THE INTERSECTION OF JUVENILE COURTS AND EXCLUSIONARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

The Intersection of

JUVENILE COURTS and

EXCLUSIONARY 

SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

J. Guillermo Villalobos, MA

Theresa L. Bohannan, MPH
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges® (NCJFCJ) provides cutting-edge 

training, wide-ranging technical assistance, and research to help the nation’s courts, judges, 

and staff in their important work. Since its founding in 1937 by a group of judges dedicated 

to improving the effectiveness of the nation’s juvenile courts, the NCJFCJ has pursued a 

mission to improve courts and systems practice and raise awareness of the core issues that 

touch the lives of many of our nation’s children and families.

For more information about the NCJFCJ or this document, please contact: 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

P.O. Box 8970

Reno, Nevada 89507

www.ncjfcj.org

©2017, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. All rights reserved.

Acknowledgments: The NCJFCJ wishes to acknowledge that this report is made possible 

by 2014-JZ-FX-K006 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 

Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view or opinions are those 

of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice or the NCJFCJ.

Special acknowledgment: Logan Yelderman, Ph.D. for editing and proofreading assistance. 

Suggested Citation: Villalobos, J.G., & Bohannan, T.L. (2017). The Intersection of Juvenile Courts 

and Exclusionary School. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. 
The Intersection of

JUVENILE COURTS and

EXCLUSIONARY 

SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

J. Guillermo Villalobos, MA

Theresa L. Bohannan, MPH
1 NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES
THE INTERSECTION OF JUVENILE COURTS AND EXCLUSIONARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

Reevaluating Current School Discipline 

Policies and Practices

Historically, school administrators have been responsible for addressing students' misbehavior in school. However, over the past few decades, 

an increasing number of school-related issues have come before the 

juvenile court due to highly punitive school policies and practices. Zerotolerance school discipline policies are a one-size-fits-all approach with 

predetermined punishments when students violate school rules, regardless 

of mitigating circumstances.1 The American Civil Liberties Union refers to 

zero tolerance as policies and practices that simultaneously push students 

out of schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems, reflecting a 

prioritization of incarceration over education. Zero tolerance policies (ZTPs) 

often include arrest and/or referral to the juvenile court or exclusionary 

discipline practices, such as in-school and out-of-school suspension and 

expulsion. Those who support zero tolerance types of policies argue that 

severely punishing disruptive students will result in safer environments and 

discourage other students from engaging in similar disruptive behaviors.2

On the other hand, opponents of ZTPs argue that these policies tend to be 

excessive, contribute to school push-out,3 and disproportionately impact 

students of color and students with disabilities. When students are hastily 

removed from classrooms, they lose instruction time and can be held back 

academically. Removal of students can precipitate a chain of events that 

might lead to students' involvement in the juvenile justice system. 

The basic premise of ZTPs is that students who engage in disruptive or 

problematic behaviors (e.g., possession of drugs or weapons) are to be 

punished, regardless of intentions or extenuating circumstances. This 

approach to discipline can lead to harsh consequences for students who 

unknowingly or accidentally commit infractions, such as bringing a nail 

clipper or prescription medications to school. Under exclusionary discipline 

2
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

policies, students who have committed minor infractions (e.g., disorderly 

conduct or trespassing) could face severe consequences (e.g., suspension, 

expulsion, or referrals to law enforcement), potentially becoming an 

adjudicated delinquent.4,5

History of Zero-Tolerance Policies in the United 

States Education System

The Gun-Free School Zones Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994. The Act stipulates that every state that receives 

federal funds for education must develop specific policies to refer students 

who possess firearms, or any other kind of weapon, on school property 

or at school events to the criminal or juvenile justice system. Also, the Act 

requires local schools to expel for at least one year any student deemed to 

have brought a weapon to school. However, the length of the expulsion can 

be determined by chief administrators on a case-by-case basis. The Act has 

been severely criticized mainly for its lack of provisions for procedural due 

process—except for a provision that covers students with disabilities under 

the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—resulting in states 

applying inconsistent standards and procedures when enforcing this law. 

Critics have also questioned the harshness of these policies because many 

children who do not pose a serious threat to school safety would suffer 

tremendously from suspensions and expulsions. 

School districts nationwide 

adopted ZTPs in response to 

violent incidents in schools 

(e.g., the Columbine High 

School shooting);6 however, 

there is no research to support 

that the implementation of 

these policies reduces school 

violence.1 Paradoxically, the 

implementation of these policies 

has led to a reduction in school 

and community safety.5

3
THE INTERSECTION OF JUVENILE COURTS AND EXCLUSIONARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

Most experts, juvenile justice advocates, and research organizations agree 

that ZTPs and exclusionary discipline impact children of color, particularly 

Black and Latino students, at disproportionately higher rates than those 

of their White counterparts.7 The disparate impact of ZTPs on more Black 

versus White students may potentially account for the documented 

"achievement gap" between the two racial groups. According to the Center 

for Education Reform, 45% of White 8th grade students were proficient in 

math compared to only 14% of Black students and 21% of Latino students. 

The proficiency for reading is roughly the same for these groups. When 

Black students are overrepresented in suspensions, expulsions, and inschool arrests, they are overrepresented among students losing the most 

amount of instruction time.

The Effectiveness of Exclusionary Discipline

Despite the far-reaching legislative support for exclusionary discipline policies, these policies' effectiveness has been called into question by 

education scholars who claim that these policies cause more harm than 

good. As mentioned previously, students of color tend to be disproportionally 

affected by zero tolerance and other exclusionary policies, which contributes 

to a broader school pathways to the juvenile justice system. 

Zero tolerance policies are often enforced differently across school districts 

and among schools within the same district. While ZTPs might be simple 

and convenient, investing additional resources in alternative disciplinary 

approaches (e.g., Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, restorative 

justice practices) might prove challenging for under-resourced districts and 

schools and inadvertently create an environment where low performing 

students are pushed out. Students who are suspended or expelled are 

often left without proper supervision and are, thus, likely to fall behind on 

coursework, disengage academically, and potentially drop out of school. As 

argued by most experts, academic disengagement and school drop-out are 

strong indicators of eventual involvement with the juvenile or adult criminal 

justice systems whereas positive school engagement and connectedness 

can be strong protective factors for youths.18 

4
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

Although ZTPs are still prevalent among many school districts in the 

U.S., several communities have taken important steps to address the 

issues related to such policies. For example, the state of Illinois has 

recently implemented laws to limit out-of-school suspensions and end 

ZTPs. Likewise, the head of the New York City Department of Education 

has implemented new rules that require principals to acquire approval 

from the Education Department's central office before a student can be 

suspended. Similarly, the Los Angeles Unified School Board has voted to ban 

suspensions resulting from "willful defiance," an offense that tends to be 

disproportionately applied to students of color. Additional alternatives to 

ZTPs have emerged in recent years. Graduated sanctions provide an array 

of options that can be imposed on offenders in an appropriate manner, 8

and multi-tiered systems of support involve interdisciplinary collaborations 

aimed at matching instruction and interventions to students in need.9

Although ZTPs tend to have an overall negative impact on the student 

body, schools, and communities, there are certain characteristics that 

put some students at a higher risk of being negatively affected by these 

policies. Students with learning disabilities or emotional disturbances are 

disproportionally being labeled as "bad apples" in schools, and this is often 

due to relatively minor offenses such as raising their voice to teachers or 

misbehaving in class.10 In addition, students who have been exposed to 

trauma are more likely to be negatively impacted by exclusionary discipline. 

Youths who are “acting out” may simply be displaying symptoms of 

trauma exposure. These incidents can lead to referrals to law enforcement, 

detention, and/or becoming an adjudicated delinquent. Not only are 

students with disabilities negatively impacted by exclusionary discipline 

practice and ZTPs, but minority students are also disproportionately more 

likely to be disciplined due to school misbehavior when compared to their 

White counterparts. The U.S. Department of Education11 (2014) indicates 

that, while only representing 16% of student enrollment, African American 

students represent 27% of students referred to law enforcement and 31% 

of students who were arrested in school, which is disproportionally higher 

than arrests of White students.

5
THE INTERSECTION OF JUVENILE COURTS AND EXCLUSIONARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

There are 

approximately 

98,328 public 

schools and 30,861

private schools 

across 13,588 school 

districts in the U.S. 

(2011-12 school 

year)1

Approximately 50 

million students 

attend public schools 

– primary and 

secondary (2015)1

94% of U.S. schools 

have zero-tolerance 

policies for weapons 

or firearms2 and 

87% for alcohol on 

campus 

79% report 

mandatory 

suspensions or 

expulsions for 

violence or tabacco2

Advanced courses 

are not consistently 

offered throughout 

the nation’s schools: 

only 48% of high 

schools offer calculus, 

60% offer physics, 

72% offer chemistry, 

and 78% offer 

Algebra II (2013-14 

school year)4

Number of Schools and Districts, Zero Tolerance Policies, and Advanced Courses

National Statistics on School-Related Indicators and Discipline

21% of high schools and about 850,000 high 

school students have no access to any school 

counselor (2013-14 school year)4

43% of all public schools employ full-time 

or part-time security personnel (e.g., security 

guards, school resource officers, or sworn law 

enforcement officers) at their school at least 

once per week2

There was a steady increase in the number 

of school resource officers present in schools 

between 1997 and 2003, but between 2003 

and 2007, there was a decreased presence3

School Counselors and Resource Officers

6
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

About 2.8 million

of K-12 students 

received one or 

more out-of-school 

suspensions (2013-14 

school year)4

More than 111,000

students received 

expulsions with 

educational services 

(2011-12 school 

year)4

More than 40,000

students received 

expulsions without 

educational services 

(2011-12 school 

year)4

More than 29,000

students received 

expulsions under zero 

tolerance policies 

(2011-12 school 

year)4

Exclusionary Discipline Practices 

National Statistics on School-Related Indicators and Discipline

249,752 students were 

referred to law enforcement 

(2011-12 school year)4

There were 64,218 schoolrelated arrests (2011-12 

school year)4

More than 100,000 students 

were placed in seclusion, 

involuntary confinement, or 

were physically restrained, 

including 67,000 students 

with disabilities served by 

IDEA (2013-14 school year)4

More than 6.5 

million (13% of 

all) students are 

chronically absent 

(2013-14 school 

year)4

More than 3 million 

(18% of all) high 

school students are 

chronically absent 

(2013-14 school 

year)4

More than 3.5 

million (11% of 

all) elementary 

school students are 

chronically absent 

(2013-14 school 

year)4

About 6.5 million

students attend 

schools where 

more than 50% of 

teachers are absent 

for more than 10 

days per academic 

year (2013-14 school 

year)4

Absenteeism

1

 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)

2

 NCES’s Public School Safety and Discipline: 2013-14 

report (Gray, Lewis, & Ralph, 2015)

3

 Bureau of Justice Statistics

4

 Office of Civil Rights Data

7
THE INTERSECTION OF JUVENILE COURTS AND EXCLUSIONARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

Building Positive School Climate

Another way to combat the negative consequences of exclusionary policies is to support the implementation of programs aimed at 

preventing behavioral issues before they take place. Components of such 

programming include: 1) mental health supports (e.g., counseling and 

screening); 2) pro-social skill development (e.g., problem solving, mediation, 

restorative justice, and mentoring); and 3) environmental change (e.g., 

Positive Based Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and trauma-informed 

classrooms). According to the 2013-14 National Center for Educational 

Statistics (NCES) Public School Safety and Discipline report12: 81% of all 

public schools have positive based intervention strategies; 74% have crisis 

prevention and intervention; and 78% of public schools provided classroom 

management for teachers. Although these statistics are promising, there 

is still a lot of work that needs to be done to increase the number of 

schools with positive based interventions, crisis intervention, and effective 

classroom management strategies for teachers.

Promoting a healthy and positive school climate is crucial to preventing 

behavioral issues and reducing the need to employ harsh exclusionary 

discipline practices. Safe Supportive Learning19 encompasses several 

important elements that contribute 

to building a positive school climate, 

including school safety, school 

engagement, and environment. 

Examples of building a safe and 

supportive learning environment might 

include: paying attention to fostering 

safety; promoting a supportive 

academic, disciplinary, and physical 

environment; and encouraging and 

maintaining respectful, trusting, and 

caring relationships in the school and 

communities. A positive school climate 

is strongly related to several indicators 

of school success, including increased rates of attendance, retention, 

academic achievement, and high school graduation.17

8
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

The Intersection with the Juvenile Justice System

According to a report on crime in schools and colleges by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the number of arrestees in U.S. schools 

nearly doubled from around 22,300 in 2000 to more than 43,200 in 2004.13

In an effort to keep schools safe and discourage other students from 

engaging in similar activities, many youths are arrested due to ZTPs and 

overly harsh reactions to school behaviors. However, due to the rigidness 

of ZTPs, many of these students are arrested for offenses that could have 

easily been handled in school, thus avoiding contact with the justice 

system and a potential juvenile record for youths who committed a first 

and/or minor offense. Relying on law enforcement to settle minor disputes 

in schools puts an additional and unnecessary burden on juvenile courts 

because many of these cases elicit little or no intervention from the court 

system. Undesired behaviors might result in an arrest at school even though 

they would not have if the same incident occurred on the street (e.g., 

disrespect, fighting, carrying a toy gun, etc.). 

All school districts are required to collect and report data about schoolbased arrests and referrals to law enforcement. Nationwide, juvenile arrests 

are at an all-time low,20 but the number of arrests originating from schools 

is an alarmingly high proportion of overall arrests. 

If youths are arrested and referred to the juvenile court, there is higher 

probability that these same youths will remain involved in or go deeper 

into the juvenile justice system. The cycle that begins when youths are 

arrested and referred to the juvenile justice system often results in youths 

re-entering that same justice system later due to the effects of their initial 

contact with the law. Once youths are arrested or referred to juvenile court, 

there is an increased likelihood for them to have future incidents that 

involve juvenile justice. Rather than resolving situations in school, these 

youths are severely punished for relatively minor infractions. Furthermore, 

the contact with the juvenile justice system can and does result in inschool consequences as well, which could include suspension or expulsion 

from school. A single incident, such as an arrest in school, could result in a 

double punishment for the student (arrest and suspension/expulsion). This 

only reinforces the tendency for students to disengage academically by 

9
THE INTERSECTION OF JUVENILE COURTS AND EXCLUSIONARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

either falling behind 

in their work, being 

transferred to an 

alternative education 

environment, or 

dropping out before 

graduation. This creates 

a double-bind for an 

individual who both 

lacks a high school 

diploma and has a 

criminal record, which dramatically curtails employment opportunities and 

potentially leads to a life of poverty or crime. This is often referred to as the 

collateral consequences of juvenile adjudication.

Long-term economic costs to society are an important and often 

underestimated consequence of the high number of school suspensions, 

expulsions, and arrests. A report released by the Center of Civil Rights 

Remedies14 estimates that school suspensions cost the U.S. more than $35 

billion in economic costs, over $11 billion in fiscal costs, and $24 billion in 

additional social costs. Additionally, the report estimates that lowering the 

suspension rate by only 1% (currently at 16%) could lead to more than $2 

billion in savings, and reducing the rate by half (8%) might save almost $18 

billion. Another report15 released by the VERA Institute of Justice included a 

thorough cost-benefit analysis indicating a hypothetical society’s monetary 

costs of implementing several juvenile justice programs across the nation 

(2014). For example, between 2005 and 2008, Florida’s Office of Program 

Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) implemented a 

diversion program that cost $14.4 million, while the cost of housing the 

participating juveniles was estimated to be $50.8 million, resulting in a 

gained cost benefit of $36.4 million for the state of Florida. Similarly, the 

diversion program Wraparound Milwaukee—a program that helps youths 

with mental health disorders find appropriate resources—reported that 

the cost per participant per month in the year 2000 was about $3,300, 

while traditional incarceration cost about $5,000. Therefore, Wraparound 

Milwaukee effectively saved the state an average of $1,700 per student 

every month. 

10
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

Overall, these types of analyses allow evaluators to find the option with 

the greatest net social benefit; however, these analyses are not necessarily 

indicative of the programs’ effectiveness or overall success. Although these 

analyses may not all involve school-based referrals to court, it is important 

to point out cost savings for communities that implement diversion 

programs compared to traditional incarceration or other deep end juvenile 

justice involvement.

Building a School-Justice Collaborative

Fair and supportive school discipline is a community issue and not just the responsibility of schools. An essential first step in developing 

effective strategies to reduce school-based arrests and exclusionary 

discipline is building a strong relationship with schools, law enforcement, 

mental health providers, parents/families, and the community. To do so, it is 

necessary to develop a community engagement strategy based on reaching 

out to all relevant stakeholders, engaging in conversations with notable 

leaders in all relevant agencies and organization, and making ongoing 

efforts to organize meetings, forums, focus groups, surveys, and any other 

communication efforts to engage other potential stakeholders. 

THE ROLE OF JUDGES

Judges can be effective conveners in 

school-justice collaboratives. Their 

experience and position enables 

them to promote alternatives 

to school referrals to court and 

influence community members 

to act. Judges can also take an 

important leadership role early on, 

helping spearhead intra-agency 

coordination and the development 

of shared goals, values, and 

vision among stakeholders. Once 

collaboratives are firmly established, 

shared leadership among all law, 

11
THE INTERSECTION OF JUVENILE COURTS AND EXCLUSIONARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

education, and mental health agencies should work toward a sustainable 

and effective collaborative. For more information on judicially-led court 

and school partnerships, please see the NCJFCJ’s School Pathways to the 

Juvenile Justice System Project: A Practice Guide. 

THE ROLE OF PARENTS

Parents must be advocates for their children in order to prevent harsh 

school disciplinary processes. Parents should be informed and up-to-date 

about all school policies and code of conduct and communicate with 

teachers and school staff about their children’s behavior. If possible, parents 

should visit their children’s schools and classrooms regularly and provide 

input in the development of district discipline policies. Furthermore, parents 

have the right to request copies of school discipline policies, as well as meet 

with teachers, counselors, and school administrators to discuss specific 

disciplinary issues. In addition, parents and students should understand 

the appeal process for school discipline or connect with a professional who 

specializes in education law.

School administrators and educators should explore multiple strategies 

to engage families of all economic backgrounds and cultures. Family 

engagement is linked to higher student acheivement.24 Communication 

between the school and family is critical to building strong familyschool partnerships.

THE ROLE OF TEACHERS

Educators are the first responders when students exhibit disruptive, 

aggressive, or atypical behaviors. Teachers are in the unique position to 

detect early signs of problems in youths and implement initial responses. 

Evidence-based programs and interventions aimed at increasing student 

engagement and reducing school discipline issues, such as creating 

emotionally safe classrooms and providing opportunities for students to 

contribute to discussions in meaningful ways, are abundant and have been 

implemented with generally positive results. Teachers are a primary vehicle 

for information tracking and sharing with parents, school administrators, 

and courts. It is critical to the success of any school-justice partnership to 

ensure that school administrators and educators are included initially in 

strategic or community action planning. Teachers and administrators are 

12
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

instrumental in an effective school-justice partnership because they have 

first-hand knowledge of the underlying issues concerning the communities 

and students.

THE ROLE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

Although the decision to discipline a student is usually driven by school 

officials, law enforcement is also responsible for preventing excessive 

reactions to misbehavior. One way they can do this is through promoting 

diversion programs for low-risk offending youths. In situations when the 

school defers responsibility to law enforcement officers (LEOs) to handle 

youths, officers have discretion either to arrest or divert. According to the 

2013-2014 Civil Rights Data, a large percentage of schools have sworn 

law enforcement officers (e.g., LEOs and SROs) on their campuses. LEOs 

and SROs have an important role in school safety and can also act as 

mentors for at-risk youths. As such, LEOs and SROs can play a crucial role in 

supporting and implementing school discipline reform programs.

THE ROLE OF MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS

Many people who come into contact with the criminal and juvenile justice 

systems are likely to have histories of adversity or trauma.16 Mental health 

providers have a pivotal role in preventing, identifying, and treating 

youths with emotional and behavioral issues. They can also be leaders in 

encouraging policies to include mental health screening as part of discipline 

policies. Mental and other health professionals, such as psychologists, 

social workers, nurses, and health clinic workers, can promote the handling 

of misconduct within the school or community without having to refer 

such cases to the justice system unnecessarily. Importantly, mental health 

professionals can have a significant influence in the healing and treatment 

process of afflicted youths, which would help these children to succeed in 

school and avoid further justice system involvement.

13
THE INTERSECTION OF JUVENILE COURTS AND EXCLUSIONARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

Tips for Judges Who Handle School-related Cases

As leaders on disciplinary reform, judges need to assume leadership positions and 

ensure that the vision and goals of school-justice collaboratives are reflected in their 

own courts. Judges can follow several recommendations to handle school-related cases:

Ensure that different perspectives are included when making decisions.

It is important to be informed about the latest research and policy developments 

regarding education, adolescent development, and cultural competency in order to 

make more informed decisions when dealing with students referred from schools. In 

addition, it is imperative for judges to get to know school leadership, law enforcement, 

mental health, parents/families, and other community partners and listen to their 

suggestions and concerns.

Make specific recommendations for change. Given their influence and 

expertise, judges can make recommendations for policy and implementation on 

school disciplinary policies based on their own personal experiences dealing with such 

cases. Judges can draft policy papers, get involved in policy committees, or write letters 

of support to promote change.

Address disproportionality and other risk factors. Judges should be keenly 

aware of the factors that are predictive of students being involved in the school 

pathways to juvenile justice. Factors such as race, low socioeconomic status, disability 

status, and attending a school implementing ZTPs tend to be strong indicators of risk of 

contact with the justice system (but not necessarily of delinquency itself).

Develop an MOU. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) is a multilateral 

document that establishes a shared vision and coordinated effort in a justice 

collaborative and is typically not legally binding. Given their leadership position, 

judges can ensure that all stakeholders’ perspectives are included when developing 

an MOU because feelings of inclusion when drafting the collaborative’s visions, goals, 

and activities are essential in creating a friendly work culture and enabling longlasting efforts. Judges can make use of their respectable positions to make specific 

recommendations for change in courts, schools, and communities, as well as to 

disseminate any successful models and implementations with other jurisdictions and at 

state and national level forums.

14
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

School-Based Diversion Programs

A number of school diversion programs, both evidence-based and emerging 

practices, have been successfully implemented around the nation to 

decrease the number of school-based referrals to law enforcement and/or 

juvenile court. Although each jurisdiction faces its own unique challenges, 

several programs have managed to be categorized as successful, based on 

how effectively they have met their program-specific goals. The following 

programs have each succeeded through the effective implementation of 

evidence-based practices and interventions.

ILLINOIS - UNITED TOWNSHIP (UT) HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAM 

Senate Bill 0100 in Illinois limits the number of school suspensions 

and eliminates ZTPs. As a result, United Township High School (UT) has 

implemented a new program to provide emotional and behavioral support 

for students aged 16 years old or younger who have been expelled. The 

students are also able to continue classes online. As a result, UT has reached 

an all-time high graduation rate of 90% in the 2014-2015 school year.

CONNECTICUT - SCHOOL-BASED DIVERSION INITIATIVE (SBDI) 

This program helps schools to recognize and address behavioral and mental 

health crises instead of involving the police. Teachers and staff are trained 

on handling community resource referrals and techniques such as in-school 

crisis stabilization. In this program, teachers and staff are also supported 

by psychiatric services providers. Strong partnerships between schools and 

community providers are vital to the success of SBDI. Evaluations suggest 

that students referred from schools with SBDI were more likely to meet the 

criteria for a Serious Emotional Disturbance (SED) and have serious trauma, 

compared to students referred from non-SBDI schools. Since its inception, 

the SBDI has reduced court referrals and increased behavioral health 

services in 21 schools across the state.22

JACKSON COUNTY, OHIO - TEEN TALK

Teen Talk was based on the implementation of an earlier program 

established in two middle schools in Akron in which a responder was 

employed to respond to disturbances involving students with mental 

15
THE INTERSECTION OF JUVENILE COURTS AND EXCLUSIONARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

health needs and behavioral issues. In 

this initial program, responders contacted 

the families, conducted an assessment, 

and developed a mental health treatment 

and intervention plan. Teen Talk began 

in Jackson County and followed the 

same principles, culminating with the 

establishment of a full-scale behavioral 

health clinic, the Tri-Country Mental Health 

and Counseling Services, Inc.

PHILADELPHIA, PA - 

PHILADELPHIA POLICE SCHOOL 

DIVERSION PROGRAM

The Philadelphia Police School Diversion Program (PPSDP) is led by the 

Philadelphia Police Department in conjunction with local partners. The PPSDP 

diverts students from arrest and formal processing, and connects them and 

their families to support through local social service agencies. The PPSDP’s 

specific goals include: a) reducing the number of children arrested in the 

SDP and referred to the juvenile justice system; b) eliminating the racial and 

ethnic disparities of those students arrested, suspended, and expelled from 

SDP schools; and c) sustaining and expanding a shared framework to help 

all students succeed. More than 1,000 students who would have otherwise 

been arrested and/or referred to juvenile court have been diverted since the 

implementation of PPSDP. There was an overall decrease in the number of 

youths arrested in school by approximately 54% in the first year.21

CLAYTON COUNTY, GA - SYSTEMS OF CARE

In 2013, several governmental agencies in Clayton County, Georgia, teamed 

up to keep students in school and out of the criminal and juvenile justice 

systems. Their School Referral Reduction Protocol (SRRP) effectively limits 

the types of school offenses eligible to be filed in juvenile court. In addition, 

the collaborative has developed a System of Care (SOC), which serves as the 

single entry point to provide access to local resources for youths, including 

life skills workshops, family counseling, tutoring, mentoring, mental health 

16
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

assessments, and treatment. The SOC has several objectives: a) school 

discipline alternatives that do not push students out of school (and potentially 

into the criminal and juvenile justice systems); b) intervention options aimed 

at preventing school dropout; c) mental health alternatives for both youths in 

need and their parents; and d) career training opportunities. Positive results 

between 2003 and 2011 demonstrated a 73% reduction in school-based 

referrals to juvenile court and an increased graduation rate.23

CLARK COUNTY, NV - TRUANCY DIVERSION PROGRAM

The Truancy Diversion Program (TDP) in Las Vegas, NV was founded in 2002 

with the goal of improving attendance and grades of students within the 

Clark County School District. Given that the county had been struggling 

with some of the highest rates of truancy and lowest graduation rates in the 

country for years, the TDP aimed to address these issues by having a team of 

TDP workers and advocates directly address the needs of at-risk youths and 

their families. Students with excessive and unexcused absences are referred 

to family advocates who explain the program and offer them the opportunity 

to enroll. The TDP judges (who are volunteer attorneys) preside over a weekly 

diversion court on school property and meet with the students, family, and 

advocates to address issues, monitor progress, make recommendations, and 

reward achievements. The program has seen remarkable success. TDP overall 

graduation rates were 69% for the 2010-2011 school year (as high as 73% 

for Hispanic students who have been identified as the largest ethnic truant 

population in the county).

MAHONING COUNTY, OH EARLY WARNING SYSTEM

As a way to improve overall school climate and decrease truancy, the 

Mahoning County Juvenile Court, in partnership with several schools in four 

districts, implemented an Early Warning System (EWS) in 2015. The EWS 

uses already-existing administrative data on attendance, behavioral issues, 

and curriculum completion to identify at-risk youths and connect them with 

appropriate support. Once identified, each school coordinates efforts with 

school employees, school staff, and others to address individual and family 

needs, which might include referrals to community resources or involvement 

with school-based groups facilitated by court staff. Although still in its initial 

stages of implementation, the EWS has already found early success through 

building a strong school-court collaborative.

17
THE INTERSECTION OF JUVENILE COURTS AND EXCLUSIONARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

CONCLUSION

It is important to understand the dire consequences of using zero tolerance 

policies and exclusionary discipline practices to maintain school safety. 

Indeed, most data indicate that exclusionary policies are ineffective at 

achieving their intended goals and can even lead to less safe school 

environments.5 In addition, there is strong evidence that economically 

disadvantaged students and students of color are disproportionally affected 

by these policies,10 thus placing these groups at a higher risk of dropping out 

of school and getting involved in the criminal and juvenile justice systems.

Juvenile justice systems have an opportunity to exert an influence on 

changing policies through inter-agency collaboration. Many jurisdictions 

across the country have already begun to implement programs aimed at 

reforming exclusionary policies and dismantling the pathways from schools 

to the juvenile justice system. Much work remains to understand both the 

ramifications of exclusionary policy and effectively address disciplinary issues 

to maintain better a healthy school culture and students’ safety. Inter-agency 

collaboratives that include members of the justice system, schools, and 

communities are an important first step in accomplishing such goals. 

18
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES

Additional Resources

• School Pathways to the Juvenile 

Justice System: The Context for 

a Practice Guide for Courts and 

Schools – NCJFCJ 

• School Pathways to the Juvenile 

Justice System: A Practice Guide – 

NCJFCJ 

• Rethink School Discipline: School 

District Leader Summit on Improving 

School Climate and Discipline – U.S. 

Department of Education (2015)

• Positive Behavioral Interventions and 

Supports: OSEP Technical Assistance 

Center – www.pbis.org

• Fix School Discipline: How We 

Can Fix School Discipline Toolkit 

for Community Members – Public 

Counsel 

• Safe Supportive Learning – 

safesupportivelearning.ed.gov

• National Center for Education Statistics 

– nces.ed.gov/

• Civil Rights Data Collection – 

ocrdata.ed.gov

• 2011 C.A.R.E. Guide: Strategies for 

Closing the Achievement Gaps – 

National Education Association

• Advancing School Discipline Reform

– National Association of State Boards 

of Education

• Child Trauma Toolkit for Educators

– National Child Traumatic Stress 

Network

• The SBDI Toolkit: A Community 

Resource for Reducing SchoolBased Arrests – Child Health and 

Development Institute of Connecticut, 

Inc.

• Educational Aftercare & Reintegration 

Toolkit for Juvenile Justice 

Professionals – Models for Change 

• The School Discipline Consensus 

Report – The Council of State 

Governments Justice Center

• Blueprint for Change: A 

Comprehensive Model for the 

Identification and Treatment of Youth 

with Mental Health Needs in Contact 

with the Juvenile Justice System – 

National Center for Mental Health and 

Juvenile Justice

For more information on the subject of exclusionary discipline and its impact on the 

juvenile justice system please see:

19
THE INTERSECTION OF JUVENILE COURTS AND EXCLUSIONARY SCHOOL DISCIPLINE

1. American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. 

(2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An 

evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist,

63, 852–862.

2. Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: 

Can punishment lead to safe schools? The Phi Delta Kappan, 

80(5), 372-382.

3. Borgwald, K., & Theixos, H. (2013). Bullying the bully: Why zerotolerance policies get a failing grade. Social Influence, 8(2-3), 

149-160. doi:10.1080/15534510.2012.724030.

4. Gonzalez, T. (2012). Keeping kids in schools: Restorative justice, 

punitive discipline, and the school to prison pipeline. Journal of 

Law and Education, 41(2), 281-235.

5. Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., 

Marchbanks, M. P., & Booth, E. A. (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: 

A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students’ success 

and juvenile justice involvement. New York, NY: Council of State 

Governments Justice Center.

6. Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: 

An analysis of school disciplinary practice. New directions for youth 

development, 2001(92), 17-43.

7. The National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2015). School 

composition and the Black–White achievement gap. Retrieved from 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/studies/pdf/school_

composition_and_the_bw_achievement_gap_2015.pdf.

8. Taxman, F. S., Soule, D., & Gelb, A. (1999). Graduated sanctions: 

Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. The Prison 

Journal, 79, 182–204.

9. Eagle, J. W., Dowd-Eagle, S. E., Snyder, A., & Holtzman, E. G. 

(2015). Implementing a Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS): 

Collaboration between school psychologists and administrators 

to promote systems-level change. Journal of Educational & 

Psychological Consultation, 25(2-3), 160-177. doi:10.1080/104744

12.2014.929960.

10. Petras, H., Masyn, K., Buckley, J., Ialongo, N., & Kellam, S. (2011). 

Who is most at risk for school removal? A multilevel discretetime survival analysis of individual- and context-level influences. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 223–237.

11. U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014). Civil 

Rights Data Collection, Data Snapshot: School Discipline, Issue Brief 

No. 1. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/

docs/crdc-discipline-snapshot.pdf.

12. Gray, L., Lewis, L., & Ralph, J. (2015). Public school safety 

and discipline: 2013–14. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/

pubs2015/2015051.pdf.

13. Noonan, J. H., & Vavra, M. C. (2007). Crime in schools and colleges: 

A study of offenders and arrestees reported via national incident-based 

reporting system data. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/cjis/ucr/nibrs/crime-in-schools-and-colleges-pdf.

14. Rumberger, R. S., & Losen, D. J. (2016). The high cost of harsh 

discipline and its disparate impact. Retrieved from https://

www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-forcivil-rights-remedies/school-to-prison-folder/federal-reports/

the-high-cost-of-harsh-discipline-and-its-disparate-impact/

UCLA_HighCost_6-2_948.pdf.

15. Vera Institute of Justice (2014). Cost-benefit analysis and justice 

policy toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.vera.org/sites/default/

files/resources/downloads/cba-justice-policy-toolkit.pdf.

16. Baglivio, M. T., Epps, N., Swartz, K., Sayedul Huq, M., Sheer, 

A., & Hardt, N. S. (2014). The prevalence of adverse childhood 

experiences (ACE) in the lives of juvenile offenders. Journal of 

Juvenile Justice, 3(2), 1-23. doi: 10.1177/0011128715570628. 

17. Sugai, G., & Horner, R. R. (2006). A promising approach for 

expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior 

support. School psychology review, 35(2), 245-259.

18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). School 

connectedness: Strategies for increasing protective factors 

among youth. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services.

19. The National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments 

(NCSSLE). Retrieved from https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/. 

20. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Online. Retrieved from: http://

www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05201. 

21. Juvenile Justice Research and Reform Lab, Drexel University. 

Police School Diversion Program. Online. Retrieved: http://www.

pages.drexel.edu/~neg23/schooldiversion.html. 

22. Child Health and Development Institute of Connecticut, Inc. 

SBDI (The Connecticut School-Based Diversion Initiative). 

Retrieved from: http://www.chdi.org/our-work/mental-health/

school-based-mental-health/sbdi/.

23. Status Offense Reform Center (2014). Clayton County, Georgia. 

Retrieved from: http://www.statusoffensereform.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/07/Clayton_Final.pdf. 

24. Jeynes, W. H. (2005). Parental Involvement and Student 

Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Harvard Family Research 

Projects. Retrieved from: http://www.hfrp.org/publicationsresources/browse-our-publications/parental-involvement-andstudent-achievement-a-meta-analysis.

REFERENCES

20
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES