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

Abstract

Schools have adopted get-tough policies and support-oriented policies, each of which creates not only potential benefits but also potential risks for youth delinquency and education. This article identifies potential benefits and risks of get-tough approaches and support-oriented approaches, respectively, to reduce delinquency. It then identifies challenges that can arise when schools seek to balance both get-tough and support-oriented policies. We illustrate these challenges by drawing on prior scholarship on these policies as well as a process evaluation of a large metropolitan school district’s pilot initiative to promote school safety and academic performance by assisting court-involved youth. We argue for developing a stronger empirical foundation for school-based approaches that aim to improve school safety and educational outcomes of youth.

Education versus Punishment? Silo Effects and the School-to-prison Pipeline

“…Support-oriented approaches have become more common as scholars and policymakers began to recognize the collateral consequences of exclusionary discipline (Skiba 2013; Teasley 2014). The belief that guides these approaches is that youth misbehavior may be improved with supportive interventions, such as counseling, restorative justice programs, and academic-focused programming (Mears et al 2018). These interventions may take place within schools so youth remain on track academically and avoid stigmatizing labels from an official court record.…”

“…Even if these interventions do not change youth behavior, fewer youth may be transferred to juvenile courts because both the schools and the officers would actively be working to keep youth in schools. However, it is also possible that the use of only supportive efforts risks reducing school safety, potentially by decreasing deterrent and incapacitation effects (Mears et al 2018). This support-oriented partnership, therefore, may reduce the prevalence of the school-to-prison pipeline, but it may do so at the expense of safety.…”

“…That is, schools increasingly adopted approaches, such as security measures and punitive sanctions, that reflected an emphasis on punishment rather than education. A primary goal of these policies was to remove disruptive students from schools and to use incapacitation and deterrence to reduce misbehavior and improve school safety (Hirschfield and Celinska 2011; Mears et al 2018).…”

“…Department of Education 2014b). In addition, some schools place probation officers on their campuses (Badertscher 2011; Griffin 1999; Mears et al 2018; Peterson 2002).…”

“…They argue that officers generate both incapacitative and deterrent effects (Apel, Pogarsky, and Bates 2008; Bazemore, Stinchcomb, and Leip 2006; Casella 2003). Police provide increased supervision and monitoring, which reduce opportunities for misconduct (Mears et al 2018). Officers also help to provide consequences beyond what the schools can offer.…”