Research update: zero tolerance doesn't add up: research shows that zero-tolerance policies in community recreation programs aren't producing results.

Many community recreation organizations such as the YMCA, YWCA, Boys and Girls Clubs, Boy and Girl Scouts, 4H, and Big Brothers/Big Sisters, are receiving greater attention as potential settings for community youth development (Hughes & Curnan, 2000; Pittman, 2000; Pittman & Ferber, 2001; Witt & Caldwell, 2005). Community youth development recognizes that unsupervised leisure may expose children to negative environments, resulting in greater risk for deviant behavior, and that other avenues are needed within the community to reach out to the child to provide them with an external support system (Perkins et al., 2003; Witt & Crompton, 1996).

A common challenge within these programs is finding ways to effectively manage incidences where the behavior of youth compromises the facilitation, delivery and safety of the program. A familiar approach for managing disruptive behavior within community youth development settings is a "zero-tolerance" policy for violent and disruptive behaviors. According to Skiba and Knesting (2001), zero tolerance refers to an organizational policy that treats all violent or disruptive behaviors the same, regardless of severity, resulting in suspension and/or expulsion for the offenders.

The rationale of a zero-tolerance policy is that it sends "a message that certain behaviors will not be tolerated, by punishing all offenses severely, no matter how minor" (Skiba & Peterson, 1999, p. 25). The goal of this policy approach was to force young people to think hard about participating in violent or disruptive behavior and deter future thoughts of this behavior. Many community recreation organizations have adopted a zero-tolerance approach, following a similar rationale as the school districts (NRPA Youth Services, 2003).

There is no question that zero-tolerance policies communicate a clear message to youth in terms of the behaviors that a community recreation organization will and will not tolerate (Ewing, 2000). However, how appropriate is this approach for community youth development?

Research and Critique

Despite a clear message, these policies come with their own set of unintended consequences. One obvious consequence is that suspension and expulsion puts children right back on the streets. Not only does this defeat the point of offering community recreation programs outside of school, but this practice has also been found to lead to an escalation in current misbehavior and other negative effects.

For example, Shores, Gunter and Jack (1993) found that youth view confrontational discipline as a means of challenging their behavior, which actually results in an escalation in student misbehavior. Mayer (1995) also found that punitive disciplinary measures, such as suspension or expulsion, contribute to further antisocial behavior in youth. Jenkins (1997) has contended that suspending children only adds to their social exclusion, re-inforcing the notion that children should not create bonds or trust adults.

In addition, it is unwise to create turmoil and break any bond that may be present with troublesome students, as they are already at risk for becoming antisocial (Jenkins, 1997). By using suspension and exclusion as a form of punishment, children are sent mixed messages on what it means to have justice and be fair.

A second concern surrounding zero-tolerance policy is that it tends to be implemented as a consequence for what some would consider as rather trivial incidents. For example, when studying the use of the zero-tolerance policy, Skiba and Knesting (2001) discovered that zero-tolerance policy was enforced in the following incidences:

* In Deer Lakes, Pa., a five-year-old was suspended for wearing a five-inch plastic axe as part of his firefighter's Halloween costume;

* In Fairborn, Ohio, a 14-year-old was threatened with expulsion for sharing an over-the-counter organic cough drop with a friend;

* In Glendale, Ariz., a seventh-grader was suspended for four months when he brought in a potato chips container as a homemade rocket;

* In Seattle, Wash., a sixth grader was expelled when a squirt gun painted brown and black fell out of his backpack; and,

* In Atlanta, Ga., an 11-year-old girl was suspended for two weeks for possessing a 10-inch chain attached to her Tweety Bird wallet.

Although it may seem that these examples represent a misuse of zero-tolerance policy, Skiba and Knesting (2001) have argued that the above apparent overextensions of the zero-tolerance policy is inherent in the philosophy which treats minor incidents as severely as major ones. The authors also made the controversial statement that suspensions and expulsions based on the principle of zero tolerance is just a quick solution for addressing disruptive behaviors and an easy way to get problem children "out the door."

A third concern regarding zero tolerance is that it seems to be applied in ways that target certain groups of students, raising questions of marginalization and unfair treatment. For example, Wu, Pink, Crain and Moles (1982) found that repeat offenders were targeted, as certain students accounted for a disproportionate share of the disciplinary action.

In one school, for example, six percent of students were responsible for 44 percent of the disciplinary action taken. Another study by Eckenrode, Laird and Doris (1993) found that children with special needs were targeted, as approximately 38 percent of all students suspended showed evidence of an emotional or behavioral disorder.

Researchers have also found evidence of zero-tolerance policies being disproportionately applied to youth according to race and economic status. In his field study, Brantlinger (1991) found that both high- and low-income adolescents felt that disciplinary practices were unfairly weighted against poor students. In addition, high-income students were more likely to receive mild to moderate consequences, such as a lecture, where low-income students were more likely to receive more severe consequences, such as being yelled at in front of others, made to stand in the hall all day or suspension.

School suspension and the use of zero tolerance have also been found to be used disproportionately for black students compared to others (Skiba, Peterson & Wilson, 1997; Wu et al., 1982; Costenbader & Markson, 1994; McCarthy & Hoge, 1987; Gordon, Piana & Keleher, 2000). Surprisingly, this remains true even when socio-economic status is controlled (Skiba, Michael, Nardo & Peterson, 2002a), as well as the amount of misbehavior.

Black students were not shown to misbehave any more than white students, although black students received harsher punishments for minor offenses (McCarthy & Hoge, 1987; Wu et al., 1982; Shaw & Braden, 1990). In addition, Skiba et al. (2002a) found that black students were more often referred for discipline for reasons requiring subjective judgment, such as loitering, disrespect and excessive noise.

Lastly and most importantly, zero-tolerance policies have not shown to be effective at deterring future negative behavior in youth. Skiba and Knesting (2001) found that in the 10 years that zero tolerance has been used in schools, there has been no documentation that it has directly led to increased safety or improved student behavior. If anything, data suggests that suspension may be most ineffective for those youth who are at-risk (and most often targeted) for disciplinary practices, as rates for repeat offending after a suspension are quite high, ranging anywhere from 35 to 45 percent (Skiba et al., 2002a).

Other researchers view suspension as a source of reinforcement for behavior rather than a punishment, as children are allowed to leave the very environment they do not wish to be in (Bowditch, 1993; Costenbader & Markson, 1994; Tobin, Sugai & Colvin, 1996). Long-term consequences of suspensions are also discouraging as students who have been suspended were three times more likely to drop out of school (Eckstrom, Goertz, Pollack & Rock, 1986; Wehlage, & Rutter, 1986).

Alternatives to Zero-Tolerance Policy Approaches

The research on zero-tolerance policies has led many researchers to consider alternative policy approaches for youth. Many researchers are advocating for policies that are effective and universal, yet able to address the needs of youth on an individual basis (Dwyer, Osher & Warger, 1998; Gagnon & Leone, 2005; Lerner, 1995; McCarthy & Hoge, 1987; Noam, Warner & Dyken, 2005; Skiba et al., 2002b; Skiba & Knesting, 2001; Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Skiba and Knesting (2001) suggest that removal of children should only be used for the most serious of disruptive behaviors and to define those behaviors explicitly.

This would mean replacing the "one-size fits all" disciplinary approach with a more graduated system where consequences can be geared towards the seriousness of the infraction. Consequently, this would mean that organizations would also have a greater array of options available to them when dealing with misbehavior. Preventative measures take a more proactive approach when dealing with behaviors from youth.

Some alternatives that have been proposed include: restitution to have the child "set things right" after their offense; teaching anger management so that children can keep self-control in social situations and perceive others' actions to be less hostile; creating individual behavior plans to establish procedures for dealing with problem behavior; restorative justice or "teen courts" to have peers determine consequences; creating alternative settings where children can learn the appropriate behaviors to rejoin the original program; and ensuring community wraparound team care to unite and ensure communication between all agencies working with the child (Indiana Education Policy Center, 2000). Overall, alternatives to zero-tolerance policies create more avenues for community youth development programs to reach their goal of providing positive and meaningful experiences for all youth.

References

Babkie, A. M. (2006). 20 ways to be proactive in managing classroom behavior. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(3), 184-187.

Bowditch, C. (1993). Getting rid of troublemakers: High school disciplinary procedures and the production of dropouts. Social Problems, 40, 493-507.

Brantlinger, E. (1991). Social class distinctions in adolescents' reports of problems and punishment in school Behavioral Disorders, 17, 36-46.

Brophy, J. E. & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. D. Wikttrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 3rd ed. (p. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.

Costenbader, V. K. & Markson, S. (1994). School suspension: A survey of current policies and practices. NASSP Bulletin, 78, 103-107.

Dwyer, K., Osher D. & Warger, C. (1998). Early warning, timely response: A guide to safe schools. Washington, De: U.S. Department of Education.

Eckenrode, J., Laird, M., & Doris, 3. (1993). School performance and disciplinary problems among abused and neglected children. Developmental Psychology, 29, 53-62.

Eckstrom, R. B., Goertz, M. E., Pollack, J. M., & Rock, D. A. (1986). Who drops out of high school and why? Findings from a national study. Teachers College Record, 87, 357-373.

Ewing, C. P. (2000). Sensible zero tolerance protects students. Harvard education Letter: Research Online. Retrieved at www.edletter.org/past/issues/ 2000-jf/zero.shtml#EWING.

Gagnon, J. C. & Leone, P. E. (2005). Alternative strategies for school violence prevention. New Directions for Youth Development, 92, 101-125.

Gordon, R., Piana, L. D., & Keleher, T. (2000). Facing the consequences: An examination of racial discrimination in U. S. public schools. Oakland, CA: Applied Research Center.

Hamilton, S. E & Hamilton, M. A. (2004). The Youth Development Handbook: Coming of Age in American Communities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hughes, D. M. & Curnan, S. P. (2000). Community youth development: A framework for action. Community Youth Development Journal, 1, 7-11.

Indiana Education Policy Center (2000). Building Safe and Responsive Schools: System wide training in preventative school discipline. Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/about. html.

Jenkins, P. H. (1997). School delinquency and the school social bond. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 337-367.

Kerr, M. M. & Nelson, C. M. (2002). Strategies for Addressing Behavior Problems in the Classroom, 4th ed. London: Pearson Education Ltd.

Lerner, R. M. (1995). America's youth in crisis: Challenges and options for programs and policies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.

Mayer, R. G. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467-478.

McCarthy, J. D. & Hoge, D. R. (1987). The social construction of school punishment: Racial disadvantage out of universalistic process. Social Forces, 65, 1101-1120.

National Academy of Sciences (2001). Community Programs to Promote Youth Development. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council National Academy of Sciences.

National Recreation and Park Association Youth Services (2003). Does zero tolerance work for you? Parks and Recreation, 38(9), 103.

Noam, G. G., Warner, L. A., & Dyken, L. V. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric of zero tolerance: Long-term solutions for at-risk youth. New Directions for Youth Development, 92,155-182.

Perkins, D. F., Borden, L. M., Keith, 3. G., Hoppe-Rooney, T. L., & Villarruel, F. A. (2003). Community youth development: Partnership creating a positive world. In F. A. Villarruel, D. F. Perkins, L. M. Borden, & J. G. Keith (Eds.), Community youth development Programs, polities, and practices (pp. 1-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Pittman, K. J. (2000). Balancing the equation: Communities supporting youth, youth supporting communities. Community Youth Development Journal, 1, 33-36.

Pittman, K. J. & Ferber, T. (2001). Finding common ground within the big picture: Toward a common vision, analysis, and accountability for youth. Takoma park, MD: Forum for Youth Investment, International Youth Foundation.

Shaw, S. R. & Braden, J. B. (1990). Race and gender bias in the administration of corporal punishment. School Psychology Review, 19 (3), 378-384.

Shores, R. E., Gunter, P. L., & Jack, S. L. (1993). Classroom management strategies: Are they setting events for coercion? Behavioral Disorders, 18, 92-102.

Skiba, R. J. & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. New Directions for Youth Development, 92, 17-43.

Skiba, R. J., MichaeL, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002a). The colour of discipline: Sources of gender and racial disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34 (4), 317-343.

Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(3), 295-315.

Skiba, R. J. & Peterson, R. (1999). Zap zero tolerance. Education Digest, 64(8), 24-31.

Skiba, R., Ritter, S., Peterson, R., Miller, C., & Forde, S. (2002b). Creating safe and responsive schools: Systems change issues in school violence prevention. NASP Communique, 30(6), 18-20.

Tobin, T., Sugai, G., & Calvin, G. (1996). Patterns in middle school discipline records. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4 (2), 82-94.

Villarruel, E A., Perkins, D. F., Borden, L. M. & Keith, J. G. (2003). Community youth development: Programs, polities, and practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Wehlage, G. G. & Rutter, R. A. (1986). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the problem? Teachers College Record, 87, 374-393.

Witt, P.A., & Ca[dwell, L.L. (2005). Recreation and Youth Development. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Witt, P. A., & Crompton, J. L. (1996). Recreation programs that work for at-risk youth: The challenge of shaping the future. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Wu, S. C., Pink, W. T., Grain, R. L., & Moles, O. (1982). Student suspension: A critical reappraisal Urban Review, 14, 245-303.

Research into Action: Implementing Alternative to Zero-Tolerance Policies

A shift from a zero-tolerance approach to a graduated system of consequences can be a challenge for any organization. The following research has outlined the following considerations:

* A key step is to communicate rules and expectations to all constituents of the program, including staff, parents and youth so that all groups are informed of the rules and expectations, know what they can do to counteract negative behavior and know how to reward and reinforce positive behavior. Research has shown that by establishing clear rules and expectations for behaviors, youth become more involved in appropriate activities and also show an increase in order, pleasantness and productivity.

* Rules should be written in a way that praises appropriate behavior, accommodates cultural diversity and includes preventative rules. Researchers also suggested that rules be clear and simple--with no more than five--to help children recall and remember them easily.

* Youth need to be taught how to transition to a new policy approach. This includes being taught any new routines and expectations so that everyone knows what to do at all times.

Another key step to success is consistency of application. For example, all staff within an organization (manager, frontline, custodial, supply) must adhere to and acknowledge the importance of following the policy. If not, the benefits of consistency and reliability will not be achieved.

Laura McMahon is the special needs and behavior management specialist for the School-Aged Child Care Department at the YMCA of Hamilton/Burlington (Ontario) and a graduate of the Recreation and Leisure Studies (Inclusive and Therapeutic) program at Brock University. Erin Sharpe, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of Recreation and Leisure Studies at Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario. Her area of interest is community recreation.