Does Restorative Justice (RJ) work? Or better yet, to the extent that RJ does work in K-12 schools, how would we even know? Is it because the program that is offered at our professional development day claims to be “evidence-based,” or because we know that it is? And even more directly, how would we figure out if something is evidence-based, and where would we start in looking for that evidence? These are the questions I asked the 4th cohort of the Loyola School Mental Health Advanced Practice Program (SMHAPP) students. As part of the “EBP in School Mental Health”hey were asked to examine these questions around RJ and school violence prevention programs, and to create a Research Brief (RB) that described the evidence for a study that looked at RJ. Several of the students also wrote short descriptions of what they found, why they chose that specific article, and what they learned from the SMHAPP EBP class. What follows are their RBs, and some selected references from the articles they drew from.
Today, we’re excited to share an RB by Ms. Dessiree Malone, a Loyola 2nd-year MSW Student who is working towards her school social work certification–her topic is an interesting study showing promising results of a home-school parenting intervention to help families of young children with ADHD.
We’re excited to share a rigorous randomized trial comparing trauma-focused CBT for adolescents in a community setting to treatment as usual. Here is a RB by a school social worker and current Loyola student, Ms. Mary Beuckelaere, drawing on her work on helping adolescents at her high school placement deal with complex trauma.
The meta-analysis study (N=62) found that interventions led to small but reliable improvements in body image, but insignificant effects on beauty internalization and social comparison tendencies. Previous reviews had found larger effect sizes in all three outcome areas but had high risk of bias across and within studies. The study identified numerous change techniques (noted above in the text box) that are effective and could be used in future interventions, and also several that are contra-indicated: 1) self-esteem enhancement (cautionary, needed more studies), 2) discussing physical fitness and 3) discussing client’s individual differences (both #2 & #3 potentially due to focus on weight and appearance).