A Promising Approach to Narrowing the School-to-Prison Pipeline

• Author: Jamie J. Fader,Brian Lockwood,Victoria L. Schall,Benjamin Stokes
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204014521249
• Published date: 01 April 2015
• Date: 01 April 2015
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

A Promising Approach to

Narrowing the School-to-Prison

Pipeline: The WISE Arrest

Diversion Program

Jamie J. Fader

1

, Brian Lockwood

2

, Victoria L. Schall

1

,

and Benjamin Stokes

3

Abstract

Recent dramatic increases in the number of youth arrested for nonserious behavior in schools have

led some jurisdictions to search for solutions to the ‘‘school-to-prison pipeline.’’ In this article, we

evaluate the WISE arrest diversion program in Utica, New York. We use a mixed-methods evalua-

tion design including: (1) a pre–post program comparison of school conduct by participants, (2) a

pre–post program comparison of school-based arrests at Upstate High School, (3) a multivariate

analysis that estimates the influence of the WISE program on school-based arrests while controlling

for citywide juvenile arrests and the passage of time, and (4) interviews conducted with students,

program staff, and stakeholders. Although the program appeared more successful in reducing

Upstate High School’s reliance on arrest than in improving school conduct among participants,

results suggest that the WISE arrest diversion program contains promising elements and lessons for

narrowing the school-to-prison pipeline.

Keywords

school-to-prison pipeline, arrest diversion, program evaluation, juvenile justice

Introduction

In response to increasing juvenile violence and high-profile school shootings in the 1990s, zero-

tolerance school policies have proliferated in the United States. These policies originally mandated

suspension, expulsion, police notification, or arrest for severe and dangerous rule infractions, such as

bringing guns or drugs to school (Advancement Project, 2010; Dunbar & Villarruel, 2002; Skiba &

1

School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY, USA

2

Department of Criminal Justice, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NY, USA

3

Montgomery County Police Department, Germantown, MD, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jamie J. Fader, School of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, State University of New York, 135 Western Ave., 202 Draper

Hall, Albany, NY 12222, USA.

Email: jfader@albany.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

2015, Vol. 13(2) 123-142

ªThe Author(s) 2014

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204014521249

yvj.sagepub.com

Peterson, 2000). In recent years, the scope of these policies has increased dramatically, allowing

schools to utilize exclusionary discipline to address minor infractions. For example, one 12-year-

old girl was handcuffed in front of classmates and arrested for drawing on her desk in New York

(Chen, 2010); in Georgia, a 6-year-old kindergarten student was arrested for throwing a temper tan-

trum in class (Dianis, 2013). This criminalization of nonserious school misbehavior has created a

direct path from the classroom to the juvenile or criminal justice systems for a number of students,

typically referred to as the school-to-prison pipeline (Advancement Project, 2010). In New York

City alone, 882 arrests were initiated in schools, 81%of which were for either school violations

or misdemeanors (New York City School–Justice Partnership Task Force, 2013). With so many stu-

dents being swept into the juvenile and criminal justice systems

1

for minor infractions, some com-

munities have sought ways to interrupt the school-to-prison pipeline.

In this article, we describe and evaluate a program designed to narrow the school-to-prison pipe-

line in a high school and two middle schools in Utica, New York. The WISE

2

arrest diversion pro-

gram targets youth who have committed a low level but arrestable offense on school grounds and

diverts them from arrest by offering programming designed to support school attendance and

achievement, address problems before they lead to disruptive school behavior, and engage students

in after-school activities to prevent further involvement in offending. We use a mixed-methods eva-

luation design with four components: (1) a pre–post program comparison of school conduct by pro-

gram participants, (2) a descriptive exploration of school-based arrests at ‘‘Upstate High School’’

3

before and after program implementation, (3) a multivariate analysis that estimates the influence

of the WISE program on school-based arrests, and (4) interviews with students, program staff, and

stakeholders designed to identify implementation issues. Our research questions stem from the

two-pronged focus of the program that is aimed at students and schools: (1) Was program partic-

ipation associated with an improvement in grades and attendance and a reduction in the number of

disciplinary referrals generated by participants? (2) Was the program’s implementation associated

with a schoolwide reduction in arrests? (3) Were there lessons learned during the implementa tion

process that could be useful to planners in other jurisdictions wishing to a ddress the school-to-

prison pipeline?

Review of the Literature

Since the early 1990s, the use of zero-tolerance policies in schools rapidly increased, with public

support cemented by several widely publicized mass shootings (e.g., Columbine High School) and

dire predictions of a new hyperviolent ‘‘superpredator’’ (DiIulio, 1995). By 2000, 90%of schools

nationwide reported having at least one zero-tolerance policy (Brady, Balmer, & Phenix, 2007),

mandating suspension, expulsion, or police notification for behaviors ranging from drugs and weap-

ons, to disrespect,disrupting school or classes, and defianceof authority (Advancement Project, 2000,

2010; Dunbar & Villarruel, 2002; Kupchik, 2010; Skiba & Peterson, 1999, 2000). The use of zero-

tolerance policies in schools has continued to rise, despite a steadily declining juvenile crime rate.

Zero-tolerance policies have been accompanied by an increase in police presence in schools,

encouraging justice system treatment of classroom conduct issues. The number of identifiable police

officers in public schools rose from fewer than 100 in the 1970s to more than 2,000 officers in the

1990s (Portner, 1994). Between 1997 and 2007, the number of school resource officers increased

again by 38%(Petteruti, 2011). In New York City alone, the 2005–2006 academic year saw

4,625 school safety agents and at least 200 armed police officers in schools, making the New York

Police Department’s School Safety Division the 10th largest police force in the country (New York

Civil Liberties Union, 2007). Other jurisdictions, such as Palm Beach, Florida, have also created

their own school-based police forces, blurring the boundaries between the educational and justice

systems (Giroux, 2009; Hirschfield, 2008).

124 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 13(2)