This document discusses the school-to-prison pipeline, which pushes students, especially youth of color, out of schools and into the criminal justice system through zero-tolerance policies and lack of resources. It notes that the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994 and zero tolerance policies have been disproportionately applied to minor infractions of students of color. To address this issue, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 was passed to reform the juvenile justice system and reduce rates of violent delinquency by providing funding to states for intervention programs that meet its core requirements of deinstitutionalizing status offenders and separating juvenile and adult offenders.

1. Irons 1
School to Prison Pipeline
India Irons
University of Washington-Tacoma
Tom Diehm, PhD, MSW, MA
TSOCW 501: Social Policy and Economic Security
November 20, 2015

2. Irons 2
Social Problem
Free public education is the promise to every U.S. citizen of equal opportunity to achieve
the American Dream (Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011). The history of slavery, legalized
discrimination, and economic oppression has not made the American Dream true for African
Americans (Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson, 2011). One of the levels of racism that African Americans
encounter is through the educational system. Many scholars have identified the school to prison
pipeline as students, especially youth of color, being pushed out of schools directly and indirectly
into the criminal justice system (Bahena et al., 2012; Catherine et al., 2010; Heitzeg, 2009;
Hudson et al., 2011). According to Hudson et al. (2011), “directly, schools send their students
into the pipeline through zero tolerance policies and by involving the police in minor discipline
incidents; indirectly, schools push students towards the criminal justice system by excluding
them from their learning environment and isolating them from their peer groups via suspension,
expulsions, ineffective retention policies, and high-stakes testing requirements,” (p. 11). Studies
show that when a student is expelled or suspended from school, being deprived from educational
services leads to disengagement from academics, high dropout rate, low graduation rate, arrests
and detainment, and contact with the juvenile and adult prison system; therefore feeding the
school to prison pipeline, (Alexander, 2012; Catherine et al., 2010; Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al.,
2011). The school to prison pipeline is legalized discrimination and educational oppression
towards African American young males being led into the criminal justice system.
Students of color are deprived from their education. There is an unbalanced proportions
of racial groups in the juvenile system in contrast to non-colored groups (Alexander, 2012;
Bahena et al., 2012, Catherine et al., 2010; Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011, Skiba, 2014;
Wilson, 2014). NAACP (2009) states that “nationwide, African-Americans represent 26% of

3. Irons 3
juvenile arrests, 44% of youth who are detained 46% of the youth who are judicially waived to
criminal court, and 58% of the youth admitted to state prisons.” African American young males
are the subject of the school to prison pipeline. Students of color who are disciplined by the zero
tolerance policies for disruptive behavior are low-income (Abdullah, 2014).
The United States has seen an increase of the prison population since 1970 (Brewer and
Heitzeg, 2008; Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011). The War on Drugs, which was administered
by the Nixon administration, was the event that increased the prison population and developed
longer sentencing for drug crimes and other felonies, (Brewer and Heitzeg, 2008; Heitzeg, 2009;
Hudson 2011). The shift of incarceration for adults influenced the juvenile justice system.
According to Heitzeg (2009), “throughout the 1990’s nearly all states and the federal government
enacted a series of legislation that criminalized a host of ‘gang-related activities’ made it easier
(and in some cases mandatory) to try juveniles as adults, lowered the age at which juveniles
could be referred to adult court, and widened the net of juvenile justice with blended sentencing
options that included in both the juvenile and adult systems,” (p. 5). The reports of youth
violence provided the alleged justification for two pieces of legislation. The first was The Gun
Free Schools Act of 1994 and the second was the zero tolerance school policies which opened
the gateway for African Americans males to be pushed out of schools and into the criminal
justice system (Heitzeg, 2009; Husdon et al., 2011). The war on drugs and these two pieces of
legislation create some context to the school to prison pipeline.
School discipline policies are designed to provide safety for students, teachers, and
faculty. Studies show that the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994, which is a law that federally fund
schools to expel for one calendar year and report students to law enforcement for weapons on
school grounds, (Alexander, 2012; Catherine et al., 2010; Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011;

4. Irons 4
Skiba, 2014; Wilson 2014). Scholars have identified as a result there is a disciplinary infraction
at school and the law: suspensions, expulsions, and arrests, (Alexander, 2012; Catherine et al.,
2010; Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011; Skiba, 2014; Wilson 2014). According to Skiba and
Knesting (2014), “originally, the bill covered only firearms, but more recent amendments have
broadened the language of the act to include any instrument that may be used as a weapon,”
(p.19). The goal of the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994 was to provide safety to students, teachers,
and faculty on school grounds by disciplining students who used any form or had possession of a
weapon. (Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011; Skiba and Knesting, 2014). Scholars have
identified that the Gun Free Schools Act has been used often on minor infractions; violating
dress code, smoking, and skipping class (Billitteri, 2008; Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011;
Skiba and Knesting, 2014).
Zero tolerance school policies are transforming minor infractions into criminal offenses.
Zero tolerance school policies consist of metal detectors to confiscate weapons, security guards/
correctional officers to discourage disruptive behavior, and guaranteed expulsions, suspensions,
and arrests that lead students to the criminal justice system (Bahena et al., 2012; Catherine et al.,
2010; Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011; Wilson, 2014). Zero tolerance automatically brings
disciplinary action towards a student regardless of the situation; therefore treating each case the
same (Catherine et al., 2010; Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011; Skiba and Knesting; 2014;
Wilson, 2014). The purpose of zero tolerance is to discourage disruptive behavior to create an
environment for learning (Catherine et al., 2010; Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011; Skiba and
Knesting; 2014; Wilson, 2014). Police and security guards are relied on to monitor, control, and
punish disruptive behavior (Catherine et al., 2010; Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011; Skiba and

5. Irons 5
Knesting; 2014). Instead of teachers dealing with disruptive behavior, police officers are usually
called to intervene which leads to arrests and detainment.
Inadequate resources at the school contribute to the school-to-prison pipeline. Schools are
underfunded due to poverty (Catherine et al, 2010). Students of color who had been affected by
zero tolerance policies most likely attended schools with inadequate resources: little access to
high quality curriculum, limited resources to prepare them for college, lack of exposure to the
arts, and few intervention programs for struggling students. Lack of adequate resources could
lead to academic failure; students dropping out or low graduation rates (Catherine et al., 2010;
Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011). Students out of school may face socio-economic
disadvantages.
Racism has produced systemic economic, political, and social advantages for whites that
makes school to prison pipeline a problem (Brewer and Heitzeg, 2008; Catherine et al., 2010;
Heitzeg, 2009; Hudson et al., 2011). The U.S. Constitution was created in the views of white
property holding men (Alexander, 2010). According to Alexander (2010), “Under the terms to of
our country’s founding document, slaves were defined as three-fifths of a man, not a real, whole
human being,” (p. 26). Since the New World was founded, whites have always been the
dominant race. Any individual who was in racial groups other than white, was below the
majority. To live the American Dream, an individual had to be white, own property that included
women and children, and own slaves. Racial privilege and racial oppression has been rooted in
history and through law by making racism normal to society (Brewer and Heitzeg, 2008, p. 626).
Racism is normalized by the dominant white society so therefore white society denies
racism exist. White society sees racism as an individual problem, not systemic (Alexander,
2010). Colorblindness is a worldview that is problematic to school to prison pipeline. According

6. Irons 6
to Brewer and Heitzeg (2008), “Colorblindness is distinguished as racism is over, successfully
eradicated by civil rights legislation, and that if racial inequality persists, it is the problem of the
people who fail to take responsibility of their lives,” (p. 629). After the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
there has been progress of equality and opportunity for African Americans. But the struggle still
continues with disproportionate amount of young African American males being criminalized for
school conduct. According to Catherine et al. (2010), “when white youth and African American
youth are charged for the same offense, African American youth with no prior admissions are six
times more likely to be incarcerated in public facilities than white youth with the same
background,” (p. 35). It is the norm of the society that the increase incarceration rates of African
American males is due to individual responsibility for their actions, not racism. These
worldviews make it difficult for people to see the school-to-prison pipeline as a problem that
negatively impacts them.
The negative impacts towards people that are not targeted, non-people of color, is the
high amount of costs towards incarceration. Several studies have shown that the expansion of
prisons and housing inmates costs tax payers at exorbitant rates, (Brewer & Heitzeg, 2008;
Henrichson & Delaney, 2012; Justice Policy Institute, 2009). According to Justice Policy
Institute (2009), “States spent about $5.7 billion in 2007 to imprison 64,558 youth committed to
residential facilities. The per diem costs of locking up one young person in a juvenile facility
ranges from $24 in Wyoming to $726 in Connecticut, but the American Correctional Association
estimates that, on average, it costs states $240.99 per day -- around $88,000 a year -- for every
youth in a juvenile facility,” (Justice Policy Institute, 2009). It takes money to build the prisons,
pay the police officers to supervise the inmates, and the court systems. In contrast to more money
spent on prisons, there is less money going towards treatment or community based services.

7. Irons 7
According to McVay et al. (2004), “an additional cocaine-control dollar generates societal cost
savings of 15 cents if used for source-country control, 32 cents if used for interdiction, and 52
cents if used for domestic enforcement. In contrast, the savings from treatment programs are
larger than control costs: an additional cocaine-control dollar generates societal cost savings of
$7.48 if used for treatment,” (p. 8). Studies show that less money can be spent for rehabilitative
services and treatment in contrast to housing an inmate in prison, (Henrichson & Delaney, 2012;
Petteruti & Walsh, 2008; Justice Policy Institute, 2009). The increase use of jails is accumulating
money that could be spent on community based services that everyone has access to prevent
criminal activity, (Petteruti & Walsh, 2008, p. 27). Most of the people in the U.S. are tax payers;
part of their taxes contribute to fund the prisons. It would save tax payers money by contributing
to community based services to prevent and intervene delinquent behavior, reduce crime, and
increase public safety in contrast to incarceration.
Social Policy
To address the incarceration increase of juveniles, U.S. Congress passed
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act (Pub. L. No. 93-415) in 1974. The
goal of JJDP is to reform the juvenile justice and system and “reduce the rate of
violent delinquency behavior, “(National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2000; JJDP, 2002).
Under the enactment of JJDP, The Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention
(OJJDP), which is guided by Amendments, to give states access to federal grants
for delinquency intervention and prevention programs (Campaign for Youth and Justice, 20115;
Shoenberg, 2009; Hughes, 2011; JJDP, 2002; National Criminal Justice Reference Service,
2010). In order to receive federal grants, the states must be in full compliance with the core
requirements (Campaign for Youth and Justice, 20115; Shoenberg, 2009; Hughes, 2011; JJDP,

8. Irons 8
2002; National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2010). The core requirements of JJDP are
identified:
1. Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders
2. “Sight and Sound” Separation
3. Jail and Lockup Removal
4. Disproportionate Minority Confinement
(Campaign for Youth and Justice, 20115; Shoenberg, 2009; JJDP, 2002; National Criminal
Justice Reference Service, 2010). The 7 components of OJJDP are Research and Program
Development Division, Training and Technical Assistance Division, Special Emphasis Division,
State and Tribal Assistance Division, Information Dissemination and Planning Unit,
Concentration of Efforts Program, and Child Protection Division. After six reauthorizations, the
most recent authorization in effect is Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002.
JJDP addresses two of the core values of Social Work: social justice and competence.
The Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers challenge social workers to
engage in “efforts focused primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and
other forms of social injustice,” (NASW, 2008; Spencer, 2014). Once the youth are incarcerated,
they suffer from collateral consequences; lack of education, joblessness which result to living
below the poverty line, and avoid the life of crime. The enactment of JJDP is in response to the
needs of juveniles to transition back into society by implementing educational programs in the
juvenile justice facilities. The example of social justice addresses the needs of juveniles by
reaching “educational goals, obtaining employment, and avoiding the life of crime,” (Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2014).

9. Irons 9
In addition to educational programs, social justice is implemented through research,
training, and data collection. According to NASW (2008), “social workers strive to increase their
professional knowledge and skills and to apply them in practice,” (p. 6). The Research and
Program Development Division and Information Dissemination and Planning Unit are examples
of competence because it gains knowledge of juveniles at-risk for delinquency, the causes of
juvenile delinquency, and practice through effective prevention programs. JJDP also provides
funding through Special Emphasis Division and State Tribal Assistance Provision for states,
local governments, and organizations in support of juvenile delinquency prevention programs.
The purpose of the research, training, and funding assistance components under the OJJDP is to
gain and provide information to develop effective programming to reduce youth violence, gang
membership/activity, and incarceration. These programs aligns with the social work value of
competence by building knowledge of at-risk juveniles, developing, and applying into practice
prevention and intervention programs to reduce juvenile delinquency. Overall, both competence
and social justice is implemented through research, training, and evidence gathering to develop
programs that will prevent and intervene in the lives of at-risk youth to reduce juvenile
delinquency and collateral consequences.
JJDP addresses societal values of public safety through youth mentorship programs to
prevent and reduce gang activity and violence. JJDP recognizes that keeping criminals
incarcerated in custody is not the only effective way to protect citizens from crime. JJDP
provides funding (grants), to states in compliance with the core requirements to carry out
projects designated to “prevent unwarranted and arbitrary suspensions and expulsions, encourage
new approaches and techniques with respect to the prevention of school violence and vandalism,
and identifying learning difficulties (learning abilities),” (JJDP, 2002). JJDP accomplishes the

10. Irons 10
goal of public safety by developing extra-curricular activities, mentorship programs, and
counseling directed towards changing the behaviors of youth to decrease youth violence and
gang membership (JJDP, 2002).
Accountability is another societal value that JJDP addresses in the policy. According to
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (2010), “An offender incurs an obligation to the
victim and must make amends and restore losses, to the extent possible that occurred as a result
of the delinquent behavior.” JJDP recognizes that once juveniles commit a crime, they have to
serve time for that delinquent act; therefore take responsibility for their actions. JJDP
coordinates, develops, and funds programming that gets the juveniles involved in the community
to make amends for their delinquent act.
An example of a U.S. Supreme Court cases that exemplifies the enactment of JJDP was
the Kent vs United States 383 U.S. 541, 86 S.Ct. 1045 (1966). According to National Criminal
Justice Reference Service (1999), “juveniles may receive worst of both worlds; accorded to
adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children." In this case,
Morris Kent was 16 years old; charged for rape and murder. Kent’s attorney assumed that the
juvenile court would waive jurisdiction of Kent going into adult prison system. The juvenile
court judge found Kent guilty and sentenced him to at least 90 years in prison. Kent’s attorney
appealed and filed for Kent’s detention to be justified due to the case was not “fully investigated
and denied of constitutional rights because he was under 18 years of age,” (National Criminal
Justice Reference Service, 1999). This influenced the enactment of JJDP to distinguish the due
process hearing guidelines of transferring youth to adult prisons.
There is an overrepresentation of minorities in sentencing decisions, jails, corrections,
detentions, probation, or transferred in adult court (Leiber, 2002). According to Leiber (2002),

11. Irons 11
“The dramatic rise in violent juvenile crime during this time and arrests for involvement in drugs
were factors that contributed to minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice system,” (p.
5). The overrepresentation of minorities influenced the amendments of JJDP; making
disproportionate minority confinement addressed as a core requirement in 1988 as well as
“broadened the scope of the DMC core requirement from ‘disproportionate minority
confinement to ‘disproportionate minority contact in 2002,” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2015).
NAACP is an interest group of the JJDP. NAACP (2009) states that “they seek to
eliminate harsh and unfair sentencing practices that are responsible for mass incarceration and
racial disparities in the prison system.” NAACP developed their own “Smart and Safe Iniative”
to enhance criminal justice goals, ensure public safety, while advocating for the
overrepresentation of people of color. One of the components of the “Smart and Safe Initiative,”
that aligns with JJDP is educating youth. There is more money spent on prisons than educating
youth. Underfunded schools is one of the correlating factors that prevent students from
graduating, increase chances for dropping out, or gaining contact with the criminal justice
system. With the enactment of JJDP, there is some progress being made to satisfy NAACP
because of the funding to states, local governments, and organizations to develop prevention and
intervention programs to reduce gang membership, youth violence, or any form of delinquent
behavior that would lead to incarceration of youth. JJDP, however, does not currently address
racial disparities caused by zero tolerance. NAACP (2009) states that “35% of black children
grades 7-12 have been suspended or expelled at some point in their school careers compared to
20% of Hispanics and 15% of whites.” NAACP advocates for equal education opportunity in
public school; therefore racial disparities in education needs to be addressed.

12. Irons 12
Social Program
The program designed to implement the JJDP is called Gang Resistance Education and
Training (G.R.E.A.T). G.R.E.A.T is a non-profit evidenced based practice national gang and
violence prevention program instructed by law enforcement (G.R.E.A.T, 2015; National Institute
of Justice, 2015; U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). The three goals of G.R.E.A.T are to teach
youth to avoid gang membership, prevent violence and criminal activity, and assist youth in
developing positive relationships with law enforcement. (G.R.E.A.T, 2015; National Institute of
Justice, 2015; U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). OJJDP, Bureau of International Narcotics and
Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), and Institute for Intergovernmental Research (IIR) provides
funding, block grants, to “law enforcement so officers attend G.R.E.A.T. training classes,
student materials, and maintain G.R.E.A.T. programming in elementary and middle schools,”
(G.R.E.A.T, 2015). Because the law enforcement agencies are funded by grants to train officers,
the organization is professionally staffed. The G.R.E.A.T. program works with ages 9-17, both
genders, all races/ethnicity; therefore, this program is universal.
The organizational structure of the G.R.E.A.T. Program consists of OJJDP, Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), and Institute for Intergovernmental
Research (IIR) as the administration. There are four regional partners: Midwest/Atlantic La
Cross, WI, Police Department; Southeast Miami-Dade Schools, FL, Police Department;
Southwest Phoenix, AZ, Police Department; and West Portland, OR, Police Bureau. The two
federal partners consist of Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLECT) and Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The private partner is G.R.E.A.T.
Foundation Inc (GFI). G.R.E.A.T. (2015) states that “the G.R.E.A.T. National Policy Board has
the final authority over all issues that relate to the promotion and management of the G.R.E.A.T.

13. Irons 13
Program, including establishing or modifying policy and curricula revisions.” The G.R.E.A.T.
National Policy Board consists of chief executives from the law enforcement agencies and
directors from the federal partners, FLECT and ATF; the governing body of G.R.E.AT. Program
(G.R.E.A.T., 2015). The administration of the G.R.E.A.T. program is central because the
program operates on a national basis.
G.R.E.A.T. provides benefits in the form of law enforcement, education, students,
families, and the community. The benefits of law enforcement as instructors is that they build
strong relations with the students, enhance community involvement on school campuses, and
increase negative attitudes towards joining gangs (G.R.E.A.T, 2015; National Institute of Justice,
2015; U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). The educational benefit of the G.R.E.A.T program is
creating a positive school climate where students can learn and be engaged. The student benefits
of the G.R.E.A.T. Program is that the youth learn life skills; treat others with respect, and make
better choices (G.R.E.A.T, 2015; National Institute of Justice, 2015; U.S. Department of Justice,
2004). The family benefit of the G.R.E.A.T. Program is a stronger bond between child and
immediate family. The community benefits of the G.R.E.A.T. Program is the increase in public
safety due to reduction of gang membership and youth violence.
The G.R.E.A.T. program is developmental. According to Dolgoff and Feldstein (2012),
“the developmental view assumes that all citizens in a modern, complex society may need a
variety of socially provided goods and services to develop their capacity to participate in society
and to achieve and maintain a desirable standard of living,” (p. 134). The service provided to the
youth is practice life skills, modeling respect and empathy towards others, and goal setting.
Instead of police officers relied on for discipline, law enforcement is redirecting behaviors in a
positive, safe, and inclusive environment. These skills help students develop positive

14. Irons 14
relationships, to avoid gangs and violence, and have quality of life through education instead of
life of crime. Through this program, there is reduction of gang membership and youth violence
which results to less incarceration of youth.
The G.R.E.A.T. program is also socioeconomic asset development. According to Dolgoff
and Feldstein (2012), “social welfare manages social problems, meets needs, and provides
opportunities for advancement to individuals, families, groups, communities, and even whole
societies,” (p. 134). Students involved in gang membership and youth violence usually are
suspended, expelled, arrested and made contact with the criminal justice system. The G.R.E.A.T.
program intervenes in the lives of youth through by providing opportunities to model and
practice positive relationship building, goal setting, and managing anger. The relations between
the law enforcement and students builds a community within the school. There is an increase in
public safety for students, faculty, and community due to the decrease of gang membership and
youth violence. Instead of life of crime and incarceration, students are learning in a positive
environment that enhances academic achievement and self-sufficiency for adult life.
The G.R.E.A.T. program has a low degree of horizontal adequacy. According to Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosions (2015), “5,233 schools (to include elementary
and middle) taught G.R.E.A.T., 328,799 students from elementary and middle school
participated, 27,240 classes graduated including elementary and school students.” The program
reaches the students in elementary and middle school, between ages 9-17 with parental consent.
G.R.E.A.T. does make progress of increasing positive attitudes towards law enforcement and
education of the consequences of gang involvement. But there is no reduction in gang
membership and youth violence. There are students that are from both g.r.e.a.t and non-great

15. Irons 15
participants that may still participate in delinquent behavior which result in suspensions,
expulsions, and arrest.
The G.R.E.A.T. program has a moderate degree of vertical adequacy. According to
Dolgoff and Feldstein (2012), “vertical adequacy is each recipient sufficiently covered,” (p. 143).
G.R.E.A.T. program produces 9 hour class instruction and 13 lesson plans. As stated previously,
the program makes progress in educating students of the consequences for participating in gangs
and increase positive attitudes towards law enforcement; however, there is no significant
different in the high rates of gang involvement and youth violence. There is no reported latent
consequences that have occurred through this program.
The G.R.EA.T. Program is in coherence with after school programs. According to
Dolgoff and Feldstein (2012), “coherence is the compatibility with other social policies and
programs,” (p. 146). For example, the Boys and Girls Club has their mission to enable all young
people to reach their full potential. Not all the Boys and Girls Club organizations specifically
have funding to train program specialists to teach youth members about gang involvement and its
consequences. The Boys and Girls Clubs provides various programs such as education,
performing arts, technology, sports and fitness, and leadership clubs to teach kids positive peer
relations, build leadership, and make goals to achieve great futures. The G.R.EA.T. Program is
compatible with after school programs such as the Boys and Girls Club organizations because it
provides 9 hour instruction throughout the school day that discusses anti-gang involvement, life
skills, and positive peer relationships. The Boys and Girls Club and the G.R.E.A.T. Program
both address gang membership and youth violence, but have different ways of doing it; through
instruction and program activities.

16. Irons 16
References
Abdullah, H. (2014). Minority kids disproportionately impacted by zero-tolerance laws. CNN
Politics. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/24/politics/zero-tolerance/
Alexander, M. (2010). The new jim crow mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New
York: The New Press
Bahena, S., Cooc, N., & Currie-Rubin, R. (2012). Disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Educational Review
Billitteri, T. (2008). Discipline in schools: are zero-tolerance policies fair. CQ Researcher. 18(7),
Retrieved from
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2008021500
Brewer, R.M. & Heitzeg, N.A. (2008). The racialization of crime and punishment; criminal
justice, color-blind racism, and the political economy of the prison industrial complex.
American Behavioral Scientist, 51(5), 625-644. Doi: 10.1177/0002764207307745
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosions (2015) Factsheet. Retrieved from
http://www.atf.gov/resource-center/pr/gang-resistance-education-and-training-great-
program
Campaign for Youth and Justice (2015). Because the consequences are not minor. [PDF Format]
Retrieved from http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/WhatistheJJDPA.pdf
Catherine K.Y., Losen, D.J., & Hewitt, D. T. (2010). The School-to-Prison Pipeline Structuring
Legal Reform. New York: NYU Press. Retrieved from
http://muse.jhu.edu.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/books/9780814748442/
Dolgoff, R. & Feldstein, D. (2012). Understanding social welfare: A search for social justice.
(9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

17. Irons 17
G.R.E.A.T. (2015). Building safer communities one child at a time. Retrieved from
https://www.great-online.org/
Heitzeg, N.A. (2009) Education or incarceration: zero tolerance policies and the school to prison
pipeline. Forum on Public Policy, 1-21. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ870076.pdf
Henrichson, C. & Delaney, R. (2012). The price of prisons: what incarceration costs taxpayers.
VERA Institute of Justice. New York. Retrieved from
http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/price-of-prisons-updated-
version-021914.pdf
Hudson, W., Salia-Bao, K., Maio, S., Motley, J., & Peters-Lewis, A. (2011). Zero Tolerance
Educational Policies and Expansion of the School-to-prison Pipeline for African
American Males: A Multi-conceptual Analysis of the Linkages, ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/muziq92/Downloads/out.pdf
Justice Policy Institute (2009) The costs of confinement: why good Juvenile justice policies make
good fiscal sense. Retrieved from
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/09_05_rep_costsofconfinement_jj_ps.pdf
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention as amended, Pub. L. No. 93-415 (1974), 42 U.S.C.
5601-5602 (2002).
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention as amended, Pub. L. No. 93-415 (1974), 42 U.S.C.
5633 (2002).
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5601 (2015)

18. Irons 18
Leiber, M. J. (2002). Disproportionate minority confinement (dmc) of youth: An analysis of state
and federal efforts to address the issue. Crime and Delinquency, 48(1), 3, 1-43. Retrieved
from http://cad.sagepub.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/content/48/1/3.full.pdf+html
McVay, D., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (2004). Treatment or incarceration. Justice Policy
Institute, 1-23. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/muziq92/Downloads/04-
01_rep_mdtreatmentorincarceration_ac-dp.pdf
NAACP (2009) NAACP criminal justice fact sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-fact-sheet
NAACP (2009) NAACP criminal justice program issues. Retrieved from
http://www.naacp.org/pages/criminal-justice-issues
National Association of Social Workers (2008). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from
http://www.socialworkers.org/pub/code.asp
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (1999). U.S. supreme court cases have had an
impact on the character and procedures of the juvenile justice system. National Report
Series, Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Juvenile Justice: A Century of Change. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/9912_2/juv2.html
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (2010). Chapter 2: Jurisdictional and program self-
assessment juvenile justice and delinquency prevention: federal programs and strategies.
Jurisdictional Technical Assistance Package for Juvenile Corrections. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/juris_tap_report/ch2_03.html
National Institute of Justice (2015) Gang resistance education and training (g.r.e.a.t). Retrieved
from http://crimesolutions.gov/programdetails

19. Irons 19
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2014). Meeting the educational needs of
system-involved youth. Working for Youth Justice and Safety. [PDF format] Retrieved
from http://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/commitment120814.pdf
Petteruti, A. and Walsh, N. (2008). Jailing communities the impact of jail expansion and
effective public safety strategies. A Justice Policy Institute Report 1-38. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/muziq92/Downloads/08-04_rep_jailingcommunities_ac.pdf
Shoenberg, D. (2009). JJDPA reauthorization 2009: an update [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved
from http://www.cclp.org/JJDPA_resources.php
Skiba, R.J. (2014). The Failure of Zero Tolerance. Reclaiming Children and Youth. 22(4), 27-33.
Retrieved from www.reclaingjournal.com
Skiba, R. J., Eckes, S. E., & Brown, K. (2010). African American disproportionality in school
discipline: The divide between best evidence and legal remedy. New York Law School
Law Review, 54(4), 1071-1112.
U.S. Department of Justice (1999). A century of change. 1999 National Report Series: Juvenile
Justice Bulletin, 1-20
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs (2015) Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/
Wilson, H. (2014) Turning off the school-to-prison-pipeline. Reclaiming Children and Youth
23(1), 49-53. Retrieved from http://www.readperiodicals.com/201404/3465849971.html