Centering Trauma in School Discipline: A Comparative Analysis of Traditional and Trauma-Responsive Restorative Practices

Background and Purpose:

Restorative practices are increasingly used in K-12 settings to reduce exclusionary discipline, yet models do not explicitly address the high prevalence of trauma among today’s youth or the significant relationship between trauma and exclusionary discipline, particularly in under-resourced, racially marginalized communities. This study examines whether integrating a trauma-responsive mental health intervention, Developing Relational Adaptive Emotional Minds (DREAMs)into a restorative framework, the Just Discipline Project (JDP) enhances trauma-affected student outcomes. Specifically, this study investigates whether JDP with DREAMs integration results in improved academic functioning, mental health, and behavioral outcomes for trauma-affected youth relative to JDP without DREAMs integration.

Methods:

This quasi-experimental study used purposive sampling and drew on pre-, post-, and follow-up survey data from two school-based restorative programs in collaboration with 6 Pittsburgh-area schools. The intervention group implemented trauma-responsive restorative practices (JDP+DREAMs), while the control group implemented traditional restorative practices (JDP). Across the sample, 63% of participants identified as Black or African American and the average number of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) was 3.29. The DREAMs intervention was co-designed by two licensed clinicians and grounded in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT). CBT components include psychoeducation pertaining to the interdependent relationship between thoughts, emotions, and behaviors; cognitive restructuring; and emotion identification. DBT components include distress tolerance, emotion regulation, and preemptive planning. To expand access, DREAMs was designed as a manualized treatment and delivered by on-site restorative practice coordinators. Eleven 60-minute weekly group sessions, individual check-ins, and three outcome assessments were conducted. Quantitative measures included validated scales assessing school engagement, psychological well-being, and behavioral functioning. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to assess changes over time and between groups.

Results:

Students in the JDP+DREAMs group showed a significant reduction in Affective Lability scores from pre-test to post-test and from pre-test to follow-up, while students in the JDP group did not show significant changes between any time points. No significant time by school site interactions were observed for behavior or academic outcomes, likely due to small control group sample size. However, descriptive analyses revealed greater reductions in nearly all scales of mental health and behavioral functioning at JDP+DREAMs sites compared to JDP-only sites. Program feedback was positive: 88% would recommend DREAMs to peers and expressed interest in future participation. Additionally, 88% perceived DREAMs as a safe environment for discussing personal experiences.

Conclusions and Implications:

Findings underscore the importance of embedding trauma-responsive principles into school-based restorative practice models. The observed mental health and behavioral benefits, and high program acceptability observed in the JDP+DREAMs intervention are promising. Given school-aged students’ critical need for trauma-supports, partners should explore streamlining trauma-informed restorative frameworks to enhance trauma-affected student outcomes. Further, pre-service teaching and school social work programs should prioritize curriculum development surrounding the high prevalence of trauma among today’s youth, and trauma-informed restorative skillsets. These efforts may contribute to mitigating the adverse effects resulting from exposure to trauma and school environments as potentially triggering environments.