14 JUVENILE AND FAMILY JUSTICE TODAY | WINTER 2011

The court’s role in 

Dismantling the

school-to-Prison Pipeline

By Judge steven c. Teske and Judge J. Brian huff

When DiD Making aDulTs MaD beCoMe a CRiMe?

 Many of these arrests resulting in court referrals are for misdemeanor offenses involving school fights, disorderly conduct, and the 

creative application of laws that include disruption on school grounds. 

For example, Georgia enacted a law against disrupting public schools 

to punish parents for disruptive conduct at school arising from 

custody battles. Ironically, this law quickly turned against students 

when police on campus began making arrests for small infractions. 

 A review of the literature generally recommends that courts can 

address this problem through better screening of referrals. Although 

true, the harmful effects of zero tolerance are felt at the moment the 

referral is made. A student arrested in school is twice as likely not to 

graduate and four times as likely if he or she appears in court.2

 Clayton County, Ga., and Jefferson County, Ala., like many counties across America, experienced significant increases in minor school 

arrests when police began to be placed on campuses in the early 1990s. 

However, school safety did not improve with the increased police 

presence, and graduation rates fell.3

 The authors, who preside on the 

juvenile court bench in these two counties, brought stakeholders 

together to develop a protocol to reverse this trend, relying on the 

Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI) model and NCJFCJ’s 

Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines. Both counties subsequently 

experienced a significant decrease in school arrests. Clayton County, 

T

he juvenile justice system in America is a paradox when it comes to promoting the welfare of our nation’s young 

people. We have come a long way from old English common law which treated children as adults under the 

“vicious will” doctrine,1 to creating juvenile courts with the understanding that children, despite a willful act, 

still possess a formative mind and should be treated differently from adults. Despite this progression, decisionmakers continue to promulgate laws and policies that treat children as adults in contradiction of the philosophy underlying the creation and role of juvenile courts. The zero tolerance policies of many school systems across the country are 

a prime example of this paradoxical treatment of children. In an attempt to address discipline, school systems have 

adopted a “get tough” approach using out-of-school suspension, expulsion, and arrests.
JUVENILE AND FAMILY JUSTICE TODAY | WINTER 2011 15 

the first to apply this approach several years ago, expanded its protocol 

to develop a system of care that includes alternatives to suspension and arrests such as functional family therapy, multi-systemic 

therapy, wrap-around services, peer court, and in-school responses. 

Consequently, graduation rates increased while serious juvenile crime 

in the schools and community decreased. 

 This experience has provided considerable insight into the essential 

role of the judge in system change to improve outcomes for youth. 

This article will discuss the harmful effects of zero tolerance policies 

and why they deserve judicial attention. We will show, absent major 

legislative changes, how the juvenile judge is crucial in system reform 

that can ameliorate these harmful effects.

 

ZerO TOLerance: ITs OrIGIn, aPPLIcaTIOn, anD eFFecTs

 The background and etymology of the term “zero tolerance” can 

be traced back to the 1980s during State and Federal efforts related to 

the “war on drugs.” It has been suggested that the application of zero 

tolerance to minor offenses originated from the “broken windows” 

theory of crime, which analogizes the spread of crime to a building 

with broken windows that attracts 

vagrants and squatters, inviting more 

serious crime.4 Thus, it makes sense to 

punish minor offense violators before 

major crimes occur.

 By the early 1990s, school systems began 

to adopt zero tolerance policies for minor 

school infractions, which resulted in the 

near doubling of students suspended 

annually from 1.7 million in 1974 to 3.1 

million in 2001.5

 The most illogical use of 

zero tolerance is for truancy. The suspension from school of a student who does 

not want to attend illustrates the inherent 

problems with zero tolerance policies, and 

has led some to refer to zero tolerance as 

“zero intelligence” or “zero evidence.”6

 

 Within the context of school discipline, 

zero tolerance can best be defined as a “philosophy or policy that 

mandates the application of predetermined consequences, most often 

severe and punitive in nature, that are intended to be applied regardless 

of the seriousness of behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational 

context.”7

 The severity and punitive nature of zero tolerance practices 

escalated when police were placed on campuses. Consequently, the 

number of students arrested and referred to juvenile court for infractions once handled by school administrators increased dramatically. The 

study of this phenomenon has been referred to as the “school-to-prison 

pipeline.”8

 Zero tolerance policies operate under the “broken windows” assumption that removing disruptive students deters other students from similar 

conduct while simultaneously enhancing the classroom environment. 

On the contrary, some studies suggest that such strategies are harmful to 

students and may make schools and communities less safe.9

 

 Zero tolerance strategies ignore the unrefined skills associated 

with an adolescent’s developmental capacity to manage emotions and 

conflicts. Recent adolescent brain research has found that the frontal 

lobe of the brain, which filters emotion into logical response, is not 

fully developed until about age 21.10 Youth are biologically wired to 

exhibit risk-taking behaviors, impulsive responses, and poor judgment. 

 Disciplinary policies that result in the arrest of students for normal 

adolescent behavior can exacerbate the challenges already facing 

youth. Because adolescents are still neurologically immature, they 

should be surrounded by positive influences to help them become 

responsible adults.11 Schools are positive institutions and have been 

found to be a protective buffer against negative influences.12 Zero tolerance policies that remove students who do not pose a serious threat 

to safety may very well be increasing the risk of negative outcomes 

for the student — especially if removed in handcuffs — as well as the 

school and the community.

 It is not surprising that children with disabilities are more likely to 

be arrested under zero tolerance policies. For example, it is estimated 

that juvenile justice facilities are three to five times more likely to have 

youth with emotional disabilities than public schools.13 If adolescents 

are neurologically wired to make poor decisions, adolescents with 

disabilities are at even greater risk to be arrested. 

 Finally, zero tolerance policies contribute to the existing racial and 

ethnic disparities in public education.14 These inequalities more often 

than not produce lower graduation rates among minority youth, 

which contributes to higher rates of criminality among these youth.15 

A study of the impact of zero tolerance policies shows that minority 

youth are disproportionately suspended 

and referred to court on school-related 

offenses. Black students are 2.6 times as 

likely to be suspended as White students.16 

For example, in 2000, Black students 

represented 17% of the nation’s student 

population yet represented 34% of the 

suspended population.17 There is no evidence connecting this disparity to poverty 

or assumptions that youth of color are 

prone to disruptive and violent behavior.18 

On the contrary, studies indicate that 

this overrepresentation of Black students 

is related to referral bias on the part of 

school officials.19 

 Although many juvenile courts have acted 

to minimize these harmful effects through 

diversion, this effort is insufficient because 

the harm occurs at the point of arrest. Comprehensive system reform is 

needed, which cannot take place without a change agent. The following 

discussion defines the juvenile justice system and how the juvenile 

judge, as a stakeholder, holds a unique position to be that change agent.

The mULTI-sYsTem InTeGraTeD aPPrOach: UnDersTanDInG 

The JUvenILe JUsTIce sYsTem 

 A system is commonly defined as “a set of interacting components, 

acting interdependently and sharing a common boundary separating 

the set of components from its environment.”20 All systems have inputs 

in the form of demands, supports, and a desired outcome. This definition, however, is not readily applicable to a “juvenile justice system” 

because it does not have a “common boundary” as described below.

 The desired outcome of any juvenile justice system is to reduce 

delinquency. This can only occur by using effective treatment 

modalities to address the causes of delinquent conduct. These causes, 

referred to as criminogenic needs, include lack of family support, poor 

performance in school, lack of pro-social activities, substance abuse, 

anti-social cognition, and anti-social associates.21 These needs are served 

by various community agencies, including social services, mental health 

services, the school system, and the juvenile court. The desired outcome 

of reducing delinquency is dependent on many systems working 

together. These systems possess varying budgets and regulations that 

Zero tolerance policies contribute 

to the existing racial and ethnic 

disparities in public education. 

These inequalities more 

often than not produce lower 

graduation rates among minority 

youth, which contributes to 

higher rates of criminality among 

these youth.
16 JUVENILE AND FAMILY JUSTICE TODAY | WINTER 2011

often impede communication among them, resulting in policies that 

contradict the desired outcomes of the larger juvenile justice system.

Zero tolerance is an example of a contrary policy. When police were 

placed on school campuses in Clayton County, Ga., in 1994, the number 

of referrals from the school system increased approximately 1,248%. 

Approximately 90% of these referrals were infractions previously 

addressed by administrators. Jefferson County, Ala., experienced a 

similar increase. During this time, school suspensions increased while 

graduation rates decreased to 58% by 2003. The data in both jurisdictions 

supported the research that increased 

suspensions and arrests were resulting 

in higher drop-out rates. 

One should be careful not to 

place blame solely on the police and 

schools. The increase in referrals 

should be analyzed in a systems 

context, and the role of each system 

within the larger juvenile justice 

system. Police, for example, are 

trained to make arrests when they 

have probable cause that an offense 

has occurred. Without additional training for school police, we should 

not expect them to respond any differently than their role dictates.

Likewise, school administrators are responsible for the safety of 

schools. The primary role of schools is to educate—not provide mental 

health, social, or other services, which are the province of other agencies in the community. Schools, therefore, tend to rely on punitive 

measures such as suspension, expulsion, and now even arrest to address 

disruptive behavior. Unfortunately, many students are chronically 

disruptive because they have underlying issues at home or outside 

school that require services not accessible by the school system. It is 

essential that schools are linked to other community resources that 

can assess and provide interventions for the child and family to reduce 

the risk of disruptive behavior.

Using a systems model, it becomes evident that the juvenile justice 

system is not a single entity, but a system of multiple entities working 

together toward desired outcomes for youth. Within this larger system 

we call juvenile justice, the court is the common denominator. The 

court is the intersection of juvenile justice, and the juvenile judge is the 

traffic cop.22 Juvenile court judges are incomparable agents for change 

within the juvenile justice system, and with the respect and authority 

accorded the bench, are in a unique position to bring together system 

stakeholders. How judges can effectuate this role is the key to success.

IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR YOUTH: THE 

Judges often express legitimate concerns when asked about 

exercising a role off the bench. Obviously, judges must refer to their 

state’s judicial ethics rules for guidance. Most states, however, do not 

prohibit judges from engaging the community if it will promote a 

better juvenile justice system.23 

In Clayton and Jefferson counties, the judge’s role was limited to 

bringing the relevant stakeholders together to discuss the problem and 

develop a solution. Judges give orders on the bench, but off the bench 

they forge and define relationships to improve outcomes for youth. 

Judicial leadership is 10% bringing people together to talk about the 

problem and solutions and 90% persuasion. They will come if asked by 

a judge. What they do after that depends on how they are persuaded.

The protocol process in Clayton and Jefferson counties has led to 

the following recommendations when forging protocols to reverse the 

school-to-prison pipeline:

• Identify Stakeholders: It helps to identify the stakeholders and 

meet with them individually to present the problem using data 

and research on the ineffectiveness of school referrals. It is crucial 

to present only the problem and request their participation in a 

series of collaborative meetings with other stakeholders to develop 

solutions. Stakeholders feel threatened if told how to fix a problem, 

especially one they had a hand in creating. They are experts in their 

respective fields and have much to contribute toward a solution. 

These expert stakeholders should include, but are not limited to, 

school superintendent, chief law 

enforcement officer, chief prosecuting attorney, chief public defender, 

head of social services and mental 

health, chief court intake officer, 

and the administrative judge. Judges 

should also give serious consideration 

to including a parent and youth. 

Persons of color representative of the 

community should be included since 

they tend to be the most affected by 

zero tolerance policies and can offer 

insight into the problem and possible solutions.

• Identify a Neutral Moderator: The stakeholders should see 

the judge as an objective participant. The judge should make 

introductions at the first meeting, introduce the moderator, and 

explain the goals of the meetings and that the judge will be an 

equal participant. A solution grounded in personality is not sustainable. Because judges come and go, the next judge can reverse 

administrative decisions. Solutions developed by a community are 

more apt to become its culture, and less likely to be changed on 

the whim of a personality.

• Provide Data and Research: The first meeting, and others as 

needed, should include presentations by stakeholders or other 

experts about the problem that may suggest possible solutions as the 

group moves forward in discussions. It is important that the group 

understands the problem in order to develop solutions. 

• Get it in writing! A written protocol increases the fidelity of the 

program as well as its sustainability. It is difficult to ensure quality 

control absent a document that provides reference for guidance. 

• Appoint a Monitor: A watchdog is needed to ensure that referrals 

follow the protocol’s guidelines. This may be an individual assigned 

this task or may be assigned when the referral is made provided all 

intake staff are trained in the protocol. In Clayton and Jefferson 

counties, questionable referrals are returned to the campus police or 

school for reconciliation.

• Provide Cross-training: All persons who will make the protocol 

operational must be trained together at the same time to minimize 

misunderstandings. This should occur before the start of each 

school year to ensure new personnel are familiar with the protocol. 

This also allows for feedback about the mechanics and application 

of the protocol. Each stakeholder agency should develop policy that 

directs their staff on its application.

• Inform the Community: The community should be informed of 

the protocol and its objective by using the media and other information outlets. Most citizens are concerned about the effects of zero 

tolerance policies. The political rhetoric we often hear to get tough 

on juveniles seldom spills over to minor school offenses. Clayton 

and Jefferson counties have experienced strong support from the 

community to prevent school arrests for minor infractions and find 

positive alternatives.

It is essential that schools are linked to 

other community resources that can 

assess and provide interventions for the 

child and family to reduce the risk of 

disruptive behavior.
JUVENILE AND FAMILY JUSTICE TODAY | WINTER 2011 17 

• Collect the Data: Accurate data is necessary for periodic review to 

measure the outcomes and determine if changes are needed.

Using this process, Clayton and Jefferson counties developed protocols that included a three-tier graduated response process that focused 

on certain misdemeanor offenses.24 The first infraction requires a 

written warning to the student and copies to the school and parent. The 

second infraction requires a referral to a school conflict workshop or 

mediation. The third infraction may result in a referral to the court.

The protocol has resulted in a reduction of referrals by 67.4% in 

Clayton County and 50% in Jefferson County. Since its implementation 

in 2004, the Clayton County stakeholders have created a system of 

care to assess and treat disruptive students as an alternative to suspension, expulsion, and arrests. These alternatives resulted in a decrease 

in suspensions of 8%. The protocol, coupled with the system of care, 

has resulted in an increase of graduation rates by 20%, while felony 

rates fell 51% in the community. This supports the theory that keeping 

as many children as possible in school using alternative measures will 

increase graduation rates. It probably goes without saying that the more 

children we graduate, the less juvenile crime in the community.

We also experienced an improvement in school safety due to the 

cognitive shift of police toward how they relate to students. School 

police share that the significant reduction in referrals has increased 

their presence on campus—they are no longer leaving campus to 

transport students to juvenile intake. The students do not observe 

police making arrests, but instead engaging students. Students are 

now more inclined to share information with police about matters 

they hear on campus that could pose a threat. This is evident, in part, 

by the 73% reduction of serious weapons on campus. According to 

Sgt. Marc Richards, the supervisor of the school resource officers in 

Clayton County, “Schools are a microcosm of the community. If you 

want to know what is going on in the community, talk to the kids. 

But the kids must want to talk to you!” School safety can be enhanced 

if school policing focuses on intelligence gathering through student 

engagement using positive approaches.

When efforts are made to decrease referrals from schools, which 

are typically the largest feeder of court referrals, the number of youth 

of color referred is decreased. The considerable decrease in referrals 

in Clayton and Jefferson counties resulted in a decrease in racial and 

ethnic disparity by as much as 58% and a decrease in the detention rate 

of youth of color by 38%. These data suggest that efforts to reduce 

disproportionate minority contact (DMC) can be addressed with 

substantial results by focusing on zero tolerance policies and their 

adverse effects. 

Finally, employing the processes we outline here can not only help 

mitigate the unintended, harmful outcomes associated with zero 

tolerance, but can also set the stage to develop alternatives to detention for truant behavior and avoid the use of the valid court order 

exception for this—and other—status offenses. Many of the underlying causes of disruptive behavior in school are the same for truant and 

incorrigible youth. These same youth can benefit from a system of 

care that connects all agencies serving youth.25

CONCL

 Much has been said and written about how students should be 

treated once they are referred to the juvenile court. The more pertinent question is whether many of these students should be referred to 

the court in the first place. Many students are disruptive for reasons 

related to their normative immaturity or a disability. The beauty of 

the juvenile court is that the commission of a delinquent act does not 

necessarily make the child delinquent. Youth are wired to make poor 

decisions and commit delinquent acts. The juvenile court should be 

reserved for children who “scare” us, not those who make us “mad.”

Because of the court’s stature in the juvenile justice system, judges 

are in a unique position to bring positive change to a system that feeds 

the court with unnecessary referrals. No one is better situated than 

the judge to stop the harmful effects of zero tolerance. 

ABOUT THE 

Judge Steven C. Teske has served as a juvenile court judge in Clayton 

County, Ga., since 1999. 

Judge J. Brian Huff has been presiding juvenile court judge in 

Jefferson County (Birmingham), Ala., since 2005. 

Judges Teske and Huff frequently present on juvenile justice issues on 

behalf of the NCJFCJ. 

END NO

 Blackstone, W. (1765-69). Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book IV, Ch. 2. 2 Sweeten, G. (December 2006). Who will graduate? Disruption of high school 

education by arrest and court involvement, Justice Quarterly, 24(4), 462-480. 3 School offense data provided by John Barrett, Juvenile Court Automated 

System, Canyon Services, Phoenix, Ariz.; graduation rates provided by 

Luvenia Jackson, Special Assistant to the Superintendant, Clayton County 

Public School System.

4 Kelling, G., & Coles, C. (1997). Fixing Broken Windows. New York: Simon & 

Schuster.

5 Poe-Yamagata, E., & Jones, M. (2000). And Justice for Some. Washington, DC: 

Building Blocks for Youth.

6 Richardson, V. (2002, May 3). Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence. The 

Washington Times. 7 Skiba, R., Reynolds, C.R., Graham, S., Sheras, P., Conoley, J.C., & GarciaVazquez, E. (2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools?: 

An evidentiary review and recommendations. A Report by the American 

Psychological Associate Zero Tolerance Task Force. 8 Wald, J., & Losen, D. (2003). Defining and re-directing a school-to-prison 

pipeline. In J. Wald & D. Losen (Eds.), New directions for youth development: 

Deconstructing the school-to-prison pipeline (pp. 9-16). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, 

Inc.

9 Id.

10 Giedd, J. et al. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A 

longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 861-863. 11 Id.

12 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Youth violence: A 

Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: Author. 13 Leone, P.E., & Meisel, S. (1997). Improving education services for students in 

detention and confinement facilities, Children’s Legal Rights Journals, 71(2). 14 Wald & Losen, supra note 8. 15 Mendez, L. M. R. (2003). Predictors of suspension and negative school 

cutcomes: A longitudinal investigation. In J. Wald & E. Losen (Eds.), New 

directions for youth development: Deconstructing the school-to-prison pipeline (pp. 

17-34). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons, Inc.

16 Wald & Losen, supra note 8. 17 Id.

18 Skiba et al., supra note 7. 19 Id. 20 Bozeman, B. (1979). Public management and policy analysis. New York: St. Martin’s 

Press.

21 Andrews, D.A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. (2006). The recent past and near future 

of risk and/or needs assessment, Crime & Delinquency, 52(1). 22 Teske, S., & Huff, B. (2010). The dichotomy of judicial leadership: Using 

collaboration to improve outcomes for status offenders. Juvenile and Family 

Court Journal, 61(2) 54-60. 23 Georgia, for example, allows judges to testify and speak on issues that promote 

juvenile justice. Judges are also allowed to engage system stakeholders to 

develop written protocols to improve the delinquency system. O.C.G.A. 15-11-10.

24 The Jefferson County protocol included more offenses than Clayton 

County’s. They both, however, focused on most of the minor referrals from 

the schools.

25 The proposed re-authorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention Act (JJDPA), which includes elimination of the Valid Court Order 

(VCO) exception, and the recent resolution adopted by the National Council 

of Juvenile and Family Court Judges supporting the elimination of the VCO 

exception, heighten the importance of community efforts to address the lack 

of services for status youth.