Furthermore, Hollands et al and Gregory et al conducted comparative analyses of schools implementing RJP programs and found that at schools with no restorative programs in place, there were higher suspension rates over time. Similarly, when comparing the Nevada County sites to the four schools in the neighboring county, there was a drastic difference in the number of overall and drug-related suspension counts, with Nevada County schools reporting lower numbers. To our knowledge, data on drug-related suspensions has not been examined in previous restorative program evaluations. Therefore, this study provides insight into the potential impacts of an RJP program with substance use components in addressing drug-related disciplinary incidents in particular. As reported, Nevada County sites had slightly higher drug-related suspensions in the 2018-19 academic year, which corresponds with the uptick in the number of relative incidents at the state level . Prior to the launch of RAYS, drug-related suspensions were higher at Nevada County sites in relation to comparable sites; however, similar to the number in overall suspensions, there was a sharp decrease in the academic year following the launch of RAYS in August 2021. In contrast, at the comparable school sites the number of drug-related suspensions nearly doubled during the 2021-22 academic year in relation to 2018- 19. Although these shifts may not be directly related to the implementation of RAYS, they may be indicators of larger program impacts on the discipline landscape at the school level. As is evident by pretest and posttest data, the majority of students who exited RAYS reported decreased use behaviors or frequency of use. As such, these students may no longer be using, or if they are, they are choosing not to use at school where they are most likely to be caught. At the systemic level, plants rack administrators at the Nevada sites may be increasing the number of referrals they are making to RAYS from drug-related incidents.
If so, this may imply an increased awareness of the RAYS program amongst school district and site staff which is crucial for program sustainability and continuous support. This increased awareness may be supported by the high number of school staff and administrator exposures to information presentations conducted by the RAYS program coordinators . Past RJP evaluation studies have cited the negative impacts of punitive measures, particularly the counter intuitive effects they have in increasing the number of disciplinary incidents and repeat offenses. It is evident from Nevada’s suspension data that in the absence of the RJP program, there was a higher number of overall and drug-related suspensions compared to when after RAYS was launched. Furthermore, authors have noted the positive effects RJP programs in improving academic achievement among participant. Although this study did not collect student academic data, it may be interesting to examine the potential impacts of RAYS in increasing academic success as students who are diverted to the program tend to stay in school rather than being sent home. Studies have also found that RJPs decrease the suspension gap between racial/ethnic minorities and non-Hispanic White students. Such gaps were not noted within the Nevada County sites implementing RAYS as the majority of enrollees self-identified as non-Hispanic White, representative of the student body in Nevada County . One of the objectives set by NCSOS was a reduction in drug-related suspensions by 20% by April 2024 . To calculate drug-related suspension rates, the total number of drugrelated suspensions was divided by the cumulative enrollment for the 2018-19 and 2021-22 academic years . Calculations revealed that in 2018-19, 6.03% of all students at the four sites were suspended for a drug-related reason, whereas in 2021-22, 2.17% of students were suspended.
Based on these raw calculations, there was an approximate 64.06% reduction in drug-related suspensions among the entire population at the four sites. This supports the conclusion that RAYS is on track to meet the 20% reduction goal by April 2024 if this decreasing trend continues. This decrease in drug-related suspension rates follows similar patterns with overall suspensions seen in other studies examining the effects of RJPs on disciplinary rates over time. It is crucial to continue tracking drug-related suspensions to assess potential time-dependent effects of the RAYS program across the implementation period.The use of combustible tobacco products has significantly decreased with 2.2% of 8th, 4.2% of 10th, and 7.6% of 12th graders reporting past 30-day cigarette use in 2018. These rates have continued to drop to 0.8%, 1.7%, and 4.0% for each grade level, respectively, in 2022. Nationally, this particular group of adolescents reported a combined past 30-day cigarette use rate of 2.1%. In California, which is known for having some of the strictest anti-tobacco laws in the nation, only 1.2% of this population reported past 30-day cigarette use in 2021. Other combustible forms of tobacco have also been relatively low across the years with the prevalence of large cigars and little cigars/cigarillos remaining below 10% across the years, more recently below 2% for either product. Smokeless tobacco use has also remained on a steady decline with 3.4% of adolescents reporting past 30-day use in 2018 to 2.3% in 2021. Looking at California specifically, only 0.6% of adolescents said that they had used a smokeless tobacco product in the last 30 days in 2021. Nonetheless, previous research has noted that smokeless tobacco use remains high in niche populations, mainly among non-Hispanic White male individuals who reside in rural areas. These devices are used to vaporize nicotine-containing liquids and other chemical compounds, allowing for the inhalation of chemical vapors.
In 2018, 19.2% of school-aged adolescents reported having vaped in the last 30 days, increasing to 22.5% in 2019 followed by a slight decrease to 17.0% in 2022. In California specifically, 8.2% of school-aged adolescents reported past 30-day use of a vape product.7 These high use rates are often attributed to the various flavors available for vape “juices” which may be enticing to school-aged youth. Findings released from the 2022 National Youth Tobacco Survey reported that among the middle and high schoolers who used a vape in the last 30 days, approximately 85% used a flavored product with fruit and candy or sweet flavors being the most popular.10Despite its status as a Schedule I substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act, several states across the nation have implemented policies permitting medicinal and/or recreational use of cannabis products. Some states have even gone the extra step of decriminalizing marijuana possession and use in an effort to reform the criminal justice system’s procedures surrounding cannabis. Adolescent cannabis use in particular, which remains illegal for individuals under 21 years of age in California, has seen fluctuations across the years. Overall rates of past 30-day use of marijuana/hashish products among school-aged adolescents in the United States were at 14.6% in 2018, followed by a slight decrease to 11.0% in 2021, and is now at 12.3% as of 2022. 6 Past 30-day marijuana vaping, as a modality, has increased among this population from 5.7% in 2018, to 10.1% in 2021, and current rates standing at 9.6% as of 2022. Marijuana use rates in California, a state that legalized medicinal use in 1996 and recreational use in 2016, have increased among school-aged adolescents. During the 2019-2020 academic year, 31.2% of 8th, 10th, and 12th graders in California reported ever-using cannabis products, plant growing trays with 15% reporting past 30-day use. The most commonly used modalities for marijuana use among students in California were smoking at 50.6% among current users, followed by vaping at 32.6%.7Current California Education Code stipulates that all suspensions and expulsions are warranted if a student commits a “violent crime, possesses/uses drugs or weapons, steals, bullies, hazes, behaves obscenely, threatens to cause physical harm, or damages school property”. The decision to suspend or expel a student who has committed a suspendable offense is at the discretion of the principal or district superintendent. Since the 1980’s, most policies and guidelines surrounding discipline in California’s schools have been punitive in nature, with zerotolerance approaches being the norm. However, a shift to more restorative disciplinary methods has been seen in various districts not only in California, but throughout the United States. For drug-related disciplinary policies in particular, California Education Code states that students may be suspended or expelled if they are caught in possession, using, selling, furnishing, or under the influence of any controlled substance under Division 10 of the California Health and Safety Code . Controlled substances listed under this code include any forms of opiates, opium derivatives, hallucinogenic substances , depressants, and other “hard” drugs . The current California Education Code also classifies possession or use of tobacco products or alcohol as a suspendable offense.
Nonetheless, a recent announcement from the California Department of Education instituted new guidelines for what may constitute a suspendable incident. Although policies for drug-related offenses remain in effect, guidelines for suspensions and expulsions for defiance related infractions have shifted. Students in grades K-8 can no longer be suspended for “willful defiance”, defined as being disruptive or acting in a way that defies authority. Research has found that punitive measures to address willful defiance have historically impacted students of color and sexual/gender minorities at disproportionate rates. State officials have emphasized that punitive measures such as suspension should be considered as a last resort, instead diverting students to necessary services and interventions as alternatives to suspension. These policies highlight a major transition from punitive measures which are more exclusionary in nature and tend to isolate students. The “alternative to suspension” approaches currently being proposed seek to improve behavioral and academic outcomes utilizing restorative justice and trauma-informed approaches. They also seek to provide individualized support in lieu of punitive discipline by providing additional academic, behavioral , and social support. The CDE has also encouraged schools to draw from existing mental health support and behavioral intervention strategies , an approach that some schools in California are already implementing. Recent studies have found positive impacts of these restorative practices on behavioral outcomes and suspension and expulsion rates, particularly for students of color – a subgroup of the student population that has been found to be disproportionately impacted by the negative effects of punitive measures. Overall student suspension rates have remained at steady rates across the years. In the 2011-12 academic year, the state-wide suspension rates were at 5.8%, steadily decreased to 3.6% in 2016-17, and were most recently reported at 3.2% as of the 2021-22 academic year. It is important to note that the 2018-19 academic year was the last full year of in-person instruction due to pandemic-related campus closures during the 2019-20 and 2020-21 academic years. As such, suspension and expulsion data provided for the period during campus closures may not be reflective of the actual number of students that may have committed suspendable offenses during this time. Examination of drug-related suspensions in particular does not reveal any notable patterns. Nonetheless, as seen in Figure 1, a slight decrease in the total number of illicit drug related suspensions is evident between the 2014-15 and 2016-17 academic years, with a steady increase in 2017-18. The notable decrease in the 2020-21 academic year is reflective of the school closures and transition to remote learning between March 2020 and Fall 2021, during which the majority of students were not attending school in-person.One strategy for alternative-to-suspension programs is the incorporation of RJP approaches in disciplinary protocols. The philosophies embedded in RJPs are rooted in South Pacific and North American indigenous cultural values which emphasize the importance of community and interpersonal connectedness. Originally implemented in criminal justice systems, they are an alternative to punitive measures found to be successful in reducing repeat offenses and fostering reintegration for the offender. School systems in Australia began implementing RJPs in educational settings in the 1990’s with other nations following shortly thereafter, including the United States. RJP philosophies focus on “wound repair”, recognizing that entire communities are harmed when an individual commits an offense. Major components of RJPs tie in community cohesiveness, harm repair, and reintegration. In contrast to exclusionary discipline , RJPs bring stakeholders together for civil discussions in a “safe space”. Some critical components of RJPs that foster these “safe spaces” include restorative circles/restorative conferences, community-building circles, restorative conversations, and peer-to-peer mediations.