Stemming the Tide: Promising Legislation to Reduce School Referrals to the Courts

• Author: Rachel M. Kleinman,Jessica Feierman,Len Rieser,Monique N. Luse,Robert G. Schwartz,David Lapp
• Date: 01 July 2013
• Published date: 01 July 2013
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12037

STEMMING THE TIDE: PROMISING LEGISLATION TO

REDUCE SCHOOL REFERRALS TO THE COURTS

Jessica Feierman, Rachel M. Kleinman, David Lapp, Monique N. Luse, Len Rieser, and

Robert G. Schwartz

This article will examine legislation around the country designed to decrease school referrals to the courts. The legislation

highlighted addresses the actions to be taken within school systems, the role of the judiciary, and the engagement of

multistakeholder groups in delinquency adjudication and disposition hearings. This article highlights state legislation that holds

promise for shifting the landscape: identifying appropriate cases to be handled by the school rather than the court system;

improving the school system’s capacity to address disruptions; and better clarifying the role of courts, probation, and the

schools in addressing student misconduct.

Keypoints:

• Legislation can stem the tide of the school to prison pipeline.

• Legislation can minimize referrals to court, strengthen the role of the court in reducing juvenile justice involvement of

youth referred by schools, and make it easier for students to return to school after being in the juvenile justice system.

• Successful states employ a multifaceted legislative approach to reducing the school-to-prison pipeline.

Keywords: Juvenile Justice;Legislation;Reentry;andSchool-to-Prison Pipeline.

Since the mid-1990s, court dockets have swelled, often with referrals of youth charged with

nonviolent offenses that once would have been handled internally by school discipline systems.

Heightened court involvement in school-based offenses burdens the courts and interferes with the

educational process. It prevents jurisdictions from drawing on a longstanding strength of schools:

promoting social learning through effective discipline strategies. Moreover, although increased court-

involvement in school-based misconduct does not make schools safer,it does hinder learning not only

for the disciplined students but for their peers as well.

“Zero tolerance” laws and policies in schools—those requiring suspensions, expulsions, and

court referrals as a response to school-based misbehavior—play a central role in the growing

school-to-prison pipeline. Many zero tolerance policies dictate that certain school-based offenses be

referred to police. Even without direct referrals, however, suspension and expulsion often lead to a

student’s first steps toward justice system entanglement. One study showed that a student who is

suspended or expelled is nearly three times more likely to come in contact with the juvenile justice

system the following year, even controlling for individual characteristics and environmental

factors.1Moreover, suspensions and expulsions lead to severe racial disparities.2Thus, exclusionary

discipline policies risk exacerbating already troubling racial disproportionality in the justice

system.3Once students enter the juvenile justice system, the problems continue. Compared with

their peers, youth of color are disproportionately arrested, detained, confined, and referred to adult

court.4Additionally, studies show that too frequently justice system involvement—and particularly

secure confinement—increases recidivism5and heightens the chance that a youth will drop out or

be pushed out of school.6

While national statistics are alarming, many states have begun to pass legislation to stem the tide

of the school-to-prison pipeline.7While not a comprehensive survey, this article provides examples of

such legislation. We start at the front end of the problem, with legislation that aims to improve school

Correspondence: jfeierman@jlc.org; Monique.luse@gmail.com; schwartz@jlc.org; RKleinman@NAACPLDF.ORG;

DLapp@elc-pa.org; Lenrieser@gmail.com

FAMILY COURT REVIEW,Vol. 51 No. 3, July 2013 409–417

© 2013 Association of Familyand Conciliation Cour ts