The Benefits, Risks, and Challenges of Get-Tough and Support-Oriented Approaches to Improving School Safety

• Author: Daniel P. Mears,Sonja E. Siennick,Samantha J. Brown,Nicole L. Collier,George B. Pesta,Andrea N. Montes,Thomas G. Blomberg
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403418786553
• Published date: 01 December 2019
• Date: 01 December 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418786553

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2019, Vol. 30(9) 1342 –1367

© The Author(s) 2018

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0887403418786553

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418786553

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2019, Vol. 30(9) 1342 –1367

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403418786553

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

The Benefits, Risks, and

Challenges of Get-Tough and

Support-Oriented Approaches

to Improving School Safety

Daniel P. Mears1, Andrea N. Montes2,

Nicole L. Collier1, Sonja E. Siennick1,

George B. Pesta1, Samantha J. Brown1,

and Thomas G. Blomberg1

Abstract

Schools have adopted get-tough policies and support-oriented policies, each of which

creates not only potential benefits but also potential risks for youth delinquency and

education. This article identifies potential benefits and risks of get-tough approaches

and support-oriented approaches, respectively, to reduce delinquency. It then identifies

challenges that can arise when schools seek to balance both get-tough and support-

oriented policies. We illustrate these challenges by drawing on prior scholarship on

these policies as well as a process evaluation of a large metropolitan school district’s

pilot initiative to promote school safety and academic performance by assisting court-

involved youth. We argue for developing a stronger empirical foundation for school-

based approaches that aim to improve school safety and educational outcomes of youth.

Keywords

delinquency, schools, get-tough, support-oriented

Introduction

In recent decades, schools have adopted get-tough efforts to improve safety through

punitive responses to misconduct and delinquency (Bishop & Feld, 2012; Cook,

Gottfredson, & Na, 2010; Gottfredson, 2017; Heaviside, Rowand, Williams, & Farris,

1Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

2Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Corresponding Author:

Daniel P. Mears, College of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Eppes Hall, 112

South Copeland Street, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1273, USA.

Email: dmears@fsu.edu

786553CJPXXX10.1177/0887403418786553Criminal Justice Policy ReviewMears et al.

research-article2018

Mears et al. 1343

1998; Skiba, 2014). The responses include zero-tolerance policies, mandatory suspen-

sions and expulsions, and hiring school police officers. Scholarly reviews, reports, and

media accounts highlight that such efforts continue to proliferate and extend from high

schools to middle and elementary schools (Chasmar, 2016; Curcio, 2016; Finn &

McDevitt, 2005; N. James & McCallion, 2013; Kupchik, 2010; U.S. Department of

Education, 2010).

Alongside the emergence of get-tough policies has been increased attention to

implementing efforts that support students, especially those at risk of school failure or

delinquency. For example, a national study of how schools prevent misconduct found

that a diverse array of treatment interventions are widely used to assist at-risk youth

(Gottfredson et al., 2002). In addition to or as a part of these interventions, families

and communities frequently participate in school-based efforts to improve student

conduct and safety (see, for example, Andreou, 2015; Carney, Myers, Louw, &

Okwundu, 2016; Kim, Gilman, & Hawkins, 2015; Stormshak et al., 2016).

Society has a vested interest in safe schools that promote learning, and schools

often feel pressure from parents and politicians to emphasize safety at all costs. But

interventions that emphasize punitive responses to misconduct may backfire and prove

counterproductive to safety and learning. And those that emphasize support may, as

with some juvenile justice diversion programs (Mears et al., 2016), be ineffective or

have unintended consequences, such as inadvertently worsening safety or interfering

with learning (see, generally, Forman, Olin, Hoagwood, Crowe, & Saka, 2009;

Ringold, 2002; Wilson, Gottfredson, & Najaka, 2001).

Against this backdrop, this article seeks to contribute to scholarship and policy

efforts aimed at understanding and reducing delinquency in schools and among at-risk

students, especially those who are court-involved. To this end, we draw on prior schol-

arship to identify ways in which get-tough approaches and support-oriented approaches

used by schools may improve or harm youth outcomes. Prior accounts sometimes

focus only on select benefits or harms of these approaches. We identify that in each

instance there in fact are a range of potential benefits and harms. Our focus then turns

to building on prior work by highlighting that many contemporary schools face a

unique situation, one that calls for them to embrace both get-tough and support-ori-

ented approaches to school safety. To develop this argument, we first present a typol-

ogy that illuminates the tensions that flow from embracing seemingly contradictory

school safety strategies. We then draw on prior research and on a process evaluation of

a school-based delinquency prevention program to illustrate the challenges that arise

from this situation. We argue that unless critical challenges in promoting benefits and

minimizing harms are addressed, the simultaneous pursuit of get-tough and support-

oriented approaches is likely to be ineffective.

In what follows, we describe the emergence and logic of get-tough school delin-

quency prevention policies as well as their potential benefits and risks. We provide a

similar analysis of school-based support-oriented efforts targeting at-risk youth. The

article then turns to a discussion of challenges that school-based get-tough and sup-

port-oriented approaches must address to ensure that their benefits are achieved and

their harms are minimized.