School Failure, Race, and Disability:
Promoting Positive Outcomes,
Decreasing Vulnerability
for Involvement with the Juvenile Delinquency System
Peter
E. Leone, Christine A. Christle, C. Michael Nelson,
Russell
Skiba, Andy Frey, & Kristine Jolivette
The
opinions here are those of the authors and do not represent the U.S. Department
of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, or U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Policy (OJJDP). No
endorsement of the Office of Special Education Programs, the U.S. Department of
Education, or OJJDP should be inferred.
This paper is in the public domain and may be reproduced without prior
consent.
School failure
places children at-risk for a host of negative social outcomes. Despite public
interest in improving the performance of all students, many children continue
to falter. When these youth leave school early, are unable to obtain meaningful
employment, and engage in delinquent activity, their failure places them at
great risk for involvement in juvenile courts and corrections. Studies of the
characteristics of incarcerated youth reveal prevalence rates of educational
disabilities and mental health needs that far exceed those found in the general
population of children and youth. The ultimate outcome of this pattern of
neglect (which begins with failure to ensure academic and social success in
school) is a lifetime of poverty and unemployment or under-employment, periodic
incarceration, frequent substance abuse, and failure to establish or maintain
supportive relationships with others. While public schools are not responsible
for the host of social ills that threatens the healthy development of children,
these institutions can ameliorate or exacerbate the vulnerability of children
to these negative outcomes.
Some children in the public schools experience more
negative events and outcomes than others.
The evidence indicates that special education placement, school failure,
and exclusion are often associated strongly and consistently with race and
ethnicity. For example, African American and Latino students are
disproportionately identified as eligible for special education services and
underrepresented in programs for the gifted and talented (National Research
Council, 2002). Dropout rates, low levels of academic skills, and school
failure are on average, higher for minority youth than other students. African
American students are two to three times as likely to be suspended or expelled
as other students (Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2000). The cumulative
effect of these disadvantages make it more likely that students of color drop
out of school (Gregory, 1997) and increases their vulnerability to initial or
continued involvement with juvenile or adult courts and corrections.
The rise of zero tolerance in school settings serves as the paradigmatic example of the growth, and the peril, of punitive approaches to misconduct and control. Emanating from 1980’s drug policies, zero tolerance with regard to school discipline intends, through severe punishment of both serious and non-serious offenses, to “send a message” to potentially disruptive students. Like zero tolerance drug policy, zero tolerance discipline arises out of fear, and assumes that a “tough” stance that reassures the community that schools are still in control (Noguera, 1995) and will somehow solve the underlying problems. Available evidence contradicts that assumption, however. In the almost 15 years since the initial application of zero tolerance in school settings, and the 7 years since zero tolerance was made national policy for firearms in schools, there are no credible data that the policy contributes to improved student behavior or increased school safety (Skiba & Knesting, 2002).
Students with disabilities display higher
rates of problem behavior and disciplinary referrals than their
schoolmates. Summarizing data across a
number of states, Leone and his colleagues (Leone, Mayer, Malmgren, & Meisel,
2000) reported that special education students typically represent a
disproportionate percentage of those suspended from school. The extent to which
those differences are due to higher rates of disruptive behavior on the part of
students with disabilities, to differential reactions to their behavior, or
increased surveillance of these students, is not clear. In a study completed by
the General Accounting Office (2001) for Congress on student discipline under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, principals reported that
students with disabilities engaged in a higher rate of serious misconduct. Yet
in an analysis of disciplinary records, McFadden, Marsh, Price, and Wang (1992)
reported that black, male students with disabilities were punished more
severely than others for commission of the same offense.
It
is tempting to lay the blame for this pattern of failure on factors that are
“beyond our control”— bad heredity, dysfunctional families, crime-riddled
neighborhoods, the presence of delinquent gangs. Ultimately, this blame comes
to rest on the individual child, and we feel better (i.e., safer) knowing that
he or she is off the streets (i.e., incarcerated). What our policy makers tend
to overlook, however, is the enormous amount of money this form of “treatment”
costs the taxpayer. The costs associated with incarcerating juveniles range
from $35,000 to $70,000 per bed per year in juvenile facilities (Coordinating
Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1995; Maryland
Department of Legislative Services, 2003; Zaehringer, 1998). Moreover, data indicate that
incarceration is a spectacularly unsuccessful treatment, especially for youth
who are incarcerated in adult correctional facilities (a practice supported by
current “get tough” policies on youth crime) (Bishop & Frazier, 2000;
Lanza-Kaduce, Frazier, Lane, & Bishop, 2002).
In this paper, we
present evidence to support our contention that an underclass of children and
youth is being fostered by the failure of the educational system to give them
the skills they need to succeed in life. Specifically, we will show that
certain factors—notably school failure, disability, and ethnic minority
status—put children and youth at risk for involvement with the juvenile or
adult criminal justice system. Next, we examine what works and what doesn’t
work with respect to improving outcomes for these at-risk youth and those who
are clients of the justice system. Finally, we suggest how policies for
addressing misbehavior and juvenile delinquency might be reframed to focus on
evidence-based practices that work. These suggestions provide the basis for a
set of recommendations for changing public policies and professional practices.
The predictors of such failure can be identified
well before children begin school (Scott, Nelson, & Liaupsin, 2001). In
fact, studies of factors associated with school dropout suggest that students
who are likely to leave school without graduating could be identified at the
time of birth, based on the social class and family characteristics into which
they are born (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). For example, a connection
has been established between poverty and school dropout for both regular
(Rumberger, 1987) and special education students (Rylance, 1997). Students who
drop out of school tend to have backgrounds that include poverty, parents who
are less well educated, homes in which academic skills such as reading are
neither valued nor modeled, and the presence of multiple family stressors
(e.g., drugs and alcohol, divorce, abuse) (Patterson et al., 1992).
Compared
with children of wealthy parents, who come to school with an average of 1000
hours of exposure to print material, children in poverty typically enter school
with as little as 40 hours of exposure (Adams, 1988). Hart and Risley (1995)
conducted a six-year longitudinal study of parent-child interactions and found
that children in lower socioeconomic homes tended to have less verbal
interaction with their parents than did children from middle or upper income
homes, resulting in significantly lower vocabularies at the time they entered
school. Once in school, teachers from middle or upper-income backgrounds who
use vocabulary and assume a level of familiarity with print materials that is
far above that of many children from low income homes, typically serve these
children. Thus, through no fault of their own, these students are academically
behind their age peers at the time they first enter school (Scott et al.,
2001). As we observed previously, while the link between poverty and school
failure is clear, further analysis reveals that poverty per se is not a
sufficient cause. Rather, variables that are associated with the construct of
poverty (e.g., family stability and interactions, verbal modeling, failure of
educators to understand the characteristics and needs of students from poverty)
interact to affect school performance.
School Performance and Behavior
There is abundant evidence of a strong
connection between academic and behavior problems (Walker, Colvin, &
Ramsey, 1995). Understandably, students with significant academic skill
deficits find academic work aversive. Research has demonstrated that students
who are academically deficient in the classroom are more likely to be exposed
to negative interaction and punishment (Gunter, Hummell, & Venn, 1998). In
addition, they are likely to be presented with less demanding academic tasks
and to have less instructional time with their teachers (Carr, Taylor, &
Robinson, 1991; Wehby, Symons, Canale, & Go, 1998). The majority of office
discipline referrals originate due to minor school disruptions such as
noncompliance with teachers’ expectations for academic activities (National
Center on Educational Statistics, 1998).
A
student’s removal from the classroom situation constitutes negative
reinforcement for both student and teacher, as the behavior of both
parties (classroom disruption, removing the student from the classroom,
respectively) lead to termination of an aversive situation. Students with
academic deficits should be the least likely to be removed because
excluding students from academic instruction further reduces the amount of
academic instruction they receive which, in turn, makes academic tasks even
more aversive, thus setting the occasion for additional behavioral challenges
and further exclusion from classroom instruction, creating an escalating cycle
(Scott et al., 2001).
The longer academic deficits and
behavioral problems persist, the less likely it is that remediation will be
successful. Students who do not read by the fourth grade have only a .12
probability of ever learning to read (Adams, 1988). Likewise, Walker et al.
(1995) observed “if antisocial behavior patterns are not changed by the end of
grade 3, it should be treated as a chronic condition, much like diabetes” (p.
6). These youth are far more likely than their age peers (regardless of
intelligence) to end up in jail, be unemployed, have children out of wedlock,
and even be involved in accidents (U.S. Department of Education, 1998; Walker,
et al, 1995). How youth with chronic patterns of antisocial behavior become
clients of the juvenile justice system therefore is no mystery.
An assessment of the vulnerability of
youth to negative life outcomes often is framed by the concepts of risk and
resilience. Risk factors are those internal and external characteristics that
increase the likelihood that youth will experience negative events such as
school failure, delinquency, and incarceration. In contrast, characteristics or
factors associated with resilience are those that minimize the likelihood of
negative outcomes particularly among youth considered to be at risk.
Risk factors are conditions or situations
that are empirically related to particular outcomes. According to Welch and
Sheridan (1995), an
"at-risk" child is "any child or youth who, due to disabling,
cultural, economic, or medical conditions, is (a) denied or has minimum equal
opportunities and resources in a variety of settings and (b) is in jeopardy of
failing to become a successful and meaningful member of his or her community
(i.e., home, school, and business)" (p. 31). Everyone experiences some
degree of risk in his or her life and the number, types, duration, and severity
of risks may adversely affect an individual's development. Multiple risk
factors are associated with antisocial behavior, and there is no simple way to
gage their impact (Christle, Nelson, & Jolivette, 2002). Risk factors often
occur in combination, and the complex relationship of risks within certain
developmental stages can increase the chances for deviant behavior (Furlong & Morrison, 2000;
Garfinkel, 1997; Hawkins et al., 2000). Risk factors may be classified as internal
(i.e., physical and psychological characteristics of the individual), and
external (i.e., factors present in the environment, such as family functioning,
school experiences, and peer associations). Psychological characteristics,
including cognitive deficits, hyperactivity, concentration problems,
restlessness, risk-taking, aggressiveness, early involvement in antisocial
behavior, and beliefs and attitudes favoring deviancy have a strong, consistent
correlation with violent behaviors in boys (Christle et al., 2002). Limited
intelligence also has been associated with poor problem-solving skills, poor
social skills, and risk for aggression and violence (Calhoun, Glaser, & Bartolomucci, 2001). Studies show the IQ scores of delinquent youth are
approximately eight points lower than those of the general population,
regardless of race, family size, or economic status (Flannery, 1997). Other cognitive deficits, such as low levels of
abstract and moral reasoning and inappropriate interpretation of others’
behaviors, have been found to correlate with violent behavior in youth (Kashani, Jones, Burnby, & Thomas,
1999). In addition, early involvement in
antisocial or violent activity is a stable and strong predictor of later
violent behavior (Hawkins et al.,
2000; Laub & Lauritsen, 1998). In effect, early exposure to patterns of antisocial
behavior acts like a virus, lowering the immune system and making the person
vulnerable to a host of other negative behavior patterns (Sprague & Walker, 2000). External risk factors have been studied
extensively. Conditions in the home, such as parental criminality, harsh and
ineffective parental discipline, lack of parental involvement, family conflict,
child abuse and/or neglect, and rejection by parents have been found to predict
early onset and chronic patterns of antisocial behavior in children and youth. (McEvoy & Welker, 2000; Patterson,
Forgatch, & Stoolmiller, 1998). Other
risk factors associated with the family include parental attitudes favorable to
violence, poor family management practices, and high family residential
mobility (Hawkins et al., 2000).
Overall, the family’s influence on a child’s behavior is powerful and stable,
as well as generational in scope. Children whose family demographics and
dynamics place them at risk may enter classrooms less ready to meet the
academic demands placed on them. The aggressive and noncompliant behavior
patterns acquired at home are likely to occasion interactions between the
school and home that parents find aversive. For example, school personnel are
likely to call parents when their child’s behavior is intolerable in school.
Parents of high-risk children may be less involved in their child’s education,
have lower expectations for achievement outcomes, and have poor relationships
with teachers (Wehby, Harnish, Valente, Dodge, & Conduct Problems Research
Group, 2002). Because parents of children with behavior problems are likely to
have histories of aversive interactions with the school, they may avoid
involvement with school personnel on behalf of their children. The educational system would seem to be
an antidote for poor or unstable home environments. Unfortunately, researchers
have identified a number of factors in the school that may contribute to
antisocial behavior. Flannery (1997) identified several school-related risk factors,
including high student/teacher ratios, insufficient curricular and course
relevance, and weak, inconsistent adult leadership. Additionally, inappropriate
social behaviors may be learned or reinforced at school by peers while adults
may ignore appropriate behavior. This promotes a cycle in which lack of adult
intervention allows the students to retaliate against aggressive peers with
more aggression and violence (Furlong
& Morrison, 2000). The physical features of some schools
also may contribute to antisocial behavior. Overcrowding, poor building design,
and portable buildings increase isolation and hamper communication (Flannery,
1997). An over-reliance on physical security measures (metal detectors, locker
searches, surveillance cameras) appears to increase the risk of school disorder
(Johnson, Boyden, & Pittz, 2001), and a school that appears unkempt adds to
the general perception of a lack of order and safety. Community
factors that put youth at risk for antisocial behavior include poverty and high levels of
neighborhood disorganization (crime, drug-selling, gangs, and poor housing) (Calhoun et al., 2001). Communities with high resident turnover, a large
proportion of disrupted or single-parent families, and few adults to supervise
or monitor children's behavior also pose risks for the development of youth
antisocial (Flannery, 1997;
Hawkins et al., 2000). Limited opportunities for youth recreation or
employment, the availability of firearms, and violence in the neighborhood are
other risk factors that have been identified in communities (Dobbin & Gatowski, 1996; Loeber
& Farrington, 2000). Involvement with peers who exhibit
high-risk and deviant behavior has proven to be one of the best predictors of
delinquency (Farmer &
Cadwallader, 2000). Adolescents
who are unpopular with conventional peers, and thus rejected by them, may find
acceptance only in antisocial or delinquent peer groups. Farmer and Cadwallader
(2000) found that preschool children who exhibit antisocial behavior begin to interact
with their peers in ways that maintain and support the continuation of this
pattern of behavior. It appears that children who associate with deviant peer
groups go through a process of deviancy training, in which their peers teach
them deviant norms and values. Over time, these relationships become stronger
and more reinforcing and the antisocial patterns and beliefs become more
resistant to change. Situational
factors also “influence the initiation or outcome of a violent event” (Sampson
& Lauritsen, 1994, p. 2). Many situational factors are associated with
poverty- stricken neighborhoods and communities. Over four decades ago,
Wolfgang (1958) noted that victims and perpetrators of violence may be
overlapping populations, and several studies have suggested there is a positive
association between violent victimization and violent offending (Lauritsen,
Sampson, & Laub, 1991, Sampson & Lauritsen, 1994). Risk factors associated with antisocial
behavior are multifaceted, inter-related, and change over time. There
is a constant and progressive interplay between internal and external risks (Hanson & Carta, 1995). The
larger the number of risk factors to which a child is exposed, the greater is
the likelihood that he or she will engage in antisocial or violent behavior (Hawkins et al., 2000). However, the impact of risk factors changes
depending on when they occur in a youth’s development, in what context, and
under what circumstances. Research
suggests that approximately two-thirds of youth who are exposed to multiple
risk factors across life domains do not engage in antisocial behavior (Bernard,
1997). The variable that appears to account for this phenomenon is the
existence of certain "protective factors." Protective factors buffer
or modify the effects of risk factors in a positive direction, contributing to
the development of personal resiliency (Luthar
& Cicchetti, 2000). Resiliency is a
characteristic that allows a person to make
appropriate behavioral choices in the presence of multiple risk factors.
Resiliency may explain why persons are able to resist substance
abuse, mental health problems, and criminal behavior even though he or she may
be exposed to significant stress and adversity (Spekman, 1993).
Resiliency is developed through the influence of protective factors, which
serve to counteract the influence of risk factors. As with risk factors, protective factors can be classified
as internal (individual) or external (family, school, community, and peer
relations). Internal protective factors are personal
attributes that help individuals overcome risks, and consist of physical and
psychological characteristics. Physical characteristics comprise good health
and personal hygiene. Psychological protective factors include a range of
skills and abilities, such as accommodating to changes in school or work
schedule, having effective and efficient communication skills, the ability to
use humor to deescalate negative situations, and a wide range of social skills
(Dobbin & Gatowski, 1996). Understanding and accepting one’s capabilities
and limitations and maintaining a positive outlook also have been found to
promote resiliency (Spekman, 1993). Engaging in activities to reduce stress (e.g.,
writing, music, painting, and dance) foster resiliency by allowing an
individual to creatively express inner turmoil and find some order among
confusion (Wolin & Wolin,
1994). Cognitive skills, particularly those
involving written and oral language expression and comprehension, are powerful
protective factors in a society that relies heavily on the transmission and
processing of information (Davis, 1999). Maguin and Loeber (1996) conducted a
meta-analysis of studies and found that increases in academic performance were
associated with decreases in rates of delinquency. Other cognitive factors that
appear to be strong protective factors against antisocial behavior involve
emotional and moral development. Emotional skills that foster resiliency
include being in control of one’s actions and reactions, delaying
gratification, being proactive, setting goals, making decisions about what to
do rather than just letting things happen, taking responsibility for one’s
decisions, and engaging others when needed (Davis, 1999; Speckman, 1993). When
children were taught such moral concepts as empathy, impulse control, and anger
management, concomitant reductions were observed in aggressive behaviors
(McMahon, Washburn, Felix, Yakin, & Childrey, 2000). In addition, children
who were involved in service learning projects and activities that contributed
to the well being of others displayed fewer problematic behaviors than those
who were not involved in such activities (Davis, 1999). External protective factors may be found
in home, school, and community.
Researchers have identified three themes involving external protective
factors that are common to each of these domains: (1) caring relationships, (2)
positive and high expectations, and (3) opportunities for meaningful
participation (Davis, 1999). In the
home, many protective factors can promote resiliency. An attachment to at least
one family member who engages in proactive, healthy interactions with the child
constitutes an important caring relationship. Fonagy (2001) found that children
who were insecurely attached demonstrated anxious and fearful behaviors and
they viewed the world and people as threatening, in contrast to children with
secure attachments to an early caregiver. Caregivers also contribute to the
development of a child’s resilience by setting rules in the home, showing
respect for the child’s individuality, and by being responsive and accepting of
the child’s behavior (Hanson & Carta, 1995). In the schools,
educators can help students develop resiliency by providing positive and safe
learning environments, setting high, yet achievable, academic and social
expectations, and facilitating academic and social success (Furlong & Morrison, 2000). Involving students in the development of school
policies is one way to show them respect. Youth who belong to a positive school
social group (e.g., academic club or social organization) also are less likely
to demonstrate antisocial behavior (Catalano, Loeber, & McKinney, 1999).
Teachers are the most frequently encountered positive role models outside the
family and a caring relationship between student and teacher may be a strong
protective factor. Teachers who offer trustworthiness, sincere interest,
individual attention, and who use rituals and traditions in the classroom often
are the determining factor in opening a child’s mind to learning (Bernard, 1997; Davis, 1999; Garmezy,
1993). A review
of research by the Center on Crime, Communities, and Culture (1997) indicated that quality educational interventions may
constitute the most effective and economical protective factors against
delinquency. A similar review of the relationship between education and the
costs of criminal activity found significant savings to communities associated
with high school graduation (Lochner & Moretti, 2002). Alternative educational programs that include
individualized instruction, rewards for positive behavior, goal-oriented work,
and small class sizes have also been effective in reducing dropout rates and
potentially deterring delinquent behavior (Tobin
& Sprague, 2000). Although research identifying protective factors in
neighborhoods and communities is sparse, Wandersman and Nation (1998) noted that neighborhoods can provide a context where youth are exposed to
positive influences. Communities
offer a network of social structures and organizations that potentially can
deter youth from engaging in antisocial behavior. For example, mentors can
teach youth strategies for avoiding trouble and interacting positively with
others (Van Acker & Wehby,
2000). Because youth who are employed are less likely to be
arrested, career counseling and job training can promote resiliency (Calhoun et
al., 2001). Recreational opportunities, volunteer activities, and
well-organized after-school programs are other initiatives that foster and
support resiliency. Youth are more likely to commit crimes during after-school
hours than at any other time of day; thus, after-school programs are an
effective crime prevention strategy. Evaluations of after-school programs have
demonstrated that these programs reduce juvenile crime and drug use (Terzian,
1994). Peer relationships are important sources of support
for children and youth and prosocial peers may provide protection from the
other risks that youth face. Peer interactions are frequent, intense, diverse,
and allow opportunities for experimentation; therefore, the power of positive
peer relationships should not be ignored (Davis, 1999). Farmer and Cadwallader
(2000) recommend developing assessment-based interventions that take into
account peer social contexts. Negative
Outcomes for Minority Youth The
Contribution of the Schools and the Court One needs only to examine the
demographic characteristics of individuals who are incarcerated in juvenile or
adult correctional institutions to appreciate the extent to which the lack of
success in school, membership in a racial minority group (especially
African-American or Hispanic), and educational disability increase the
likelihood that individuals will be involved with the juvenile or adult
criminal justice system. The most common characteristics among incarcerated
individuals are school failure and illiteracy. School failure includes
retention in grade, dropping out, failure to graduate, and disciplinary
exclusion. Foley’s extensive review (2001) of the research on the academic
characteristics of incarcerated youth found that in general: (a) their
intellectual functioning has been assessed at the low-average to average range;
(b) their academic achievement levels range from fifth to ninth grade; (c) they
have significant deficits in reading, math, written language, and oral language
compared with non-incarcerated students; (d) those who recidivate have
significantly lower levels of intellectual and academic functioning than those
who do not; and (e) school failure is a common experience. Gallagher
(1999) reported that 58.5% of the approximately 105,000 youth in private
juvenile detention, correctional, and shelter facilities in 1997 were from
ethnic minority backgrounds (40% African-American and 18.5% Hispanic). Skiba
and his colleagues (2003) in an examination of data from 37 states, found a
strong relationship between rates of out-of-school suspension and juvenile
incarceration, as well as a correlation between racial disparities in school
discipline and juvenile incarceration. A recent survey of state departments of
juvenile justice found that on average 32% of youth in juvenile corrections
were served in special education programs (Quinn, Rutherford, & Leone,
2001). The existence of high rates of mental and emotional disorders among incarcerated
youth has been known for some time (Moffitt, 1990). In fact, based on the
prevalence of such disorders among the juvenile justice population (Otto,
Greenstein, Johnson, & Friedman, 1993), the juvenile justice system may be
characterized as a “default system,” because it is where many youth who can’t
read, write, or relate tend to wind up when they drop out or are forced out of
school (Nelson, 2000). In adult corrections, a history of poor
school performance, academic deficiency, and learning problems also is common.
Bell and his colleagues (Bell, et al., 1983) studied a sample of inmates from
prisons in three states. Their findings
indicated that on average, inmates left school after the 10th grade
and were performing at the 7th grade level academically. Using
academic performance at or below the fifth-grade level as a measure of learning
deficiency, they found 42% of inmates met this criterion. Disproportionate
minority representation in school discipline data has been documented
consistently for over 25 years. The Children’s Defense Fund (1975), examining
national school discipline figures from the U.S. Department of Education Office
for Civil Rights (OCR), found suspension rates for black students two and three
times higher than suspension rates for white students at the elementary,
middle, and high school levels. More
recent investigations have found consistent evidence of significant minority
overrepresentation in office referrals (Lietz & Gregory, 1978; 1997),
suspension (Costenbader & Markson,
1998; Skiba et al, 2003), expulsion (Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson,
2000) and corporal punishment (Gregory, 1996; Shaw & Braden, 1990).
Rabinovic and Levin (2003) found that in Massachussetts during the 2000-2001
school year, while Hispanic and African American students comprised only 19.4%
of the public school student population, they represented 56.7% of school
exclusions. In the
juvenile and criminal justice systems, similar racial disparities exist. For
example, most recent data indicate that while minority youth comprise
approximately 1/3 of the population under age 18, they represent approximately
2/3 of all incarcerated youth (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 1999). Evidence also suggests that minority youth – particularly
African American and Latino youth – are transferred to adult courts for
prosecution at disproportionately high rates that cannot be explained by
differences in the severity of offenses or prior involvement in the juvenile
courts (Males & Macallair, 2000).
Recent data from 40 of the largest urban counties in the United States
indicate that nearly two thirds of all juveniles charged with felonies in adult
courts are black (Rainville & Smith, 2003). The Building Blocks for Youth initiative
examined juvenile cases transferred to adult courts in 18 large urban counties
in 1998 and found large differences in the treatment of minority and white
youth. Researchers found that African American youth disproportionately were
charged as adults (i.e., had their cases transferred to adult courts) in most
jurisdictions as a percentage of all African American youth charged with felony
offenses. For all major offense
categories, African American youth were transferred more often than Latino or
white youth (Juszkiewicz, 2000). The Building Blocks for Youth report found
large differences among groups with regard to the rates of transfer; however,
the results of prosecution differed along racial and ethnic lines. For example,
43% of African American youth prosecuted in adult courts were not convicted; in
contrast, 28% of Latino youth and 24% of white youth were not convicted.
African American youth also were much more likely to have their cases
transferred back to juvenile courts than white youth (Juszkiewicz, 2000). Such disparities can be dismissed if one
assumes that students of color act out at a disproportionate rate, thereby
justifying differential rates of punishment. Yet far from supporting this
hypothesis, the available evidence shows that, in school, African American
students are punished for less severe rule violations than white students (Shaw
& Braden, 1990), and are punished more severely than others committing the
same offense (McFadden et al., 1992). The discipline of African American
students may also be less objective in nature. Skiba et al. (2000) found that
office referrals of African American middle school students tended to be based
more on behaviors requiring a high degree of subjective judgment (e.g., loitering,
disrespect). A recent study in California found a
similar pattern in the court system of differential response to delinquent
behavior. Males and Macallair (2000)
found that, when violent felony arrests in Los Angeles were examined, the rate
of transfer to adult court for minority youth was double that of white youth.
In terms of the most prevalent offenses, minority youth were more often
involved in robbery while white arrestees were more often charged with
aggravated assault, crimes involving the use of a weapon and/or serious injury
to the victim thus suggesting that whites are arrested for more serious
offenses. Yet the 1996 Los Angeles County data indicate that a minority youth
arrested for a violent crime was seven times more likely to be sent to an adult
prison than a white youth. That report also contained an analysis of statewide
arrests and sentencing practices from 1996 to 1999 in California. Comparing
youth charged with similar offenses, African American, Hispanic, Asian, and
other minority youth were three times as likely to be sentenced to the
California Youth Authority by the adult courts than white youth. The unequal
treatment of students of color in the education and justice systems appears to
be part of a complex bias that pervades our public school system and is
replicated in the courts. As these sources of educational
disadvantage for minority students in poor urban communities mount, they form a
web of inequity that dooms a certain percentage of the population to academic
failure, behavioral conflict, school dropout, and risk of delinquency and
incarceration. Even prior to school entry, the devastating consequences of
poverty leave some children ill-prepared to meet the educational and behavioral
demands of school settings (National Research Council, 2002; Entwisle &
Alexander, 1993). Yet these same students often attend neighborhood schools
that, far from having the capacity to remediate such disadvantage, are hampered
by shortfalls in personnel and material resources that probably exacerbate
pre-existing deficits. School failure is more likely to occur in overcrowded
and physically inadequate buildings not conducive to effective instruction
(Kozol, 1991). A less well-trained and less committed cadre of teachers in poor
urban schools decreases both the amount and quality of instruction. As a result, a disproportionate number of
students of color from poor communities will be at risk for placement in lower
academic groups or tracks, which in turn provide a lower quality of instruction
and lowered expectations (Oakes, Ormseth, Bell, & Camp, 1990). The well-documented relationship
between academic failure and disruptive behavior (Hinshaw, 1992) suggests an
inevitable outcome: some percentage of these students will attempt to escape
academic frustration through disruptive behavior. Inadequate training of
classroom teachers in appropriate behavior management makes it more likely that
these misbehaviors will escalate into confrontation and disruption, while a
lack of cultural competence among teachers (Townsend, 2000) means that this
cycle of misbehavior and disciplinary removal from the classrooms will occur
more frequently for students of color. Finally, the more frequent use of
suspension and expulsion, resulting from zero tolerance policies in urban
schools (Wu, Pink, Crain, & Moles, 1982; National Center on Educational
Statistics, 1998) increases the likelihood that students of color who are
referred out of the classroom will be met, not with effective behavioral
interventions designed to keep them in school, but rather with punishment and
exclusion that increase their risk of school dropout (Felice, 1981). Once students of color trapped in
this track are removed from or drop out of school, their risks for poor
outcomes continue to increase disproportionately. Clearly, early school exit
leaves an adolescent with a greatly reduced set of coping skills for career
success. But again, this disadvantage is dramatically multiplied at each step
by racial inequities in arrest and incarceration in the prison system
(Juszkiewicz, 2000; Males & Macallair, 2000). Summary: Individual and societal contributions to risk The
development of antisocial behavior can be prevented by fostering resilience in
individuals who are exposed to multiple risk factors. The goal is to identify
risk and protective factors, determine when they typically occur in the
individual’s life course and how they operate, and provide targeted
intervention at just the right time to be most effective (Satcher, 2001). By capitalizing upon multiple internal and external
protective factors, prevention efforts can reduce the influence of risks on
youths’ propensity for antisocial behavior (Bernard, 1997). Yet neither the
impact of poverty, nor individual reactions that reflect the complex process of
risk and resilience, can fully explain the increased risk for school
consequences, dropout, and delinquency among students of color. Together these data suggest that, rather than
reliably remediating the effects of disadvantage, inequities in public
education and juvenile justice magnify and exacerbate socioeconomic and racial
disparities. In the following sections,
we first review ineffective responses to troublesome behavior and then discuss
those that provide some evidence of effectiveness children and youth who
exhibit, or are at high risk for, antisocial behavior. Research evidence of the
impact of these approaches on youth will be emphasized. What Hasn’t Worked for
Troubled Youth Historically,
punishment, rather than intervention has been the response to for children with
serious behavior problems. In ancient Greek and Roman societies, troubled
children were perceived as an economic burden and were typically abandoned or
killed (Mash & Dozois, 1996). The alternative to death in some societies
was to house “insane children” in cages or cellars (Donohue, Hersen, &
Ammerman, 1995). The first institutional setting for children in the United
States was the House of Refuge, a placement exclusively for youth involved in
criminal behavior (Rosen, 1968). Most considered these youth “morally
disordered.” Other public institutions exclusively for children such as
asylums, workhouses, almshouses, prisons, and special schools also were
developed (Richardson, 1989). Several
initiatives in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries endeavored to
dislodge the notion that deviant children should be punished. The mental
hygiene and the child guidance movements attempted to alter service delivery
from punitive to preventative, and therapeutic residential treatment centers
managed many delinquent boys in the 1950s (Redl & Wineman, 1957). Public
sentiment concerning the etiology and treatment of troublesome behavior has
fluctuated, resulting in an odd and ineffective duel emphasis on punishing and
treating in the educational, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems.
Current policies such as zero tolerance that lead to practices in which
troubling behavior is met with harsh and punitive consequences are not only costly and ineffective, but
they also exacerbate the problems they are designed to ameliorate. Ineffectiveness
of Zero Tolerance In spite of the focus on accountability
for student academic performance in recent years, zero tolerance policies have
not been subject to the same level of scrutiny as instructional practices and
student achievement. In fact, zero tolerance policies continue to be supported
and implemented in the face of an almost complete lack of documentation that
those policies have in any way positively effected student behavior or school
climate. There is strong evidence that suspension is ineffective for those
students for whom it is used most often. Studies have found that up to 40% of
school suspensions are meted out to repeat offenders (Costenbader &
Markson, 1994), suggesting that this segment of the school
population is decidedly not “getting the message” that disciplinary removal
intends to teach. One argument for suspending students
who exhibit challenging behavior is that their presence disrupts the school
environment, thereby reducing school safety.
However, some data suggests that, rather than making a contribution to
school safety, the increased use of suspension and expulsion is associated with
student and teacher perceptions of a less effective and inviting school
climate. African American students in schools with a higher rate of suspension
and expulsion rated their school as being more racially biased than did black
students in schools with lower rates of exclusion (Felice, 1981). Schools with higher rates of suspension have
been reported to have higher student-teacher ratios and a lower level of
academic quality (Hellman &
Beaton, 1986), spend more time on discipline-related matters (Davis & Jordan, 1994) and pay significantly less attention to issues of
school climate (Bickel &
Qualls, 1980). Wu et al. (1982) found that less satisfactory school
governance was significantly associated with the probability of a student being
suspended at least once in his or her school career. Such data might be
interpreted in one of two ways; either a) increased use of school exclusion has
a detrimental effect on perceptions of school climate, or b) schools with
poorer school climate and governance need to use suspension and expulsion more
in order to maintain order and discipline. Neither interpretation, however,
constitutes a particularly strong recommendation for the use of school
suspension and expulsion. Exclusionary
practices and punitive reactions have been ineffective and counterproductive.
In the long-term, the use of exclusionary and punitive discipline appears to be
associated with increased rates of dropout and delinquency. The national High
School and Beyond survey revealed that school dropouts were three times as
likely to have been suspended as their peers who had stayed in school (Ekstrom,
Goertz, Pollack, & Rock, 1986). Over time, suspension and expulsion may be
associated with an increased likelihood of delinquency. Criminal justice
researchers have described gang involvement as a gradual process, starting with
school alienation and requiring the availability of time to associate with
youth already in gangs (Patterson, 1992). Students who are not in school have this time.
Suspension and expulsion may thus accelerate the course of delinquency, by
providing at-risk and alienated youth extra time to associate with deviant
peers. As
mentioned earlier, one consequence of zero tolerance policies and associated
practices has been the criminalization of school misbehavior. Although there
have been no systematic studies of this phenomenon, anecdotal reports and
newspaper accounts document the increased frequency with which school
administrators refer students to the police for disciplinary infractions. These
practices have led to the suspension and expulsion of students for violations
of school code and juvenile charges for behavior-related incidents. Concerned
about the increased use of this practice particularly for students with
disabilities, the Education Law Center has developed legal materials and
strategies to assist parents and others concerned with this practice (Ordover,
2001). The overemphasis on internal explanations of behavior is
apparent in discipline policies such as zero tolerance, as well as mental
health interventions (e.g., psychotherapy and counseling) focused exclusively
on children. Discipline is ineffective if it does nothing to change behavior,
but simply removes the student from the school and makes him or her a community
problem. Since interventions and policies grounded in the punishment paradigm
have proven counter productive, one must wonder why we still rely on them so
heavily. Mental health interventions tend to be ineffective (Skiba & Casey,
1985) because, although there is a statistical correlation between some of the
risk factors they address and delinquency, these factors are more likely to be
the outcome rather than the causes of the antisocial behavior. One of the myths underlying reliance
on punitive discipline is that it is used primarily because nothing else works.
Many schools that overuse punishment and exclusion believe they have no alternative but to suspend or expel
troublemakers, but it is definitely not positive, and effective alternatives to
zero tolerance have not been discovered and tested. Numerous reviews and
scientific panels using highly rigorous scientific standards have documented a
range of interventions that have proven effective in reducing the probability
of disruption and violence in schools (e.g., Elliott, Hatot, Sirovatka, &
Potter, 2001; Gottfredson, 2001; Leone, Mayer, Malmgren, & Meisel, 2000;
Thornton, Craft, Dahlberg, Lynch, & Baer, 2000; Tolan & Guerra, 1998). None
of these reviews has found punishment- or exclusion-based disciplinary methods
to be among those interventions that meet the criteria as model or promising
practices for reducing school disruption and violence. Rather, the reviewers’ recommendations have
been remarkably consistent in identifying a range of practices that tend to
emphasize social instruction, early identification and intervention, and
intensive collaborative problem-solving. The American Psychological
Association (1993) organized these effective practices into a three-tiered
prevention model that has been widely adopted as an organizational framework
for social-behavioral interventions that work (Dwyer & Osher, 2000; Gagnon
& Leone, 2002; Peterson, Larson, & Skiba, 2001). First, targeting all
students, effective schools implement school-wide or universal programs to encourage a positive connection between
students and their school, and to teach alternatives to maladaptive behavior.
Specific examples include proactive classroom management (Gottfredson, 2001),
programs that provide instruction in social-cognitive problem solving such at
the Resolving Conflict Creatively Program (Lantieri & Patti, 1996) or
Second Steps (Grossman, et al., 1997), schoolwide bullying prevention
interventions (Olweus & Limber, 1999), and comprehensive programs such as
Project ACHIEVE (Knoff & Batsche, 1995). Second, selected or targeted strategies attempt to identify
and intervene with children who may be at-risk for disruptive or antisocial
behavior. Early screening programs (Walker & Severson, 1992) hold promise
as methods for the early identification of at-risk students. Once students with
social-emotional or behavioral needs are identified, however, effective schools
also have at their disposal targeted programs, such as mentoring (McGill,
Mihalic, & Grotpeter, 1998) or anger management (Lochman, Dunn, &
Klimes-Dougan, 1993) that can help re-integrate those students into the school
community. Finally, intensive and
individualized programs are directed at a relatively small number of students
demonstrating significant behavioral or emotional problems. For these students,
alternative interventions include behavior intervention plans based on
functional assessment (Scott & Nelson, 1999), restorative justice (Karp
& Breslin, 2001), First Step to Success (Walker et al. 1998) and system of
care/wraparound approaches (Eber, Sugai, Smith, & Scott, 2002). A comprehensive and preventive approach
to maintaining school discipline that could replace punitive and exclusionary
disciplinary practices in the schools is still evolving. While many of the
components of a preventive approach have been supported in isolation, there
have been relatively few tests of comprehensive models that could demonstrate
the capacity of these components in concert (see Knoff & Batsche, 1995;
Hawkins et al, 1992). In addition, some approaches that are popular in schools
and certainly are well-intended, such as peer mediation or character education,
do not yet have a sufficient data-base to recommend them as effective practice
in school discipline or violence prevention (see e.g., Gottfredson, 2001). However, these less-well-supported
preventive approaches also have not demonstrated the widely-documented negative
side-effects that appear to accrue with the overuse of school suspension and
expulsion. Duchnowski, Kutash, and Friedman (2002) explain one of the major
changes in service delivery for children with behavior problems is “the change
in location of intensive treatment from office and institution to home and community
settings” (p. 16). While some argue the juvenile justice, mental health, child
welfare, and general medical sectors, rather than education, are responsible
for services, many children and families do not have contact with those
systems. Others have contact after it is too late to make a difference. Although services provided through the
juvenile justice, general medical, and child welfare sectors is vital, the
results of outcome research conducted by these systems lead Burns et al. (1997)
to conclude that education is the major player in the system of care for youth,
particularly for elementary school children. As Burns and Hoagwood (2002)
observe, “the evidence base as it stands in the present suggests very early
intervention during infancy (Olds et al., 1997); diagnostic-specific
interventions during early elementary school; and then, as necessary, more
intensive home- and community-based interventions for adolescents … with
multiple co-occurring disorders” (p. 4). The field of children’s mental health has
emphasized the need for comprehensive, interagency, community-based systems of
care to serve children with emotional problems and their families since the
early 1980s. However, the education sector has been perceived as slow to
change. While schools have a crucial role in the service of care, Burns &
Hoagwood (2002) suggest the lack of collaboration between the education and
mental health systems has had a negative impact on the overall reform process.
Despite the importance of the educational sector as a system that serves
troubled youth, education has not yet fully reached it’s potential, nor has it
been receptive to reform based on best practices from other service systems. Conclusion Schools are well positioned to play a key role in the
identification, prevention and treatment of children and youth at-risk for
negative social outcomes (Catalano
et al., 1999; Garmezy, 1993; Loeber & Farrington, 2000; Gottfredson, 2001). Antisocial behavior early in a child's school career
is a strong predictor of delinquency in adolescence; children who are at-risk
for antisocial behavior can be identified in the earliest grades of school.
Many at-risk students perform academically below their peers, suggesting that
remediation of academic deficits should play an important role in prevention (Johns, 2000). Academic engagement generally is incompatible with
inappropriate social behavior; therefore, effective delinquency prevention
programs should strive to increase academic engagement and build competence in
tool subjects (Scott et al., 2001). The
data we have presented challenge the prevailing attitude that troublesome
behavior is simply a matter of individual differences in risk produced by
temperamental characteristics or family and community disadvantage.
Socioeconomic disadvantage is among the strongest predictors of school failure,
educational disengagement, and eventual involvement in the juvenile justice
system. Yet the path from disadvantage to incarceration is by no means
inevitable. Those who enter schools with poverty-linked deficits are also
likely to encounter an educational system that, far from remediating those
deficits, provides fewer opportunities for those most in need, and may well add
racial and socioeconomic disparities of its own. As those children become
increasingly disengaged from school and increasingly engaged with antisocial
peers, we need to examine our current policies and practices. Maintaining the status quo and failing to
implement more effective responses to troublesome behavior, will perpetuate a
system in which children of color and those with disabling condition continue
to be most vulnerable to involvement in the juvenile delinquency system? References Adams, M. J.
(1988). Beginning to read: Thinking and
learning about print. Cambridge: MIT Press. American
Psychological Association. (1993). Violence
and youth: Psychology's response. Washington, DC: Author. Bell, R., Conard,
E.H., Gazze, B., Greenwood, S.C., Lutz, J. G., & Suppa, R.J. (1983). The
nature and prevalence of learning deficiencies among adult inmates. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. Bernard, B. (1997). Turning it around for all youth: From risk to resilience. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 412 309) Bickel, F., & Qualls, R. (1980). The impact of school climate on suspension
rates in the Jefferson County Public Schools.
The Urban Review, 12, 79-86. Bishop, D., & Frazier, C. (2000).
Consequences of transfer. In J. Fagan
& F.E. Zimring (Eds.). The changing
borders of juvenile justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burns, B. J., Costello, E. J., Angold,
A., Tweed, D., Stangl, D., Farmer, E. M. Z., & Erkanli, A. (1997).
Children's mental health service use across service sectors. Health Affairs, 14, 148-159. Burns, B. J., & Hoagwood, K. (2002). Community treatment for youth:
Evidence-based interventions for severe emotional and behavioral disorders.
New York: Oxford University Press. Calhoun, G. B., Glaser, B. A., &
Bartolomucci, C. L. (2001). The juvenile counseling and assessment model and
program: A conceptualization and intervention for juvenile delinquency. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79(2),
131-141. Carr, E. J.,
Taylor, J. C., & Robinson, S. (1991). The effects of severe behavior
problems in children on the teaching behavior of adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 523-535. Catalano, R. F., Loeber, R., &
McKinney, K. C. (1999). School and community interventions to prevent serious
and violent offending. Juvenile Justice
Bulletin, 1-12. Center on Crime, Communities, and
Culture. (1997). Education as crime prevention: Providing education to
prisoners. Research Brief (2). New
York: Occasional Paper Series. Children’s Defense Fund. (1975). School
suspensions: Are they helping children? Cambridge, MA: Author. Christle, C. A., Nelson, C. M., &
Jolivette, K. Prevention of antisocial
and violent behavior in youth: A review of the literature. Retrieved July
15, 2002, from http://www.edjj.org. Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention (1995). National
juvenile justice action plan (draft). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Costenbader, V., & Markson, S.
(1998). School suspension: A study with secondary school students. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 59-82. Davis, N. J. (1999). Resilience: Status of the research and research-based programs.
Retrieved July 21, 2001, from http://www.mentalhealth.org/schoolviolence/5-28resilience.asp. Davis, J. E., & Jordan, W. J.
(1994). The effects of school context,
structure, and experiences on African American males in middle and high
schools. Journal of Negro Education, 63, 570-587. Dobbin, S. A., & Gatowski, S. I.
(1996). Juvenile Violence: A Guide to
Research. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Donohue, B., Hersen, M., & Ammerman,
R. T. (1995). Historical overview. In M. Hersen & R. T. Ammerman (Eds.). Advanced abnormal child psychology
(3-19). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Duchnowski, A. J., Kutash, K., &
Friedman, R. M. (2002). Community-based interventions in a system of care and
outcomes framework. In B. J. Burns & K. Hoagwood (Eds.). Community treatment for youth:
Evidence-based interventions for severe emotional and behavioral disorders
(pp.16-37). New York: Oxford University Press. Dwyer, K., & Osher, D. (2000). Safeguarding our children: An action guide.
Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, American Institutes
for Research. Eber, L., Sugai, G., Smith, C. R., &
Scott, T. M. (2002). Wraparound and positive behavioral interventions and
supports in schools. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 171-180. Ekstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E., Pollack,
J. M., & Rock, D. A. (1986). Who drops out of high school and why? Findings from a national study. Teachers
College Record, 87, 357-73. Elliott, D., Hatot, N. J., Sirovatka, P,
& Potter, B. B. (2001). Youth
violence: A report of the Surgeon General.
Washington, DC: U. S. Surgeon General. Entwisle, D. R., & Alexander, K. L.
(1993). Entry into school: The beginning school transition and educational
stratification in the United States.
Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 401‑423. Farmer, T. W., & Cadwallader, T. W.
(2000). Social interactions and peer support for problem behavior. Preventing School Failure, 44, 105-109. Felice, L. G. (1981). Black student
dropout behavior: Disengagement from school rejection and racial
discrimination. Journal of Negro
Education, 50, 415-424. Flannery, D. J. (1997). School violence: Risk, prevention,
intervention, and policy. (Report No. RR93002016) Retrieved September 27,
2002 from http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/monographs/uds109. Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic
characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional educational programs: A
literature review. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 248-259. Fonagy, P. (2001). The human genome and
the representational world: The role of early mother-infant interaction in
creating an interpersonal interpretive mechanism. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic. 65, 427-447. Furlong, M., & Morrison, G. (2000).
The school in school violence. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 71-82. Gagnon, J. C., & Leone, P.E.
(2002). Alternative strategies for school
violence prevention. In R.J. Skiba & G.G. Noam (Eds.). New directions for youth development (no. 92: Zero tolerance: Can
suspension and expulsion keep schools safe? (pp. 101-125). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. Gallagher, C. A., (1999, March). Juvenile
offenders in residential placement, 1997. OJJDP
Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Garfinkel, L. (1997). Youth with
disabilities in the justice system: Integrating disability specific approaches.
Focal Point, 11(1), 21-23. Garmezy, N. (1993). Children in poverty:
Resilience despite risk. Psychiatry, 56,
127-136. General Accounting Office (2001). Student
discipline: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: Report to the Committees
on Appropriations, U. S. Senate and House of Representatives. Washington, DC: Author. Gottfredson, D. C.
(2001). Schools and delinquency. New
York: Cambridge University Press. Gregory, J. F.
(1996). The crime of punishment: Racial
and gender disparities in the use of corporal punishment in the U.S. Public
Schools. Journal of Negro Education, 64, 454-462. Grossman,
D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Koepsell, T. D., Liu, P-Y., Asher, K. N., Beland, K.,
Frey, K., & Rivera, F. P. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention
curriculum among children in elementary school. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1605-1611. Gunter, P. L., Hummel, J. H., & Venn,
M. L. (1998). Are effective academic instructional practices used to teach
students with behavior disorders? Beyond
Behavior, 9(3), 5-11. Hanson, M. J., & Carta, J. J. (1995).
Addressing the challenges of families with multiple risks. Exceptional Children, 62, 201-212. Hart, B., &
Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences
in the everyday experiences of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F.,
Morrison, D. E., O’Donnell, J., Abbott, R. D., & Day, L. E. (1992). The
Seattle Social Development Project: Effects of the first four years on
protective factors and problem behaviors.
In J. McCord & R. Tremblay (Eds.), The prevention of antisocial
behavior in children (pp. 139-161). New York: Guildford. Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I.,
Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W., & Cothern,
L. (2000). Predictors of youth violence. Juvenile
Justice Bulletin, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
1-11. Hellman, D. A., & Beaton, S. (1986).
The pattern of violence in urban public schools: The influence of school and
community. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 102-127. Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing
behavior problems and academic underachievement in childhood and
adolescence: Causal relationships and
underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 127-155. Johns, B. (2000). Reaching them through
teaching them: Curriculum and instruction for students with E/BD. Beyond Behavior, 10(1), 3-6. Johnson, T., Boyden, J. E., & Pittz, W. J.(Eds.), (2001).
Racial profiling and punishment in
U. S. public schools: How zero tolerance policies and high stakes testing
subvert academic excellence and racial equity. Oakland, CA:
Applied Research Center Juszkiewicz, J. (2000). Youth crime/adult time: Is justice served?
Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth. Karp, D. R. & Breslin, B. (2001).
Restorative justice in school communities. Youth
& Society. Special Issue: Bringing restorative justice to adolescent
substance abuse. 33, 249-272 Kashani, J. H., Jones, M. R., Bumby, K.
M., & Thomas, L. A. (1999). Youth violence: Psychological risk factors,
treatment, prevention, and recommendations. Journal
of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 7, 200-211. Knoff, H. M., & Batsche, G. M.
(1995). Project ACHIEVE: Analyzing a school reform process for at-risk and
underachieving students. School
Psychology Review, 24, 579-603. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America's schools. New York:
Harper. Lantieri, L., & Patti, J.
(1996). Waging peace in our
schools. Journal of Negro Education, 65, 356-368. Lanza-Kaduce, L., Frazier, C.E., Lane,
J., & Bishop, D. M. (2002). Juvenile
transfer to criminal court study: Final report. Tallahassee, FL: Department
of Juvenile Justice. Laub, J. H., & Lauristen, J. L.
(1998). The interdependence of school violence with neighborhood and family
conditions. In D. S. Elliot, B. Hamburg, & K. R. Williams (Eds.). Violence in American schools: A new
perspective (127-155). New York: Cambridge University Press. Lauritsen, J., Sampson, R., & Laub,
J. (1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265-291. Lietz, J. J., & Gregory, M. K.
(1978). Pupil race and sex determinants of office and exceptional education
referrals. Educational Research
Quarterly, 3(2), 61-66. Leone, P. E., Mayer, M. J., Malmgren, K.,
& Meisel, S. M. (2000). School
violence and disruption: Rhetoric, reality, and reasonable balance. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(1),
1-20. Lochman, J. E., Dunn, S. E., &
Klimes-Dougan, B. (1993). An intervention and consultation model from a social cognitive
perspective: A description of the Anger Coping Program. School Psychology Review, 22, 458-471. Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2002,
March). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates,
arrests, and self-reports. Joint Center
on Poverty Research Working Paper # 287. Retrieved October 14, 2003 from www.jcpr.org/wpfiles/lochner_moretti.pdf
. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P.
(2000). Young children who commit crime: Epidemiology, developmental origins,
risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications. Development and Psychopathology, 12,
737-762. Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P.
(2000). Young children who commit crime: Epidemiology, developmental origins,
risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications. Development and Psychopathology, 12,
737-762. Luthar, S. S., & Cicchetti, D.
(2000). The construct of resilience: Implications for interventions and social
policies. Development and
Psychopathology, 12, 857-885. Males, M., & Maclair, D. (2000, January). The
color of justice: An analysis of juvenile adult court transfers in California. Washington, DC: Building Blocks for
Youth. Maguin, E. & Loeber, R. (1996).
Academic performance and delinquency. In M. Tonry (Ed.). Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. 20. (145-264). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. Maryland Department of Legislative
Services. (2003). Juvenile court – Expansion of jurisdiction. Fiscal and Policy Note, HB 520. Annapolis, MD: Maryland General Assembly,
2003 Session. Mash, E. J., & Dozois, D. J. (1996).
Child Psychopathology: A developmental-systems perspective. In E. J. Mash &
R. A. Barkley (Eds.). Child
Psychopathology (3-63). New York: The Guilford Press. McEvoy, A., & Welker, R. (2000).
Antisocial behavior, academic failure, and school climate: A critical review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 8 (3), 130-140. McFadden, A. C., Marsh, G. E., Price, B.
J., & Hwang, Y. (1992). A study of
race and gender bias in the punishment of handicapped school children. Urban
Review, 24, 239-251. McGill, D.E., Mihalic, S.F., &
Grotpeter, J. K. (1998). Blueprints for
violence prevention, Book Two: Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.
Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. McMahon, M., Washburn, J., Felix, E. D.,
Yakin, J., & Childrey, G. (2000). Violence prevention: Program effects on
urban preschool and kindergarten children. Applied
& Preventive Psychology. 9, 271-281. Mofitt, T. E. (1990). Juvenile delinquency and attention
deficit disorder: Boys’ developmental trajectories from age 3 to age 15. Child Development,61, 893-910. National Center for Education Statistics.
(1998). Violence and discipline problems
in U.S. public schools: 1996-1997
(NCES 98-030). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. National
Research Council. (2002). Minority
students in special and gifted education. Committee on Minority
Representation in Special Education, M.S. Donovan& C.T. Cross, (Eds.):
Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nelson, C. M. (2000). Educating students
with emotional and behavioral disabilities in the 21st century: Looking through
windows, opening doors. Education and
Treatment of Children, 23, 204-222. Noguera, P. A. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A critical
analysis of responses to school violence.
Harvard Educational Review, 65,
189-212. Oakes, J., Ormseth, T., Bell, R., &
Camp, P. (1990). Multiplying
inequalities: The effects of race, social class, and tracking on opportunities
to learn mathematics and science. Washington, DC: National Science
Foundation. Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. (1999, December).
Minorities in the juvenile justice system. 1999 National Report Series: Juvenile Justice Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice: Author. Olds, D. L., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C.
R., Kitzman, H., Powers, J., Cole, R., & Sidora, K. (1997). Long-term
effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect:
Fifteen-year follow up of a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 637-643. Olweus, D., & Limber, S. (1999). Blueprints
for Violence Prevention, Book Nine: Bullying Prevention Program. Boulder,
CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Ordover, E. (2001). Criminalization of school misbehavior.
(unpublished manuscript). Boston: Center
for Law and Education. Otto, R. K.,
Greenstein, J. J., Johnson, M. K., & Friedman, R. M. (1993). Prevalence of
mental disorders among youth in the juvenile justice system. In J. J. Cocozza
(Ed.). Responding to the mental health
needs of youth in the juvenile justice system (pp. 7-48). Seattle, WA: The
National Coalition for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System. Patterson, G. R. (1992). Developmental changes
in antisocial behavior. In R. D. Peters, R. J. McMahon, & V. L. Quinsey
(Eds.). Aggression and violence
throughout the life span (pp.52-82). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Patterson, G. R., Forgatch, K. L., &
Stoolmiller, M. (1998). Variables that initiate and maintain an early-onset
trajectory for juvenile offending. Development
and Psychopathology, 10, 531-547. Patterson, G. R.,
Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial
boys: Vol. 4. A social interactional approach. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Peterson, R. L., Larson, J., & Skiba, R. (2001).
School violence prevention: Current status and policy recommendations. Law
and Policy, 23(3), 345-371. Quinn, M.M.,
Rutherford, R.B., & Leone, P.E.
(2001, December). Students with disabilities in correctional
facilities [ERIC EC Digest #E621].
Arlington, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education. Rabinovic, G.,
& Levin, J. (2003, May). The quality
of post-exclusion assignments: Racial and ethnic differences in post exclusion
assignments for students in Massachusetts.
Paper presented at the School to Prison Pipeline Conference, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA. Rainville, G.
A., & Smith, S. K. (2003, May).
Juvenile felony defendants in criminal courts, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. [pub. # NCJ 197961] Redl, F., & Wineman, D. (1957). The Aggressive Child. Glencoe, IL: Free
Press. Richardson, T. R. (1989). The Century of the Child: The mental hygiene
movement and social policy in the United States and Canada (12 ed.).
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Rosen, G. (1968). Madness and civilization: Chapters in the historical sociology of
mental illness. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Rumberger, R. W.
(1987). High school dropouts: A review of issues and evidence. Review of Educational Research, 57,
101-121. Rylance, B. J.
(1997). Predictors of high school graduation or dropping out for youths with
severe emotional disturbances. Behavioral
Disorders, 23, 5-17. Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L.
(1994). Violent victimization and offending: Individual-, situational-, and
community-level risk factors. In A. J. Reiss & K. A. Miczek & J. A.
Roth (Eds.). Understanding and preventing
violence. Volume 3: Social influences. (1-114). Washington DC: National
Academy Press. Satcher, D. (2001). Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Retrieved October 3, 2001, from http://surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence/report.html. Scott, T. M., & Nelson, C. M. (1999).
Using functional assessment to develop effective intervention plans: A
practical classroom application. Journal
of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 1,
242-251. Scott, T. M., Nelson, C. M., &
Liaupsin, C. J. (2001). Effective instruction: The forgotten component in
preventing school violence. Education and
Treatment of Children, 24, 309-322. Shaw, S.R., & Braden, J.P.
(1990). Race and gender bias in the
administration of corporal punishment. School Psychology Review, 19, 378-383. Skiba, R., &
Casey, A. (1985). Interventions for behaviorally disordered students: A
quantitative review and methodological critique. Behavioral Disorders, 10(4), 239-252. Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K.
(2002). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary
practice. In R.J. Skiba & G.G. Noam (Eds.). New directions for youth development (no. 92: Zero tolerance: Can
suspension and expulsion keep schools safe?) (pp. 17-43). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass. Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A.
C., & Peterson, R. (2000, June). The color of discipline: Sources of racial
and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review. Retrieved March 26, 2003, from http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/cod.pdf Skiba,
R., Simmons, A., Staudinger, L., Rausch, M., Dow, G., & Feggins, R. (2003,
May). Consistent removal:
Contributions of school discipline to the school-prison pipeline.
Paper presented at the School to Prison Pipeline Conference, Harvard
University, Cambridge, MA. Spekman, N. J. (1993). An exploration of
risk and resilience in the lives of individuals with
learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 8(1), 11-18. Sprague, J.R., & Walker, H.M. (2000).
Early identification and intervention for youth with antisocial and violent
behavior. Exceptional Children, 66(3),
367-379. Terzian, R. R. (1994). The juvenile crime challenge: Making
prevention a priority. Retrieved January 21, 2001, from
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/lhcdir/127rp.html. Thornton, T. N., Craft, C. A., Dahlberg,
L. L., Lynch, B. S., & Baer, K.
(2000). Best practices of youth violence prevention: A sourcebook for community
action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Tobin, T, & Sprague, J. R. (2000).
Alternative education strategies: Reducing violence in school and the
community. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 177-186. Tolan, P., & Guerra, N.
(1998). What works in reducing adolescent
violence: An empirical review of the field. Boulder, CO: Institute of
Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado. Townsend, B.
(2000). Disproportionate discipline of African American children and youth:
Culturally-responsive strategies for reducing school suspensions and
expulsions. Exceptional Children, 66,
381-391. U.S. Department of
Education, NCES (1998). Violence and
discipline problems in U.S. public schools: 1996-1997. NCES 98-030,
Washington, DC: Author. Van Acker, R.,
& Wehby, J. H. (2000). Exploring the social contexts influencing student
success or failure: Introduction. Preventing
School Failure, 44(3), 93-96. Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey,
E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school:
Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Walker,
H. M., Kavenagh, K., Stiller, B., Golly, A., Severson, H. H., & Feil, E. G.
(1998). First Step to Success: An early intervention approach for preventing
antisocial behavior. Journal of Emotional
& Behavioral Disorders, 6(2), 66-80. Walker, H.M., & Severson, H. H.
(1992). Systematic screening for behavior
disorders (SSBD): User’s guide and administration manual (2nd
Ed.). Longmont, CA: Sopris West. Wandersman, A., & Nation, M. (1998).
Urban neighborhoods and mental health: Psychological contributions to
understanding toxicity, resilience, and interventions. American Psychologist, 43, 647-656. Wehby, J. H., Symons, F. J., Canale, J.
A., & Go, F. J. (1998). Teaching practices in classrooms for students with
emotional and behavioral disorders: Discrepancies between recommendations and
observations. Behavioral Disorders, 24,
51-56. Wehby,
J. H., Harnish, J. D., Valente, E., Dodge, K. A., & Conduct Problems
Research Group (2002). Parent involvement as a partial mediator of the role of
socioeconomic status in child academic performance. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt
University, Peabody College. Welch, M., & Sheridan, S. M. (1995). Educational Partnerships: Serving Students
at Risk. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Wolfgang, M. (1958). Patterns in criminal homicide. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Wolin,
S. J., & Wolin, S. (1994). The resilient self: How survivors of troubled
families rise above adversity. New York: Villard Books. Wu, S. C., Pink, W. T., Crain, R. L., & Moles, O.
(1982). Student suspension: A critical
reappraisal. The Urban Review, 14, 245-303. Zaehringer, B.
(1998). Juvenile boot camps: Cost and effectiveness vs. residential facilities.
Koch Crime Institute White Paper Report. Retrieved October 14, 2003 from http://www.kci.org/publication/white_paper/boot_camp/index.htm
.Resiliency
Impact on Ethnic and Racial Minorities
Suspension, Expulsion, and
School Safety
What
Does Work for Troubled Youth