Investigating the Classroom to Prison Pipeline and Ways to Eradicate the Problem - Research Paper Example

room to Prison Pipeline room to Prison Pipeline There has been an immense increase in the number of children being taken to the penal court system since the onset of the prison industrial complex. The following paper addresses the progress of children brought up in these new hostile, suppressive learning and growing backgrounds. Families discussed in this paper largely come from low-income backgrounds and have children who fell victim to schools’ zero-tolerance attitudes towards fights and scuffles. The paper intends to demonstrate the development of how this unfortunate epidemic occurred and how different advocacy organizations are applying various programs to deal with this challenge. Thesis and Research Problem: The government is funneling children from low-income households out of their schools and into state juvenile systems. These students largely have a tough time adhering to schools’ zero-tolerance policies towards fights and frequently end up funneled into a horrendous cycle of the juvenile justice system, occasionally for minor offenses. Methodology Studying the methods that certain civil rights lawyers, school heads, and a range of other advocates are attempting to enforce is crucial. These parties attempt to make the negative impacts of zero-tolerance policies seem necessary and acceptable. These policies were enforced to fight the war against substance trafficking and abuse but are today being used by learning institutes to suspend, expel, and funnel students into the juvenile justice system. Literature Review Cass and Curry wrote “America’s Cradle to Prison Pipeline Report” in 2007 to compare the United States juvenile systems with some of the poorest economies across the globe. The report examines how poverty and crime prolong the rotation of the unfortunate events of these doomed children (Cass and Curry, 2007). Cass and Curry study and interviewed households and their children stuck in this destiny to prison pipelines in the remote areas of Mississippi and Cincinnati, Ohio. Historically, Ohio was a state where many southern African Americans together with Appalachian whites migrated to in search of jobs. Cass and Curry say political leaders, community organizations, and learning institutes overlook these families and only address them when their tragic lives are broadcasted on mainstream news or wind up in jail (Cass and Curry, 2007). Lastly, the report records the series of parents mistakenly raising their children in unlawful ways and causing them to break the law. Author Alexander discusses the revival of African American youths being treated as second-class citizens in her 2012 text “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.” Here, Alexander says African Americans children are moving from schools to juvenile prisons rapidly, a system and trend that has seen millions of African Americans jailed (Alexander, 2012). Even after serving time, many of these juveniles turn into professional criminals after release or turn into victims of poverty. The author says this trend is something the United States needs to eradicate soon before the damage becomes irreversible. Alexander’s book emphasizes the fast rate African American youth are losing the rights that their ancestors bled for and gained in the course of the civil rights movement. Alexander leads the socially aware to recognize there is an acute injustice going on because of schools’ zero-tolerance policies (Alexander, 2012). The book notices a pattern in the social and ethnic backgrounds of the students most funneled into the juvenile justice system. Mostly children from low-income households, Alexander says the justice system is paying for their imprisonment for minor and major offenses. Considering virtually all juvenile prisons are private, assuring a steady flow of income is a priority. The future and backgrounds of these students does not matter for the owners and propagators of this prison complex. The book notes that even though Jim Crow’s doctrines on the treatment of minorities were abolished generations ago, current zero-tolerance policies echo and reprise her agendas. (Alexander, 2012) Knefel’s 2013 article “The School to Prison Pipeline: A Nationwide Problem for Equal Rights” concerns with the dilemma of African American youth in public learning institutions unduly winding up in juvenile prisons (Knefel, 2013). This dilemma includes handicapped children from low-income households being funneled into an unfair penal system. Knefel looks at learning institutes in New York and the increase in the population of minority youths the juvenile imprisoning system is funneling during Mayor Bloomberg’s term (Knefel, 2013). The article browses the nation’s various juvenile systems to unveil the dangers children confront after undergoing suspension. For example, Chicago and Texas has advocates fighting to assure the continuation of this penal system in their respective states (Knefel, 2013). Solutions The Children’s Defense Fund is working on models to change juvenile justice systems across many states as a solution for the increasing number of children funneled into them. The rate at which boys and girls are being funneled into the existing penal system is shameful and the Children’s Defense Fund recognizes this (Mrs. Edelman, 2009). This rate is risking young students and acts like a significant threat to the country’s failure collectively. The cradle to prison pipeline is placing thousands of young minorities on a path to sidelined lives, incarceration, and frequent premature demise. As a result, the Children’s Defense Fund launched a “Cradle to Prison Pipeline” campaign to devote resources towards dismantling this pipeline irrespective of the time it may take to be successful. This model is an example of a solution to the eradication of this risky justice system that the public can contribute. Children’s Defense Fund’s “Cradle to Prison Pipeline” movement has two key objectives. The first objective is stopping youths from entering the pipeline and the second one is assisting children stuck in the pipeline at present (Mrs. Edelman, 2009). Eventually, the model seeks to discover a way out for the stuck children instead of imprisonment that simply leads to a lasting series of apprehension and imprisonment. Models advocating the abolition of zero-tolerance policies in public American schools intervene in important fields. For example, the Models for Change program sets up community-oriented options to detention and makes sure consequences for youths in trouble are personalized and developmentally fitting (Mrs. Edelman, 2009). Other forms of intervention including improving teamwork amongst psychological health, drug abuse, child welfare, juvenile penal and academic experts, tackling ethnic and racial equality in juvenile penal systems, and emphasizing the need for aftercare and a procedure to link youths coming from residential placement with continuation services. Another potentially successful solution is the JDAI (Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative). Acting as a model for reforming the juvenile penal system, 100 jurisdictions within 24 states and DC are duplicating and applying this program regularly (Mrs. Edelman, 2009). The model concerns itself with the juvenile detention element of the juvenile penal system and the fact that that children frequently and unreasonably or unfittingly end up incarcerated. This imprisonment largely occurs at the great cost of lifelong implications for both public and individual safety, which is a significant setback for youth development. JDAI’s model applies approaches like implementing new or advanced substitutes to imprisonment, building unbiased decision-making mechanisms, focusing on incarcerated youths due to probation violations, injunctions and warrants or impending placement, and prompt case processing. These models concentrate on lowering ethnic differences and bettering prison conditions (Mrs. Edelman, 2009). The recorded outcomes of Children’s Defense Fund solutions are positive and remarkable. For example, JDAI’s built a goal screening procedure to hold just children at most risk of committing crimes (Mrs. Edelman, 2009). This goal also worked to involve the children’s relatives in evaluation and mediation processes, form ethnically receptive options, and set up community-oriented apprehension for low and medium-risk children. The goal even wraps around services that could be provided to the community at daily management places. These places radically lowered both the detention numbers and juvenile offenses by minority youths in states that implemented this model. In the process, the initiative saved the county a significant amount of public funds by evading the building and enrollment of a new confinement facility. In addition, the county lowered the juvenile hall population from a mean of 50 to 20 juveniles daily between 1996 and 2008. From 1996 to 2006, rates of youth felony dropped by 36% and misdemeanor cases by 43% (Mrs. Edelman, 2009). Conclusion Students largely have a tough time adhering to public schools’ zero-tolerance policies towards fights. As a result, these students frequently end up funneled into a horrendous cycle of the juvenile justice system, occasionally for minor offenses. County authorities are responsible for funneling children from low-income households out of their schools and into state juvenile systems. Models to reform these juvenile penal systems by Children’s Defense Fund have produced incredible outcomes that all states should enforce in their public schools. Initiatives like Cradle to Prison Pipeline and JDAI have produced favorable results in Mississippi, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Washington DC. A set of decisions made by local authorities can alleviate tolerance policies and detention rulings to reduce the likelihoods of imprisoning low-risk youths in their respective states. Public learning institutes are teaching by route currently and not concerning themselves with the individual student along with their academic and emotional needs. Less than three decades ago, conflicts, and scuffles between or amongst students were understandable. However, today learning institutions operate under police state mandates. Conflicts and scuffles are handled as criminal activity and students found partaking in them are apprehended and referred to the penal court system. References Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York, NY: The New Press. Cass, J., and Curry, C. (2007). America’s Cradle to Prison Pipeline Report. Los Angeles, CA:: The Children’s Defense Fund. Knefel, M. (2013). The School to Prison Pipeline: A Nationwide Problem for Equal Rights. New York, NY. Rolling Stone. Mrs. Edelman. (2009). Child Watch Column: “Promising Models for Reforming Juvenile Justice Systems.” The Children’s Defense Fund. Retrieved from http://www.childrensdefense.org/newsroom/child-watch-columns/child-watch- documents/promising-models-for-reforming.html Read More