humboldtjjdpc.files.wordpress.com€¦  · Web view2017. 5. 16. · Later in 1994, the Gun-Free Schools Act was implemented issuing a zero-tolerance measure for any students caught

Soc.482 Adrian Valenzuela

Literature Review 5/04/17

Introduction

The school to prison pipeline is a failed project and it must be reversed. What the school

to prison pipeline was intended to do was to make schools safer but ultimately it left out the

students that needed the help the most. Students who made minor mistakes by breaking a school

policy or just misbehaving in class were being escorted out by police officers. The zero-tolerance

policy swept across America sending students as young as ten straight to prison cells,

incarcerating them and stigmatizing them for the rest of their lives. We started to criminalize

students for being homeless or for being Black or Latino. Often, we send them to private

institutions so that large corporations can profit for imprisoning them. A child’s basic human

rights are taken away for the sake of capitalism. The purpose of my research is to unravel the real

motives behind zero tolerance policies and increase awareness on how it is affecting the youth in

our schools. The goal is to find alternative methods and programs where students from all

backgrounds succeed in the education system. Because if a child makes a small mistake, it

shouldn’t equate to isolation in a detention center far away from his or her family.

As an intern for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Commission, I will be

working with commissioner Meredith Williams and we will be collaborating on ideas to bring up

the JJDPC website. I will be constantly updating the website and the Facebook to create a social

media presence. I will be learning from people who have a vast amount of experience in the

juvenile justice system.

1

For my research, I will compare different sources that I have gathered and I will talk

about how some articles may involve different forms of punishment. The discourse of the

juvenile justice system has often swung back and forth like a pendulum. The constant argument

has been whether juveniles should be punished by sending them to high guarded facilities or

rehabilitate them through restorative justice programs.

I will also include articles on why juveniles commit crimes. Some of the factors could be

the conditions of their schools or the low tolerance policies that the schools enforce. Other

factors include how close they are to their parents and family. If a juvenile has been abused by

anyone in their family can also affect the juvenile’s behavior. Living in poor and broken

neighborhoods can have a strong influence on a juvenile’s behavior. These are some of the

factors can influence someone to commit crimes. Finding youth community programs or

restorative justice programs can help reverse any criminal behaviors.

My focus will be how the school to prison pipeline has affected the youth of today.

Programs like the “Get Tough” and Zero-Tolerance policies increases the rate that kids are going

to jails and federal prisons. My main question is how does the school to prison pipeline affect the

kids in school today? Throughout my course studies, I have found that the school to prison

pipeline has targeted youth of color and lower class students in schools.

The purpose of this research is to understand what the school to prison pipeline does to

kids in schools. It creates strict rules and policies that are hard to avoid or break. Students are

being sent to juvenile detention centers for nonviolent behavior in school. Some of these

behaviors include: disruptive behavior, tardiness, and truancy. Those are some of the reasons

why students are taken out of schools and introduced to the criminal justice system.

2

Introducing the School to Prison Pipeline

The school to prison pipeline are a set of strict policies that target certain students and, in

some cases, entire schools in the unified school district. These policies are what some would call

a “fast track” to the prison system. According to Mallet, the juvenile justice system was never

intended to work in conjunction with the school districts.

“The United States school districts and juvenile courts were never intended to operate in

a collaborative paradigm. Unfortunately, over the past 30 years, a partnership among

schools and courts has developed through a punitive and harmful framework, to the

detriment of many vulnerable children and adolescents. This phenomenon is often

referred to as the ‘‘school-to-prison pipeline” (Mallett 2016a:15)

The juvenile justice system gradually became involved in the school district, targeting low-

income communities with a high population of minorities. The school to prison pipeline creates a

fine line between having an education and living in a prison. It also creates a system in which an

expelled or suspended individual can easily be sent to a juvenile detention center. Having

nowhere to go during school hours can substantially increase the chance of getting involved in

problematic behavior. This behavior can be as non-threatening as walking down the street and

being mistaken, by a police officer, for someone who is ditching school. In the article, “From the

School Yard to the Squad Car: School Discipline, Truancy, and Arrest”, the author mentions that

once expelled or suspended the student has a higher chance of getting involved in any unwanted

behavior (Monahan,VanDerhei, Bechtold, Cauffman 2014:1118).

3

Though time spent not in school has been previously linked to greater antisocial behavior,

results of the present study suggest that school suspension or expulsion and truancy incur

differential risk for arrest, depending on characteristics of the youth and whether he or

she associates with delinquent peers. Specifically, if a youth is suspended or expelled

from school, his or her likelihood of being arrested that month is higher than the odds of

being arrested in a month when he or she is not forcibly removed from school (Monahan

et al. 2014:1118).

These harsh policies can create an atmosphere of insecurity within schools. Among the schools

that the school to prison pipeline targets, students in those schools seem to pose no threat to their

classmates or the staff.

Although the crime rates in the United States has gone down, the incarceration of young

adults has risen since the war on drugs started. The war on drugs was part of the reason why we

have a mass incarceration problem in juvenile detention centers but it’s also because we started

to criminalize more behaviors. The government started to criminalize homelessness, truancy, and

disobedience. Minor offenses that shouldn’t warrant harsh punishments or even a punishment at

all.

Zero Tolerance Policies

Zero tolerance policies mandate suspensions and expulsions for minor offenses. These

policies began to show up in schools in the 1990’s to fight crime and drug use. They were put in

place to make classrooms safer but instead enforced policies that took students out of schools

and sent them to jails. Incidents like the shooting at Columbine in 1999 created a sense of fear

throughout school districts. An increase in security was implemented to rid crime and

4

delinquency from schools. Zero tolerance policies were put in place to limit the disruptive

behavior in the classroom. In his article, Tracing the School-to-Prison Pipeline from Zero-

Tolerance Policies to Juvenile Justice Dispositions, Aaron J. Curtis states,

“A zero-tolerance policy “mandates predetermined consequences or punishments for

specific offenses.” Such policies are generally based on the assumption that removing

students from schools when they behave disruptively will create peaceful learning

environments and deter others from engaging in similar patterns of conduct” (Curtis

2013:1253).

During the Reagan era in the 1980’s, the war on drugs began a strict crackdown on drug use and

possession around the country. It was during this time that Reagan passed the Drug-Free Schools

Act, which prohibited the possession of drugs and alcohol in schools. In 1989, “school districts

in Louisville, Kentucky, and Orange County, California, enacted zero tolerance policies calling

for student expulsion for drug and gang-related activity, as well as Yonkers, New York, for

school disruption”(Mallett 2016a:19). These policies were later replicated all over the country

introducing a new “Get Tough” attitude in public schools. Later in 1994, the Gun-Free Schools

Act was implemented issuing a zero-tolerance measure for any students caught with the

possession of any weapons. In other words, any student who was caught with a weapon would

face the harsh penalty of being expelled from the school and sent to a juvenile detention center.

These acts were the beginning of a new philosophy on crime in schools. They started what is

known today as the school-to-prison pipeline.

Instilling policies that force students to miss school doesn’t make institutions safer, it

only makes students more likely to commit crimes outside of school. Students who are

5

suspended or expelled rather than students who are disciplined in school are more likely to be

involved in delinquent behavior. In an article by Thalia Gonzalez, she states that,

It has been consistently documented that punitive school discipline policies not only

deprive students of educational opportunities but fail to make schools safer places. The

presence of zero tolerance and punitive discipline policies within schools also have

negative effects on the offending student, by increasing the likelihood of future

disciplinary problems, and ultimately increasing contact with the juvenile justice system

(González 2012:282).

Once students are suspended or expelled they start to miss out on any academic achievements

which then leads to negative attitudes. Once that starts to happen it becomes harder to stay on

track. The chances of being detained and sent to a juvenile detention center become greater if the

student lives in an impoverished community.

In Amanda Mankovich’s article, “The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Comprehensive

Assessment”, she argues that taking an adolescent student away from school for a minor offense

only reinforces a path to deviance. Having a lack of school resources and supervision, children

will only find boredom outside of school which could possibly lead to delinquent behavior. With

strict policies in place, students will find it easier to get in trouble with the law. Minor offenses

will then lead to a prolonged stay in incarceration.

Zero-tolerance policies aim at many non-violent, first-time offenders. These offenders

are not dangerous to the student body. After being punished for minute offenses, students

are more likely to become trapped in the system, which lowers involvement in schools

and subsequently grades. Students guided into the system and face delinquency

6

adjudication, a “court order providing legal control over youth, often leading to ongoing

super-vision” (Mankovich 2016:2476).

In “The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance: Can Punishment Lead to Safe Schools?” Russ

Skiba and Reece Peterson (1999) argues the reality of school violence and drug use in schools.

Skiba and Peterson offer a short origin story of zero tolerance policies and its impact in schools.

They argue that the implementation of Zero tolerance policies was driven by an overreaction of

school violence and drug use than by common sense. “It is hard to say that we are overreacting

when the incidents we have witnessed on a regular basis are so horrific. Yet some data on the

topic suggest that we are doing just that” (Skiba and Peterson 1999:373). The authors later go on

to mention the opinions of school principals and disciplinarians and what they thought were the

most serious or moderate problems in schools.

When these principals were asked to list what they considered serious or moderate

problems in their schools, the most frequently cited problems at all levels were the less

violent behaviors such as tardiness (40%), absenteeism (25%), and physical conflicts

between students (21%) (Skiba and Peterson 1999:373).

This shows an overreaction and a fear for any type of school disobedience. It’s apparent

that after school shootings, school districts became stricter with their policies. Punishing students

harshly for being tardy or absent became the norm. These status offenses became fast tracks to

juvenile delinquent detention centers. School shootings are rare, but a single school shooting can

strike fear in a community.

“It is probably healthier that a single shooting on school grounds be viewed as one too

many than that we become inured to violence. Yet this fear of random violence is clearly

7

the prime motivator for the adoption of zero tolerance approaches to school discipline.”

(Skiba and Peterson 1999)

Skiba and Peterson also noted that most students who get expelled or suspended are only for

minor incidents like tardiness, absence, or fighting.

Fighting among students is the single most frequent reason for suspension, but the

majority of school suspensions occur in response to relatively minor incidents that do not

threaten school safety. At the middle school level, disrespect and disobedience are among

the most common reasons for suspension, and a significant proportion of suspensions are

for tardiness and truancy. (Skiba and Peterson 1999)

In the article, “Bullying and Zero-Tolerance Policies: The School to Prison Pipeline”, Marvin J.

Berlowitz, Rinda Frye and Kelli M. Jette explain the impact of the zero tolerance policies in

schools. One section of the article mentions the Pushout Phenomenon, a punitive measure that

targets African Americans in schools. These measures force African American students out of

high school and out into the streets where they are more susceptible to committing a crime.

When this “push-out phenomenon” manifests patterns of institutional racism, then this

contributes to the disproportionate incarceration of African American males popularly

referred to as the school to prison pipeline. The strongest predictor of school dropout was,

in fact, a student history of disciplinary problems. The same study cites that African

American males are more likely to drop out of high school for disciplinary reasons more

than any other ethnic or gender group (Berlowitz, Frye, and Jette 2017: 5).

The article, “Scared smart or bored straight? Testing Deterrence Logic in an evaluation of police

led truancy intervention” by Gordon Bazemore, Jeanne B. Stinchcomb, and Leslie A. Leip

(2004), examines the harsh language that schools implement to discipline students. When

8

discussing crime and punishment schools tend to use terms such as “combating”, “fighting”, and

“enforcing”. Staff titles also carry some form of tough or harsh language like “resource officers”,

“guards”, and “drill instructors”. The article explains that strong and harsh language can easily

reinforce harsh punishments. “In this context, it is not surprising that skipping school, like other

forms of rule violation and order disruption, is increasingly viewed as a criminal/juvenile justice

problem that requires strict and formal enforcement” (Bazemore, Stinchcomb, and Leip

2004:272). A supreme court ruling in 1972 named the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Act, stated that the court would no longer have any jurisdiction over status offenses.

That wouldn’t last long, and only two decades later, courts were back enforcing minor offenses

on adolescent individuals.

The use of language in school policies can create a hostile and depressing atmosphere in

schools. Calling a student a criminal because they missed school for a prolonged amount of time

can be damaging to the student and the family.

The inconsistency of zero tolerance policies have also been a problem in communities. In

“The Failure of Zero Tolerance”, author Russell J. Skiba argues that zero tolerance policies have

had a wide range of suspensions and expulsions that vary depending on the school. Some schools

may punish for serious offenses like fighting in class while other schools might punish students

for a status offense like truancy (Skiba 2014:29). This lack of consistency creates a sense of

decisiveness on which communities to target.

Low-Income Communities

9

According to Christopher A. Mallet, “one in five children grow up in poverty” and

“Children of color are disproportionately poor, with the youngest children most at risk: Nearly

one in three children of color was poor in 2012” (Mallett 2016b:3). Low-income communities

have been the target for the school to prison pipeline since the 1990’s. Students who live in poor

communities are more likely to end up in juvenile detention centers. Once they are released from

the juvenile detention centers they are usually sent back to the same broken down communities

with low income and little to no resources. They come back to school stigmatized and unable to

reintegrate back into society because they have just lost all their basic human rights. Once back

in school it’s a lot harder to keep up due to a large absence of academic studies. This creates a

never-ending cycle that is hard to break out of once it’s started. Poverty is a major factor in a

student’s life when regarding the school to prison pipeline.

More troubling, and at risk of the school-to-prison pipeline, is that young children in

poor families, compared with non-poor families, are two times more likely to have

developmental or social delays. Many families living in poverty or near poverty also

experience homelessness and 1.2 million public school students were identified as

homeless during the 2011-2012 school year (Mallett 2016b:3).

Most often it is students who are academically challenged or in poverty that are getting punished

by the criminal justice system. Schools in communities where the unemployment rate tends to be

relatively high often have strict school policies and harsher punishments. Low-income

communities are where police tend to target students the most.

Joseph P. Ryan (2006:512) argues that children in foster care are more likely to receive a

detention sentence than a child who isn’t. “…foster youth without prior involvement in juvenile

10

correction were more likely to be detained compared to nondependent delinquent youth.

Specifically, the probability of detention for youth in foster care was 10 percentage points higher

than the probability of youth not in foster care, controlling for other influences” (Ryan

2006:512). Later in the article, Ryan introduces the affect that peers have on adolescent youth.

“If peers are capable of establishing and reinforcing socially acceptable norms, and if peers are

believed to be one of the most power agents of influence, then there is great promise for the

rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents in congregate care institutions. However, the promise of

rehabilitation in congregate care institutions is largely dependent on the social climate (Ryan

2006:513). This reinforces the idea that peers have the greatest influence when it comes to

changing the way the system works for adolescent youth.

An Increase in Recidivism

An increase in recidivism is likely to occur if a student is taken out of school and put in a

juvenile detention center. Losing valuable school time can only regress a student and set them up

for failure in the future. Returning to school after a prolonged absence can frustrate a student’s

learning ability which could then worsen a student’s behavior in school. “A recent evaluation of

secure detention in Wisconsin, conducted by the state’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee

reported that, in the four counties studied, 70 percent of youth held in secure detention were

arrested or returned to secure detention within one year of release” (Holman and Ziedenberg

2006:4). Holman and Ziedenberg also argue that the congregation of young people for treatment

in a detention center can have negative effects on those individuals.

11

Removing exclusionary practices from the educator's tool box will require serious staff

development and often a change in personal philosophies. Research has shown that

educators can prevent students from entering the pipeline by establishing relationships of

mutual trust, building a caring learning environment, and applying positive behavioral

approaches to prevent and respond to problem behavior. However, some school districts

are entrenched in what they know and resist new ideas. Others try to be evidence driven

but grasp for various interventions without developing their own culturally competent

theory of change (Wilson 2014:51).

The act of removing guidelines and policies that reinforce the school to prison pipeline can be

possible but it would take time to reteach and relearn new philosophies. Teachers in general have

only learned one way to teach students. It’s important that we take the necessary steps to change

the system. Re-teaching school mentors to react rather than punish may take time but it’s a

necessary step if we want to see positive change in our juvenile justice system.

In “The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice: A Meta Anlysis”, Authors Jeff Latimer,

Craig Dowden, and Danielle Muise (2005) create a short analysis of recidivism in individuals

who use some form of restorative justice. What the authors found as that there was a decrease in

recidivism in those individuals compared to others who didn’t use some form restorative

practice. “The overall mean effect size for the 32 tests that examined the effectiveness of

restorative justice programming in reducing offender recidivism was +.07 (SD= .13) with a 95%

CI of +.12 to +.02. Although the effect sizes ranged from +.38 to –.23, more than two thirds of

the effect sizes were positive (72%)” (Latimer et. al. 2005:137).

12

Replacing the School to Prison Pipeline

To move away from the school to prison pipeline, we must consider restorative and

transformative justice programs in local communities. “Restorative justice asks who was harmed,

what are the needs and obligations of all affected, and how do they figure out how to heal the

harm” (Davis 2014:39). In a punitive justice system, our society tends to punish and criminalize

our youth instead of rehabilitating them or educating them (Davis 2014:40). Punitive justice has

proven to be more harmful to kids by forcing them out of school and into the streets where they

are more likely to get involved with the criminal justice system. In the article,”: Inside the Black

Box: Assessing and Improving Quality in Youth Programs”, Nicole Yohalem and Alicia Wilson-

Ahlstrom explains the importance of having positive youth programs in the community. The

authors emphasize on children having positive outcomes in their communities by investing in

developmental afterschool programs (Yohalem and Wilson-Ahlstrom 2010:350). In the same

article, the authors mention the amount of money that was invested in 2002 alone. “Estimates

suggest that some 6.5 million children are enrolled in after-school programs and that the federal

government alone invested $3.6 billion in such programs in 2002 (Yohalem and Wilson-

Ahlstrom 2010:350). An investment like this in after school programs can be the much needed

turning point for kids who live in poor neighborhoods. Investing in youth programs will lead to

positive outcomes in the community.

In another journal article titled, “Delinquency Best Treatments: How to Divert Youths

from Violence While Saving Lives and Detention Costs”, Robert John Zagar, Ph.D., M.P.H.,

William M. Grove, Ph.D., and Kenneth G. Busch, M.D. talk about the importance of investing in

youth programs that can rehabilitate rather than punish. The article shows the cost effectiveness

of crime prevention programs. One part of the article expresses an interest in examining the

13

many possible ways that juveniles and adults can be diverted from criminal activity. Some of

these methods included behavior therapy, multimodal therapy, and employment. Results showed

positive results after one year. “After one year, there was a 32% reduction in homicides a 46%

reduction in shootings, and 77% fewer assaults Jobs, anger management, and mentoring were

expanded to 38 high schools with 1,700 students in 2010, to the same number of high schools

and students in 2011, and to 32 high schools with 1,200 students in 2012” (Zagar, Grove, and

Busch 2013:389).

To replace the school to prison pipeline we must look at restorative justice as a new

paradigm that must be understood and adopted for us to see significant change in the juvenile

justice system. In Mallet’s article, “The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Critical Review of the

Punitive Paradigm Shift”, he talks about the changes that some states have already done in the

criminal justice system. He explains that it is possible to dismantle the school to prison pipeline

without the possibility of a decrease in safety in the community and in schools (Mallett

2016a:21). Harry Wilson also believes in the notion that it can be possible to move away from

the school to prison pipeline and into a more restorative justice system through the creation of

trust with the teachers, students, and family. “Research has shown that educators can prevent

students from entering the pipeline by establishing relationships of mutual trust, building a caring

learning environment, and applying positive behavioral approaches to prevent and respond to

problem behavior” (Wilson 2014:51). Greg Daniels also mentions the success of restorative

justice through his own experiences.

For my part, after I finished my research in 1987, I established a Juvenile Liaison

Panel together with Wiltshire Police in order to discuss current cases of offending

behavior where a decision had to be made whether to prosecute or caution. For the next

14

few years my work consisted mainly of bringing together victims and offenders in

restorative meetings. We were able to achieve high rates of diversion from the criminal

justice system, and support this work by providing restitution and apology for victims,

which would not otherwise have been possible (Daniels 2013:307).

Throughout Greg Daniel’s article, there seems to be some optimism that the paradigm has been

changing but that there is still more work to be done if we are going to fully change the system.

Kathleen J. Bergseth and Jeffrey A. Bouffard, examines the effectiveness of Restorative

justice through a meta-analysis of 20 participants, 11 being juvenile and 3 being adults. What

they found was an 8% reduction in re-offending for those who were full participants in programs

that featured restorative practice compared to those that didn’t participate in restorative programs

(Bergseth and Bouffard 2013:1057). In “Restorative Resolution” author Jay Zaslaw (2010:10)

explains the successes that restorative has had in communities. “Supported a 15% drop in

suspensions, although suspension rates at the district's other middle schools increased…Averted

two expulsions… Nearly 90% reported learning new skills in their restorative experiences

(Zaslaw 2010:13). This shows the positive outcomes that restorative justice programs can

produce for communities.

Skiba (2014:29) also argues about the necessity for intervention effectiveness in a

classroom;

A basic rule of intervention effectiveness is that, for an intervention or procedure to be

effective, it must be implemented in the way it was intended. Procedures such as conflict

resolution, for example, demand a high level of training of both staff and students—if

that training does not occur, it is almost certain the procedure will be less effective. This

15

criterion often referred to as treatment fidelity or treatment integrity—means that, unless

an intervention mcan be implemented with some degree of consistency, it is impossible to

know whether it could be effective (Skiba 2014:29).

Skiba’s analysis of intervention effectiveness contradicts how zero tolerance policies have been

selective on how to punish and what behaviors to punish.

Description of Internship

The internship that I am currently working with is the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention Commission. As a research assistant, I will focus on the availability of youth

community programs for juveniles in Humboldt County. I will be working with professor

Meredith Williams to conduct research on the topic. To conduct the research, we will be setting

up a website for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preventions Commissions. We will also be

conducting interviews with members of the juvenile justice system. We will also be working on a

database that will contain most youth programs available in the Humboldt community. Our goal

is to bridge the gap between the youth of the community and youth programs who can help

troubled youths find their footing. I have found that a youth exposed to community youth

programs or restorative justice has a higher chance of having a more successful life than a youth

who has been separated from his family and sent to juvenile hall for a prolonged time in his or

her life.

The role of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preventions commissioners is to check

conditions of juvenile hall and any jails that may have held a minor in the past 24 hours. The do

an annual inspection of juvenile halls and detention centers to make sure that everyone there isn’t

16

being abused or treated unfairly in any way. They also help prevent delinquency by listening to

the community and providing possible solutions to any of their needs. The JJDPC was created in

1973 by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors to help collaborate ideas with other counties

in California. The main goal of the JJDPC is to create an environment where the youth in the

community can prosper in their own neighborhoods. The JJDPC also creates opportunities for

youth to find youth programs in their own communities that can help them communicate with

other youth in their community.

Reflection

Looking back, I feel content in the work I have done so far. I helped the Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention Commission by setting up a social media presence. I also worked

on their website by updating events and conducting interviews with people who work in the

juvenile justice system. I also conducted interviews with the commissioners of the JJDPC. The

focus of my internship was to find youth community programs and make them visible for youth

through their website and Facebook. Part of my internship was to do a research on the school to

prison pipeline. Working on the research I learned the history of the policies that were put in

place to make schools safer. Ultimately those policies failed students who were in most need of

an education to succeed in their neighborhoods. Those polices robbed them of an education and

imprisoned them, some for the rest of their lives.

One way that my internship connects with my literature review theory is through the

community youth programs that we got in contact with. There are a lot of organizations in the

community that work tirelessly to help children with afterschool programs. In my literature

17

review, I talk about the school to prison pipeline and how it negatively effects children in

schools. Through restorative justice programs and youth community organizations, we can help

eliminate policies that helped construct the school to prison pipeline.

Another way I connected my research to my internship was through community

connections. I learned that it is important to connect with the community through different

programs and events. This could lead to lower recidivism for youth who have been in trouble

before with the law. The database that we created provides a bit of connectivity for the

community. Anyone can check the website and see the information of all the youth organizations

that we gathered throughout the semester. The public can also view the community calendar for

any upcoming youth events in the Humboldt County community.

18

References

Bazemore, Gordon, Jeanne B. Stinchcomb, and Leslie A. Leip. 2004. “Scared Smart or Bored Straight? Testing Deterrence Logic in an Evaluation of Police-Led Truancy Intervention.” Justice Quarterly 21(2):269–99.

Bergseth, Kathleen J. and Jeffrey A. Bouffard. 2013. “Examining the Effectiveness of a Restorative Justice Program for Various Types of Juvenile Offenders.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 57(9):1054–1075.

Berlowitz, Marvin J., Rinda Frye, and Kelli M. Jette. 2017. “Bullying and Zero-Tolerance Policies: The School to Prison Pipeline.” Multicultural Learning and Teaching 12(1). Retrieved March 7, 2017 (http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/mlt.2017.12.issue-1/mlt-2014-0004/mlt-2014-0004.xml).

Curtis, Aaron J. 2013. “Tracing the School-to-Prison Pipeline from Zero-Tolerance Policies to Juvenile Justice Dispositions.” Geo. LJ 102:1251.

Daniels, G. 2013. “Restorative Justice: Changing the Paradigm.” Probation Journal 60(3):302–15.

Davis, Fania. 2014. “Discipline With Dignity: Oakland Classrooms Try Healing Instead of Punishment.” Reclaiming Children & Youth 23(1):38–41.

González, Thalia1. 2012. “Keeping Kids in Schools: Restorative Justice, Punitive Discipline, and the School to Prison Pipeline.” Journal of Law & Education 41(2):281–335.

Holman, Barry and Jason Ziedenberg. 2006. “The Dangers of Detention.” Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute 4.

Latimer, J. 2005. “The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis.” The Prison Journal 85(2):127–44.

Mallett, Christopher A. 2016a. “The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Critical Review of the Punitive Paradigm Shift.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 33(1):15–24.

Mallett, Christopher A. 2016b. “The School-to-Prison Pipeline Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Children and Adolescents.” Education and Urban Society 0013124516644053.

Mankovich, Amanda. 2016. “Christopher A. Mallett: The School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Comprehensive Assessment: New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company, 2016, 222pp, ISBN: 9780826194589.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 45(12):2475–78.

Monahan, Kathryn C., Susan VanDerhei, Jordan Bechtold, and Elizabeth Cauffman. 2014. “From the School Yard to the Squad Car: School Discipline, Truancy, and Arrest.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 43(7):1110–22.

19

Ryan, J. P. 2006. “Dependent Youth in Juvenile Justice: Do Positive Peer Culture Programs Work for Victims of Child Maltreatment?” Research on Social Work Practice 16(5):511–19.

Skiba, Russ and Reece Peterson. 1999. “The Dark Side of Zero Tolerance: Can Punishment Lead to Safe Schools?” The Phi Delta Kappan 80(5):372–82.

Skiba, Russell J. 2014. “The Failure of Zero Tolerance.” Reclaiming Children and Youth 22(4):27.

Wilson, Harry. 2014. “Turning off the School-to-Prison Pipeline.” Reclaiming Children & Youth 23(1):49–53.

Yohalem, Nicole and Alicia Wilson-Ahlstrom. 2010. “Inside the Black Box: Assessing and Improving Quality in Youth Programs.” Part of a Special Issue: Developing and Improving After-School Programs to Enhance Youth’s Personal Growth and Adjustment 45(3/4):350–57.

Zagar, Robert John, William M. Grove, and Kenneth G. Busch. 2013. “Delinquency Best Treatments: How to Divert Youths from Violence While Saving Lives and Detention Costs.” Behavioral Sciences & the Law 31(3):381–96.

Zaslaw, Jay. 2010. “Restorative Resolution.” The Education Digest 76(2):10–13.

20

21