Skip to the content

The School to Prison Pipeline: Fact Sheet

Click here to download the School to Prison Pipeline Fact Sheet [PDF].

The School to Prison Pipeline is a nationwide system of local, state and federal education and public safety policies that pushes students out of school and into the criminal justice system. This system disproportionately targets youth of color and youth with disabilities. Inequities in areas such as school discipline, policing practices, high-stakes testing and the prison industry contribute to the pipeline.

The School to Prison Pipeline operates directly and indirectly. Schools directly send students into the pipeline through zero tolerance policies that involve the police in minor incidents and often lead to arrests, juvenile detention referrals, and even criminal charges and incarceration. Schools indirectly push students towards the criminal justice system by excluding them from school through suspension, expulsion, discouragement and high stakes testing requirements.

Zero tolerance policies directly and indirectly feed the School to Prison Pipeline.

  • Zero tolerance policies rely on suspension, expulsion, citations, arrest, and juvenile and criminal charges to deal with often minor disciplinary problems.1
  • Originally meant to address only the most serious violent behavior, these rules now unreasonably target normal, non-violent adolescent behavior.
  • Zero tolerance policies move youth directly into the juvenile and criminal justice systems by involving police personnel in minor disciplinary matters. Criminal charges are often brought against students for actions that would never be considered a criminal if committed by an adult.

Increasing over-reliance on school suspensions also contributes to the School to Prison Pipeline.

  • In New York City, superintendent suspensions per year increased by more than 76 percent between 2000 and 2005, jumping from 8,567 to 15,090.2 During the same period the high school population increased by only 5 percent.3
  • In the first year of the New York City Impact Schools Initiative—a joint program between the New York Police Department, Department of Education and Mayor’s office that targets schools with high levels of reported crime with increased policing and zero tolerance policies—the average number of suspensions in Impact Schools increased by 22 percent compared with the citywide increase of 3 percent. Suspensions in Impact Schools increased by 43 percent in the second year.4
  • In New York City, students can be suspended from school for long periods of time for reasons that seem overly broad and open to subjective interpretation. These include a 10-day suspension for “being insubordinate” and up to three months suspension for “engaging in intimidating behavior.”5
  • A child who has been suspended is more likely to be retained in grade, drop out, commit a crime and/or end up incarcerated as an adult.6

The School to Prison Pipeline limits the opportunities of our most vulnerable youth.

  • Zero tolerance policies and suspensions disproportionately affect youth of color, especially blacks and Latinos.
    • Blacks represented only 17 percent of national public school enrollment in 2000 but accounted for 34 percent of suspensions.7
    • In New York City, 95 percent of youth entering juvenile detention in 2001 were black or Latino even though black and Latino youth comprise less than two-thirds of all New York City youth.8
  • Students with learning disabilities are also disproportionately impacted by the School to Prison Pipeline.
    • 32 percent of youth in juvenile detention nationwide were previously identified as having special learning needs, although only 8.6 percent of public school students have been so identified.9
    • Nationally, blacks with learning disabilities are three times more likely to be suspended than whites with learning disabilities and more than four times more likely to end up in correctional facilities.10
  • School disciplinary, juvenile and criminal records work against students when they apply for college, scholarships, grants and jobs. In many places a criminal record can prevent students and their families from living in public housing.11

The rise of the School to Prison Pipeline did NOT correspond with an increase in school violence.

  • Crimes against and by youth were declining without the imposition of zero tolerance policies.
  • Between 1992 and 2002, violent crimes against youth dropped by 50 percent nationwide and the youth-arrest rate for violent crimes dropped by 47 percent.12
  • In New York City, the majority of incarcerated youth were convicted of non-violent, low-level offenses.13

The School to Prison Pipeline contributes to a larger pattern of over-incarceration of people of color, especially blacks and Latinos.

  • The U.S. accounts for 22 percent of prisoners worldwide, but holds only 4.6 percent of the world population.14
  • Nationally, 44 percent of prison inmates are black even though blacks make up only 12.3 percent of the population. Eighteen percent of inmates are Latino, who make up 12.6 percent of the population.15
  • In the U.S., black youths with no prior criminal record are six times more likely to be incarcerated than whites with no prior criminal record for the same offense. Latino youths with no prior criminal records are three times more likely to be incarcerated than white youth.16
  • In New York, blacks are more than four times more likely to be in prison than whites.

Solutions:

Investing in education rather than discipline and corrections is a more equitable, effective and financially sound option.

  • A quality education is a basic right and provides the best path to a successful future.
  • Juvenile detention is an ineffective way to reach troubled youth. In New York City, 43 percent of youth released from juvenile detention are readmitted within one year.17
  • In 2004, the federal government spent $60 million to hire police forces for schools and $19.5 million on school safety equipment, money that could have been spent on teachers, libraries and educational programs.18
  • Locking up youth costs tax payers more than educating youth. In New York City, the average cost per youth for one year of juvenile detention is $170,820 19 compared with $11,282 for a year of public high school.20

Many effective and inexpensive programs have positively affected the safety and learning environments of troubled schools.

  • These include peer mediation, conflict resolution, after school programs, truancy intervention, guidance counseling, peer juries and courts, mentoring, character education, teacher training on classroom management and parental and community involvement initiatives.21

 

Percentage of U.S. Prison Population vs. Total U.S. Population by Race
Click here to download graph of Percentage of U.S. Prison Population vs. Total U.S. Population by Race (PDF).

 

U.S. Percentage of Worldwide Prisoners vs. U.S. Percentage of Worldwide Population
Click here to download graph of U.S. Percentage of Worldwide Prisoners vs. U.S. Percentage of Worldwide Population (PDF).

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Footnotes

1  The Advancement Project (March 2005). Education on Lockdown: The Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track, p. 15.

2  NYC DOE statistics.

3  NYC Department of Education. Current Register by Grade. Available at http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/Stats/Register/CurrentRegisterbyGrade/

4  National Economic and Social Rights Initiative (2007). Deprived of Dignity: Degrading Treatment and Abusive Discipline in New York City and Los Angeles Public Schools, p. 20.

5  National Economic and Social Rights Initiative (2007). Deprived of Dignity: Degrading Treatment and Abusive Discipline in New York City and Los Angeles Public Schools, p. 19.

6  The Advancement Project (2000). Opportunities Suspended: The Devastating Consequences of Zero Tolerance and School Discipline, p. 13.

7  The Advancement Project (March 2005). Education on Lockdown: The Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track, p. 18.

8  The Correctional Association of New York (2006). Juvenile Detention in New York City, p. 1.

9  NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline, p. 5.

10  Wald, Johanna and Daniel Losen (May 2003). Defining and Redirecting a School-to-Prison Pipeline, p. 3.

11  The Advancement Project (March 2005). Education on Lockdown: The Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track, p. 12.

12  The Advancement Project (March 2005). Education on Lockdown: The Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track, p. 11.

13  The Correctional Association of New York (2006). Youth Confined in OCFS Facilities, p. 1.

14  The Prison Policy Initiative (2006). The U.S. Stands Alone on High Incarceration, p. 1.

15  Human Rights Watch (2003). Incarcerated America, p. 1.

16  Building Blocks for Youth (2000). And Justice for Some.

17  The Correctional Association of New York (2006). Juvenile Detention in New York City, p. 2.

18  The Advancement Project (March 2005). Education on Lockdown: The Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track, p. 17.

19  The Correctional Association of New York (2006). Juvenile Detention in New York City, p. 1.

20  The New York Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil Liberties Union (2007). Criminalizing the Classroom: The Over-policing of New York City Schools, p. 21.

21  NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline, p. 9.

22  New York Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union (2007). Criminalizing the Classroom: The Over-Policing of New York City Schools.

 

 

 

Printer-friendly Version