Violence in the school environment remains an ongoing challenge in educational institutions globally. According to data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), collected in spring 2022, about 1 in 10 students in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OCDE) countries reported feeling unsafe in their school 4 weeks before the assessment. In addition, 17% of respondents reported having witnessed a fight in the school environment that resulted in injury to someone (PISA 2022, 2023a). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) reports that every month, one in three students worldwide is bullied at school. In addition, more than 36% are involved in physical fights with peers, and almost one third have been physically assaulted at least once in the past year (UNESCO, 2024). According to the official report of the International Non-Governmental Organisation “Bullying Without Borders,” conducted between January 2022 and April 2023 in the Americas, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and Africa, bullying continues to increase worldwide. Currently, 6 out of 10 children face bullying or cyberbullying daily. Some of the countries that stand out for their higher rates are Mexico, where 7 out of 10 children and adolescents suffer from this problem daily; the United States, with a rate of 6 out of 10 minors affected; and Spain, which has registered a notable increase compared to previous research, positioning itself as the country with the most cases of bullying and cyberbullying in Europe (International NGO Bullying Without Borders, 2023). According to the PISA 2022 (2023b) report, 6.5% of Spanish students claim to have been victims of frequent bullying. Statistics on violent, aggressive, and bullying behaviors among students are alarming and have been categorized as a critical public health problem (González Contreras et al., 2021; Felip Jacas et al., 2024). This type of behavior affects not only the victims but also the aggressors and observers, generating a negative impact on the emotional and social wellbeing of all those involved, as well as on their academic and personal development (Eisman et al., 2020; Imuta et al., 2022). In response to this problem, education policies have often resorted to punitive and exclusionary approaches. However, these policies have proven insufficient to reduce violence in school settings (Welch and Payne, 2012; Lodi et al., 2021).

The RP have emerged as a promising alternative to managing violence and promoting peaceful and constructive coexistence within the school community (Esquivel Marín, 2018; Vincent et al., 2021; de Vicente Abad, 2023). This approach is based on the principles of Restorative Justice, which emphasize reparation of harm, accountability, and reintegration rather than the mere application of punishment (Zehr, 2015; Mas-Expósito et al., 2022).

The initial concept of Restorative Justice began to be discussed in the late 1970s, mainly in the United States, by small networks of American and European academics and practitioners. In the United States, these programs emerged in a community context, while in Europe, they were mainly oriented toward the criminal field (Pulido Valero, 2008). Restorative Justice aims to resolve conflicts by protecting victims and promoting social peace through dialogue and encounters between the parties involved. It seeks to make the offender assume responsibility, repair the damage and commit to modifying their behavior, becoming aware of the repercussions of their actions (Segovia Bernabé and Ríos Martín, 2008; de Vicente Abad, 2023).

As stated in the Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes (2006), restorative justice is an extensive concept defined by various practices that encompass processes centered on a restorative methodology, such as Victim-Offender Mediation, Positive Discipline, Restorative Counselling, and Peace Circles (McCold and Wachtel, 2002).

Studies in different countries have shown the benefits of this approach. For example, in English-speaking countries, restorative justice programs have been implemented in school settings, integrating various practices and exploring different approaches to addressing violence in educational institutions (McCluskey, 2010). In this line, Bonell et al. (2014, 2015) found that the implementation of RP in UK schools through inclusive intervention significantly reduced anxiety, stress, and aggressive behavior among students, as well as fostered a climate of justice and respect in the classroom. Similarly, Prutzman et al. (2022) reported that RP in a New York school promoted cooperation and respect, creating an inclusive and participatory environment that improved students’ social and emotional wellbeing.

In Canada, Reimer (2020) documented how students in a primary school perceived the school environment as a safe and supportive space, thanks to RP. These findings were supported by studies in the United States that showed that, by implementing these practices, a decrease in school violence and an improvement in students’ emotional wellbeing were observed, reducing the perception of victimization and strengthening the sense of belonging (Eisman et al., 2020; Melendez-Torres et al., 2021).

In conclusion, RP in education is aimed at building positive relationships between students, teachers, and other members of the school community, providing tools for conflict resolution and the development of social–emotional competencies, such as empathy, responsibility, and emotional self-regulation (Filella et al., 2018; Rea and Saldarriaga Vélez, 2023). The global approach and the promotion of restorative practices to address conflicts in the classroom are evidence of progress toward overcoming the punitive model, promoting, in turn, a change in the social mentality (Albertí and Boqué, 2015).

Given the growing interest in implementing RP in the educational context and the need to address the high rates of school violence, this study aims to analyze, through a systematic review, the effectiveness of these practices in reducing school violence and their contribution to students’ emotional wellbeing. The evidence gathered will enable educational institutions to develop informed policies and programs that favor a safe, inclusive, and conducive environment for the holistic development of students, contributing to the construction of a culture of peace in schools.

To develop this systematic review of the impact of RP on reducing school violence and improving emotional wellbeing, rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to ensure the relevance and quality of the selected studies. First, only studies published after 2000 were considered, given that the use of RP in school settings has gained relevance in the last two decades, when many educational institutions began to explore alternatives to traditional punitive approaches (Bonell et al., 2015). This period allows for a selection of up-to- date studies aligned with recent developments in RP. Regarding study design, we included research that applied experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational methodologies, specifically randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental studies with control groups, and pre-post designs, all of which focused on evaluating the effects of RP. Case studies were also selected that, using qualitative methods, provided an in-depth understanding of individual experiences and the impact of these practices on school dynamics. This criterion allowed us to integrate studies with a mixed approach, combining both quantitative and qualitative results, which is relevant in a topic that involves complex aspects of coexistence and emotional development in the school environment (Eisman et al., 2020; Melendez-Torres et al., 2021). However, opinion articles, theoretical reviews, and studies without empirical data were excluded.

To ensure a comprehensive analysis of the effect of RP on the educational community, only studies focused on school populations that included students, teachers, or administrative staff were selected. This selection criterion encompasses both primary and secondary education, as it is at these stages that challenges related to school violence and the development of social–emotional competencies are significantly evident, allowing for a comprehensive view of the impact of these practices in the school context (Reimer, 2020; Prutzman et al., 2022).

In addition, the selected studies had to directly address the effects of RP on school violence and students’ emotional wellbeing, which were assessed through indicators such as the reduction of stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms. Only research that analyzed these specific aspects was included, thus excluding studies that did not provide results directly related to school violence or emotional wellbeing (Avivar-Cáceres et al., 2022; Chatlani et al., 2023). Methodological quality criteria were also established to ensure the studies’ robustness. Studies with a clear description of the sample, the use of validated measurement instruments, and rigorous statistical analysis were selected. Studies with imprecise methodologies or whose results could not be reliably attributed to RP were excluded from the analysis (Clark et al., 2023). Finally, to facilitate full access to the relevant literature, only studies published in English and Spanish were included, thus avoiding linguistic limitations that might prevent a comprehensive analysis of the findings in this field.

The study selection process for this systematic review was carried out following the guidelines of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) model to ensure completeness and transparency at each stage. Firstly, an in-depth search was carried out in the Scopus and Web of Science databases, using keywords related to the study’s object and the Boolean operators AND and OR to structure the search. The initial search equation for Scopus was: (“restorative practices” OR “restorative justice”) AND (“school violence” OR bullying) AND (“emotional wellbeing” OR anxiety OR stress OR depression). For Web of Science, the equation included additional terms: (“restorative practices” OR “restorative justice” OR “restorative approaches” OR “conflict resolution”) AND (“school violence” OR bullying OR “aggressive behavior” OR “peer aggression” OR “school misconduct”) AND (“emotional wellbeing” OR “mental health” OR anxiety OR stress OR depression OR “psychological wellbeing” OR “emotional health” OR “social–emotional learning”). This initial search identified 860 publications, of which 806 were from Scopus and 54 from Web of Science. After removing duplicates, the pool was reduced to 436 unique studies. This was followed by a review of titles and abstracts to identify relevant studies on the impact of RP on school violence and students’ emotional wellbeing. In this phase, the previously defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and studies that did not contain key terms in the title or abstract, such as restorative justice, RP, emotional wellbeing, anxiety, and depression, were discarded. This screening phase reduced the selection to 51 potentially relevant articles. In the eligibility phase, the full texts of these 51 studies were assessed to ensure they met the minimum methodological criteria. Studies that did not specify the methodology lacked outcomes directly attributable to RP or showed quality limitations were excluded. At the end of this process, 13 studies met all criteria and were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. This selection process is presented visually using the PRISMA diagram, which summarizes each phase and ensures the traceability of the applied methodology (Figure 1).

A consistent pattern has been observed about school climate, which acts as a crucial mediator in the effects of restorative practices. A positive school atmosphere reinforces the effectiveness of these practices and contributes significantly to their long-term sustainability and improvement.

Of the 13 articles selected for this review, 38.46% were published programs implemented in the United States (N = 5), followed by the United Kingdom, which accounted for 23.08% of the publications (N = 3). Other countries such as Germany, Mexico, Spain, and Belgium contributed 7.69% each, with only one publication related to implementing a program per country. This concentration in Anglo-Saxon countries can be attributed to the trajectory of restorative justice programs in these contexts, where RP have been incorporated as alternatives to traditional disciplinary policies, especially to address the problem of school violence and to foster a safe and constructive classroom environment (Bonell et al., 2015; Acosta et al., 2019). In terms of study samples, research focused on three main groups: students, teachers, and whole school communities, including both educational staff and students and their families. Five studies (38.46%) focused exclusively on school-aged students, four focused on adolescents, and one covered students aged 3–12 (Reimer, 2020). A further five studies (38.46%) looked at the school community. On the other hand, one study (7.69%) looked exclusively at teaching staff (Clark et al., 2023), while another included both teachers and students and families (Pérez-Jorge et al., 2021). Additionally, Weber et al. (2021) evaluated the effectiveness of RP in both adolescents and the whole school, using control and experimental groups to analyze the impact on cohesion and school climate.

Regarding the number of participants, the studies with student-only samples had an average of 1613.6 participants (Max = 7,121, Min = 15, Sd = 3087.39). In the only study focusing on teachers, the sample was 140 participants. In the studies that included whole schools, the sample size was expressed in the number of schools, with an average of 16.4 institutions (Max = 40, Min = 1, Sd = 14.90). The methodological variety of the studies encompasses qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches, which provides a broad picture of the effects of RP from different perspectives. The qualitative studies mainly focused on students, explored subjective perceptions, and experiences through semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Hadar et al. (2024) and Chatlani et al. (2023) used qualitative methods to reduce negative emotions and strengthen empathy and social skills among participants, highlighting how learning circles promote an atmosphere of openness and collaboration. Quantitative studies focused on measuring the effects of RP on reducing violence and improving emotional wellbeing. For example, Avivar-Cáceres et al. (2022) employed a quasi-experimental design with the FHaCE up program to evaluate the impact of these practices on decreasing incidents of violence, finding significant improvements in school climate and students’ social–emotional competencies, including empathy and active listening skills. Similarly, Melendez-Torres et al. (2021) conducted a cluster-controlled trial, observing improved students’ emotional wellbeing and reduced psychological problems such as stress and anxiety.

Studies involving whole school communities, cluster randomized trials, and other quantitative approaches were used to analyze the impact of RP on cohesion and respect within the school environment. Studies such as those by Eisman et al. (2020) and Bonell et al. (2014, 2015) demonstrated that implementing these practices reduces school violence and fosters respect and collaboration, contributing to students’ emotional wellbeing. In these studies, teachers reported that RP offered effective tools to manage disruptive behaviors, improve safety and classroom climate, and reduce students’ anxiety and stress. However, Acosta et al. (2019) found no significant differences between restorative and control schools, suggesting that the context of implementation and the particularities of the program may influence its effectiveness. Studies using a mixed or observational approach, such as Prutzman et al. (2022), integrated qualitative methods such as dialogue circles and observations in school groups to assess how these practices contribute to conflict resolution and group cohesion. This methodological combination provided a richer understanding of the processes by which RP fosters an inclusive and emotionally supportive school climate. The findings also reveal that developing social–emotional competencies and group cohesion are dimensions that benefit from RP. In studies focusing on students, RP reduced negative emotions such as shame and significantly improved empathy, social skills, and conflict resolution abilities (Hadar et al., 2024; Avivar-Cáceres et al., 2022). Studies that integrated technology into interventions, such as that of Melendez-Torres et al. (2021), showed that using RP improved students’ wellbeing and reduced psychological problems. Reimer (2020) also highlighted that restorative circles strengthen self-confidence and help students manage conflict proactively, thus promoting positive social–emotional development. In studies of whole school communities, RP reduced the incidence of violence and created a more participatory and respectful school environment, increasing cohesion and a sense of belonging. Prutzman et al. (2022) found that these practices fostered a culture of collaboration and respect, while Bonell et al. (2015) documented decreased student anxiety and stress levels. Where teachers and families were involved, RP were perceived as a practical resource for conflict resolution and for improving classroom relationships. These studies showed that the participation of the entire educational community strengthens the sense of belonging and emotional wellbeing in the school context, allowing students, teachers, and families to feel an active part of a collaborative educational community (Pérez-Jorge et al., 2021; Weber et al., 2021).

In summary, the findings underline the importance of promoting a positive school climate as an integral part of implementing restorative practices. These results suggest that interventions should be designed considering the specific characteristics of the school environment to maximize their effectiveness and sustainability.

The findings of this systematic review confirm that RP is an effective tool for addressing school violence, improving students’ emotional wellbeing, and fostering the development of social–emotional competencies and group cohesion. However, the methodological and geographical variability of the studies and limitations in qualitative approaches present challenges and opportunities for future research and more effective implementation.

The present review provides evidence that RP is a promising tool for improving school climate but also highlights areas for further research. The impact of RP on developing social–emotional competencies in teachers and other school community members needs to be further explored. In addition, most of the selected studies focused on short-term interventions; therefore, longitudinal studies examining the sustained effect of RP on reducing violence and improving emotional wellbeing would be valuable. Another important line of research is the adaptation of RP to different cultural contexts and educational stages. Although the studies reviewed suggest that RPs are effective in school settings in Anglo-Saxon countries, it is essential to evaluate their applicability and effectiveness in different contexts, especially those where RP are not a common strategy.

It is also suggested that the effectiveness of RP be investigated with a focus on different age groups, taking into account variables such as gender, cultural diversity, and special educational needs. In particular, focus on primary school students, as this population has been studied little but could greatly benefit from developing social–emotional skills from an early age.

This study has some limitations when interpreting the results and projecting future research. The first limitation is the geographical concentration of the selected studies in Anglo-Saxon countries, mainly the United States and the United Kingdom, which reduces the applicability of the findings to different cultural contexts. The limited representation of countries from other regions underscores the need to explore how RP can be adapted and effective in diverse educational systems. Another significant limitation is the predominance of quantitative methodologies in the studies reviewed. While these methods allow for measuring the impact of RP on variables such as school violence and emotional wellbeing, the lack of qualitative approaches and mixed methodologies restricts an in-depth understanding of the subjective experiences and perceptions of students, teachers, and families. This limits the ability to understand how RP are implemented and perceived in the school context. Also, the absence of longitudinal studies makes it difficult to assess the sustainability of the effects of RP in the long term. Without longitudinal data, it is difficult to determine whether observed benefits, such as reduced school violence and improved emotional wellbeing, endure over time or whether they require ongoing interventions to be sustained. Finally, variability in sample sizes and methodological designs of studies makes direct comparison of results difficult and may influence the robustness of conclusions. The lack of standardization in sample characteristics and analysis approaches reduces the generalizability of findings. It highlights the importance of conducting studies with homogeneous samples and unified methodological criteria in future research.

RP are suggested as a strategy for conflict management in schools and for promoting respectful and cooperative classroom environments. To achieve this challenge, it is essential to promote policies focused on continuous and updated teacher training. In this way, it will be possible to integrate these practices in schools, ensuring their implementation and evaluating their effectiveness in the short and long term.

This systematic review highlights that RP in school settings effectively reduces violence, improves students’ emotional wellbeing, and fosters essential social–emotional skills and group cohesion. Unlike traditional punitive methods, the reviewed studies confirm that RP offers a constructive approach that promotes conflict resolution focused on empathy, responsibility, and restoring interpersonal relationships. While RP is effective in multiple educational contexts, methodological and geographical limitations of the reviewed studies point to the need for further research. Longitudinal studies are recommended to assess the sustainability of the observed effects over time. Furthermore, given the concentration of studies in Anglo-Saxon countries, it is crucial to expand research to diverse educational and cultural contexts to adapt RP to the specific needs of each educational community. From a practical perspective, implementing RP requires a holistic approach involving the entire educational community, including students, teachers, and families. The transition from a punitive disciplinary culture to a restorative approach may face initial resistance; however, it is recommended that schools integrate awareness-raising and training programs to facilitate this cultural change. In addition, RPs should be part of school coexistence policies and be maintained as an ongoing practice rather than being applied sporadically to consolidate their positive impact on school climate. The incorporation of families in RP amplifies its effectiveness by strengthening the sense of community and promoting the development of socio-emotional competencies in a mutually supportive environment. Evidence suggests that educational institutions that involve families in the restorative process significantly impact students’ emotional wellbeing and group cohesion. RP represents a transformative approach that contributes to building a culture of peace and respect in schools, promoting peaceful coexistence and the holistic development of students.

To maximize the impact of RP, it is crucial to integrate these approaches into teacher training programs. This approach not only improves school climate, but also strengthens the social–emotional skills of students and educators. Furthermore, it is recommended that policy makers support the implementation of restorative practices through specific policies that allocate the necessary resources and promote ongoing research on their effectiveness and sustainability in various educational contexts.

Fostering these values through education is essential to preparing future generations to face conflicts constructively and cooperatively, contributing to the formation of inclusive and resilient school communities. Thus, the adoption of PR in schools is presented not only as a behavior management strategy but also as an opportunity to strengthen the links between educational community members and build a fairer and more equitable society.