015). The third
model is the restorative justice board, this process incorporates restorative justice into the
traditional student conduct board to address misbehavior (Karp, 2015).
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
32
Restorative practices can be implemented in a wide variety of ways, but for an institution to take
a fully restorative approach to their student conduct process, they must fundamentally shift how
they are willing to view the conduct process. The paradigm shift from a punitive system to a
restorative one may be difficult, as administrators must shift from asking “what rule has been
broken?” to asking, “what harm has been done?” Karp and Frank (2016) state,
although expulsion may still be the outcome of a restorative process, such a
decision is framed differently. From a punitive perspective, the question is asked:
“Should the students be expelled?” In restorative justice, we ask, “What can the
students do to restore our confidence in their continued membership in the
university community?” Rather than imposing authoritative decisions on the
students, we use collective problem solving with the students. This approach
always seeks reparation and reintegration (p. 114).
Restorative justice is not designed to be an “easy out.” Student respondents are still expected to
go through a process that provides them with an opportunity to atone for their wrongdoing. The
focus, however, is on harm reparation rather than punishment. Under restorative justice, for
example, an expulsion is a “strategy for aggravated communities to meet a deeper need” (Karp &
Frank, 2016, p. 114) instead of imposing punishment, isolation, or disintegrative shaming (Karp
& Frank, 2016, Braithwaite, 1989).
Scholars have researched various aspects of restorative justice within student conduct.
Academic integrity violations do not often involve a party who was directly harmed as a result of
one’s actions, like physical violence or vandalism, however academic misconduct violates the
core mission of the academy. The impact may be more symbolic than direct, but restorative
justice can help both students and institutions to focus on this value (Karp, 2009). Restorative
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
33
justice approaches also promote the development of personal responsibility and accountability,
as it shifts the “burden of responsibility” from the institution to the student (Kara & MacAlister,
2010, p. 447). It also allows the community impacted by a student’s actions – the academic
community created in the classroom space – to deal with the misconduct directly, rather than
through an administrative process (Kara & MacAlister, 2010).
Restorative justice has also been implemented in university housing, where the fostering
a sense of community is one of the primary goals (McDowell, Crocker, Evett, & Cornelison,
2014). Students who were exposed to restorative justice through workshops indicated a higher
ability to listen to the perceptions of others during conflict situations, however it did not indicate
that students would be more inclined to go out of their way to engage or resolve conflict
(McDowell, Crocker, Evett, & Cornelison, 2014). Another study by Dahl, Meagher, and Vander
Velde (2014) examined the motivations and outcomes for students engaged in a restorative
justice program. They identified that students who were initially motivated to pursue the process
with restorative intentions were more satisfied with the process than students who were
motivated by “personal goals or external pressure” (p. 376). Additionally, students who entered
the process with these motivations reported a higher sense of community than students who did
not. Ultimately, most students who participated in this study were highly satisfied, with 95%
indicated that they would participate again (Dahl, Meager, & Vander Velde, 2014, p. 377).
While there is little research, there is growing support for the use of restorative justice to
address issues of sexual misconduct on college campuses (Karp et. al, 2016; Williamsen, 2017).
Williamsen, (2017) surveyed 21 student conduct, Title IX and, and victims advocate staff to
determine what they felt were the needs of victims in the process. Themes that emerged included
justice, healing, respondent accountability, and behavior change (Williamsen, 2017).
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
34
Additionally, Williamsen noted that participants shared that they desired a process that was
distinct from the criminal justice process, one that addresses campus sexual violence, as well as
individual behavior changes, emphasizing a restorative response to campus based sexual
misconduct (Williamsen, 2017).
Measures of Campus Based Restorative Justice Programs
Published measures of restorative justice within a student conduct process are limited.
The most comprehensive study to date regarding outcomes from restorative justice approaches to
student conduct was the STARR project (Karp & Sacks, 2014), which examined data from 18
colleges and 659 student conduct cases. The authors, comparing traditional conduct processes
with restorative ones, identified the process as the most influential factor in student learning,
measured on a scale of six factors: just community/self-authorship, active accountability,
interpersonal competence, social ties to the institution, procedural fairness, and closure. Students
who went through a restorative justice process indicated statistically significantly higher growth
in all six of these areas than students who did not (Karp & Sacks, 2014).
Meager (2009) evaluated the experiences respondents in campus-based RJ programs,
grouping responses into mediating factors, prior experience respondent’s brought with them into
a conference, which sometimes shaped the restorative justice conference process profoundly; the
resotative session, which were generally respectful, supportive, and engaging; and the outcomes
of the conference, which were generally positive (Meager, 2009). Matthews (2014) replicated the
study examining harmed parties, grouping the results into the same three themes. Matthews
ultimately found that mediating factors included a lack of preparation, nervousness, and
curiosity. In the restorative session they experienced procedural fairness, a generally positive
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
35
experience, with some disinterest in the process. Outcomes for harmed parties included a
learning experience, increased willingness to take action in the future and ultimately closure or
relief (Matthews, 2014). Both of these studies were considered to be exploratory in nature, as
little research has been done regarding these experiences (Meager, 2009; Matthews, 2014).
Student Discipline and Issues of Justice
Approaches to school discipline in both K-12 and higher education followed the “get
tough on crime” trend seen in the criminal justice system beginning in the 1970’s, signaling a
shift away from the rehabilitative approach taken prior (Karp & Frank, 2016; Morrison &
Vaandering, 2012; Levrant, Cullen, Fulton & Wozniak, 1999). This can be seen expressly in zero
tolerance policies implemented at the K-12 level as a result of the Drug Free Schools and
Communities Act (Simpson, 2014), and the US Gun Free School Zones Act, which expressly
encouraged the use of suspension and expulsion as the primary means of discipline in schools
(Morrison & Vaandering, 2012; Lustick, 2017). These zero tolerance policies, especially at the
K-12 level, had a hugely disproportionate impact on communities of color (Simpson, 2014;
Lustick, 2017). While rehabilitation in and of itself has not proven to be effective in lowering
crime rates (Leverant, Cullen, Fulton & Wozniak, 1999; Karp & Frank, 2016), the impact of
retributive responses to crime and wrongdoing are negligible and result in mass incarceration and
stigmatization in the criminal justice process, and through high suspension rates and and a school
to prison pipeline in the K-12 system (Karp & Frank, 2016; Braithwaite, 1989, Rios, 2006).
When this system is viewed through the lens of Freire’s (2005) banking model of
education, where teachers (or administrators) are viewed as a depositor, and students are viewed
as depositories of knowledge, emphasizing memorization and repetition, it takes on a more
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
36
oppressive persona. The banking model treats students as “marginalized persons, who deviate
from the general configuration of a good, organized, and just society. The oppressed are regarded
as the pathology of the healthy society which must therefore adjust these incompetent and lazy
folk to its own patterns by changing their mentality” (Freire, 2005, p. 74). If student conduct
processes are, or have the potential to be oppressive systems, the incorporation of restorative
justice can shift the focus of this process from oppression to freedom through its focus on
connections and community response to harm and wrongdoing through the opportunity for
students and educators to engage in dialogue to co-construct meaning (Morrison & Vaandering,
2012; Friere, 2005).
Lustick (2017), views school based restorative justice through a Foucouldian lens
(Foucault, 1977), noting that a restorative justice process is still a process of control and
accountability. Through this lens, she discusses accountability as the panopticon, and the
conference as confessional (Lustick, 2017). When viewed through this lens, the circle process
embodies Foucoult’s panopticon, the ever-present element of surveillance, which is distributed
evenly across an institution. By distributing power throughout the community, everybody thus
becomes the surveillor, creating a system of ever present surveillance. Additionally, during a
restorative justice conference, the offender is expected to not only discuss what happened, but to
reflect upon who was harmed and why. This creates an opportunity to scrutinize not just the
offender, but the “intimate motivations and emotions behind that behavior” (Lustick, 2017, p.
306). Ultimately, Lustick questions the ability of restorative practices to mitigate long standing
institutionalized racism within the broader education system and encourages critical discourse
around restorative practices and it’s claims to create such transformation (Lustick, 2017).
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
37
The broader restorative justice movement and agenda is ultimately about societal
transformation (Johnston & Van Ness, 2007). In addition to the power of restorative encounters
between victims and offenders, and the power of harm reparation, restorative justice can change
the way people live their lives and interact with others. It also provides an opportunity for
empowerment for individuals and communities, as a means to express their authentic voice and a
process through which to discuss harm (Johnston & Van Ness, 2007).
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
38
Methodology
Introduction
The restorative justice process at the University of Denver was evaluated using a s
responsive evaluation methodology (Stake 1975, 2004). Two initial evaluation questions were
developed, 1) how do students experience restorative justice at the University of Denver and 2)
how do students understand the impacts of their actions as a result of their participation in the RJ
process? Data was collected and analyzed using a case study approach, creating a rich
description and deep understanding of the evaluand.
Evaluator Positionality
After graduating with my master’s degree in International Development, I took my first
job working in student affairs in higher education. I accepted a role as a Residence Life
Coordinator at the institution where I completed my undergraduate degree. I fully anticipated
spending a few months working in this role, and then transitioning back into the field of
international development, where I had intended to work. Looking back, I have been working in
this field for over eight years, and I am working to complete a doctorate in the field. I enjoyed
working in housing, but like many new professionals who work in this area, I dreaded having to
carry out the disciplinary parts of my job. I quickly became comfortable in this role, and enjoyed
the conversations that I was able to have with students. After six months on the job, and hearing
only a handful of conduct cases, I decided to apply for an opening overseeing the conduct
process for that institution. After serving in this role for a few years, I began working at the
University of Denver.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
39
Early on in my work with student conduct, I was drawn to restorative justice processes.
My first real exposure to restorative justice came with a full day training on the subject, and this
has been followed up by multiple subsequent trainings. Part of the reason why I was drawn to the
University of Denver was because of their restorative justice process. In time, student conduct
work can be draining. It is a high conflict role. Where your colleagues in student affairs roles
work to build relationships with students, you work to correct behavior. In order to be successful
in this type of work, you must be comfortable with conflict, with being the “bad guy,” and you
must be able to see the good in students, even when your job entails you seeing them at their
worst.
I facilitated my first RJC after having only observed one at DU. I really enjoyed the
process, and the positive interactions that I was able to foster between students and community
members. I remember my colleagues talking about the “RJ High.” I don’t know that I would
frame it in those terms, but I always enjoyed being a part of a process where student respondents,
harmed parties, and community members would end with a hug or a handshake. The longer I
worked with RJ, the more questions I had. Things like, does this really work? Is this just a way
for students to game the system? Are we being too lenient? Are students in a place
developmentally to benefit from this type of process? How should the program grow, and what
do we need to make that happen?
With the opportunity to conduct a program evaluation in order to complete my degree, I
decided that this is what I wanted to examine. The more I had worked with RJ, and learned about
it, the more I was drawn to it. I’ve conducted research in restorative justice, and I had the
opportunity to teach a graduate level course on the subject. I’ve engaged with colleagues around
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
40
the country who do this type of work, and I have worked with community organizations doing
restorative justice outside of higher education. This is something to which I am drawn.
With that, however, I saw the importance of due diligence when evaluating this program. If I
believe in RJ, I need to recognize the biases that I have, and take steps to acknowledge these,
counter them when necessary and possible, and to create a product that will be of benefit to the
University of Denver. A truly honest evaluation can help to make the program better, and to
make DU a model school for this type of program. While this evaluation is specific to DU, a
solid evaluation model could be replicated to examine other RJ programs.
My affiliation with the University of Denver, and my passion for the topic will cloud my
impartiality, but it also serves as an asset when evaluating the program. There is an element of
connoisseurship to my approach. I have had to put my ego aside, and to critically examine
practices that I put into place. With that, I understand the intricacies of this program better than
anyone else, and I hope that this allows me to provide a truly honest, transparent, constructive,
and critical evaluation of something that is important and meaningful to me, to the university
community, and to the field of student conduct in higher education.
Defining Program Evaluation
The Joint Committee on Standards for Education Evaluation defines program evaluation
as “the systematic assessment of the worth or merit of an object” (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield,
2007, p. 9). Program evaluations are intended to provide an in depth understanding on one
particular program. Results are not intended to be generalizable, but to focus on the worth or
merit of a particular object, referred to as an evaluand. Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (2007)
provide additional clarity on the meaning of value, worth, and merit as used in the Joint
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
41
Standards definition above. Value is at the very root of the word evaluation, and Stufflebeam and
Shinkfield state that evaluations involve making judgement around values, and that evaluations
are not value free. Evaluations must be rooted in “some defensible set of guiding principles or
ideals and should determine the evaluand’s standing against these values” (p. 9).
Merit reflects a programs quality, asking the question does the evaluand accomplish what
it sets out to accomplish? The criteria for this determination may reside in a programs goals, a
discipline, or a broader service area. In the absence of specific established program goals, the
merit of this program may be derived from the goals and intentions voiced by program
stakeholders in combination with the goals of both the department and the broader division of
Campus Life and Inclusive Excellence. Lastly, worth refers to a programs “combination of
excellence and service in an area of clear need within a specified context” (Stufflebeam &
Shinkfield, 2007, p. 10). Merit and worth, when taken together, can drive a program evaluation
to ask the questions: does the program accomplish what it aims to accomplish, and does it do it
well?
Program Evaluation Framework
The program was evaluated using a standards based and responsive evaluation
framework (Stake, 1975, 2004). A responsive evaluation is one where the evaluator spends a
significant amount of time getting to know the program, it’s stakeholders and participants, and
will focus on the program activities as opposed to whether specific program goals or objectives
are being met (Stake, 2004). Underlying this, the evaluator and evaluation are responsive to the
needs and concerns of the stakeholders and the data coming from the evaluation process.
Responsive evaluation relies heavily on personal experience and interaction with stakeholders
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
42
and serves as a good model for evaluating program activity. While this may decrease the
objectivity of an evaluation process, responsive evaluation relies heavily on evaluator
interpretation, identifying key issues, and working to understand the complexity of an evaluand
(Stake, 2004).
Stake (1973) states that an evaluation is responsive if it “(1) orients more directly to
program activities than to program intents, (2) if it responds to audience requirements for
information, and (3) if the different value perspectives of the people at hand are referred to in
reporting the success and failure of the program” (p. 9). Responsive evaluation is based upon the
actions of observing and reacting. An approach to evaluation is outlined through the process, but
then the evaluation must be open to adapting given the information that is coming out of the
evaluation process as well as the evaluator’s engagement with stakeholders.
As many evaluation models rely on the role of an independent outside evaluator, it is
important to consider whether or not a particular evaluation model would fit with an internal
evaluation process. Stake (2004) acknowledges that he has primarily focused his approach on
external evaluators, but states that “internal evaluation occurs, whether or not formalized, and
can follow most of the principles of responsive evaluation” (209). Stake states that external
evaluations will likely be “superior,” but that internal evaluations can often be better for the
organization (Stake, 2004, p. 209). This internal approach heavily influences the research
paradigm. It also plays into the role and positionality of the researcher, limitations, ethical
considerations of the research. These will all be described below.
Responsive evaluation is not a fixed model, it is more of an “attitude” (Stake, 2004, p.
86). The evaluation process is not a series of steps but encompasses twelve “recurring events”
that would happen in the life of responsive evaluation. These events do not have to occur in any
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
43
particular sequence, and the evaluation process may actually revisit some of the events if
feedback dictates that it will be necessary. The events are generally presented in a circle:
Figure 2: Responsive Evaluation Elements (Stake, 1975)
The adaptive nature of responsive evaluation creates a condition where the evaluator and
stakeholders can engage in ongoing dialogue around the program being evaluated and create
Talk with
clients,
program staff,
audiences
Discover
purposes,
concerns
Overview
Program
Activities
Select
observers,
judges,
instruments, if
any
Validate,
confirm,
attempt to
disconfirm
Identify
Program
Scope
Identify data
needs, re,
issues
Conceptualize
issues,
problems
Thematize,
prepare
portrayals,
case studies
Observe
designated
antecedents
transactions,
and outcomes
Winnow,
format for
audience use
Assemble
formal reports,
if any
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
44
space for an evaluation to evolve as additional information is gathered, or as the context changes
(Stake, 1973).
I chose to use a responsive evaluation model for a few reasons. I had been overseeing the
restorative justice program at the University of Denver for approximately two years and working
at the university for approximately four years. I had a thorough understanding of the program,
it’s activities, and contextual information that would provide helpful in conducting a thorough
evaluation. Additionally, I felt that responsive evaluation aligned well with a restorative justice
framework, which emphasizes an exploration of impact and the role of community (Zehr, 2005;
Karp, 2012). A responsive evaluation involves engagement with the community, both in terms of
the stakeholder group as well as in terms of evaluation participants in order to gather information
and to provide opportunity to respond to the data collected. This requires the evaluator to engage
with various stakeholder and participant groups.
Design Methodology
Stake (2004) notes that a case study is the preferred methodology for a responsive
evaluation approach. Case studies involve in depth analysis of a bounded case, the evaluand,
which can be defined by parameters including a specific place and time. Case study research
allows the researcher to engage with a system in real time, allowing them to gather information
as the case proceeds (Creswell, 2013). This evaluation was conducted as an intrinsic single case
study, where the RJ program served as the case (Stake, 1995). Data collection methods included
interviews with program stakeholders, interviews with students who have gone through the
restorative justice process, and observations of restorative justice conferences.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
45
Participants
Program Stakeholders. The evaluator identified five program stakeholders to provide
their perspectives and input on the evaluation process and outputs. The five stakeholders
identified were the Executive Director of Community Partnerships who was serving as Interim
Director of Student Rights and Responsibilities at the time, the Executive Director of Housing
and Residential Education, the Vice Chancellor of Campus Life and Inclusive Excellence,
Campus Safety Sargent who serves as lead trainer in the department, and a faculty member who
serves in the role as Faculty Director of the Honor Code. Each stakeholder was identified by the
evaluator as someone with a significant stake in either the restorative justice process or it’s
outcomes.
Student Respondents. Purposeful sampling was employed to identify students to
participate in RJC observations and post RJC interviews. Students who elected to go through the
RJC process were asked if they would be interested in participating in a program evaluation by
the staff member overseeing the restorative justice process. If student said yes, the staff member
would ask them to sign a FERPA release and provide their contact information to the evaluator.
Student Rights and Responsibilities staff members used Maxient to pull a list of each
person who had gone through a restorative justice conference since academic year 2014-2015.
From this list, staff members sent out an email inviting students to participate in the program
evaluation. Consent forms were attached to the recruitment emails, and the evaluators contact
information was included. Students who elected to participate in the evaluation were asked to
email the evaluator directly.
Data Collection
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
46
Data was collected in three phases. The first phase was the identification and
interviewing of program stakeholders. The second phase was a documents analysis, which
included analysis of Student Rights and Responsibilities documents including the university’s
Honor Code, the Student Rights and Responsibilities website, and other institutional documents
that would help to highlight the context in which the restorative justice process exists. The third
phase included the simultaneous interviewing of students who had gone through the restorative
justice process previously, and observing restorative justice conferences as they were happening,
making detailed notes. A total of three post RJC interviews were conducted, and three
conferences were evaluated. Attempts were made to recruit additional students to participate in
post RJC interviews, in particular, but no additional response was received.
Program Stakeholders. Recruitment emails were sent to each of the stakeholders
requesting interviews. Every stakeholder responded to and accepted the interview request. A
time was set up, and interviews occurred in each of the stakeholder’s offices with the exception
of the HRE staff member who came to the evaluator’s office. Interviews were recorded and
transcribed. Although names were not used in the data collection process, the data collected was
kept associated with the role, as this helps to illuminate the role that each stakeholder plays
within the process, and the importance of the process to different aspects on campus.
Documents Analysis. Documents collected for analysis were based upon the evaluators
knowledge of the program, including information sent and available to students. An analysis of
relevant documents began with the Student Rights and Responsibilities website, which includes
information about the student conduct and restorative justice processes. The Honor Code is the
document that contains all university policies and procedures as they relate to students, and this
is where the authority for the restorative justice process is rooted. Student Rights and
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
47
Responsibilities staff also provided additional assessment data, which was reviewed as a part of
this analysis.
Student respondent interviews. The staff member coordinating restorative justice
within the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities created a list of every student
respondent who had gone through the restorative justice process in the past four years. This list
was created in Maxient, the software used by the office to track student conduct cases. The staff
member then sent a recruitment email to these students. Two additional recruitment emails were
sent. One student responded stating that they were not interested in participating. Four additional
students responded stating that they were interested in participating. One of these students did
not respond to further emails. A total of three interviews were conducted with student
respondents. I provided a consent form to each student via email and asked each student to sign
the consent form and return it before each interview.
One student was able to meet and conduct her interview in person, the other two
requested their interviews to take place over the phone. I recorded each interview and provided
students the opportunity to choose a pseudonym. Interviews followed a semi structured interview
format, following an interview script for consistency, but allowing for follow up or clarification
questions. Student complainants, or impacted students serving as victims in the process were not
included in this program evaluation because there is a very limited number of student
complainants who participate in the process. There is opportunity, however, for a follow up
evaluation to examine the experiences of student complainants in the restorative justice
conference process.
Conference Observations. Beginning in March 2018 the staff member coordinating
restorative justice within the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities asked students in their
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
48
preconference meetings if they would be interested in participating in the program evaluation by
allowing someone observe their conference. If the student agreed, the staff member asked them
to sign a FERPA waiver to allow her to share the student’s name and contact information with
the evaluator. The staff member made it clear to the student that this participation was voluntary,
and that it had no impact on their conduct process, status, or records. If students agreed to this,
the staff member provided the evaluator with the student’s name and contact information. The
evaluator then sent a recruitment email to the student and attached a consent form. The evaluator
asked the student to share the time and location of their conference, and the evaluator would
attend in order to observe.
Three students agreed to allow their conferences to be observed. The evaluator was able
observe each one. Prior to the start of the conference, the conference facilitator introduced the
evaluator as an observer. The evaluator then got up to explain the purpose of the evaluation and
obtained written consent from each participant in the room prior to the conference commencing.
I then took detailed observation notes. These notes were analyzed, coded, and themes were
generated along with the data collected from student respondent interviews.
Data Analysis
Program Stakeholders. Data from interviews with program stakeholders were coded
and themes were generated separately from data collected from student interviews and
observations. The evaluator’s engagement with program stakeholders served to direct the
evaluation process, and to provide guidance on what program stakeholders wanted from the
evaluation process. Once themes emerged, the original evaluation questions were then revisited,
however the original evaluation questions were not altered.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
49
Student Respondents. Student interviews were transcribed. Vignettes were developed
for each conference observation and based upon each interview. A total of six vignettes were
developed altogether. These serve to provide the reader with a rich, multifaceted description of
the RJC process from multiple student perspectives. The transcriptions and conference
observation notes were reviewed and coded. Themes then emerged from this, which will be
discussed in the results section.
Measures of Validity and Trustworthiness
The evaluator made every attempt, when possible, to ensure the validity and
trustworthiness of the data and results. The first strategy employed was to clarify researcher bias,
including acknowledging the evaluator’s relationship with the program, and its history. Methods
were employed in the design process to bracket evaluator bias in evaluation design and
methodology, including the use of open ended interview questions, and member checking
(Chenail, 2011; Creswell & Miller, 2000). Additionally, the evaluator was engaged with program
staff and stakeholders throughout the evaluation process. Questions, issues, and concerns were
all able to be explored with program staff and resolved throughout the evaluation process as
appropriate (Creswell, 2013).
Triangulation, or the use of multiple sources of data to identify multiple sources of
corroborating information was also employed. Multiple sources of data were used, including
observations, interviews, assessment data provided by program staff, and documents analyses.
Data was also drawn from different sources employing different sampling and collection
strategies. Inconsistencies in the data were explored before conclusions were drawn (Creswell,
2013).
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
50
Lastly, the evaluation report was written with a focus on rich, thick descriptions
(Creswell, 2013; Stake, 2004). Vignettes were written for each conference observation and for
each student respondent interview. This level of description allows the reader to analyze the
conclusions based upon their own experience with the program, and about it’s transferability
(Creswell, 2013).
Ethical Considerations
Because of my affiliation with Student Rights and Responsibilities at the University of
Denver, I was careful to navigate the process in order to minimize ethical issues. I stepped away
from oversight of the program, asking a colleague to oversee restorative justice. Students that I
had referred to restorative justice were not offered the opportunity to participate in the program
evaluation by SRR staff. I did not access information regarding any student who participated in
the evaluation process, the only information that was considered as part of the evaluation was
what students had shared with me, or what was observed during conference observations. Given
my role and the nature of the student conduct process, no incentives were offered to students to
participate in the program evaluation.
A proposal was submitted to the Institutional Review Board at the University of Denver.
It was determined, however, that because the project was a program evaluation, and not a
research project, it did not require IRB approval.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
51
Results
“It definitely wasn’t so much of a punishment as raising awareness of your actions and what
you’ve done and how you’ve affected other people. So, I think it kind of was a wake-up call in the
sense that you shouldn’t just be thinking about yourself when you’re making poor decisions or
violating any type of student conduct within a community that you’re part of, because you’re just
in a sense bringing everyone else down with you” -- student interviewee
Program Evaluation Site: The University of Denver
The program being evaluated is housed within the University of Denver (DU), a private
university located in Denver, Colorado. DU was founded in 1864 as the Colorado Seminary
(University of Denver, 2018), and renamed the University of Denver in 1880 (Fisher, 2014). In
the fall of 2016, there were 11,614 total students, with approximately half graduate and half
undergraduate (University of Denver Factbook, 2016). The university contains ten separate
academic units, the largest being the Daniels College of Business which accounts for 20% of
enrollment (University of Denver Factbook, 2016).
The mission statement of the university reads, “the mission of the University of Denver is
to promote learning by engaging with students in advancing scholarly inquiry, cultivating critical
and creative thought, and generating knowledge. Our active partnerships with local and global
communities contribute to a sustainable common good” (University of Denver, 2018). This is
supported by the stated goals of community, learning, and scholarship (University of Denver,
2018). The university, according to the vision statement is a “great private university dedicated
to the public good” (University of Denver, 2018).
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
52
The university was originally founded by a charter issued by Territorial Governor John
Evans in 1864. Evans had founded Northwestern University 1851, and upon being named
Territorial Governor of Colorado in 1862, saw the need for an institution of higher education in
Denver (University of Denver, 2014). The same year that the university was founded, however
the Colorado 1st and 3rd regiments, under the command of Col. John M. Chivington, massacred
over 200 Cheyenne and Arapaho people at an encampment in Sand Creek, on the eastern slope
of Colorado (University of Denver, 2014). While Evans was not directly involved with the
massacre, and was able to plausibly deny knowledge of it’s occurrence at the time, he was asked
to resign in 1865 by then president Andrew Johnson (Fisher, 2014). The university community
has struggled to come to terms with this association. A committee was formed to examine the
massacre, the role that Evans played, and the ultimate impact this had upon the university
community. The committee ultimately created a report, called the Report of the John Evans
Study Committee in November of 2014. This report demonstrated a “significant level of
culpability” for the massacre on the part of Evans and encouraged the university community to
find ways to think about this history and those who have been impacted by it (University of
Denver, 2014).
DU took the first steps towards adopting an inclusive excellence framework in 2006
(University of Denver, 2018). Inclusive excellence is a diversity framework developed by the
American Association of Colleges and Universities (Williams, Berger, & McClendon, 2005),
and incorporates four elements including a focus on student intellectual and social development,
development and “utilization of organizational resources to enhance student learning,” attention
to cultural differences and experiences, and a welcome community that “engages all of its
diversity in the service of student and organizational learning” (Williams, Berger, & McClendon,
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
53
2005, p. iv). Inclusive excellence has informed the university’s organizational structures and
provided guidance in the university’s recruitment and engagement with underrepresented
students, faculty, and staff.
Student Rights and Responsibilities. The Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities
is responsible for the overall administration of the Student Conduct process. Organizationally,
Student Rights and Responsibilities is housed within the Division of Campus Life and Inclusive
Excellence, specifically within the Student Success area. There is one director, two assistant
directors, and two part time graduate students who work in the office. The Director of Student
Rights and Responsibilities reports directly to the Associate Vice Chancellor, who then reports to
the division head.
Student Rights and Responsibilities maintains oversight of policies that apply to students
and the procedures for determining responsibility as well as sanctions - or outcomes - that are
intended to foster learning as a result. The mission of the Office of Student Rights and
Responsibilities is as follows:
The Office of Student Right & Responsibilities at the University of Denver
supports the University mission by providing programs and services designed to
foster a positive and safe environment for student learning. The Office of Student
Right & Responsibilities strives to achieve a campus community in which:
● individuals demonstrate respect for others, for themselves, and for the
University;
● uphold high standards of personal and academic integrity;
● honor differences and gain an appreciation for living in a diverse society;
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
54
● understand the impact of their behavior both upon the University and the
surrounding community;
● freely accept the responsibility for and consequences of their behavior;
● and seek opportunities to repair harm that they caused through a restorative
process (University of Denver, 2008).
The process through which student discipline is managed can be found in the University of
Denver’s Honor Code and Student Conduct Policies and Procedures. This document, last
published in July of 2017 contains policies to which students are held accountable, as well as the
procedures that are used in order to facilitate the process. This is where DU’s restorative justice
process is rooted procedurally and contains information regarding other processes.
The majority of the work of Student Rights and Responsibilities is carried out through
meetings with students called case resolution meetings (University of Denver, 2017, p. 7). A case
resolution meeting, as defined by the Honor Code “refers to the time during which a student will
be invited to present their perspective of an incident with the designated Case Resolution Body.
The Case Resolution Meeting can be conducted in person with an administrator, through the
Student Accountability Board or other Case Resolution Body designated in these policies”
(University of Denver, 2017, p. 7). While a case resolution meeting is optional for students, it
serves as their opportunity to share their perspective with a student conduct administrator, a role
defined by the Honor Code as one who is empowered through the Honor Code to hold case
resolution meetings (typically either Student Rights and Responsibilities or Housing staff), or
through a Student Accountability Board (University of Denver, 2017, p. 8).
The Student Accountability Board, a more formal hearing mechanism, includes three
university community members including a student, staff member, and a faculty member, and is
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
55
chaired by a staff member from the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities (University of
Denver, 2017, p. 19). The Honor Code outlines a formal process through which the Student
Accountability Board process is conducted. The Honor Code states that the Student
Accountability Board may issue outcomes up to and including dismissal from the university.
Student conduct administrators can issue outcomes up to a deferred suspension, while the
Director of Student Rights and Responsibilities can issue outcomes up to a suspension from the
university (University of Denver, 2017, p. 20).
The Honor Code contains a number of policies that students are expected to uphold,
including academic integrity, policies pertaining to drugs and alcohol, as well as behavior like
noncompliance, physical misconduct, and property damage. Through the case resolution process,
a student conduct administrator or student accountability board will make a decision regarding
the student’s responsibility, and if a student is found responsible for a policy violation, they are
issued outcomes (University of Denver, 2017, p. 22). Outcomes include a status outcome,
something that defines the student’s standing at the university, as well as educational outcomes,
which are intended to facilitate learning as a result of the student conduct process (University of
Denver, 2017, p. 22-23).
Restorative justice process. The third case resolution process is a restorative justice
conference, defined by the Honor Code as follows:
Restorative Justice offers a different framework for case resolution and is
considered an “alternative dispute resolution” option. It moves beyond the
confines of the traditional Student Conduct Process to acknowledge the injuries
sustained by Complainants/victims as well as the potential damaged relationships
that result from any wrongdoing and focuses on repairing the harms created.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
56
Complainants/victims take an active role in the process, while Respondents are
encouraged to take responsibility for their actions and take action to repair
wrongdoings where possible. Restorative Justice Conferences are a Case
Resolution Body option when Respondents take active responsibility for their
actions, are interested in directly addressing the negative impact caused by their
actions, and volunteer to participate (University of Denver, 2017, p. 8).
The Honor Code also defines a Restorative Justice Conference as a case resolution process in
line with the student conduct administrator meeting and the student accountability board. Where
the restorative justice process was considered a pilot program for the first five years, the pilot
program language was removed in 2014. The Honor Code goes on to detail the process of the
restorative justice conference:
A Restorative Justice Conference (RJC) is empowered to conduct case resolution
for those Cases involving student Respondent(s). An RJC is an alternative dispute
resolution process and will only be considered when the student Respondent(s)
have taken responsibility for violating the applicable Student Conduct Policies
and have an interest in repairing the harm done by their actions. Members of the
greater DU community will serve on an RJC, including faculty, staff, students,
alumni, neighbors and impacted parties. Through a collaborative process in
which an “Outcomes Agreement” is created, RJCs can impose a variety of
Outcomes focused on reconciliation, resolution, and/or the betterment of the
overall community. As such, if an Outcomes Agreement is successfully created, it
cannot be appealed. If the members of an RJC cannot come to an agreement
about Outcomes, the RJC is considered unsuccessful and the Case will be sent
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
57
back to the Student Conduct Process for traditional case resolution (University of
Denver, 2017, p. 21).
The Student Rights and Responsibilities website provides additional information regarding the
restorative justice process including how the process is initiated, and eligibility requirements for
RJC participation, which include active accountability for one’s actions, the desire to learn about
and address the impact of one’s actions, and the desire to move forward positively by addressing
a community need (University of Denver, 2018).
The website also outlines three phases of a restorative justice conference. The first is the
preconference, where participants meet individually with the restorative justice coordinator, who
helps to prepare the student for the conference. This includes a discussion on the incident, a
discussion on the impact of the student’s actions, and a conversation to help the student to decide
if they would like to go through a restorative justice conference. The second phase is the
conference itself. The third phase is outcome implementation and follow up, which is where the
student complete outcomes that were agreed upon through a consensus process by conference
participants, which includes the student participant (University of Denver, 2018).
In addition to the website, there is a handout that is used by Student Rights and
Responsibilities that provides an overview of restorative justice and the restorative justice
conference process. The handout, according to Student Rights and Responsibilities staff, is
intended to provide information to students going through the restorative justice conference
process, as well as for others who are going through the process as a community member or
impacted party. The handout again defines the restorative justice process, the restorative justice
conference, and states the criteria for going through a restorative justice conference. There is also
a heading entitled “What do I need to Know to Participate in an RJC?” which provides
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
58
individuals with very basic instructions on what they need to know in order to participate in a
restorative justice conference, including:
● Listen, seek to understand, and keep an open mind.
● Put yourself into the shoes of others
● Speak about how the incident has affected you personally - as an individual, as a
community member, or both.
● Consider how the violation has impacted the broader community.
● Provide input on how the impact from the situation can be addressed.
● Remember that our focus is on finding ways to address impact and make things right
(University of Denver, 2018).
The information contained in the handout, and what is contained on the website are the only
written materials provided to students before they go through the restorative justice process. The
rest of the information delivered is done during the RJC preconference meeting. Other
participants in the restorative justice conference do not generally participate in any kind of
preconference meeting and rely solely upon the information provided in writing or instructions
given during the conference.
Previous assessment data. Limited assessment has been conducted on the restorative
justice process specifically, as well as on the student conduct process broadly. In the spring of
2017, an assessment instrument was sent to students who participated in restorative justice during
the 2016-2017 academic year. Although not part of this evaluation, the results were provided to
the evaluator to include as a part of the data collected. There were a total of 13 responses to the
survey, one of which did not appear to be legitimate and was thrown out. A second response was
left mostly blank and was also thrown out, leaving 11 responses that could be examined. The
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
59
survey was conducted using Qualtrics and was designed and sent by a graduate assistant working
in the office. The small size of the data set does not allow for robust statistical analysis, the
descriptive statistics that can be gathered may help in trying to answer the evaluation questions.
Of those who responded to the survey, there were two first year students, six second year
students, and three third year students. Seven were male, four were female. All respondents
identified themselves as white or Caucasian. One RJC occurred in the fall quarter, four in the
winter quarter, and six in the spring quarter. Eight incidents involved alcohol, two involved
marijuana, and one involved both. The survey questions and responses can be found below.
Question:
Agree/
Strongly
Agree
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Number of
responses
The restorative justice process was
fair.
64%
27%
9%
11
My actions contributed to what
happened in the incident.
64%
9%
27%
11
As a result of this incident, I want to
make better choices in the future.
66%
18%
9%
11
I think restorative justice is a good
way to handle violations like these.
73%
27%
-
11
I had no control over the outcome of
my restorative justice conference.
36%
54%
9%
11
This process helped me understand
the point of view of those most
affected by my actions.
73%
27%
-
11
After my restorative justice
conference, I feel more connected to
the DU community.
36%
36%
27%
11
I felt respected throughout the
restorative justice process.
63%
36%
-
11
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
60
As a result of my restorative justice
conference, I more fully understand
the community impact of my
actions.
73%
27%
-
11
I am satisfied with the outcome of
the restorative justice process.
73%
18%
9%
11
As a result of this conference, I will
change the decisions I make in the
future.
73%
18%
9%
11
The RJ process allowed me to offer
an apology to the harmed parties in
the incident.
73%
27%
-
11
I was able to meaningfully
contribute my ideas toward the
outcome of the RJC.
73%
18%
9%
11
Figure 3: Student Rights and Responsibilities Assessment Data
The limited nature of this assessment data does not allow for comparison to either the
traditional process, nor does it allow for comparisons longitudinally. This snapshot, however,
provides some insight on how students view the process. Overall, the assessment data is positive,
with 73% of students stating that they thought that RJ was a good way to handle these types of
violations, the same percentage of students were satisfied with the outcome from the process,
they will change decisions that they make in the future, and the process allowed the students an
opportunity to offer an apology to the harmed parties in the incident.
Stakeholder Interview Information
A stakeholder group was assembled that included the Interim Director of Student Rights
and Responsibilities (and full time Executive Director of Community Partnerships, who has
overseen the office since 2010), the Vice Chancellor for Campus Life and Inclusive Excellence,
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
61
the Executive Director of Housing and Residential Education, the Faculty Director of the Honor
Code, and a Sargent from the Department of Campus Safety. These stakeholders were targeted in
order to represent areas on campus that play a significant role, or that benefit from the RJ
process. Stakeholders were interviewed individually; these interviews were recorded and
transcribed. From these transcriptions, an emergent coding process was utilized to identify
themes that would serve to guide the evaluation process. This allows for the stakeholder
interviews to drive the evaluation process, and for honest goals, experiences, and expectations to
emerge without preconceived notions as to what stakeholders would like out of the evaluation
process. From this process, the following themes emerged: descriptive information that helps to
provide a snapshot of the RJ process at the University of Denver, goals of RJ at the University of
Denver, personal experience with the restorative justice process, and desired evaluation outputs.
Each theme will be discussed below.
Stakeholder perspectives of RJ at the University of Denver. Restorative Justice was
started at the University of Denver in 2012. The Interim Director, who had been overseeing the
office of Student Conduct for approximately eight years, reflected upon why RJ was initially
adopted at the University of Denver. He shared that the director at the time was trying find the
best ways to meet students “where they are,” and in looking at national trends, noticed increased
use of restorative practices in student conduct in higher education. In addition, they had noticed a
“connection between the dialogue piece of it and how do we change the student conduct process
from being a punitive process into being an educational process”. At the same time, the
university was working to become an honor code school - where the conduct process is one
shaped by student honor, integrity, and self regulation rather than through punitive reactive
measures. Given this, “we were working to understand what does it mean to live honorably,
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
62
restorative justice kind of was a natural outcropping of the commitment to an honor code. And
so, we believed that restorative justice would be a great example of what an honor code school
would have as another additional outcome to a process”
The position of Faculty Director of the Honor Code was created at this same time,
providing faculty guidance to the Honor Code around academic integrity issues, and to support
other faculty members in the student conduct process. The Faculty Director of the Honor Code
also noted that restorative justice was a growing trend, and that many honor code schools have
adopted, or are moving towards a restorative justice model. He also noted that “I think
restorative justice is no longer cutting edge. I would have called it cutting edge a few years ago,
but I think many, many, many places are now starting to work with students in restorative
justice.” The faculty director also reflected on the appropriateness of the use of RJ to academic
integrity violations, stating that as his role is to create a culture of academic integrity on campus,
it is an important tool in ingraining the values of academic integrity into the community, and “the
way that it is done, where the accountability is a big part of it, I think what that can do is it can
build a community that values academic integrity. To me, that’s important, just growing people
who can buy into the importance of academic integrity in an institute of education.”
The Executive Director of HRE also framed the role of RJ in community, as the function
of Housing and Residential Education staff is largely to create communities and environments
where students can live and learn together. She shared that “some of our cases that happen in the
residence halls are really good candidates for being in a restorative justice process to provide our
students just a different level of outcome, I think in responsibility to our community than the
traditional sit down one-on-one with a conduct administrator… this process enables our
community to be engaged with the outcomes in restoring some of the impact to the community.”
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
63
In addition, she believed that a restorative approach fosters learning, stating “I believe that
students do much deeper learning when other students are holding them accountable in our
community… the restorative justice process opens up the doors for endless possibilities because
of the different voices that we bring in the room to show impact. So I think there’s a different
level of accountability.”
In addition to framing RJ in terms of community, the stakeholders also framed it in terms
of the education. The Vice Chancellor of Campus Life and Inclusive Excellence stated that:
by infusing our process with a restorative justice lens, I think it really validates
what we feel strongly, that this isn’t about punishment. This is about education.
This is about human relations and things can go wrong when relating to other
people. So, how do we developmentally, appropriately teach our students how to
repair broken down relationships and how to do it in a way that makes them
ethical citizens, so to really understand how they as individual impact their
community both in positive and negative ways.
Additionally, the Vice Chancellor reflected what other interviewees shared around the intentional
shift away from a transactional conduct process, stating “I almost wish it was the foundation of
all of it, that maybe we would be less transactional with it all.” This sentiment was shared by the
Director, as well as the Executive Director of HRE who compared it to the traditional process of
“if I do A, then B and C are going to happen to me,” referring to the traditional process as one
that is more prescribed.
Most stakeholders also reflected upon ways to better engage students in RJ, such as
finding ways to introduce restorative concepts earlier in a student’s college career, to infuse it
into other areas outside of conduct, or to engage more CLIE staff members in restorative
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
64
practices. The Vice Chancellor stated “I think we could do more with restorative justice at the
front end before it becomes a conduct issue, that we could think about how it’s infused into our
residential curriculum. We can think about how it’s a part of our orientation experience. So, how
do we actually make it a standard of community citizenship as opposed to simply an aspect of
the conduct process? It’s, I think, level two of this discussion.” This idea was also expressed by
the Interim Director who discussed the differences between proactive campus programming and
student conduct, which tends to be reactive. He shared “I think it’s critical as we build more
restorative practices that kind of marry the two in building and having people engaging in a
community and in a program that feels like hey, my behavior wasn’t what it was supposed to
be.”
Interviewees also acknowledged the additional time and resource that goes into the
administration of RJ. The faculty director stated that the “restorative justice process can be more
time consuming and when it’s done well, it involves maybe a larger group of people flat out
when you actually have your final resolution.” The Interim Director stated that he would like to
have “the resources and the staffing to really make it just a universal option… that it just
becomes the norm,” and that when the office is busy, staff members will refer cases through a
traditional conduct process rather than through RJ because they don’t have the time or resource
to put on an RJC at the time. The Vice Chancellor added “I’d like to know what the rest of the
division needs to know to carry some of this load… so that it’s not just coming out of student
conduct, So, what does this mean for HRE? What does this mean about SOS?... What does this
mean about community building and how we’re thinking of living-learning communities, how
we’re thinking about the holistic student development model.”
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
65
Goals of Restorative Justice at DU. While written materials discuss the goals of
restorative justice broadly, there aren’t any stated program goals specific to RJ at the University
of Denver. Each stakeholder was asked to articulate the goals of RJ at the University of Denver.
Three themes emerged from the interview process, including student accountability, community
impact and engagement, and providing opportunities for students to correct behavior.
The first goal of accountability is, as articulated by the Faculty Director of the Honor
Code, to make sure that the student is “aware that they have violated the honor code and they
take accountability for that.” The HRE stakeholder also shared “the restorative justice process
opens up the doors for endless possibilities because of the different voices that we can bring into
the room to show impact. So, I think there’s a different level of accountability.” Students are
encouraged to take accountability for their actions, and by embracing a restorative process the
university provides additional tools and avenues that allow students to do this.
The second goal of addressing impact can be described as “giving them a chance to
understand how that violation of the honor code impacts those around them, their faculty
member, their peers, people who are trying to honestly do the work.” This idea was expounded
upon by the HRE staff member who shared that “it is really about giving students a different
opportunity to see their impact in our community and the role that they play.” This idea of
impact is deeply tied into notions of community. Considering impact allows for students to
rethink their place within the broader community, and it provides a voice for victims and the
greater community within the process.
The third goal of RJ is to give the student a chance to “rebound from this violation and to
give them a chance to learn and to move forward. This idea was the most prominent goal
articulated by the Campus Safety stakeholder who said that the primary goal was to “make a
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
66
difference in I guess the future of that particular person that’s involved without it necessarily
being a punitive type of situation where they have some kind of stake in what their responsibility
is in their actions as well as be receptive to realizing that impact that they’ve had on others and
moving forward how that would affect their actions.” She went on to compare restorative justice
to a zero-tolerance approach, stating “if everything was just zero tolerance and didn’t have any
other options or outlets for resolution, then I think that we’d lose out on a lot of our students that
will definitely go on to be productive in life and contributors to society.” The Vice Chancellor
expounded that by doing RJ well, it “drives home the point that our conduct process is about
education and building good citizenship by helping people reflect the failures and errors they’re
absolutely going to make in life because we all make them.”
Personal experience with RJ. Some of the most meaningful explanations of the RJ
process came when stakeholders were able to reflect upon their own experiences, either
participating in restorative justice or working with students who had gone through the process.
The interim director reflected upon a conference that involved a student who had consumed too
much alcohol. The student’s roommate was present in addition to Campus Safety and other staff
members. He shared that
it was a powerful place to watch how someone who overindulged in alcohol
created all these challenges with the roommate, with the other people on the
floor, with campus safety, and really feeling that their actions not only hurt
themselves but really hurt the entire community that that student was living in. He
was overwhelmed. He really cared deeply about his roommate, and that came
through in a way that I think both of them were surprised at how important they
were to each other. And it was really amazing to watch what could have been
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
67
potentially just been a ‘you’re on probation, follow these little tick marks to
you’re off probation.’ It really became this transformative experience where the
students really connected with each other and understood the impact it had not
only on their relationship but on the broader floor and then the university.
When asked to reflect on how they perceive student’s experience the process, they discussed the
anxiety, vulnerability, and reflection that they have seen occur. The interim director shared, as he
reflected upon a circle in which he participated, “when we first got in… you could really feel the
tension and the anxiety because… if you’re gonna come into restorative conference you can
clearly see that you’re gonna have to be vulnerable in that moment. So the anxiety around being
vulnerable, taking responsibility for your actions, admitting missteps and bad behavior, you
could really feel the tension.” This anxiety was perceived by the HRE stakeholder as well, who
has spoken with students about RJ and they have shared
they seem to enjoy it, but it also is a very in-your-face like I have to face other
people… I had sat with one student who’s gonna go through a restorative justice
and nervous about having to sit with so many people that they’ve impacted versus
just a conduct administrator… it was more of the worry of how it was going to
play out, but I think that once they went through it, they’re glad that they did
because it was - you can begin to rebuild with everybody right away instead of
having to continue to cover up what they saw as their misdeeds.
The HRE stakeholder also shared an experience where she participated in an RJC where her staff
members were impacted parties but unable to attend. She shared:
It was just really powerful. Powerful for a couple of reasons. I think for her to see
the hurt and to have to sort of face the hurt and the impact she had in a way that
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
68
was set up to be caring. And when I say caring, I want to be careful with that,
because it was caring because it was thoughtful, because we all had the same
purpose of being there, and it was to help her understand the impact that she had,
but it wasn’t… like we left, and everyone felt good. Like oh this is resolved.
People were able to share their piece, which I think is so important. And so, for
my team to be able to share their piece in that too, even though it was just written,
because that's where they were at, at the time was impactful for me to see how
much time and energy our team is putting into students.
The stakeholder from Campus Safety reflected that the process is “very easy going, and very
easy in the way that it’s facilitated,” but wishes that she were able to generate more outcome
ideas. When asked how she believes students experience the process she shared “I’ve seen a
wide spectrum. Some come in heartfelt and emotions that you’ll see during it, and others they
come in and they’re like, this is just what I got to do because - and I’m gonna get off without …
anything on my record, and I’m just doing it because this is the only way to have that result.” It
is evident, she shared, which students take the process seriously and which do not. Those who
are open to understanding the impacts that their actions have had upon others “it does affect them
emotionally… and I think it’s really more invested in one completing the process and two,
guiding their actions moving forward.”
The Vice Chancellor also shared her perspective, working with students and parents
about the process. She shared
I would say sometimes they might be a little disgruntled about the amount of work
and concentration that they might be asked to take on. I think sometimes they
would prefer a slap on the wrist that’s more transactional rather than the work
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
69
that goes into actually having to restore the community after your impact. I’ve
(also) had experiences where students said no, this was really important and I
really liked the conversation I was asked to have or I really liked the project that I
came up with and I found it to be a valuable aspect of my experience here. So,
I’ve seen both sides of it.
Desired product and evaluation outputs. The stakeholders shared that restorative
justice is a very experiential process, and one that is often hard for those who have gone through
the process to later describe or to summarize in a way that can be measured objectively.
Administrators interviewed about their experiences with RJ have been able to reflect upon their
feelings, and the way they believed students experienced the process, however they shared that
they would like data to back this up. The Interim Director shared that “I’d like to see what it feels
like to really make those feelings then translate it into actual data that says it is impactful. The
things that you felt in that one restorative justice hearing are really kind of universal.” Those who
have experienced RJ shared that they would like to be able to quantify the feeling that one gets
from participation in the process.
The most common theme identified was the impact that the process has on students,
stakeholders shared things like the
● “Honesty of the evaluation of the impact actually on the students. Is it really going to
be a deterrent from them repeating that behavior or any similar behavior? How does it
affect students on an emotional level?”
● “I’d like to know if students are surprised or even understand the definition of the
process to begin with?”
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
70
The other idea voiced by stakeholders is the effect that this program has on the rest of
the community, the overall impact that it has had, and ideas on where to go from here.
● “I’d love to see how other people are responding to this and the impact that it’s had.”
● “What does the rest of the division need to know?”
Conference Observations
Beginning on March 1, 2018 student respondents who were approved to participate in an
RJC was invited to participate in the evaluation process. The RJC coordinator invited students to
participate in conference observations during the preconference meeting. Students who agreed
signed a FERPA release, and the RJC Coordinator then forwarded the student’s contact
information to the evaluator. The evaluator then made contact with the student, completed
explained the evaluation process and answered any questions that the student had. The evaluator
then asked the student to inform him of the date and time of the conference. The evaluator
obtained written consent from each conference participant prior to the beginning of the
conference. The evaluator did not participate in the conference process, but simply observed and
took detailed notes. Observation notes were then coded and themes were generated along with
student respondent interview transcripts.
In total, three students agreed to allow their conference process to be observed. Each
conference process will be summarized below. These descriptions of conference observations are
in place to allow the reader to better understand the conferencing process, and to connect this
with their own experience in order to draw their own conclusions from the data. Observations
and student respondent interviews were coded and themes were generated through an emergent
coding process. Themes for conference observations and interviews will be discussed.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
71
Conference observation #1: “James”. The student respondent in this conference was
caught cheating during a makeup exam time. The instructor was present, suspected cheating, and
the incident was initially denied by the students. The instructor then forwarded the incident along
to Student Rights and Responsibilities for review. James initially took full responsibility, telling
SRR staff members that he had asked the other student for an answer. He later shared that he had
lied to cover for the second student, and that they had both engaged in cheating. The decision
was made to handle the case through restorative justice. The student, his instructor, a support
person, and community member were present at the conference in addition to the facilitator and
co-facilitator.
Following the script, the facilitators led introductions and discussed RJC ground rules.
Next they asked questions of James, who answered their questions in some detail. James shared
that he had been through an RJC process previously as a complainant in a case. He shared that
the had hoped that this RJC would go similarly, as participating in the RJC as a complainant
helped him to answer a lot of questions and to move on from the incident. James shared that had
communicated with another student during a makeup test time. James shared that he had not
initially been honest with the instructor or with the RJC coordinator. Initially, James had initially
shared that he and the other student talked during the exam. The RJC Coordinator then met with
the other student involved, who shared that James had asked him to share his test so that he could
check one answer, and James then submitted the other student’s test as his own. After hearing
this information, the RJC Coordinator brought James in and asked him if this is what had
happened. At this point James told the truth. Because of his initial dishonesty, James’ chances of
going through the RJC process were jeopardized, however after conversation with the RJC
Coordinator, she allowed him to go through the process as long as he was fully honest with the
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
72
faculty member during the conference. James’ first action in the conference was to look directly
at his instructor and share this story.
James shared the anxiety that the incident had caused him and shared that he was
disappointed in himself. He also discussed his interactions with his family and his girlfriend
regarding these actions, saying that his girlfriend was unsure if she wanted to be in a relationship
with someone who had done what he did. His parents told him that they were disappointed in
him as well. James shared that he has been unable to sleep, and that he would lie in bed thinking
about the situation, about what had happened and worried about what will come from this,
sharing that if he were suspended from the institution, that he would see it as an obstacle, but that
the emotion of it all would be the hardest part.
The instructor was the next person to share. First, she explained what had happened,
initially looking to the facilitator as she spoke. She said that she had observed cheating during a
makeup exam, and her department chair told her that she needed to report the incident. She said
that she felt really bad having to report the incident, stating that giving zeros and punishing
people is not why she chose to teach. As she spoke, she eventually turned to the student and
shared that she sees that this incident caused him a lot of anxiety and can see how guilty he feels
about all of this. She then went on to share that students cheat on every exam that she gives, but
that not everyone gets caught, and that James was the first students to show remorse. “Students
literally shout at me.” The instructor then reminded the group that she was a student for ten
years, she knows that students cheat a lot, and that as a student she had even assisted others in
cheating.
The instructor discussed her struggles in preventing cheating, including changing
syllabus language to state that students responsible for cheating will receive an F in the course.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
73
The hardest part of this incident for her was the conversation that she had with the student,
stating “I can see that he felt terrible.” The dishonesty on the part of the other student was even
more challenging for her. The instructor ended by sharing that James should not be afraid to take
another class with her, that she would encourage it, and that although she knows, and he would
know about this incident, that no other students in the class would know about it. “I’m not angry
with you, just with him (the other student).”
The two support people present discussed the impact that the incident had upon them,
namely seeing the impact that this has had on the respondent. Both support people were
extremely supporting, providing an important check and pointing out how hard James was being
on himself. One shared that it is difficult listening to the narratives that James is telling himself,
that everyone is so disappointed in him, sharing that people make mistakes, and emphasizing
James’ empathy and integrity. He then added that another difficult thing was trying to understand
James’ feeling that he could not have completed the exam on his own.
The community member reflected upon the overall toll this has taken and weighed the
time that has gone into this incident because of James’ cheating versus the time that would have
gone into studying so that would do well on the test. Additionally, she reminded the rest of the
group that she did not want to minimize cheating, and that if she were to cheat when learning
how to perform her job, that there would be serious consequences and that people could get hurt.
The second community member had less to say, their suggested take away from the incident was
to “try not to worry about how much you are disappointing people.”
After each participant shared their piece, the student respondent had the opportunity to
respond. The student, looking to the community member who did not want to minimize cheating,
shared that he appreciated her input and that it gave him a new perspective of someone who may
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
74
deal with matters of life or death on a daily basis. This community member, outside of her
affiliation with the University of Denver, shared that she was a volunteer firefighter. He then
shared that he wants to try to give back to his community, suggesting becoming a volunteer
firefighter as one possibility. James shared that in a way he was happy that things happened the
way they did because he was able to see a “different self.” The student then shared that after
college he wants to go into business and to be an entrepreneur, stating that this is the type of
profession that reflects who you are. The student said that he needs to run his business with
integrity, and that an incident like this “can’t and won’t happen again.”
The conference then moved onto the brainstorming phase. Conference participants
suggested outcome ideas intended to address the harm or impact of what occurred. Ideas
included counseling, community service, campus presentations or public speaking, and talking to
friends. The respondent did not feel comfortable talking about the incident publicly or bringing it
up with his friends because of the shame he still felt about the incident. Conference participants
discussed these options and settled on helping SRR staff to deliver a workshop, either on
decision making or on academic integrity where he would not have to get into detail regarding
his personal experience; as well as some kind of community service. James suggested volunteer
firefighting, while other conference participants encouraged him to do something like big
brothers/big sisters.
The observer noted the momentum of the storytelling phase slowed significantly when
the conference reached the outcomes phase. The storytelling phase saw a high level of
engagement between the student respondent and faculty member, while the “minutiae” of the
outcomes discussion seemed to detract from that. The support people became fidgety and
disengaged, contributing little to this conversation.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
75
Once outcomes were determined, conference participants were then given a chance to
share any closing comments they had. The student respondent thanked everyone individually for
their participation. He shared that he was grateful for the opportunity to go through RJ, stating
that he hadn’t stopped thinking about the incident since it happened, and he felt that participation
in the RJC would help him to bring some closure. He also thanked the instructor for welcoming
him back into her class, and the community member for shining a different light for him on
cheating. The support people shared that they just wanted what was best for the student
respondent, and that they cared about him. The faculty member then shared that she hoped this
process helped the student respondent as much as he shared that it had and asked him whether or
not he would feel comfortable acknowledging their relationship in class or not, to which the
student responded that he would be comfortable. Lastly, the community member shared that she
felt that everything the student shared was genuine, and that she respected him for being there.
The high levels of tension and anxiety in the room at the beginning of the conference had
faded by the end. The conference consumed the full two hours. Participants were visibly tired
from this level of engagement for this long, but emotionally you can see the relief, if nothing but
for the fact that they had gotten through it.
Conference Observation #2: “Maya”: Maya is a graduate student at the University of
Denver. She is involved in the community and has a passion for social justice issues. She was
required to complete a policy brief for one of her classes and was not able to complete it on time.
She asked for extra time to complete the assignment but was still struggling to complete the
assignment by the new due date. At the last minute, she copied and pasted information from a
website and submitted the assignment. The incident was referred to Student Rights and
Responsibilities, where Maya took responsibility for her actions, and the case was referred to a
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
76
restorative justice conference. Individuals present included the respondent, a support person, two
community members (one was a faculty member, although the reporting faculty member was
unable to participate), and two facilitators.
After the facilitators led the group in introductions and a discussion of ground rules,
Maya spoke first. She discussed what had happened, stating that she had run out of time, but did
not remember exactly what she was thinking at the time. She shared that this was not something
that she has ever done before, that she is not sure why she did it, and that it is something that is
out of character for her. She is embarrassed and ashamed. Reflecting on impact, she discussed
the impact that it had upon her, her the professor, and the dean. The professor was adjunct, and
as this happened towards the end of the term, the Dean of the college was forced to deal with the
incident. Maya shared that she had tried to get in touch with the course instructor but did not
receive any kind of response. This incident affected the student’s performance in other classes, as
well as her ability to graduate on time. She did not tell many people about this incident, only the
friend who was serving as her support person. Lastly, she shared that she was ashamed of her
actions.
Her support person followed, sharing that Maya was her closest friend here, but was not
aware that she was the only person whom Maya had told of her actions. She shared that she is
concerned for her friend, wondering why she felt that she had to do this. Graduate programs are
stressful and was worried about the level of stress in Maya’s life, and the added stress from this
incident. She closed by stating “I wouldn’t say it’s a good learning experience, but I would say
it’s a learning experience,” and that she hopes that Maya would be able to grow from this.
The first community member took a firmer tone, stating “I don’t speed, but I got a
ticket,” attempting to reframe Maya’s defense of her actions. She pointed out that Maya was
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
77
working towards a degree in a clinical field, and that if she were to come to Maya for help, how
would it change knowing that Maya had plagiarized even one of her assignments? Placing it into
a different context, she stated that she works in a field where cheating can have significant
consequences and could result in life or death consequences for those she is working with.
Reflecting on who else was impacted by the incident, she shared that it impacts the reputation of
the institution, and the quality of students that the university is able to attract.
The other community member is a staff member, Ph.D. student, and adjunct faculty
member, serving as a representative of the faculty member who was unable to participate in the
conference. She shared that as an instructor, you hope for “authentic learning” to happen, and
that when students cheat or plagiarize you ask, “what was it that I did or said,” and “how could I
have done things differently?” Ultimately, actions like this on the part of students detract from
why faculty members are here in the first place. She then reflected on the incident from her
perspective as a graduate student, stating that she can see the temptation in taking the easy way
out, but that other students - if they knew about this incident - may be worried about the value of
their own degree. In addition, she is concerned that if many other students knew about this, and if
they saw her as a leader, that it may “plant a seed” for them, encouraging them to think about
this as an option. The community member then shared that one thing that she would like for
Maya to take from this incident was to find better ways to budget her time, and to consider that
time management strategies used as an undergrad may not work in graduate school.
After everyone spoke, Maya reflected upon what was shared. She reflected on the idea
that her clients may not be able to trust the guidance that she gives, and also shared that she
recently started going to therapy herself because “my head was not in the best space that it could
be.” Additionally, she said that she probably spends more time at work and at her internship than
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
78
she should be, and discussed the pressures placed upon her at her internship to work more hours
than she is required. Maya began to cry during this reflection, her support person placing her
hand on her shoulder as she spoke. Everyone present softened in both their posture and in their
face, allowing Maya to process this information with the group. When Maya was ready, the
group moved on.
The next phase in the conference process is for the facilitators to list the harms that were
discussed during the conference process. The harms identified included:
● Harm to the faculty member, dean, and department chair;
● Credibility of the degree;
● Impact on self;
● Harm to prospective students;
● Time, effort, and energy invested in this process (Maya also had to rearrange her
internship schedule to participate in the RJC, which has impacted them);
● Impact on whoever did write the content that Maya submitted as her own, as they put
in the time to write this and did not receive credit for their work;
● Impact of not graduating on time without Maya’s peers.
After the harms were listed, the group then moved onto a discussion regarding solutions, or the
things that Maya will do in order to address the harm caused by her actions. Maya spoke first,
suggesting a program with a Resident Assistant to discuss the impacts of academic misconduct
for undergraduate students, and a meeting or letter to her professor to allow her to discuss the
impacts of her actions. Maya shared that she would prefer an in-person meeting but would also
be happy with a letter. She shared that she would prefer not to send an email, as that is “super un-
personable.”
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
79
Community members also discussed the outcomes, noting Maya’s high stress levels and
commitments. They shared that they did not want to add extra undue stress, and that they wanted
her to do something that would allow Maya to take care of herself at this time. The discussed
ways that Maya can manage stress and priorities, and the value of learning to say no. They also
discussed the stress of her internship, and ways to better communicate with her internship
supervisor. Ultimately, the group came to consensus around some kind of communication with
her professor or dean, either in person or via letter; a table in the Driscoll Student Center or
somewhere else, working with Student Rights and Responsibilities staff to discuss academic
integrity; and a conversation about boundaries with her internship supervisor. The observer noted
that as the outcomes conversation progressed, the student became more disengaged, and that the
conversation was driven more by the co-facilitators and community members than by the student
respondent.
When the group moved on to closing comments, Maya went first, thanking everyone and
sharing that the conference has helped her to realize that she needs to develop better time
management strategies and to take better care of herself, rather than simply working to please
others. Her support person told her that she can always come to her for help and encouraged self-
care. One community member shared that she has a friend in the same line of work and noted the
importance of taking time to care for oneself. She also invited her to her office to visit if she ever
needed a break. She also shared that this was a teachable moment, and that consequences exist,
both good and bad. The second community member added that it was a gift to have people
around to support Maya.
Conference Observation #3: “Julie”: Julie is a nontraditional transfer student to the
University of Denver. She enrolled in college directly after high school but struggled
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
80
academically. After she was injured in an accident, she withdrew from that institution and took a
full-time job. She attended community college while working and decided to return to school to
earn a hospitality degree. She applied to the University of Denver, including her community
college transcripts with her application, but she failed to include her other transcripts, those
reflecting her poor academic performance. Julie was awarded a scholarship to attend DU,
partially based upon her previous grades. After enrolling at DU, and speaking with her advisor
about course requirements, she requested that her transcripts from her first institution be sent to
DU. When the registrar’s office received these additional transcripts, they reviewed them in
combination with the community college transcripts and noted the differences in her
performance. After the admissions office reviewed the information, they contacted Student
Rights and Responsibilities for guidance on how to proceed. The program ultimately had to
decide whether or not to allow Julie to keep her scholarship, or even if she should be allowed to
remain a student in the program. Student Rights and Responsibilities charged the student with
potential policy violations. Julie took responsibility for her actions, and after engagement with
the student, the program, and the admissions office, it was decided that restorative justice was an
appropriate process. Conference participants included Julie, a support person who is a friend of
hers and a fellow transfer student, a community member from the office of admissions who
works specifically with transfer students, an additional community member and two co-
facilitators.
After the facilitators went over ground rules and facilitated introductions, Julie spoke
first. She discussed what had happened that brought her to this point. She shared that she was
unsure whether she intentionally did not include her transcripts or not. She reflected upon the day
that she received the call from the admissions office informing her about what happened. She
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
81
shared that she was panicked, and very anxious about the whole thing. Since this occurred, she
has been thinking about how much she wants to be at DU, and that she is really grateful to be
here. She has started taking her time and being more thoughtful about things rather than rushing
through things. She also shared that the actions that she takes can have impacts on more than just
herself. When asked who was impacted by what happened, Julie noted other applicants to DU
who may be more closely scrutinized in the future, her friends and family, other scholarship
applicants, conference participants, and herself.
The community member and impacted party from the admissions office shared that this
incident had a significant impact on her. She remembered receiving the notification from the
Office of the Registrar stating that they had received an additional transcript for Julie, who had
already been accepted at this point. This had never happened before. She shared that had they
known this information earlier, they would have asked more questions and it could have changed
the admission or scholarship decisions that were made. She felt like it seemed cruel to suspend a
student over this, but that it has eroded her confidence in the system, and that she has thought
about this when reviewing other student’s application information. She remembers very clearly
having to make the call to Julie to notify her of this, sharing that it was one of the most difficult
calls that she has ever had to make.
The community member was then asked about how this has impacted her. The first thing
she discussed was how she has been worried about the student, and how this whole thing would
impact her. She then said that she has been thinking about how to prevent this from happening
again, how to move forward, and how to prevent other students from having to go through the
same anxiety as Julie. The hardest part, she reiterated, was having to make that phone call to
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
82
Julie. She knew that it would be anxiety provoking, and she did not know at the time what would
come out of it.
Julie’s support person spoke next, he shared that he and Julie had transferred to the
university at the same time and had become friends. He shared that he is not the same person that
he was eight years ago and does not see why Julie’s past should come back to impact her status
at the university now. The support person vented frustration with the institution, sharing that it
was extremely difficult and stressful to enter the university as a transfer student. When asked
what has been most difficult for him, he shared “not hating DU more” than he already does. He
placed a lot of blame on the institution and discussed a lack of support for transfer students
institutionally. He shared that he would like to see additional advising support for transfer
students, and that he has learned to read the fine print.
The second community member voiced her concerns regarding the situation, namely the
possibility that Julie took a scholarship that may have gone to another student that could have
used it. She also shared that she understood taking time into consideration in considering
applications, and that Julie is probably a different person than she was when she first started
college. The community member also voiced her concerns based upon what she heard about the
transfer application process, and institutional support provided to transfer students broadly.
After each participant was able to share, Julie was offered an opportunity to reflect upon
what she heard. The first thing that Julie did was to turn to the impacted party from admissions,
to look her in the eye, and to apologize for making her job harder. She also shared that she really
appreciated how she was when making her phone call. When she received the call, Julie was
upset, and the admissions person worked to console her, and that helped to make her feel better.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
83
The admissions person responded that efforts are being made to support transfer students campus
wide, and acknowledged that there is still work to be done in order to support transfer students.
Next, the co-facilitators summarized the harms discussed during the conference. These harms
included:
● Harm to the student;
● Harm to the admissions staff, and the staff member present in particular. The call that
she was forced to make was a difficult one, and it was apparent that she was concerned
about the student;
● Eroded confidence in the process;
● The impact on the transfer student - and other non-traditional student experience at the
university.
The outcomes discussion largely revolved around the transfer student experience. Julie discussed
assisting with the admissions process, especially with transfer students. One idea that was raised
was the creation of a focus group involving transfer students to better understand the experience,
and the creation of resources to help transfer students as they come to the university. The final
outcomes decided upon by the group included a focus group, which would involve a 1:1 meeting
between Julie and the admissions representative, the recruitment of transfer students,
participation in the focus group, and then continuing to work with the admissions rep on any
outcomes that can be generated from the focus group process. Once the outcomes were decided
upon, the admissions rep noted that she believes that the outcomes will help the student to
understand the impact of her mistake, and it will also be helpful to admissions staff and future
transfer students. The observer noted a lack of engagement from the additional (non admissions)
community member. There was also an element of discomfort observed with the student during
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
84
this process, while the admissions rep would look at Julie and speak to her, Julie would often
look towards the facilitators when speaking.
After outcomes were determined, each participant had an opportunity to provide closing
comments. Julie went first, and thanked the admissions rep. She again reflected on how difficult
that call must have been for the admissions rep to make, and shared that during the conversation,
as Julie began to panic, the admissions rep reminded her to breath. The admissions rep then
shared that she felt that the process had been productive, and that she believes the outcome will
be more beneficial than the student writing a paper. The last community member shared that she
hopes the outcomes will be beneficial to the greater DU community.
Respondent Interview Profiles:
The evaluator worked with the RJC Coordinator, who used Maxient to pull a list of every
student respondent who had completed a restorative justice conference in the past four academic
years (fall 2014 - spring 2018), and sent an email inviting them to participate in the evaluation
process. Three recruitment emails were sent, on March 30th, April 8th, and again on May 8th.
From these recruitment emails, three participants reached out and agreed to be interviewed about
their experiences. One additional student responded, but did not respond to follow up emails, and
one student responded sharing that they were not interested in participating in the interview.
Of the three interviews that occurred, one was in person and two took place via phone.
All three interviews were recorded using a digital recorder. The, recordings were transcribed,
coded, and themes were generated. The interviews occurred on April 4th, April 5th, and April
24th. Respondents signed a consent form prior to participating in the interviews and were told
that personally identifying information would not be included in the final evaluation report.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
85
Interviewees were also provided with the opportunity to choose their own pseudonym, one
interviewee chose a pseudonym, the two other interviewees declined to choose a pseudonym and
were assigned one.
From these interviews, three profiles were developed, to provide a snapshot of students
who have gone through the RJC process. This was done to allow the reader to better understand
the conferencing process, to humanize the students who have gone through the conferencing
process, and to connect this with their own experience in order to draw their own conclusions
from the data. Additionally, the interviews and observations were coded and themes were
generated. These codes and themes will be discussed in the next section.
Respondent #1 “Annie”: Annie was a junior at the University of Denver who had, at the
time of the interview, recently returned from a study abroad experience and had decided to take
some time off from the institution. She grew up vacationing in Colorado, skiing at Keystone and
visiting family. She was initially drawn to Denver because of the international studies program
but has since declared a major in history. At the time of Annie’s RJC, she was going through a
bit of a rough patch. She was a part of a sorority but was asked to leave the group for reasons she
did not disclose. On her last night in the house, she decided to smoke marijuana on the porch of
the house, and then in her room. Another resident of the house called Campus Safety, who
documented her and referred her to Student Conduct. At the time, Annie had been accepted into
a study abroad program, an opportunity that would have been jeopardized by her conduct status.
Annie’s conduct administrator suggested restorative justice - Annie stated “the restorative justice
person told me that I couldn’t go abroad if I was suspended or whatever and I knew that I had
just made a really stupid mistake and that I didn’t want that to define me, and I also wanted to go
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
86
abroad. So I just wanted to go about righting my wrongs that I had made, and I thought that RJC
was the best path to do that.”
As Annie reflected upon her experience with RJ, she remembers it mostly positively,
stating “I went into it feeling a lot of shame and a lot of guilt and then I went out of the
conference feeling like so much better because I felt like I wasn’t, you know, just being punished
and that I actually had a voice. I also felt like there was a lot of healing because I talked directly
with the people that, you know, I had affected because of my actions.” Annie shared that during
the conference, they had identified three harmed parties including Greek life, Campus Safety,
and her house mom. Although she did not remember exactly what her outcomes were, she
remembered writing a letter to the responding Campus Safety Officer, who responded to her
saying that he was “really touched” and said, “thank you so much”. In addition, her house mom
participated in the RJC. Annie added “I know it was really good to like - because the meeting
was a few months after I left the house, so it was good to see her and kind of work through that
and have that healing with her.”
Annie speaks of her experience in terms of healing and personal growth, stating “I
learned a lot of things. I mean I think that it was just healing in general for everyone because I
learned, you know, the impact of my actions and I became a lot more self-aware after that.” She
also states that “I learned a lot about myself and why, you know, I made the decision that I made
or the multiple decisions that I made, and I learned a lot about myself through it and was able to
kind of get to a point of feeling after that.” In many ways, the RJC was an opportunity for a fresh
start, where
the incident was me hitting rock bottom and the RJC was really helpful for me in
kind of starting to move on from that and I mean this was over a year ago and I’m
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
87
doing so much better than I ever thought. At that time I didn’t think that I could be
doing as well as I am, and I think that that time was the start of that process and
being able to be forgiven for my actions rather than just be punished and judged
for them was a really important thing for me.
Interview #2: “Heather”: Heather is an involved first year student who grew up in
Minnesota. She came into the RJC process after she consumed too much alcohol before a formal
being hosted by a fraternity and was transported to detox. After getting sick on the bus, her date
tried to take her back to her residence hall room where they encountered an RA, who called
campus safety. Heather woke up in detox the next morning with no memory of what had
happened the night before. Campus safety also found that Heather was in possession of a fake ID
when they were trying to identify her. When asked why Heather wanted to pursue an RJC she
shared
I felt really bad about what I did, and my actions that I performed on that night
were nothing like my normal actions at all. That’s just not who I am as a person,
not what I usually do on a weekend… I feel sincerely bad and I don’t want to be
told to go to this class or whatever I want to actually feel better about it rather
than just feel like I’m checking something off a list to get a slap on the wrist or
whatever… I grew up in a household where it’s like you need to make amends and
even after it happened originally before I was contacted to go in or whatever I
wrote a thank you note.
Prior to going through the conduct process, Heather wrote a two-sided note to her date that night,
one side was a thank you note and the other side was an apology. Heather said that when RJ was
presented as an option, “I was like oh yeah. That sounds like right down my alley.”
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
88
Heather remembers clearly who was present at the RJC, and the perspectives that each of
them took. Conference participants included a campus safety officer, the university chaplain, her
RA, who is also in her sorority, and she also brought her roommate as a support person. Heather
remembers the statistics presented by the Campus Safety Officer, and the discussion on how
crime statistics and data reflect on the university. She remembers the chaplain, who was more
concerned about how she was doing, asking questions like “how are you affected by this? And
like are you doing okay, like do you have severed relationships?” Another participant was an
administrator - or a maybe professor with other roles, who took a harsher tone, stating that what
she did was illegal. Heather remembers her being somewhat more aggressive, stating “you are
that girl now,” often relating the conversation back to her own son. Heather reflected “and we’re
like okay your son’s probably not an angel either, but she was - so yeah. She was fine.” Overall,
Heather shared that she felt heard and respected throughout the process, stating
I feel like I didn’t have much to say because I was just kind of like I know what I
did was wrong and how can I fix this, but I never felt like I was being talked at or
anything. And… when we figured out what my consequences would be, they were
very direct on like do you feel comfortable doing this? Like we’re only going to do
it if you want to do it. So, I guess that was heard.
Regarding the outcomes from the process, Heather shared that she enjoyed completing them,
stating “I felt almost bad doing them because there’s stuff that I really like to do like I made a
bulletin board and I made an iMovie and then I just did like this e-CHUG online and wrote a
little paper, which the paper wasn’t hard to write and the movie I enjoyed working with the
software.” She shared that overall she spent about five or six hours working on everything, but
“it was stuff that didn’t seem like a grind to me. I enjoyed doing it.” Heather felt less confident
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
89
that the outcomes addressed every impact. She felt that completing the e-CHUG assessment was
helpful but did not repair harm, but “other than that, they did a nice job to make sure we’re only
gonna have consequences if it’s going to address a certain group that we listed saying was
affected.”
Interview #3: “Eva.” Eva grew up in Connecticut, but her dad grew up in Colorado. She
grew up taking trips to Colorado to ski and to visit family. She spent her first year at a small
private liberal arts college in New York but transferred to the University of Denver for her
sophomore year. She graduated in June of 2017 with a major in journalism and a minor in
political science. She is currently completing an internship with a real estate company and
working at a jazz club but trying to figure out what she wants to do next. Eva shared that she
enjoyed her experience at DU. She lived on campus for her sophomore year but moved off
campus for her junior and senior years. She studied abroad and was able to graduate on time. Eva
went through the student conduct process twice during her sophomore year. She was placed on
probation once after becoming intoxicated and ending up in detox. She was involved in a second
incident a few months later, where she drank too much and ended up in the hospital. She
participated in RJ for this incident, as it “sounded like a good way to get some people together,
talk about what happened, and talk about the potential consequences if I don’t address it and talk
about it going forward.”
When asked to recollect on the RJC, she first recollected on individuals present. She
shared that she brought one of her closest friends as a support person. There was also another
student present who “I think was my year as well who had also been through the same program,
which was kind of cool to see it from somebody else’s perspective and then have one of my close
friends started talking about it with me.” She also remembers a Campus Safety officer present,
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
90
and a few others, but does not remember who they were. She shared “I do remember feeling
good coming out of it with a new mindset… yeah and it was just cool to hear a bunch of different
people’s views on it. Everybody always has different things to say. Yeah, I don’t know. I
definitely thought it was a good idea in the end.” Overall, she found the process helpful as well,
stating “I thought it would be more of a punishment process rather than kind of the supportive
environment of therapy talk in a sense, which I think it was leaning more towards, which actually
did kind of help me realize that I wasn’t in that alone. It’s easy to bounce back if you take the
right steps.”
Ultimately, Eva shared that she learned a lot from the process, sharing that,
it definitely wasn’t so much of a punishment as much as raising awareness of your
actions and what you’ve done and how you’ve affected other people. So, I think it
kind of was a wake-up call all in the sense that you shouldn’t just be thinking about
yourself when you’re making poor decisions or violating any type of student conduct
within the community that you’re a part of because you’re just in a sense bringing
everybody else down with you. But yeah, I think you really need to put yourself in the
perspective of the greater community that you’re representing rather than just
yourself as an independent student.
Eva shared that she started performing better in school “just because I wanted to, I almost felt
like I owed it to myself and to my parents who were paying for my education.”
Interview and Observation Themes
The RJC observations and student interviews were taken together, and the texts coded
and themes were generated using an emergent coding process. From this, the following five
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
91
themes emerged: motivations for pursuing RJ, conference experience, outcomes, reflections on
harm, and learning. Each theme will be discussed in detail below.
Figure 4. Program Evaluation Themes
Motivations for pursuing RJ. Reasons for pursuing restorative justice can be grouped
into two broad categories. The first has to do with the student’s disciplinary status, where they
cannot, for whatever reason, have the initial incident reflected upon their conduct record. Annie,
for instance, shared that she had been accepted into a study abroad program, and that if she went
Motivations for
Pursuing RJ
Conferencing
Experience
Outcomes
Disciplinary
Status
Guilt and
Remorse
Conference
Participants and
Community
Conferencing
Logistics
Reflections on
Harm
Reflections on
Community
Learning
Restorative Justice Program Evaluation Themes
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
92
through the traditional process, she would not have been eligible to go. When asked the question,
she responded:
Honestly, I was going abroad, and I had already been accepted into my program
and stuff and… the restorative justice person told me that I couldn’t go abroad if I
was suspended or whatever and I knew that I had just made a really stupid
mistake and that I didn’t want that to define me, and I also wanted to be able to
go abroad.
Eva had been through the conduct process previously for a similar violation and was on
probation when she was documented for her second violation. She stated that “I’m pretty sure
this was offered to me as a recommended procedure, but I’m not really sure what the other
option was, but I thought it sounded like a good way to get some people together, talk about what
happened, and talk about the potential consequences if I don’t address it and talk about it going
forward.
More commonly, students discussed RJ as a way to right their wrongs, and to make
things right. Annie reflected that she, “wanted to go about righting the wrongs that I had made
and thought that an RJC was the best path to do that.” Heather shared,
I really felt bad about what I did and my actions that I had performed on that
night were nothing like my normal actions at all. That’s just not who I am as a
person, not what I usually do on a weekend, so that’s why I feel sincerely bad and
I don’t want to be told to go to this class or whatever I want to actually feel better
about it rather than just feel like I’m checking something off a list to get a slap on
the wrist or whatever… I grew up in a household where it’s like you really need to
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
93
make amends… and then when they offered restorative justice I was like oh yeah
that sounds like right down my alley.
Heather shared that before going through the RJC, she wrote a note to her date from that night.
On one side, she wrote a thank you note and on the other side she wrote an apology note.
Motivations observed during conference observations were more emotional. James reflected on
his previous experience as a harmed party in an RJC and shared that this process allowed him to
move on and to gain closure. He discussed in some detail the effects that his involvement in this
incident have had on him, specifically that he has had a pit in his stomach, he wasn’t able to eat
or sleep, and that he had lost weight because of the incident. He stated that “there is nothing
worse than lying in bed alone having the run through your head.” James discussed the guilt and
anxiety that he had resulted from this incident, hoping to find the same kind of closure that he
had experienced previously.
Maya also framed her feelings in terms of emotions, stating that she was “embarrassed
and ashamed.” The instructor for the class where she had plagiarized was adjunct. Maya had
attempted to contact her to offer an apology but was not able to connect with her. The conference
offered an opportunity to process these emotions and to offer an apology, even if she could not
offer that apology directly to the instructor.
Conferencing experiences. This theme will be broken down into two parts, the first is
the experience of engaging with conference participants, the community of the conference itself
and student reflections on the impacts of conference participants. The second is the logistics of
the conference, including timing, scheduling, and student engagement throughout the process.
Annie shared that the conference process was helpful to her, stating that “I was expecting to be
really judged and stuff, but I wasn’t. Everyone was very attentive and… actually, feel like I had
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
94
a say in the matter.” She also shared that, “I went into it feeling a lot of shame and a lot of guilt
and then I went out of the conference feeling like so much better because I felt like I wasn’t, you
know, just being punished and that I actually had a voice. I also felt like there was a lot of
healing because I talked directly with the people that, you know, I had affected because of my
actions.” Annie compared the conference process to a trial, stating that when you are put on trial
you aren’t really listened to, but that the RJC was a good process because “people actually cared
about what I had to say and actually were looking for the best outcome for everybody rather than
just like the best outcome for the school or whatever.” Annie also shared that she broke down
crying a few times during the conference, and other people there were “very supportive and very
kind and yeah, just supportive and respectful at that moment.”
Conference observations aligned with these experiences as well. Both Julie and Maya
became emotional during their RJCs, and they were comforted by their support people as well as
the impacted parties and community members. Maya began to cry as the conversation turned to
her skills and abilities as a clinician, when she reflected upon whether her clients would be able
to trust the advice that she was giving. Community members in the same conference reminded
Maya, however, that she was “brilliant,” reframing the narrative from you did this and you
shouldn't have, to I am concerned that you found yourself in a situation where you felt like this
was necessary. Much of the outcomes discussion for Maya in particular focused on her own
commitments and time management strategies, one of the assigned outcomes requiring her to
hold a conversation with her supervisor about boundary setting.
Eva shared that she was surprised by the supportive nature of the process, stating “I
thought it would be more of a punishment process rather than kind of the supportive environment
of therapy talk in a sense, which I think it was leaning more towards, which actually did kind of
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
95
help me realize that I wasn’t in that alone. It’s easy to bounce back if you take the right steps.”
When asked if she felt heard in the RJC process, Heather stated that she felt like she didn’t have
much to say, saying “I was just kind of like I know what I did was wrong and how can I fix this,
but I never felt like I was being talked at or anything.”
James also found himself in a supportive environment. The observer noted how critical
James was of himself and his actions. He was not only going through an RJC for academic
misconduct, he was caught lying during his conduct process. The conference provided him with
an opportunity to come clean with his instructor, and to apologize for everything that had
happened. The instructor shared that one of the hardest parts for her was to see the impact that
this has had on James and shared that James should not be anxious to take another class with her,
she also shared that “I’m not angry with you, just with (the other student).” The community
member who was presumably the hardest on James shared at one point that she was a volunteer
firefighter. After this point, James had not only thanked her for this perspective, but had shared
multiple times that he was also ready to become a volunteer firefighter, even suggesting this as
an outcome from the process.
Many of the interviewees were able to remember who was at their conference, especially
those voices that were more impactful upon them. Eva recalled another student who was in the
conference stating “it’s kind of cool to see it from somebody else’s perspective.” She didn’t
remember anything about him except that he had done something similar, and that he was the
same year as she was. He was on the lacrosse team, and she remembered standing outside talking
with him before the RJC “which was cool.” The one who stood out to Annie was the presence of
the house mom from her sorority, stating “she was actually at the meeting. I know it was really
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
96
good to like, because the meeting was a few months after I left the house, so it was good to see
her and kind of work through that and have that healing with her.”
Heather also remembered very clearly who was in the room, noting the presence of
Campus Safety, the Chaplain, and a third member who was a faculty member with other roles,
although she could not remember what they were. The negative tone of the faculty member stood
out to Heather, who shared,
she was a little aggressive. Like the other people were like - like the campus
police officer was very scary, but she was a really nice person like when we were
talking during break, but the professor was more like, you are that girl now, and
more like negative about the situation, but still offered and saying - and then she
kept relaying it back to her son though and was like she wasn’t the best. She was
more like well, since my son’s your age, and we’re like okay, your sons probably
not an angel either, but she was - so yeah. She was fine.
Conference observations noted a consistent shift in tone when the conference process
moved from the storytelling phase to the outcomes phase. A note from James’ conference stated,
“as participants get into the minutia of outcomes, the process seems to lose some momentum.” In
addition, it was observed that the interactions between James and the faculty member lessened.
This was also seen in Maya’s conference, where brainstorming was led primarily by facilitators
and community members, and it was noted that Maya was less engaged with brainstorming.
When asked if she felt heard during the process, Heather shared “I feel like I didn’t have much to
say because I was just kind of like, I know what I did was wrong and how can I fix this, but I
never felt like I was being talked at or anything.”
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
97
Reflections on harm. The idea of harm to communities and relationships, and
identifying ways to repair this harm, is one of the building blocks of restorative justice. DU staff
and written materials often substitute the word impact for harm in their conduct and conference
facilitation processes. Harm can be framed as harm to one’s self and harm to others. Both of
these topics will be discussed here.
During the restorative justice conference students, community members, and impacted
parties are each asked to identify who was harmed or impacted by what had occurred. James
discussed the impacts that his actions had upon his friends, his girlfriend, and his family. He
shared that he could tell that his parents were disappointed by his actions, and that they had
asked “did we teach you to do things like cheat?” He also discussed his girlfriend’s reaction to
what had happened, stating that she was really upset, and that this incident led her to question
whether she wants to be with someone who “creates problems for themselves and then projects
them onto those around them.”
Maya discussed the effects that her impacts had upon the professor and the dean
specifically. The professor was teaching the class as an adjunct, and this was the first class that
she had taught, Maya was worried that because of this incident she may not teach again. Because
the professor was adjunct, the Dean of the College was forced to manage the follow up from the
initial incident. Julie discussed the impacts that her actions had on admissions staff and future
applicants because they may be more closely scrutinized in the future. She also listed her family
and friends, scholarship applicants, and the people present at the RJC.
Interviewees were asked specifically about who was harmed from their actions, and how.
Each interviewee was able to articulate these impacts. Annie shared that during her conference,
they narrowed this down to three groups, her sorority and Greek life in general, Campus Safety,
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
98
and her house mom. Both the sorority and Greek life were impacted primarily because of
reputation. Campus Safety because, “obviously them having to come into a sorority house past
midnight and kind of deal with that and then do the paperwork that comes along with it. I mean
obviously it’s their job, but it still impacts them because they could be doing things to actually
keep the campus safe rather than responding to incidents like that.” She also added, that Campus
Safety’s job is “ultimately to keep campus safe and so in having to respond to incidents like that
where no one was actually hurt or in danger and then they have to do all the paperwork and stuff,
it’s just more work for them to do. Lastly, she discussed her house mom, stating
she had to do the paperwork. She had to do - she had to actually come to the
restorative justice conference, which I’m really grateful that she did do that, but
then she had to deal with the emotional impact of kind of my response in the
house and, you know, she can’t be focused on just one woman in the house when
she has 30 other women also she has to look out for.
Eva reflected upon the impact on her friends and her parents, as well as the person who found
her passed out on campus, stating
anyone who was close to me was worried about what I was going through, and
then I know the second incident I went to the hospital, I was found asleep on the
floor of the business school passed out. I don’t know how I got there I guess I just
walked in. And I know that it was a janitor, or Campus Safety Officer that found
me and thought I was dead or just you know I was passed out. So it definitely
affected him. Probably scared him a ton.
Eva also discussed the impact on student conduct staff because of the fact that this was her
second incident. She stated, “if an incident occurs twice with one student, I guess it’s kind of
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
99
concerning and they try to figure out what steps to take after already going through a single
process with someone.”
Heather answered the question by first reflecting on the impact to the broader university
community, stating “the greater community of the school being the fact that my actions reflected
bad on the University of Denver and then the community of my dorm like scaring them in the
actions that I showed up there.” She went on to discuss the fraternity that held the formal, the
cleaning staff, and her roommate. She reflected that the impacts include
the negative outlook of how people see this school if that was their only
interaction with a University of Denver student, they’d be like oh that’s not that
good. And then with the cleaning staff taking time of out the fact that they’re not
supposed to really - you shouldn’t have to be cleaning up throw-up like that… and
then campus police, they discussed - she told me the job description and she’s like
and nowhere does it say like taking care of drunk kids. So that was a big thing of
like they spent time taking care of me that they could've been patrolling the
campus.
Reflections on community. Interviewees were also asked how participation in the
conference changed their relationship with the DU community. Heather shared
It opened the doors I think to meeting with these people, meeting with the campus
police officer and meeting with the school chaplain to be ok okay now putting a
name or a face with the name and being able - feeling I could go talk with him
sometime and know more of what they do. And I did gain a greater respect for
campus police… and then learning more about RA’s, so gaining a greater respect
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
100
for the parties and for the DU communities and what they really do rather than
what we think they do.
Annie also discussed that by learning more about what individuals and office on campus do, she
gained more respect for their work. She stated,
I think that if I hadn’t gone through RJC, I would be probably bitter and yeah, I
mean I wouldn't have been able to go abroad, which would’ve been heartbreaking
and would’ve probably make me leave the school… so I think it had a positive
impact on my view of the DU community because I had had a lot of negative
experiences before, but this was an experience with the administration with
people in I guess the system that was a really positive one. And I definitely
understand more… now what people in the administration go thorough and what
they have to deal with on a daily basis. So I have a little bit more empathy with
them as well.
Eva shared that she became more involved within the community in order to open up doors later
on, stating that,
After this occurred I wouldn’t say I went off and joined every club on campus or
really did too much else, but I did join a couple of writing-oriented organizations.
As a journalism major I started trying to focus more on things that are gonna help
me kind of progress my career after I graduate.
Learning. Learning themes were expressed in both conference observations and follow
up interviews. Learning was discussed during conference observations, mostly by community
members. Interviewees were asked directly what they had learned from the RJC process. During
James’ conference, for example, his support person shared that he wanted James to understand
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
101
that people make mistakes, and that it is what we learn from them that is important. A second
support person told James that “things happen, but you can move on.” James related much of the
conversation back to what he is studying in school, and what he wants to do after graduation. He
shared that entrepreneurship requires an ethical person, someone who can run a business with
integrity. He shared that this kind of behavior “can’t and won’t happen again.”
Community members in both Maya and Julie’s conferences also projected what they
hoped the student would learn from the process. Julie’s support person, likely with some jest,
stated that Julie needed to learn how to “read the fine print.” Maya’s support person, as well as
the faculty community member, encouraged Maya to reconsider her approaches to time
management, and to work to develop better time management strategies. During her closing
statement, Maya shared that the conference helped her to realize her need for “better time
management and (to) take care of myself rather than doing what I can to please others.”
Interviewees were asked what they had learned from the process as well. Annie shared
that
I learned a lot of things. I mean I think that it was just healing in general for
everyone because I learned, you know, the impact of my actions and I became a
lot more self aware after that. I learned about like I said the administrative
processes that they have to go through. I learned… about the work that people on
campus do that you may not think that they do a lot, but they really put a lot of
effort in. And then I learned a lot about myself and why, you know, I made the
decision that I made or the multiple decisions that I made, and I learned a lot
about myself through it and was able to kind of get to a point of feeling after that.
Heather shared the following:
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
102
I’d say I learned a lot more about the responsibilities of an RA and what they all
do and what they have to go through every time an incident like this happens and
all the incident reports, and then also with campus police and the incident reports
that they have to go through and what their other jobs are on campus and what
they could be doing instead of dealing with students… really just all the resources
that are out there as well as everything that DU does to help kids really. I mean, I
feel like the incident itself taught me my lesson of okay, we’re not gonna let this
happen again. So it wasn’t - granted the process itself was like okay this is a lot of
emails and a lot of time and that kind of solidified the fact that what happened
wasn’t going to happen again, and then from the process itself I learned these
little tidbits about the community, but going to the process I knew what I’d done
wrong and I knew now that I was just trying to fix it for the community rather
than myself. I was like okay you really messed up and you know what happened.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
103
Discussion
For the purposes of this discussion, it will be helpful to revisit the original intent of the
program evaluation. While the program evaluation utilized many of the same tools found during
a research process, the purpose of the program evaluation is to better understand one program in
particular. The results of a program evaluation are not intended to be generalizable, but to help
program stakeholders to better understand their program and to make decisions on what to do
with the program. The Joint Committee on Standards for Education Evaluation defines program
evaluation as “the systematic assessment of the worth or merit of an object” (Stufflebeam &
Shinkfield, 2007, p. 9). General objectives of program evaluations and additional definitions can
be found in the methodology section.
Two research questions were developed in order to guide the evaluation process: 1) how
do students experience the RJ process? and 2) how do students understand the impacts of their
actions as a result of their participation in the RJ process? These questions were established prior
to formal engagement with the stakeholder group, however the relationship between the
evaluator, the institution, and the evaluand were important in the development of these
evaluation questions. These questions remained after engagement with the stakeholder group, as
they provided grounding questions through which to arrive at the needs of the stakeholder group,
program staff, and students. Additionally, whereas program staff had the theoretical orientation
and limited statistical data on which to base decisions about the RJ program, the element of
student experience was largely missing from program staff’s understanding of the restorative
justice process. The two original questions helped to orient the evaluation, however findings
emerged as a result of coding the data collected.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
104
Limitations
There are a number of limitations that must be taken into consideration when examining
the outcomes. The first is potential evaluator bias. The evaluator has overseen the restorative
justice program for approximately two years before ending that role in order to complete the
evaluation. The evaluator attempted to remove himself as much as possible from the RJC process
in order to objectively evaluate the worth and merit of the RJC program. The second is the small
data set. A total of three post RJC interviews were conducted, and three conference observations
were made. This small sample size must be taken into consideration when applying considering
implementing any evaluation findings.
Summary of Findings
The themes that emerged from the data collection process included motivations for
pursuing restorative justice, conferencing experiences, and outcomes. Each of these themes has
sub-themes which emerged from the analysis of the interview and observation data. Additionally,
themes that emerged from interviews with program stakeholders are considered here, as they can
provide some additional insight into the program.
Motivations. The data presented two primary motivations for pursuing restorative
justice. The first, and seemingly most strongly expressed, included feelings of guilt, remorse,
shame, and a desire for student respondents to right their wrongs. The second set of motivations
revolved around disciplinary records. Eva was concerned about her disciplinary status, as she
was currently on student conduct probation and was concerned that she may be suspended from
the university, and Annie would not have been eligible to study abroad had she gone through the
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
105
traditional process, as the university does not allow students who are on student conduct
probation to study abroad.
Both of these motivations, however, have to be considered together in order to fully
appreciate a student’s motivation to pursue a restorative justice conference. The 2016-2017
academic year saw 962 student respondents come through the process, however only 26
restorative justice conferences. Surely, this cannot be because only 26 students were motivated
by the desire to repair harm, or the same number of students were concerned about their conduct
records. Students who ultimately elect to go through restorative justice must weigh this choice
against other pressures on their time. Students who do not go through the RJ process can find
alternative ways to right their wrongs if they feel a strong desire to do so. Heather, for example,
wrote a thank you and apology note to her date before knowing that RJ was an option.
Conference Experience. The most resounding outcome from this evaluation may be the
power and transformational nature of the restorative justice conferencing process. This was not
only observed directly by the evaluator, but it was also shared by conference participants during
follow up interviews and by program stakeholders who had participated in the process. Students
consistently come in with expectations for how the conference will go, which can be based upon
prior experience with the student conduct process or prior experience with other administrative
processes at DU. Students recalled the supportive environments found in the conferences, and it
was notable that many of the students interviewed remembered who was at their conference and
the perspectives that community members shared. Conference observations also reflected this
student respondents responded very positively, as they were able to engage with impacted parties
and community members as people instead of as nameless administrators or anonymous students
on campus.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
106
James provides an interesting example of this theme manifested. The evaluator noted
during the observation of this conference how much the incident had affected James. He hadn’t
been eating or sleeping well, and this incident was the only thing James would think about or talk
about. He came off as really critical of himself during the conference process. The conference,
however, provided a space where James could not only apologize to his professor, but it also
provided a space where he could process what had occurred with members representing the
community that he had impacted. While his friends and family were likely supportive, they were
not in a position to absolve him of his emotions. His parents and his girlfriend expressed their
disappointment in his actions, but his connection with a community member present at the
conference allowed him to consider channeling this emotion into something productive,
emulating her as a volunteer firefighter. And only his professor could invite him to retake this
class with her in the future.
Not every community member contributed positively to the student’s experience,
however. Heather recollected one community member who came off as aggressive, stating
“you’re that girl now,” and recalling her own son, who Heather believed “was probably not an
angel.” Restorative justice encourages participants to engage in the process as their authentic
selves, meaning that they will bring their own identities, experiences, and relationships with
them into the conference process. It is apparent, however, that what was shared by this
individual, although maybe not inappropriate, was not helpful to Heather in her own processing
of what had happened or in her attempts to repair harm.
Outcomes. Outcomes include student reflections on harm, reflections on community, and
reflections on learning. These outcomes can be framed by the three goals stated by the program
stakeholders which include accountability, the opportunity to address the harm or impact of their
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
107
actions, and the chance to rebound from the violation and use it as a learning experience. These
outcomes and stakeholder goals were examined and coded differently, but the comparison is
helpful to understand whether RJC outcomes are in line with the goals shared by program
stakeholders.
Each student during their interview could recall who was impacted by what had occurred.
Annie was specific in stating that the harm from her incident impacted three different groups.
She reflected on the harms committed to each, and she also expressed her gratitude at the
opportunity to repair the harm to her house mom, who was at the meeting. Eva discussed the
impacts that her actions had upon the person who found her passed out in the business school,
stating that he may have thought that she was dead. Although these students each discussed the
impacts of their actions with SRR staff, the harms that they shared during the interview process
relate to the people present at the conference, meaning that presence and that conversation are
powerful in the student processing this harm.
When asked about community, many students discussed the administrative aspects of the
DU community, like knowing more about housing, campus safety, or navigating campus
resources. Going through an RJC did not, in and of itself, seem to dramatically alter their sense
of place within the university. Only Annie shared that she likely would have left DU if she was
unable to go abroad, something made possible by her RJC. Similar ideas were expressed when
students reflected on their own learning, where they mentioned things like the roles and
responsibilities of an RA, and Campus Safety statistics. Heather shared that the incident itself
was a learning experience, and that the RJC cemented this, but also related learning back to
administrative aspects of the university.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
108
Stakeholder Perspectives. While stakeholder data was gathered in order to guide the
evaluation process, it also offered some meaningful insights into the restorative justice program
itself. Stakeholders were gathered from different areas on campus, each with some connection to
the restorative justice process. There were many commonalities found among stakeholders,
however, not the least of which was a desire to see a successful restorative justice program at the
university. Stakeholders are clear in their desire for a restorative process that allows students to
take accountability for their actions, one that allows a role for impacted parties and the greater
community in the process, and an overall conduct process that is less transactional, and more
innovative in identifying ways to create learning and encourage behavioral change.
Placing these Findings in the Context of Relevant Research
While research in this area has been limited, Meager’s (2009) dissertation study of
respondents in campus based restorative justice programs serves to support the findings of this
evaluation. Meager (2009) interviewed 16 students at three different campuses regarding their
experience as a respondent in a restorative justice process. Meager’s (2009) data supported three
broad categories including mediating factors, or those experiences and orientations that students
bring with them into an RJC, the restorative sessions themselves, and outcomes. There is some
similarity between Meager’s themes and those that emerged from this evaluation process,
however the themes that emerged from this evaluation relate more directly to the initial
evaluation questions.
Meager’s (2009) mediating factors included elements of anxiety and previous
experiences with conduct or other disciplinary processes. These factors, overall, caused anxiety
for students going into restorative justice processes. Restorative sessions themselves
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
109
communicated atmospheres of respect, validation for students going through the process, and
supportive environments. Meager (2009) found that issues of social class and age, however, can
serve as barriers for students in the process, but that having a peer of the same age was helpful.
Outcomes identified included a change in how respondents viewed themselves in relation to
others, a sense of emotional release and resolution, learning new information and skills, and
changed behaviors as a result of their restorative justice process.
While there are few studies that have examined the impacts of student respondent
experience in restorative justice processes, Abrams et al (2006) conducted a study of youth
offenders who participated in a victim offender mediation program in Minnesota in order to learn
more about the impacts of meeting face to face with their victims. Respondents overwhelmingly
shared that they were satisfied with this tied to feelings of closure and clarification on the part of
the offender. The authors also described the “profound changes in how they viewed the crime
victims,” offenders recounting how they better understood what victims had gone through as a
result of their actions (Abrams et al, 2006, p. 251). Additionally, the authors observed offenders
ability to humanize victims, and in return offenders felt that victims were also able to humanize
them in return (Abrams et al, 2006). This reflects the data gathered from this evaluation, where
student respondents were able to better understand and humanize the harms caused.
While these results cannot be compared to a control group of students who have gone
through the traditional conduct process, they can be compared to existing research on the
learning outcomes from a traditional student conduct process. When taken as a whole, studies
that have examined the impacts of student conduct processes have not demonstrated any
significant impacts on learning or future behavior (Howell, 2005; Nelson, 2016; Mullane, 1999;
King, 2012). While additional research would be required to determine any significant learning
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
110
or changes in future behavior as a result of a restorative justice process, there are multiple studies
that demonstrate the effectiveness of restorative justice within of the higher education realm
(Karp & Sacks, 2014; Meager, 2009; Matthews, 2014). While additional research needs to occur,
there are arguable merits to incorporating restorative justice into a student conduct process, and
for engaging students through a restorative justice conference process.
Revisiting the Evaluation Questions
Considering this information, we now turn to the original evaluation questions - how do
students experience the restorative justice process, and how do students understand the impacts
of their actions as a result of their participation in the RJ process? From the data gathered, it
appears that students see their participation in restorative justice as meaningful, something that
provided them with the opportunity to right their wrongs and offered a way to find closure on
actions that they regretted. This sentiment is also reflected in the assessment conducted by SRR
staff, where 73% of respondents stated they felt that restorative justice was a good way to handle
incidents like the one they were involved in, and that they were satisfied with the outcomes from
their process. Conference observations also observed a supportive environment where student
respondents could discuss the incident and explore its impact with a broader community.
The data also supports the idea that students are able to better understand the impacts of
their actions as a result of going through the restorative justice process. Interviewees were able to
articulate who was impacted and how by what had occurred. Conferences also provided student
respondents with opportunities to engage directly with those they have harmed in safe and
controlled environments. The assessment data provided by SRR staff also supports this
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
111
conclusion, 73% of respondents agreed with the statement that they more fully understood the
impacts of their actions and offer an apology to the harmed parties in the incident.
Recommendations
Based upon the data collected and analyzed through the evaluation process, the following
recommendations are being given. These recommendations are wide ranging, and program
stakeholders can adopt any or all of the recommendations below. The recommendations are
presented from the most general to the most specific.
Recommendation #1: Establish a clear vision, as well as goals and outcomes for the
restorative justice process. While restorative language is included in the mission statement for
the department, there are no program goals or outcomes associated with the restorative justice
process. A distinct vision, and established goals will provide grounding and a sense of direction,
as well as allow program staff to understand how RJ fits into the student conduct process and the
division as a whole. The preliminary vision statement and program goals have been developed
based upon the data collected through the evaluation process.
Vision statement:
Restorative justice at the University of Denver provides opportunities for students
to take responsibility for their actions, to repair harm, and to create community
through the incorporation of restorative practices within the student conduct
process and throughout the work of the division of Campus Life and Inclusive
Excellence.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
112
And the following goals have been developed based upon the data collected through stakeholder
interviews:
1. Create opportunities for students to take accountability for their actions and the
impact that they have had upon their communities.
2. Provide students with the opportunity to understand how their actions have impacted
those around them, as well as to provide opportunities for students to repair that harm.
3. Give students a chance to rebound from their actions, to create a process the
emphasizes learning, and to provide opportunities to move forward.
4. Enhance community at the University of Denver throughout the use of restorative
practices.
Recommendation #2: Develop adequate staffing and resources to ensure long term
program success and sustainability. Currently there is no staff time, and there are no
programming dollars designated for restorative justice at DU. Many of these recommendations
will require additional resources and staffing time or resource to complete. The creation of a full-
time restorative justice position (Coordinator or Assistant/Associate Director within the Office of
Student Rights and Responsibilities) will ensure that the department and the division has staff
with the appropriate expertise in restorative justice to manage and grow the program, and
additional programming dollars could aid in professional development, training divisional staff
and advertising the program. A full-time position will require the following skills or experience:
Experience with student conduct, and an understanding of student development
theory.
Training and experience in restorative justice conference facilitation
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
113
Preferably 1-2 years of experience in residence life, student conduct, or community
based restorative justice.
A full time Restorative Justice Coordinator (or Assistant/Associate Director) would
complete the following duties:
Oversee and provide leadership to the restorative justice program at DU, serving as
the primary restorative justice conference facilitator.
Conduct pre-conference meetings with students, impacted parties, and community
members to help prepare them for participation in restorative justice conferences.
Provide guidance and leadership to other student conduct and HRE staff members in
their referrals to RJ, and conference facilitation skills.
Monitor incoming reports for cases that may make good RJC referrals, work with
student conduct administrators in consulting and referring cases to RJCs as
appropriate.
Supervise graduate students from the Morgridge College of Education and the
Conflict Resolution Program as restorative justice conference facilitators, providing
ongoing support, training and feedback. Provide supervision to a restorative justice
Graduate Assistant.
Conduct training on restorative justice for CLIE staff, and throughout the institution.
Serve as a resource to other departments on campus in the use and implementation of
restorative practices, including community building circles, talking circles,
reintegration circles.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
114
Collaborate with the Conflict Resolution Institute and the Facilitated Dialogue
Program at DU to ensure communication, consistency, and continuity of
programming and services.
Collaborate with other departments on campus to develop programming around
restorative justice.
Serve as a point of contact for other conflict resolution services administered by
Student Rights and Responsibilities, including conflict coaches and mediation
referrals.
Engage with local and national organizations to stay abreast of best practices and
foster a community of restorative justice practitioners.
The addition of a part time Graduate Assistant position will assist with pre-conference
preparation, community member training, and restorative justice outcome follow up.
The division can collaborate with faculty and development staff from the Korbel
School of International Studies, the Graduate School of Social Work, or the
Morgridge College of Education in order to secure funding for a Graduate Assistant
position. Students in all three of these colleges have an interest in restorative justice
work and would each bring a unique academic perspective.
Recommendation #3: Develop ongoing mechanisms to assess and measure
restorative justice and student conduct processes. A survey instrument was developed to
assess satisfaction among students who went through the restorative justice process in 2017,
however it was only sent to students one time. This assessment instrument should be regularly
sent to students who participated in the restorative justice process and adapted for other RJC
participants. In addition, comprehensive assessment of the conduct process should be utilized to
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
115
enhance the process and to serve as a way to compare RJ outcomes with student conduct
outcomes.
Recommendation #4: Identify ways to introduce restorative practices to students in
other ways. Restorative practices such as talking circles or community engagement and
integration circles can be used throughout orientation, student engagement, and housing. With
basic training, staff throughout the division could implement restorative practices within their
work, creating a culture of restorative practice throughout campus life. Restorative practices can
be utilized for community building, community problem solving, discussions, or resolving issues
outside of the conduct process. Some examples of restorative practices that can be adopted into
other areas around the division include:
Community building circles incorporate the use of restorative practices to build
community and to allow participants to get to know one another. Facilitation of these
circles is easy and requires a minimal amount of training. Community building circles
can be used in new student orientation, residence life, and in student organizations.
Reintegration circles allow students who have left the institution to identify resources,
and to engage with other community members around the issues that led to their
departure. Reintegration circles can be utilized for students who have been
academically or disciplinarily suspended, students who took a medical leave, or
students who took time away from the institution. They help to mark a student’s
return to campus and allow the student to connect with resources that will allow them
to be successful upon their return.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
116
Peacemaking or problem-solving circles can be used in any setting. A trained
facilitator can help students or staff members to work through a problem and
encourage productive discussion ranging from small topics to severe issues.
Community healing or processing circles can help the broader community to heal and
identify ways to move forward resulting from incidents that have a broader impact.
These can be used after incidents of discrimination or to help the community grapple
with significant local or national events.
Other restorative practices can be incorporated into various aspects of student and
community life at DU, and they do not have to be limited to use among students.
There is promising research into the incorporation of restorative practices for Title IX
violations and issues of discrimination on campus. Restorative practices can help to
empower victims and encourage community healing as a result of conduct violations
as well as actions that have impacted the community that may not have violated
university policy.
Recommendation #5: Review the language and process of restorative justice to ensure
that it is inclusive and accessible. While demographic questions were not asked as a part of
data collection for this evaluation, all respondents to the SRR survey self-identified as white or
Caucasian. Where people from communities of color, in particular, may hold a distrust of
criminal justice or disciplinary process, identifying opportunities for engagement and recruitment
for students of color will help to build a more inclusive process. Program staff can identify
opportunities to introduce students to restorative practices in non-conduct areas, as discussed in
recommendation #4. In addition, campus wide programming and promotion of restorative justice
will establish a broader familiarity with these concepts around campus. Staff members can
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
117
collaborate with offices that work directly with communities of color on campus, including clubs
and organizations and the Center for Multicultural Excellence to provide additional
programming and training in these areas.
Recommendation #6: Enhance the pre-conference preparation for students, harmed
parties, and community members. While steps were taken during the 2017-2018 academic
year to enhance pre-conference meetings with students, further development of the pre-
conference process can better prepare students to participate in restorative justice conference, to
reduce anxiety, and to help focus the conference on harm and repair. Currently there is no pre-
conference preparation offered for impacted parties or community members. While this is
partially a function of timing and resources, opportunities for trainings or pre-conference
meetings with community members may enhance the process for students and prepare
community members to participate constructively.
Recommendation #7: Restructure the outcomes process, create opportunities for
meaningful engagement from students and support people. Conference observations
continually noted that students became less engaged during the outcomes generation process.
Pre-conference preparation with students and community members, such as the development of
concrete outcomes ideas prior to the RJC will help with this. Additionally, the development of a
suggested RJC outcomes document will help conference participants to more quickly orient
themselves to typical outcomes, or to provide ideas for those who may feel stuck. This work will
require staff members to pull historical RJC outcomes, to determine which ones can be used
during other conferences, and to format a document in line with what is used for the Student
Accountability Board.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
118
Recommendation #8: Reconcile DU’s past, the indigenous roots of restorative
justice, and appropriation of indigenous practices of talking circles and restorative justice.
The University of Denver must be thoughtful about its relationship with restorative justice. The
university’s founding by John Evans, the land it occupies, and the appropriation of a cultural
practice must all be considered. The 2017-2018 academic year saw the inclusion of a land
acknowledgement and acknowledgment of the indigenous roots of RJ into the script for
conference facilitators. This is a great start however this perspective must be included in any
future changes or growth of the program as well.
Continued Engagement with Program Stakeholders and Staff
When I first conceptualized and began this program evaluation, I oversaw the restorative
justice process and would have played a role in moving forward from any program evaluation.
Since undertaking this project, however, I have left the University of Denver and moved to a
different state. In addition, there has been significant staff turnover within the department. At this
point, the restorative justice program may be on hold until a full-time director is hired, and the
department has the adequate staffing to continue RJ. Because of this transition, anything coming
out of this program evaluation may have to wait until there is staffing to consider the evaluation
and recommendations.
I will continue to engage with program stakeholders and departmental staff in order to
support restorative justice at the University of Denver. I have invited program stakeholder and
departmental staff members to my presentation of this topic. Additionally, I will provide them
with final copies of this document. I will request that this information is provided to a new full
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
119
time Director and would be happy to offer my time in helping to get the program running again,
and in the identification of a full time RJC coordinator if one is hired.
Conclusion
From the first restorative justice conference in 2010 until today, there have been over 100
restorative justice conferences at the University of Denver. The program has grown significantly
since then, and departmental and divisional administrators must now decide what direction the
program will take moving forward. Although many students and university community members
have expressed their satisfaction with the program anecdotally, it was important to better
understand the program holistically, including to gain a sense for how students experience the
program before making any decisions as to its direction. The restorative justice process
consumes far more time and resources than the traditional conduct process. Additionally, it can
be somewhat more nebulous, creating some anxiety for university administrators who do not
understand it on a fundamental level. As other campuses implement restorative practices and
RJCs into their conduct processes moving forward additional data will emerge to support or
refute the use of restorative practices for university disciplinary processes. The University of
Denver is in a position to expand the use of restorative justice and could become a leader
nationally in their use and implementation. Ultimately, however, restorative justice may help to
build a culture of accountability and responsibility on campus, as well as to strengthen the
university community overall.
I am happy for the opportunity to conduct this program evaluation. In the five years that I
spent working at the University of Denver, I had many rewarding experiences. Working with
restorative justice, however, was quite possibly my most rewarding. What I have liked most
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
120
about this experience was the opportunity to take something that felt good, and felt right as a
staff member, and to work to understand how the students felt about it, and to get a glimpse as to
its effectiveness. All too often in student affairs work, dedicated staff members put in long hours
trying to do right by our students. While there is momentum within the field towards assessment,
our outcomes are rarely measured, and not easily measurable.
Program evaluation is most often seen in the K-12 and not for profit worlds, utilized as a
way to measure complex outcomes and to determine the overall “worth or merit” of a particular
program. The practice, however, is underutilized within student affairs work. I was unable to find
examples of program evaluations conducted on conduct processes, especially on restorative
justice programs within student conduct. I am hopeful that, while the focus of this program
evaluation is specific, it may serve as a model for future program evaluations within student
conduct work or within restorative justice processes.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
121
References
Abrams, L.S., Umbreit, M., & Gordon, A. (2006). Young Offenders Speak About Meeting their
Victims: Implications for Future Programs. Contemporary Justice Review. 9(3), 243-
256.
Adamson, C.W., Baile, J.W. (2012). Education Versus Learning: Restorative Practices in
Higher Education. Journal of Transformative Education. 10(3), 139-156
Allena, T. (2004). Restorative Conferences: Developing Student Responsibility by
Repairing the Harm to Victims and Restorative the University Community. In
Karp, D.R. & Allena, T. (Eds). Restorative Justice on the College Campus (48-
60). Springfield, Il: Charles C. Thomas.
Bazemore, G. & Elis, L. (2007). Evaluation of Restorative Justice. In Johnstone, G. &
Van Ness, D.W. (Eds.), Handbook of Restorative Justice (397-425). New York:
Routledge
Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Responsive Regulation and Restorative Justice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Burton, J.D. (2004). Collegiate Living and Cambridge Justice: Regulating the Colonial
Harvard Student Community in the Eighteenth Century. The History of Higher
Education Annual: 2003-2004 (83-105).
Chenail, R. J. (2011). Interviewing the investigator: Strategies for addressing
instrumentation and researcher bias concerns in qualitative research. The
Qualitative Report, 16(1), 255-262.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
122
Clark, K. L. (2014). A call for restorative justice in higher education judicial affairs.
College Student Journal, 48(4), 705-713.
Cohen, A.M., & Kisker, C.B. (2010). The Shaping of American Higher Education:
Emergence and Growth of the Contemporary System. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Cook, K. J. (2006). Doing difference and accountability in restorative justice
conferences. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 107-124.
Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publishers.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. & Miller, D.L. (2000). Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.
Theory Into Practice, 39(1), 124-130.
Dahl, M.G., Meager, 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.
Dannells, M. (1997). From Discipline to Development: Rethinking Student Conduct in
Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 25, No. 2. The
George Washington University: Washington, DC.
Dannells, M. & Lowery, J.W. (2004). Discipline and Judicial Affairs. In F.J.D.
MacKinnon & Associates (Eds.), Rentz’s Student Affairs Practice in Higher
Education (178-208). Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Dollar, R.J. (1969). Disciplined College Students’ Opinions of the Discipline Process.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
123
Journal of College Student Personnel, (10) 219-222.
Fisher, S. (2014). The University of Denver: A History. Charleston: The History Press.
Fitch, E.G., & Murry, J.W. (2001). Classifying and Assessing the Effectiveness of
Student Judicial Systems in Doctoral Granting Universities. NASPA Journal,
38(2), 189-202.
Foucult, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage
Books.
Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gallagher Dahl, M., Meagher, P., & Velde, S. V. (2014). Motivation and outcomes for
university students in a restorative justice program. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 51(4), 364-379.
Gehring, D.D. (2001). The Objectives of Student Discipline and the Process That’s Due:
Are They Compatible? NASPA Journal, 38(4), 466-481.
Goldblum, A. (2009). Restorative Justice from Theory to Practice. In Schrage, J.M. &
Giacomini, N.G. (Eds). Reframing Campus Conflict (140-153). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Harper, S. R., Harris III, F., & Mmeje, K. (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.
Hessinger, R. (1999). The Most Powerful Instrument of College Discipline: Student
Disorder and the Growth of Meritocracy in the Colleges of the Early Republic.
History of Education Quarterly. 39(3). 237-262.
Howell, M.T. (2005). Student’s Perceived Learning and Anticipated Future Behaviors as a
Result of Participation in the Student Judicial Process. Journal of College
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
124
Student Development. 46(4), 374-392.
Hudson, B. (2006). Beyond white man's justice Race, gender and justice in late
modernity. Theoretical Criminology, 10(1), 29-47.
Johnstone, G. & Van Ness, D.W. (2007). The Meaning of Restorative Justice. In
Johnstone, G. & Van Ness, D.W. (Eds.), Handbook of Restorative Justice (5-23).
New York: Routledge
Kara, F., & MacAlister, D. (2010). Responding to academic dishonesty in universities: a
restorative justice approach. Contemporary Justice Review, 13(4), 443-453.
Karp, D. (2015). The Little Book of Restorative Justice for Colleges and Universities.
New York: Good Books.
Karp, D. (2009). Not With a Bang but a Whimper: A Missed Opportunity for Restorative
Justice in a Plagiarism Case. Journal of Student Conduct Administration, 2(9).
27-30.
Karp, D. & Breslin, B. (2001). Restorative Justice in School Communities. Youth and
Society, 33(2), 249-272.
Karp, D., & Conrad, S. (2005). Restorative Justice and college student misconduct.
Public Organization Review, 5(4), 315-333.
Karp, D. & Frank, O. (2016). Restorative Justice and Student Development in Higher
Education: Expanding ‘Offender’ Horizons Beyond Punishment and
Rehabilitation to Community Engagement and Personal Growth. In Gavrielides, T
(ed), Offenders No More: An Interdisciplinary Restorative Justice Dialogue.
(141-164). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Karp, D. & Sacks, C. (2014). Student Conduct, Restorative Justice, and Student
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
125
Development: Findings from the STARR Project: A Student Accountability and
Restorative Research Project. Contemporary Justice Review, 17(2) 154-172.
Karp, D., Shackford-Bradley, J., Wilson, R.J., & Williamsen, K.M. (2016). A Report on
Promoting Restorative Initiatives for Sexual Misconduct on College Campuses.
Saratoga Springs, New York: Skidmore College Project on Restorative Justice.
Retrieved from:
http://www.skidmore.edu/campusrj/documents/Campus_PRISM__Report_2016.
pdf
Kenny, J.S., and Clairmont. D. (2008). Using the Victim Role as Both Sword and Shield:
The Interactional Dynamics of Restorative Justice Sessions. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 38(3), 279-307.
King, R. H. (2012). Student conduct administration: How students perceive the
educational value and procedural fairness of their disciplinary experiences.
Journal of College Student Development, 53(4), 563-580.
Llewellyn, J.J., Macisaac, J., & Mackay, M. (2015). Report from the Restorative Justice
Process at the Dalhousie University Faculty of Dentistry. Nova Scotia, BC:
Dalhousie University. Retrieved from
https://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cultureofrespect/RJ2015- Report.pdf
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice
Practices: A Meta Analysis. The Prison Journal. 85(2), 127-144.
Levrant, S., Cullen, F.T., Fulton, B., & Wozniak, J.F. (1999). Reconsidering Restorative
Justice: The Corruption of Benevolence Revisited? Crime and Delinquency.
45(1), 3-27.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
126
Lustick, H. (2017). Administering Discipline Differently: A Foucauldian Lens on
Restorative School Discipline. International Journal of Leadership in Education,
20(3), 297-311.Contemporary Justice Review, 17(3), 346-361.
Marinelli, A.J. (1973). Student Conduct Regulations. Cleveland State Law Review.
22(1). 125-135
Matthews, S.F. (2014). Does Restorative Justice Repair Damage? The Experience of
Harmed Parties at Two American Public Universities (Doctoral dissertation).
University of South Dakota.
McDowell, L.A., Crocker, V.L., Evett, E.L., and Cornelison, D.G. (2014). Perceptions of
Restorative Justice Concepts; an Evaluation of University Housing Residents.
Contemporary Justice Review, 17(3), 346-361.
Meagher, P.J. (2009). A Phenomenological Study of the Experience of Respondents in
Campus-Based Restorative Justice Programs (Doctoral dissertation). Bowling
Green State University.
Moore, K.M. (1976). Freedom and Constraint in Eighteenth Century Harvard. The
Journal of Higher Education. 47(6). 649-659.
Morris, A. (2002). Critiquing the Critics: A Brief Response to Critics of Restorative
Justice. The British Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 596-615.
Morrison, B.E. & Vaandering, D. (2012). Restorative Justice: Pedagogy, Praxis, and
Discipline. Journal of School Violence. 11(2). 138-155.
Mullane, S.P. (1999). Fairness, Education Value, and Moral Development in the Student
Disciplinary Process. NASPA Journal, 36(2), 86-95.
Nelson, A.R. (2017). Learning and Development as a Result of Student Conduct
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
127
Administration (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Wisconson-Madison.
Neumeister, J.R. (2017). The Model of Transformational Change for Moral Action: A
Conceptual Framework to Elevate Student Conduct Practice in Higher Education.
Journal of College and Character, 18(2). 97-111.
Ortlipp, M. (2008). Keeping and Using Reflective Journals in the Qualitative Research
Process. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 695-705.
Pavela, G. (1997). Applying the Power of Association on Campus: A Model Code of
Academic Integrity. Journal of College and University Law, 24(1).
Poulson, B. (2003). Third Voice: A Review of Empirical Research on the Psychological
Outcomes of Restorative Justice. Utah Law Review, 167(1), 167-203.
Pranis, K. (2007). Restorative Values. In Johnstone, G. & Van Ness, D.W. (Eds.),
Handbook of Restorative Justice (59-74). New York: Routledge.
Rios, V. M. (2006). The hyper-criminalization of Black and Latino male youth in the era
of mass incarceration. Souls, 8(2), 40-54.
Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative Justice at Work: Examining the Impact of Restorative
Justice Resolutions on Juvenile Recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 53(3), 355-
379.
Rohrbacher, D.P. (2016). Examining the Role of the Student Conduct Advisor at Public
Institutions Within an Alternative Dispute Resolution Framework (Doctoral
dissertation). The Pennsylvania State University.
Schuck, A.M. (2015). Evaluating the Impact of Crime and Discipline on Student Success
in Postsecondary Education. Research in Higher Education, 58(1), 77-97.
Schwartz, R. A. (1997). Reconceptualizing the leadership roles of women in higher
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
128
education: A brief history on the importance of deans of women. The Journal of
Higher Education, 68(5), 502-522.
Schweigert, F.J. (1999) Moral Education in Victim Offender Conferencing. Criminal
Justice Ethics, 18:2, 29-40.
Simson, D. (2013). Exclusion, punishment, racism, and our schools: A critical race theory
perspective on school discipline. UCLA Law Review, 61, 506.
Stake, R. E. (1973). Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation. In
Evaluation Models (pp. 287-310). Springer: Netherlands.
Stake, R.E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Stake, R. (2004). Stake and Responsive Evaluation. In Alkin, M.C. (ed). Evaluation
Roots: Tracing Theorists’ Views and Influences (203-217). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Stake, R. E. (2004). Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Stimpson, M.T., & Stimpson, R.L. (2008), Twenty Seven Years of Student Conduct
Literature: Implications for Practice, Scholarship, and ASJA. Journal of Student
Conduct Administration, 1(1), 14-31.
Stoner, E. N., & Lowery, J.W. (2004). Navigating Past the Spirit of Insubordination: A
Twenty-First Century Model Student Conduct Code with a Model Hearing Script.
Journal of College and University Law, 31, 1
Stufflemean, D.L., & Shinkfield, A.J. (2007). Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications. San
Francisco: John Wiley and Sons inc..
Swinton, D.C. (2008). An Analysis and Overview of Student Disciplinary Scholarship in
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
129
Higher Education. Journal of Student Conduct Administration, 1(1), 45-60.
Szmania, S.J., & Mangis, D.E. (1998). Finding the Right Time and Place: A Case Study
Comparison of the Expression of Offender Remorse in Traditional Justice and
Restorative Justice Contexts. Marquette Law Review, 89(355), 335-358.
Tyler, T.R. (2006). Restorative Justice and Procedural Justice: Dealing with Rule
Breaking. Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 307-326.
Umbreit, M.S., Coates, R.B., & Vos, B. (2002). The Impact of Restorative Justice
Conferencing: A Review of 63 Empirical Studies in 5 Countries. Center for
Restorative Justice and Peacemaking: University of Minnesota.
University of Denver (2017). Honor Code and Student Conduct Policies and Procedures.
Denver: University of Denver. Retrieved from:
https://www.du.edu/studentlife/studentconduct/honorcode.html
University of Denver. Restorative Justice at the University of Denver. Denver: University
of Denver: Retrieved from:
https://www.du.edu/studentlife/studentconduct/restorativejustice/index.html.
University of Denver (2014). Report of the John Evans Study Committee. Denver:
University of Denver.
University of Denver (2010). DU Impact 2025: New Directions to Transform our Future.
Denver: University of Denver.
University of Denver (2017). University of Denver Factbook. Retrieved from:
https://www.du.edu/ir/factbook/index.html
Wagoner, J.L. (1986). Honor and Dishonor at Mr. Jefferson’s University: The
Antebellum Years. History of Education Quarterly. 26(2). 155-179.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
130
Williams, D.A.; Berger, J.B.; & McClendon, S.A. (2005). Toward a Model of Inclusive
Excellence and Change in Postsecondary Institutions. American Association of
Colleges and Universities.
Williamsen, K.M. (2017). “The Exact Opposite of What They Need.” Administrator
Reflections on Sexual Misconduct, the Limitations of the Student Conduct
Response, and the Possibilities of Restorative Justice (Doctoral dissertation).
University of Minnesota.
Willis, R. (2016). Three approaches to community in restorative justice, explored
through a young person’s experiences of a youth offender team in England.
Restorative Justice, 4(2), 168-194.
Zehr, H. (2005). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottdale, PA:
Herald Press.
Zehr, H. (2015) The Little Book of Restorative Justice. New York: Good Books.
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
131
Appendix A: Program Stakeholder Interview Protocol
Interview Protocol - Program Stakeholder Pre Interviews
Introduction, explanation of the program evaluation process and goals. Opportunity for questions
before beginning the interview.
Introduction Questions:
1. Can you tell me your name, and role on campus?
2. How long have you been at the University of Denver?
3. How does your role intersect with the SRR/ student conduct process?
4. How does your role intersect with the restorative justice process?
Program Questions:
5. What are the goals of Student Rights and Responsibilities at DU?
6. What are the goals of restorative justice at DU?
Evaluation Output Questions:
7. What would you like to see in this program evaluation?
8. Do you have any anticipated results?
9. How would you like to have this information presented?
Wrap up:
10. Is there anything else that you would like to share?
11. Do you have any questions for me?
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
132
Appendix B: Student Respondent Interview Protocol
Interview Protocol - Post RJC Interview with Respondent
Overview of Informed Consent.
Introduction, explanation of the program evaluation process and goals. Opportunity for questions
before beginning the interview.
1. Can you tell me a little bit about yourself?
a. Involvement on campus
b. Year
c. Academic program
d. What brought you to DU?
2. Can you tell me a about what brought you to a restorative justice conference?
4. Tell me about your experience with the RJC…
5. Did you feel heard?
6. Who was impacted by what occurred?
a. In what ways?
7. What are you going to do to repair those harms?
8. Do you feel a connection to the greater DU community?
9. What communities – either within or outside of DU do you feel like you are a part of?
10. What would you say you learned from this process?
11. How would you say you’ve changed after going through this process?
12. Is there anything else that you would like to share about your experience?
Restorative Justice at the University of Denver
133
Appendix C: RJC Observation Protocol
RJC Observation Protocol:
Conference Date:
Number and roles of participants:
Brief Incident Description:
Time Descriptive Notes Reflective Notes
