by Destiny Logan-McHughes
I. Introduction
This paper explores the racial disparities in the school discipline system, which lead to racial disparities in the juvenile justice system and in turn furthers the racial disparities in the adult prison population.[1] This process is known as the school-to-prison pipeline. Specifically, the paper (i) discusses the racial disparities in Arkansas’s school discipline system and compares those disparities to the racial disparities in the juvenile justice system, (ii) examines the impact these racial disparities have on the children’s education and families, (iii) addresses the cost of these racial disparities to taxpayers and society, and (iv) recommends ways to decrease racial disparities and its negative impact.
II. School Discipline and Race in Arkansas
The statistics describing the Arkansas school discipline system disclose significant racial disparities. In 2012, black students received in and out of school-suspension approximately three times to five times as often as white students, and corporal punishment almost twice as often as white students.[2] Many have tried to explain the racial disparities as a reflection of the differences in behavior, which innately causes a natural incongruity. However, these differences do not account for the drastic racial disparities found in school discipline.[3]
A. Disciplinary Process in Arkansas Schools
The Arkansas school system has certain discipline policies set in place.[4] These policies allow for two primary types of offenses: discretionary offenses and nondiscretionary offenses.[5] Children of color are “more likely to be disciplined for less serious ‘discretionary’ offenses,” while their white counterparts are more likely to be disciplined for “more serious nondiscretionary [offenses].”[6] Discretionary offenses are wrongdoings in which the school has the discretion to determine the appropriate level of discipline received by the student. Conversely, the school has limited discretion over the level of discipline administered to the student over nondiscretionary offenses. .
For example, discretionary offenses are typically defined by the Little Rock School District as category one, two, three offenses.[7] Offenses in these categories include but are not limited to minor altercations, disorderly conduct, using verbally abusive language/obscene gestures or fighting words, theft, and vandalism.[8] Discretionary offenses that have result in school discipline for children of color include offenses such as using expletives in class, “disrupting a school function,” stealing, talking back to teachers, and writing on a desk.[9] Other discretionary offenses included stealing a chicken nugget in the lunch line at school and “‘getting agitated and upset towards’ a school administrator.”[10]
Nondiscretionary offenses have set disciplinary outcomes that each student receives for those offenses–regardless of circumstances. Schools have limited discretion in the discipline that the student receives. Nondiscretionary offenses are typically found in category four offenses and some category three offenses, which are listed in the Little Rock School District Handbook.[11] Nondiscretionary offenses are more serious and include drug possession, carrying a weapon, assault, battery, breaking and entering, vandalism, or representing a serious threat to the safety and wellbeing of others.[12] With the zero tolerance policies in place in schools today, almost anything can constitute an offense that results in a disciplinary referral to local police.
Zero tolerance policies originally came about in the 1980’s as part of the federal government’s “get-tough on drugs” campaign.[13] In the 1990’s, zero tolerance policies began to be implemented in schools in response to misguided public fears based on erroneous statistics that violent youth crime was increasing.[14] Zero tolerance policies are intended “to be highly punitive in order to send a strong message” and they “mirror the criminal justice system[s]” predetermined and punitive consequences.[15] These policies command that severe and “predetermined consequences to student misbehavior . . . be applied without regard to ‘seriousness of behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context.’”[16] These zero tolerance policies have a hair-trigger and can be activated by almost any minor offense or misbehavior. Children of color are subjected to these policies more frequently than their white counterparts.[17]
Primary types of school discipline include inability to participate in extra-curricular activities, corporal punishment, detention, in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, expulsion, and referral to police or juvenile courts. The school discipline policies in the Little Rock School District include a number of possible consequences for misbehavior including reprimand by teacher; referral to other school personnel (from teacher to administration); parent/guardian conferences; school counseling (determined by principal or designee); team conferences; probation (loss of privilege); being sent home (24 hours); detention; Saturday school; Behavior Management Plan; in-school-suspension; short term suspensions (exclusion from school for 2-10 days); long-term suspension/Alternative Learning Environment (“ALE”) Placement (minimum of 45 days, one nine-week period); expulsion (school board action taken to exclude a student for the entire school year or permanently); and referral for prosecution under municipal, state, and federal laws that apply to the behavior.[18]
Offenses and their related penalties are divided into four categories: category one offenses, category two offenses, category three offenses, and category four offenses.[19] The system is designed to be progressively punitive in correlation with higher the category of offense.
Category One Offenses and Consequences
The school principal determines the penalty assessed for a category one offense.[20] Category one offenses include dishonesty; failure or refusal (insubordination) to follow reasonable directives of school staff and/or school rules and regulations; horseplay/minor altercations (“Student must participate in Mediation for minor altercations.”); teasing; leaving school grounds/class without permission of a school official/skipping/cutting class; failure to serve detention; the use of verbally abusive language, obscene gestures, or “fighting words”; failure to follow bus rules and regulations; and tardiness.[21]
Disciplinary actions for category one offenses include warning; parent contact (verbal or written); student, staff, administrator and/or parent/guardian(s) conferences; in-school time-out (elementary); before-school/after-school/lunch detention; Saturday school; Behavior Management Plan; in-school suspension; sent home; school-site probation/contract; school-site service (optional – not during instructional time and must have parental consent); conflict mediation; and school-based team SBIT Conference/Referral, which includes a student behavior support/modification plan, counseling, teacher support, and parent support.[22] The School Based Intervention Team (SBIT) may recommend long-term suspension or placement in an ALE as a penalty for category two offenses.[23] SBIT’s purpose “is to collaboratively address minor, inappropriate behaviors in the school setting prior to recommending a student to an ALE setting.”[24]
Category Two Offenses and Consequences
Category two offenses include smoking or use of tobacco products/possession of matches, lighters, lighter fluid, or tobacco products; smoking or use of tobacco products of any kind on school district property, at a school-related activity or on the school bus; possession of matches, lighters, lighter fluids and/or tobacco products of any kind on school district property, at a school-related activity or on the school bus; possession of mace, chemical agents, multi-fingered rings, fireworks, or gaming material devices; gambling; bullying; fighting (Conflict Resolution or Mediation is mandatory); the use of profanity/slander directed to or about a staff person in a non-threatening manner; loitering; repeated violation of category one offenses; forgery/falsification of information/misrepresentation; participation in prohibited clubs, street gangs, fraternities, sororities, or similar organizations; inappropriate use of technology/computers; spitting; and possession/use of paging device, cellular phones and/or other electronic communication devices (penalty in elementary school: 3-10 day confiscation of the device; penalty in secondary school: 5-15 day confiscation of the device).[25]
Disciplinary actions for category two offenses differ between kindergarten through second grade and grades three through twelve.[26] Children in kindergarten and up through second grade receive a two day suspension and/or counseling for the first offense, three to four day suspension for the second offense, five to ten day suspension for the third offense, and long-term suspension/ SBIT team recommendation for the fourth offense.[27] Children in grades three through twelve receive a three to four day suspension for the first offense, five to ten day suspension for the second offense, and long-term suspension/SBIT team recommendation for the third offense.[28]
Category Three Offenses and Consequences
Category three offenses include assault (Conflict Resolution or Mediation is mandatory and police notification is required by law); battery (Conflict Resolution or Mediation is mandatory and police notification is required by law); theft; theft by receiving; indecent exposure; sexual misconduct; breaking and entering/vandalism; breaking and entering/vandalism in excess of $500 (police notification is required by law); vandalism to computer hardware/software (violators will be prosecuted); repeated violation of category two offenses; disorderly conduct/hindering/interfering with a school function; harassing communications; use of fireworks; use, possession and/or under the influence of drug paraphernalia, alcohol, controlled substances or unauthorized drugs or substances (police notification is required for possession of a controlled substance); false alarm (Fire Marshall and/or Police notification is required); failure to permit a lawful search or inspection by a school official; and possession of a laser pen light.[29]
Disciplinary actions for category three offenses differ between kindergarten through second grade, grades three through five, and grades six through twelve.[30] Children in kindergarten through second grade receive a two to four day suspension and/or counseling for the first offense, five to seven day suspension for the second offense, ten day suspension for the third offense, and long-term suspension/SBIT team recommendation.[31] Children in grades three through five receive a four to five day suspension for the first offense, a six to ten day suspension for the second offense, and long-term suspension/SBIT team recommendation for the third offense.[32] Children in grades six to twelve receive a five to ten day suspension for the first offense and long-term suspension/SBIT team recommendation for the second offense.[33]
Category Four Offenses and Consequences
Category four offenses include use of multi-fingered rings, chemical agents, or laser pen lights; arson; drug/alcohol sale or distribution; physical assault on staff; verbal abuse of staff; possession of firearm (expulsion for a full calendar year is required by law); use of weapon (expulsion for a full calendar year is required by law); possession or use of explosives (expulsion for a full calendar year is required by law); extortion/robbery, unlawful assembly; inciting to riot; possession of weapon or facsimile weapon (expulsion for a full calendar year is required by law); terroristic threatening; felony violations; and crime of video voyeurism.[34] Disciplinary actions for category four offenses receive a recommendation for expulsion and “[t]he Little Rock Police Department will be immediately notified and violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”[35]
Category three and four offenses may result in suspension or expulsion and “are those defined under city and state law as criminal in nature.”[36] The school administrator is given the discretion to choose more or less sever penalties based on the student’s past disciplinary record when warranted. Repetitive violations of the same category may result in a suspension under a higher category.[37]
As can be seen by the above survey of the four categories of offenses and their related disciplines, there are about twelve possible disciplinary actions available that keep children in school and under the school’s discipline.[38] There are three possible disciplinary actions that keep children out of their educational home environment and make them more likely to enter the juvenile justice system.[39] Of the offenses disciplined, some are defined in more than one category and can be punished under more than one category or escalated to a higher category. For example, minor altercations are listed in category one, fighting is listed in category two, and assault/battery is listed in category three.[40] Each of these is a form of physical altercation, but can be punished under any of the three categories. Furthermore, category one lists using verbally abusive language, category two lists the non-threatening use of profanity/slander directed to staff, and category four lists verbal abuse of staff.[41] Each of these is a form of verbal abuse, but can be disciplined under any of those categories. The school determines which disciplinary category each offense earns.
B. How Race Impacts Discipline
1. National Statistics
There is a national trend in schools today of enforcing disciplinary measure that result in referral to the juvenile justice system for children of color, more so than their white counterparts. Schools today are referring children to the juvenile justice system for punishment of offenses that school once dealt with themselves.[42] This national trend contributes to the strong racial disparity when analyzing discipline, whether in schools or in the juvenile justice system.
National studies conducted in 2011-2012 reveal “[b]lack children represented 18% of preschool enrollment, but 48% of the preschool children receiving more than one out-of-school suspension; compared to white students that represented 43% of preschool enrollment, but only 26% of preschool children receiving more than one out of school suspension.”[43] A 2006 national study found that “approximately one in seven black students enrolled was suspended at least once compared to about one in 20 White students.”[44] Furthermore, in a 2010 study, 28% of black males in middle school were suspended compared to only 10% of white males in middle school, and 18% of black females were suspended compared to 4% of white females.[45] Additionally, “black students are suspended and expelled at a rate three times greater than white students. On average, 5% of white students are suspended, compared to 16% of black students. American Indian and Native Alaskan students are also disproportionately suspended and expelled, representing less than 1% of the student population but 2% of out-of-school suspensions.”[46]
2. Arkansas Statistics
In Arkansas, statistics show similar racial disparities in school discipline correlates to the increased exposure of children of color to the juvenile justice system. In 2011, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families its study of discipline in Arkansas schools. This study showed children of color constituted 56% of recorded offenses in schools, while white children constituted 44% of recorded offenses in schools.[47] While children of color constituted 56% of offenses recorded, they only accounted for approximately 21% of the population enrolled in school.[48]
Moreover, in 2011-2012, the Little Rock School District’s black youth enrollment was approximately 15,629 youth,[49] but black youth received 21,037 discipline actions in schools, which included referral to law enforcement, school-related arrest, corporal punishment, in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, and expulsion.[50] Whereas white youth enrollment was approximately 5,034,[51] white children received 5,499[52] disciplinary actions in schools. Thus, black youth received 35% more disciplinary actions based on population, as compared to 9% for the white youth population. Additionally, there were sixteen counts of student expulsion under zero tolerance policies in the Little Rock School District, and all sixteen counts were given only to black students.[53] These statistics show that black youth are more likely to be disciplined than white youth, thus they are more likely to receive referrals to law enforcement and the juvenile justice system than white youth.
The implementation of zero tolerance policies in schools brought police officers in schools. Police officers and probation officers in schools have some discretion as to how the offenses they observe and report are handled.[54] However, when school administrators approach police officers with offenses that occur in a school setting, the officer has less discretion and must report the student. When the student is sent to intake, the officer may have the discretion to divert the student (similar to probation), or send the student to the District Attorney for prosecution.[55]
C. Disparate Impact on Children in the Juvenile Justice System
The juvenile justice system also has a disparate impact on children of color. “There is a continuum of entry points into the school-to-prison pipeline [that] range from early school-based behavior problems, . . ., to more serious law breaking and probation violations, which involve the juvenile justice system and ultimately, criminal prosecution and incarceration by [the] adult penal system.”[56]
In this continuum “minorities are more likely than whites to be formally charged in juvenile court and to be sentenced to out-of-home placement, even when referred for the same offense.”[57] Youth of color “receive longer, harsher sentences than white youth who commit similar crimes and with similar criminal histories.”[58] Some attempt to explain this glaring difference by arguing that children of color misbehave more in schools than their white counterparts.[59] Others argue that those in control of the juvenile justice system possess an unconscious bias that keeps children of color on the track to end up in the school-to-prison pipeline.[60] Because children of color are more likely than white children to be disciplined in school, they are more likely to be sent to the juvenile justice system. This means there is a direct correlation between the racial disparities in the school discipline system and the racial disparities in the juvenile justice system that cannot be justified by misbehavior, but may be partially explained by an unconscious bias.[61] The racial disparities in school discipline and the juvenile justice system are apparent. These racial disparities exist within the juvenile justice system across the nation and in Arkansas.
1. National Statistics
In 2010, courts with juvenile jurisdiction handled approximately 1.4 million delinquency cases.[62] During this time, black juvenile proceedings (87.6) occurred at more than double the rate of white juvenile proceedings (36.4).[63] Thus, despite the black youth population only being 16%, black youths constituted more than double the delinquency cases than white youths. These numbers are highly disproportionate based on the population of each race.
Moreover, in 2010, cases involving black youth and American Indian youth were more likely to involve detention (29% each) than those involving Asian youth or white youth (27% and 24%, respectively).[64] These statistics reveal children of color are detained at higher rates than white children, even though white children are a majority of the population. Furthermore, black youth constitute 25% of delinquency detainees, 22% of detainees for property damage, and 25% of detainees for drug charges.[65] This is compared to white youth, who were 19% of delinquency detainees, 12% of detainees for property damage, and 14% of detainees for drug charges.[66] These statistics clearly show that black youth are more likely to be charged as delinquent and detained than white youth, which is evidence of racial disparities due to an unconscious bias at work in the juvenile justice system.[67]
2. Arkansas Statistics
According to the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts data for 2012, the courts placed 10,896 youths in detention before their hearing or after their ruling.[68] Between 2010 and 2012, the detained youth consisted of 54% white youth, 39% black youth, and 1% of other youth.[69] In 2012, 257 black youth were committed to the Department of Youth Services, (DYS), as compared to 203 white youth.[70] That is 21% more black youths than white youths committed to DYS. Of these, 61% of black juveniles were committed to DYS for a felony, 35% for a misdemeanor, and 4% for a probation violation, as compared to the 60% of white juveniles who were committed to DYS for a felony, 37% for a misdemeanor, and 3% for probation violations.[71] While the percentages are close in range, this demonstrates a racial disparity in these statistics because the black youth population is not equivalent to the white youth population. There are more white youth than black youth. Hence, for the two races to be disciplined at similar rates is disproportionate.
III. Impact of the Racial Disparities in the Arkansas Juvenile Justice System on Children’s Education, Families, Costs to Taxpayers, and Society.
There are numerous downsides to the racial disparities found in the juvenile justice system. One of the many downsides is the debilitating effect on the detained youths’ education and social skills development. Another is the high cost of detention that taxpayers must help support. There is also an overall economic impact that traps people of color in a socioeconomic status and creates a reoccurring cycle.
A. Impact on the Children
1. Education
Detention is not a substitute for meeting the educational, social, or health care needs of children. In fact, detained youth frequently “do not receive the education or the healthcare” that they might otherwise have access to if they were not detained.[72] If youths were at home they would have better access to the specialized types of educational and healthcare services that they need. [73] Detention centers provide a basic education, but one that is often not specifically structured toward meeting the specialized educational needs of the children in detention. Many of the youth that encounter the juvenile justice system typically have difficulty in school already and removing them from their educational homes and halting their learning process causes them to fall further behind in school.[74]
Moreover, placing youth in detention drastically impacts their ability to learn and disrupts their educational environment. When youth re-enter school from juvenile detention they are frequently sent to Alternative Learning Environments (ALE), which further disrupts their learning process and normal routine.[75] ALEs are generally used for children with behavioral problems.[76] Hence, if a child was exposed to the juvenile justice system for an offense that occurred outside of school, when that child re-enters school they will likely be placed in an ALE with other children who have behavioral problems.[77] For example, Judge Branton, a Judge in the Pulaski County Juvenile Justice system, had a child in his court over the summer that was not a school referral.[78] He was referred to Judge Branton’s court for an offense committed in the community.[79] Judge Branton sent the child to C-step, a military boot camp program.[80] When the child returned to school in the fall and the school became aware that he had been in C-step over the summer, they moved him to an ALE as part of the school protocol.[81] The child’s educational opportunity was diminished by being placed in an ALE, because ALEs are typically full of children with behavioral problems which makes it more difficult for the child to focus on his or her education. Thus, the placement in the ALE is counter-productive to the child’s learning. Moreover, for example, at Hamilton Learning Academy, an ALE, there were 104 male youths enrolled. Of those 104, one was a Hispanic male youth, one was a white male youth, and the other 102 were black male youths.[82] This is further evidence of the racial disparities in the school discipline system that is funneling youth of color into the juvenile justice system. As Officer Allen, a Resource Officer for Hamilton Learning Academy, stated, “everybody can’t be educated in the same thing.”[83] Hence, the ALE segregates children with behavioral problems from those without behavioral problems; however, the ALE is not necessarily providing an appropriate education for those children who are placed in ALE. It may not meet the child’s educational needs, because it does not provide a more practical hands-on learning format.[84]
Since youth of color are subject to disproportionate contact with the juvenile justice system and are more likely to be funneled into the school-to-prison pipeline, they are at a higher risk of losing their right to an education than white youth. Additionally, youth detained for a prolonged period of time often lose opportunities to further their education.[85] For example, if a child is held in an ALE or detention, they cannot be referred to a GED program until they reach age 18, which is also when they age out of school.[86] Statistically speaking, once an adolescent has encountered the juvenile justice system, he or she is more likely to drop out of school.[87] Adolescents become more likely to drop out because they have fallen so far behind, have become isolated from their peers, and have been labeled as delinquent. For adolescents that encounter the juvenile justice system it is difficult to rid themselves of their delinquency label. Moreover, a loss of educational opportunities leaves them with limited room for advancement in education, work, and society. This can cause them to rely on past criminal behaviors in order to meet their daily needs. Therefore, once they drop out of school, they are more likely to be incarcerated later in life.[88]
2. Families
Exposure to the school discipline system and the juvenile justice system has had a dramatic impact on the families of children of color exposed to both systems. Often, children of color receive school discipline, which leaves them suspended or expelled. In these situations, the parents generally must still work and have no one to watch the child. According to Judge Branton, many times children who are suspended and sent home from school have no supervision while one suspension, whereas if they were in school they would be under school supervision. This leads to these children becoming delinquent by committing a crime such as breaking and entering, which in turn exposes them to the juvenile justice system.[89]
B. Cost to Taxpayers
The average annual cost to operate a Juvenile Detention Center (JDC) in Arkansas is $1.2 million.[90] Of that $1.2 million, 81% is allocated to personnel cost.[91] On average, the cost per bed for detention is $29,381 per year.[92] It costs more to detain one youth for one year than it does to attend any public college for one year.[93] The average annual cost of tuition, fees, room and board, books and supplies for an in-state student at UALR is $14,944.90, and $26,014.90 for an out-of-state student.[94] If we spent $29,381 on obtaining the services needed to help the youth and their families, we would most likely observe better outcomes for the youth and potentially decrease the disparate impact felt by youth of color in society, in addition to the disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system.
Stakeholders in the local juvenile justice system have some suggestions for other uses of the resources used to detain juveniles. Judge Branton suggested that a day center for children who have been suspended from school would be useful and it would give the children a place that they could go for educational assistance, counseling, supervision, and generally help keep them out of trouble.[95] Additionally, Officer Allen suggested that providing the children with trade school training would be more practical and beneficial in becoming productive members of society.[96] These are just a few suggestions that would help decrease the disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system and the cost to taxpayers, while increasing the benefits of services provided to youth of color.
C. Impact on Society
Racial disparities in school discipline and contact with the juvenile justice system also have created a social impact on youth of color. Some researchers have concluded “that suspension may act more as a reinforcer than a punisher for inappropriate behavior.”[97] In 2012, the recommitment rate to DYS was 22%.[98] Once young people are introduced into the juvenile justice system, they are more likely to become incarcerated or reoffend.
Studies show that the mind continues to develop mature decision-making until about age 25.[99] Hence, youth are more impressionable and more likely to act impulsively and without judgment. Adolescents are also more susceptible to developing a prison or institutionalization mentality.[100] If detained long enough, they will not be capable of functioning outside of the prison system. Thus, this hinders any likelihood of successful rehabilitation and reentry into society.
D. Economic Impact
There is also a significant economic impact on youth in the juvenile justice system. The impact is greater on youth of color because of their disproportionate representation in the juvenile justice system. Jeremy Travis, former director of the National Institute of Justice, termed this effect the “invisible punishment.”[101] Aspects of the invisible punishment include the forfeiture of federal benefits such as public assistance including food stamps, and denial of public housing and student loans.[102] There are also limits on their “ability to participate in their communities after” release due to the separation from their communities during confinement.[103] This limits their ability to be productive members of society. Other economic impacts include the difficulty these youth have in obtaining marketable skills with limited and less access to education, which in turn limits their ability to find employment.[104] Thus, because youth of color have encountered the juvenile justice system more frequently than whites, they experience more forfeiture of their rights to government assistance and educational opportunities. This often places them in a low-income socioeconomic lifestyle that is almost impossible to transcend.
IV. Recommendations for Minimizing the Racial Disparities in the Juvenile Justice System and Decreasing Negative Impacts on Youth of Color, Families of Color, and Taxpayers.
There have been numerous suggestions made to minimize racial disparities in the juvenile justice system. These recommendations have been made by the federal government, non-profit organizations like Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, scholars, and practitioners. For Arkansas, the first step in addressing racial disparity in the juvenile justice system is to collect and maintain reliable data that can be used to analyze where the disparities occur and then help to address those areas.
The federal government has created the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to help states comply with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA), which requires states to address disproportionate minority contact (DMC) with the juvenile justice system. The JJDPA recommends “diversion, alternatives to secure confinement, advocacy, and training and technical assistance on cultural competency with youth and staffing practices.”[105] Arkansas is currently in phase II of this process, which is known as the assessment and diagnosis phase.[106] This phase also includes gathering data.[107]
Additionally, it will be necessary to maintain uniform and reliable data throughout the state so that a proper evaluation can be performed.[108] Other suggestions include creating alternatives for low and moderate risk level youth, creating structured ways of responding to violations of probation and other court orders using sanctions other than detention, the elimination of using detention to reprimand status offenders, creating an understanding of racial disparities, and developing new ways to help counteract the disproportionality between various decision makers such as the law enforcement, courts, and schools to develop appropriate school referrals.[109] Once we collect and analyze the data, we should be able to identify at what point the disproportionality occurs and begin to modify those areas to safeguard against further disparities.
“Studies focused on school safety find that when schools approach discipline through responsive, reintegrative, and restorative mechanisms they are more effective at maintaining safe communities.”[110] “Schools can promote improved academic environments, which in turn improve school safety,” when they provide a better-balanced response to misbehavior.[111] By schools addressing misbehavior with more reintegrative and restorative measures, schools can take back control and begin to better address the problem at hand and its underlying issues. If schools addressed the underlying issues, there would be fewer court referrals. In turn, this would help lessen the racial disparities and the amount of contact children have with the juvenile justice system.
Reintegrative and restorative measures include providing teachers with leadership training and more effective classroom management helps provide students with more structure and stability, leading to improved educational outcomes and less disruptions resulting in discipline.[112] Some researchers suggest that teachers should be given special training to help identify and improve youth development.[113] If teachers could identify and improve youth development in the classroom, there would be less need to escalate punishment to the juvenile justice system. Additionally, some believe that giving teachers multi-cultural sensitivity training will help teachers be more aware of any unconscious bias and how they as teachers interact with their students of color.[114] Also, the implementation of fair and tolerant disciplinary policies will help.[115] If teachers were aware of the potential for unconscious bias and how that affects their interaction with their students coupled with more fair and tolerant policies, then the racial disparities found in school discipline would likely diminish.
Several researchers suggest the use of Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS), which is a “decision making framework guiding evidence-based academic and behavioral practices for improving outcomes for students.”[116] These are typically three tier systems that help “address classroom management and disciplinary issues ranging from tardiness to antisocial behavior.”[117] A PBIS would help prevent unwarranted escalation of punishment to suspension and possibly juvenile court by addressing the issues at the most basic level, in the classroom. Methods such as PBIS can help add a layer of protection for youth of color. They can serve as a barrier to the juvenile court system, only allowing serious, non-discretionary offenses to escalate to juvenile court, which would help decrease the racial disparities in the school-to-prison pipeline.
Other recommendations include stopping the funneling of colored youth and youth in general into the school-to-prison pipeline by banning zero tolerance policies and making suspensions and expulsions an alternative of the last resort.[118] Zero tolerance policies encourage the use of suspension, which frequently leads to contact with the juvenile justice system. Another option is if zero tolerance policies persist in schools, to implement mediation or arbitration panels to help resolve school disciplinary problems before escalating them to juvenile courts, unless it is a serious, felony offense.[119] Mediation, like PBIS, would provide an additional alternative to funneling children into the school-to-prison pipeline.[120] Alternatives such as these would help prevent disproportionate discipline and unnecessary court referrals for children of color. Furthermore, adding additional staff to each school for mental health and counseling would be highly beneficial to resolving the youthful indiscretions without funneling them into the juvenile justice system. It also gives a more direct and better chance to address the actual issues that are causing the youth to misbehave.
Other avenues of improvement consist of forcing stakeholders in the juvenile justice to examine unconscious bias and make an active and conscious effort to use other alternatives to detention.[121] These stakeholders include, but are not limited to, school officials who refer students to the criminal justice system, judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and intake officers. By bringing these racial disparities to the forefront of conversation and educating stakeholders in the juvenile justice system and the school discipline system about how unconscious bias operates and its impact, we can begin to recognize the problem and address the issue.
One of the more successful approaches to improving the racial disparity in the juvenile justice system comes from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. This foundation started the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), and provides resources to states that have JDAI sites. These sites include providing small cash grants; technical assistance; tools, guides, and publications; model sites; training seminars; national conferences; and network and peer support.[122]
By utilizing other community-based alternatives to detention in 2012, the JDAI helped to reduce the annual admission to detention in participating states by more than 59,000 youths and commitment to state custody by 40%.[123] JDAI sites decreased the number of youth of color in detention by 39%.[124] Additionally, the number of juvenile intakes declined by 29%; the number of juvenile arrests declined by 33%; the number of felony petitions filed declined by 43%; and the number of delinquency petitions filed declined by 45%.”[125] JDAI has actively helped to decrease the racial disparities in juvenile detention as well as the number of juveniles being detained.
In 2012, JDAI partnered with two counties in Arkansas, Benton County, and Washington County to create more effective and efficient alternatives to juvenile detention.[126] The JDAIs in these counties have been so successful that the counties now must repurpose the multi-million dollar juvenile detention facility that was built just a few years prior.[127] By reducing the number of juvenile detainees, JDAI has helped to reduce the number of youth of color being detained, which helps address the disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system within these counties. A program such as the JDAI should be implemented throughout the state to decrease overuse of detention and the racial disparities in the juvenile justice system.
V. Conclusion
Racial disparities exist in both the school discipline system and the juvenile justice system. School discipline systems are disproportionately used on youth of color, and this leads to a pronounced exclusion of youth of color from educational opportunities. These disparities in turn, disproportionately send more youth of color through the school-to-prison pipeline, which increases the number of youth in detention and the cost to taxpayers, instead of utilizing cheaper, more efficient alternatives. It also disenfranchises youth of color from their educational opportunities by disrupting and decreasing those opportunities. Furthermore, it separates them from their communities, which disrupts their futures.
A plethora of recommendations has been set forth by numerous experts; of those, limiting suspension and expulsion to felonious actions that require a last resort of suspension or expulsion should be implemented along with a ban on zero tolerance policies. Zero tolerance policies do more harm than good. There are better alternatives that will actually help address the underlying issues of youth, but especially youth of color in a more efficient and effective manner. There are a lot of resources being dedicated to the current juvenile justice system. A reallocation of those resources to expanding projects like JDAI will improve Arkansas’ youth, economy, and society and would make an excellent first step to rectifying the racial disparities in the juvenile justice system. Moreover, measures to correct school discipline that leads to discipline by the juvenile justice system also must be implemented, such as banishing zero tolerance policies. However, until the underlying social issues that helped create these disparities are addressed, society can only remain reactive as opposed to proactive.
——————————————————————————————–
Destiny McHughes is from Little Rock, Arkansas. Destiny attended the University of Central Arkansas and obtained a Bachelors degree Business Administration in 2008. Destiny graduated from UALR, William H. Bowen, School of Law in 2015. Destiny has dedicated her time and efforts to help improve the community through a variety of volunteer and outreach activities. Destiny co-chaired the Zero K Fundraiser in 2014. She also founded the Juvenile Mentor Program in August 2014, which provides group mentor sessions twice a month. In the Spring 2015, she participated in the Road to Justice Program with Legal Aid of Arkansas. Destiny opened her own legal practice in 2016 focused on family law, divorce, estate planning, and guardianship matters.
[1] See generally, Elbert H. Aull IV, Zero Tolerance, Frivolous Juvenile Court Referrals, and the School-to-Prison-Pipeline: Using Arbitration as a Screening-Out Method to Help Plug the Pipeline, 27 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. 179, (2012).
[2] Jerri Derlikowski, Keeping Kids in Class: Fixing Racial Disparities in School Discipline, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, 1, 7, (February 2013), http://www.aradvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/Keeping-Kids-In-Class-February-2013.pdf.
[3] See generally, Daniel J. Losen, Discipline Policies, Successful Schools, Racial Justice, and The Law, 51 FAM. CT. REV. 388, (2013).
[4] Little Rock School District, Student Handbook, 1, 69-80, (2014-2015), http://www.lrsd.org/drupal/sites/default/files/Student%20Handbook/2014%20Student%20Handbook%20Final_1.pdf.
[5] Id.
[6] Daniel J. Losen, Discipline Policies, Successful Schools, Racial Justice, and The Law, 51 FAM. CT. REV. 388, 391 (2013).
[7] Little Rock School District, Student Handbook, 1, 71-78, (2014-2015), http://www.lrsd.org/drupal/sites/default/files/Student%20Handbook/2014%20Student%20Handbook%20Final_1.pdf.
[8] Id.
[9] Thalia Gonzalez, Restoring Justice: Community Organizing to Transform School Discipline Policies, 15 U.C. DAVIS J. JUV. L. & POL’Y 1, 10-11, (2011).
[10] Elbert H. Aull IV, Zero Tolerance, Frivolous Juvenile Court Referrals, and the School-to-Prison-Pipeline: Using Arbitration as a Screening-Out Method to Help Plug the Pipeline, 27 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. 179, 179-180, (2012).
[11] Little Rock School District, Student Handbook, 1, 76-80, (2014-2015), http://www.lrsd.org/drupal/sites/default/files/Student%20Handbook/2014%20Student%20Handbook%20Final_1.pdf.
[12] Id.
[13] Elbert H. Aull IV, Zero Tolerance, Frivolous Juvenile Court Referrals, and the School-to-Prison-Pipeline: Using Arbitration as a Screening-Out Method to Help Plug the Pipeline, 27 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. 179, 182, (2012).
[14] Id. at 182-183.
[15] Thalia Gonzalez, Restoring Justice: Community Organizing to Transform School Discipline Policies, 15 U.C. DAVIS J. JUV. L. & POL’Y 1, 10, (2011).
[16] Elbert H. Aull IV, Zero Tolerance, Frivolous Juvenile Court Referrals, and the School-to-Prison-Pipeline: Using Arbitration as a Screening-Out Method to Help Plug the Pipeline, 27 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. 179, 182, (2012).
[17] See generally, Jerri Derlikowski, Keeping Kids in Class: Fixing Racial Disparities in School Discipline, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, (February 2013), http://www.aradvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/Keeping-Kids-In-Class-February-2013.pdf.
[18] Little Rock School District, Student Handbook, 1, 70, (2014-2015), http://www.lrsd.org/drupal/sites/default/files/Student%20Handbook/2014%20Student%20Handbook%20Final_1.pdf.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] Id. at 71-72.
[22] Id.
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id. at 73-75.
[26] Id. at 73.
[27] Id.
[28] Id.
[29] Id. at 76-78.
[30] Id. at 76.
[31] Id.
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[34] Id. at 79-80.
[35] Id. at 79.
[36] Id. at 70.
[37] Id. at 71.
[38] Id. at 70.
[39] Id.
[40] Id. at 71 – 76.
[41] Id. at 72 – 79.
[42] See generally, Jerri Derlikowski, Keeping Kids in Class: Fixing Racial Disparities in School Discipline, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, (February 2013), http://www.aradvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/Keeping-Kids-In-Class-February-2013.pdf.
[43] U.S. Dept. of Ed. Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection: Data Snapshot: School Discipline, Issue Brief No.1, 1, (March 2014), http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-discipline-snapshot.pdf.
[44] Daniel J. Losen, Discipline Policies, Successful Schools, Racial Justice, and The Law, 51 FAM. CT. REV. 388, 389 (2013).
[45] Id. at 390.
[46] U.S. Dept. of Ed. Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection: Data Snapshot: School Discipline, Issue Brief No.1, 1, (March 2014), http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-discipline-snapshot.pdf.
[47] Morganne Sample, From Playgrounds to Prisons: Police involvement in School Discipline, 1, 2, (July 2013), http://www.aradvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/From-Playgrounds-to-Prisons.pdf.
[48] Id.
[49] Civil Rights Data Collection, (last viewed November 15, 2014), http://ocrdata.ed.gov/flex/Reports.aspx?type=school#/action%3DaddSearchParams%26tbSearchCity%3DLittle+Rock%26ddlSearchState%3DAR%26btnSearchParams%3DSearch%26cblYears_4%3D1.
[50] Civil Rights Data Collection, (last viewed November 15, 2014), http://ocrdata.ed.gov/flex/Reports.aspx?type=school#/action%3DaddSearchParams%26ddlSearchState%3DAR%26btnSearchParams%3DSearch%26cblYears_4%3D1.
[51] Civil Rights Data Collection, (last viewed November 15, 2014), http://ocrdata.ed.gov/flex/Reports.aspx?type=school#/action%3DaddSearchParams%26tbSearchCity%3DLittle+Rock%26ddlSearchState%3DAR%26btnSearchParams%3DSearch%26cblYears_4%3D1.
[52] Civil Rights Data Collection, (last viewed November 15, 2014), http://ocrdata.ed.gov/flex/Reports.aspx?type=school#/action%3DaddSearchParams%26ddlSearchState%3DAR%26btnSearchParams%3DSearch%26cblYears_4%3D1.
[53] Id.[54] Personal Interview with Officer Allen (Little Rock Police department, Resource Officer) and Mr. Polk (Probation Officer) from Hamilton Learning Academy, (Nov. 21, 2014).
[55] Deborah Busch, 7: Pathways to Juvenile Detention Reform: By the Numbers, the role of data and information in detention reform, Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1, 14, (Jan. 1, 1999), http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-BytheNumbers-1999.pdf.
[56] Thalia Gonzalez, Restoring Justice: Community Organizing to Transform School Discipline Policies, 15 U.C. DAVIS J. JUV. L. & POL’Y 1, 12, (2011).
[57] Edgar Cahn and Cynthia Robbins, An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Racial Disparity in Juvenile Justice and Deliberate Indifference Meet Alternatives that Work, 13 U.D.C.L. REV. 71, 79 (2010).
[58] Olatunde C.A. Johnson, Disparity Rules, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 374, 375 (2007).
[60] See generally, Olatunde C.A. Johnson, Disparity Rules, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 374, 382-383 (2007).
[61] Id.
[62] Charles Puzzanchera and Sarah Hockenberry, Juvenile Court Statistics 2010, 1, 6, (November 2013), http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/jcs2010.pdf.
[63] Id. at 20.
[64] Id. at 34.
[65] Id.
[66] Id.
[67] See generally, Olatunde C.A. Johnson, Disparity Rules, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 374, 382 (2007).
[68] Paul Kelly, Why Detention is Not Always the Answer: A Closer Look at Youth Lock-Up in Arkansas, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, 1, 5, (April 2014), http://www.aradvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Detention-Is-Not-Always-The-Answer-Web.pdf.
[69] Id.
[70] Arkansas Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services, Arkansas Child Welfare Report Card, 1, DYS-5, (last viewed on November 15, 2014), http://humanservices.arkansas.gov/dys/dysReports/FY2012%20ANNUAL%20REPORT.pdf.
[71] Id.
[72] Edgar Cahn and Cynthia Robbins, An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Racial Disparity in Juvenile Justice and Deliberate Indifference Meet Alternatives that Work, 13 U.D.C.L. REV. 71, 80 (2010).
[73] Id.
[74] Paul Kelly, Why Detention is Not Always the Answer: A Closer Look at Youth Lock-Up in Arkansas, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, 1, 6, (April 2014), http://www.aradvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Detention-Is-Not-Always-The-Answer-Web.pdf.
[75] Id.
[76] Personal Interview with Officer Allen (Little Rock Police Department Resource Officer) and Mr. Polk (Probation Officer), Hamilton Learning Academy, (Nov. 21, 2014).
[77] Id.
[78] Personal Interview with Judge Wiley Branton, Eighth Division, Sixth Judicial Circuit, (Nov. 10, 2014)
[79] Id.
[80] Id.
[81] Id.
[82] Personal Interview with Officer Allen (Little Rock Police Department Resource Officer) and Mr. Polk (Probation Officer), Hamilton Learning Academy, (Nov. 21, 2014).
[83] Id.
[84] Id.
[85] Edgar Cahn and Cynthia Robbins, An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Racial Disparity in Juvenile Justice and Deliberate Indifference Meet Alternatives that Work, 13 U.D.C.L. REV. 71, 92 (2010).
[86] Personal Interview with Officer Allen (Little Rock Police Department Resource Officer) and Mr. Polk (Probation Officer), Hamilton Learning Academy, (Nov. 21, 2014).
[87] Jerri Derlikowski, Keeping Kids in Class: Fixing the Racial Disparities in School Discipline, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, 1, 11, (February 2013), http://www.aradvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/Keeping-Kids-In-Class-February-2013.pdf.
[88] Id.
[89] Personal Interview with Judge Wiley Branton, Eighth Division, Sixth Judicial Circuit, (Nov. 10, 2014)
[90] Paul Kelly, Why Detention is Not Always the Answer: A Closer Look at Youth Lock-Up in Arkansas, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, 1, 3, (April 2014), http://www.aradvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Detention-Is-Not-Always-The-Answer-Web.pdf.
[91] Id.
[92] Id.
[93] Id.
[94] University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Tuition & Fees, (last visited Nov. 14, 2014), https://ualr.edu/bursar/home/tuitionandfees/.
[95] Personal Interview with Judge Wiley Branton, Eighth Division, Sixth Judicial Circuit, (Nov. 10, 2014).
[96] Personal Interview with Officer Allen (Little Rock Police Department Resource Officer) and Mr. Polk (Probation Officer), Hamilton Learning Academy, (Nov. 21, 2014).
[97] Daniel J. Losen, Discipline Policies, Successful Schools, Racial Justice, and The Law, 51 FAM. CT. REV. 388, 393 (2013).
[98] Arkansas Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services, Arkansas Child Welfare Report Card, 1, DYS-18, (last viewed on November 15, 2014 at 2:13pm), http://humanservices.arkansas.gov/dys/dysReports/FY2012%20ANNUAL%20REPORT.pdf.
[99] NPR: Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years, (NPR Radio Broadcast Oct. 10, 2011), http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708.
[100] Prateek Shukla, The Criminal Child and Its Potential for Change: A Presumption in Favor of Rehabilitation in Sentencing Juvenile Offenders, 38 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 379, 396 (2012).
[101] Edgar Cahn and Cynthia Robbins, An Offer They Can’t Refuse: Racial Disparity in Juvenile Justice and Deliberate Indifference Meet Alternatives that Work, 13 U.D.C.L. REV. 71, 80-81 (2010).
[102] Id.
[103] Id.
[104] Id.
[105] Id.
[106] Id. at 2.
[107] Personal Interview with Judge Wiley Branton, Eighth Division, Sixth Judicial Circuit, (Nov. 10, 2014).
[108] Paul Kelly, Why Detention is Not Always the Answer: A Closer Look at Youth Lock-Up in Arkansas, Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, 1, 8, (April 2014), http://www.aradvocates.org/wp-content/uploads/Why-Detention-Is-Not-Always-The-Answer-Web.pdf.
[109] Id. at 8-9.
[110] Thalia Gonzalez, Restoring Justice: Community Organizing to Transform School Discipline Policies, 15 U.C. DAVIS J. JUV. L. & POL’Y 1, at 14, (2011).
[111] Id.
[112] Daniel J. Losen, Discipline Policies, Successful Schools, Racial Justice, and The Law, 51 FAM. CT. REV. 388, 396 (2013).
[113] Id.
[114] Id.
[115] Id. at 15.
[116] Id.
[117] Id.
[118] Elbert H. Aull IV, <e