Civic Engagement And Juvenile Justice Section

Macro/systemic factors that disempower young people in these systems A discussion about civic engagement for juvenile justice involved youth begins with an understanding of the experiences and systemic barriers that contribute to civic disengagement. One such example is characterized as the “School-to-Prison Pipeline” (Nussbaum, 2018) which traces the disparate impact of zero tolerance school discipline policies (automatic school expulsion for pre-determined codes of conduct) on youth and families of color. Under these policies and practices, schools as civic communities foster a punitive rather than civil culture of engagement for these youth (Kupchik & Catlaw, 2015). Citizenship, a component of civic engagement, is characterized as a status (Hart & Atkins, 2003) reserved for members of a community who have agency and standing among members. As disproportionate numbers of youth of color are suspended from public schools under zero tolerance policies and overrepresented in our criminal justice systems, these youth are ultimately excluded and marginalized from early civic opportunities and community membership. Since the 1970s, schools have experienced a massive shift in how they respond to misbehavior in the classroom. The suspension rate for all students has nearly doubled, with students of color and students with disabilities incurring exclusion at an even greater rate. In Massachusetts, 17% of all incidents involved low-income Black or Latino students receiving special education, a rate that is estimated to be 10 times greater than their enrollment (The State of School Discipline, 2014).

Negative developmental and life course outcomes, such as high school dropout and longstanding emotional trauma, are associated with youth who experience school suspension, expulsion, and school arrest (Ispa-Landa, 2017): “Adolescents are developmentally primed to notice societal hypocrisy, and rebel or disengage when institutional practices contradict the principles of civility, respect, and fairness that adults espouse” (pg.4). Rubin (2007) identifies the educational experiences of youth of color from low-income communities as having an impact on their civic engagement and feelings of empowerment as agents of change. Rubin’s (2007) study links inconsistencies between young people’s personal lives and community circumstances and the civic ideals and texts taught in school with uncertainty about whether change was possible and discouragement about being able to impact inequalities they personally experienced and a sense of hopelessness about using established channels of civic participation to bring about change. Rubin (2007) asserts that what is described as “disengagement” by these marginalized youth may be a rational response to the civil disparities between purported equalities in our society and the injustices they experience.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

Kirk and Sampson (2013); Sampson and Laub (1997) utilize labeling theory framework to explain that being labeled a ‘‘criminal’’ changes the way school systems treat youth and begins a “life-course turning-point” for youth whereby the stigma of such a label damages prosocial peer relationships and leads to rejection from teachers, parents and community members. Labeling and stigmatization generate negative consequences for youth related to social networks, jobs, and self-esteem. Social rejection (Sampson and Laub, 1997) undermines the attachment of youth to the school and creates a vicious cycle of negative interactions. Kirk and Sampson (2013) identify a detachment process experienced by youth excluded from school linked to juvenile arrest and a snowball effect that can lead to more deviance and school drop-out. Among Chicago adolescents otherwise equivalent on prearrest characteristics (Kirk and Sampson , 2013), 73 percent of those arrested later dropped out of high school compared with 51 percent of those never arrested.

Kupchik and Catlaw (2015) associate school discipline as a negative predictor of long-term civic participation rates among adults with a history of school suspensions. In their research, high suspension rates (Kupchik & Catlaw, 2015) are correlated with adults voting less often and being less likely to participate in community volunteer activities. Nussbaum (2018) sites extensive documentation of the correlations between widespread adoption of Zero-tolerance policies in schools across the country and increases in school suspensions, school arrests, and dropout rates as well as lower attendance rates and academic performance among low-income, youth of color and youth with disabilities.

Atkins and Hart (2003) associate structural factors such as neighborhood and socioeconomic status as barriers for low income and youth of color in the development of strong civic identity and community participation into adulthood. These researchers define civic identify as a sense of connectedness to one’s community, in which schools are also considered primary communities for young people. Atkins and Hart (2003) identify community participation as a key component in the development of civic identity. Community participation is defined as contributions and responsibilities such as voting and community service activities. Adolescence is highlighted by Atkins and Hart (2003) as a critical time for the development and sustainment of civic identity and a stage during which community membership advantages begin to be accrued. They explain that it is during this stage that adults (other than parents) and prosocial communities (to include schools) begin to exert influence on a young person’s development of social identity and “social capital.” After controlling for age, race, gender, and parental educational attainment, the researchers find that youth living in a high-poverty, urban neighborhoods are 50% less likely than their suburban counterparts to participate in community service activities (Hart & Atkins, 2003).

Godsey and Kawashima-Ginsberg (2012) associate regular interaction and involvement with the criminal justice system for youths in low-income communities with lower participation in civic and community activities. Lack of youth engagement in community is linked to hostility towards authority and hopelessness about having an impact on changing problems. An analysis of data from the Black Youth Project Survey (Godsey & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2012) finds that, “the act of being arrested has a negative and statistically significant impact on almost all indicators of political efficacy”.

Policy Review Passed in Massachusetts, An Act Relative to Student Access to Educational Services and Exclusion from School, as Chapter 222 of the Acts of 2012. Provisions ensuring that students who are suspended or expelled from school continue to have an opportunity to make academic progress through educational services provided by their district or charter school. Requires principals and headmasters to create a “school-wide education service plan” for all students who are suspended or expelled for more than 10 consecutive school days, whether in or out of school, so that students have an opportunity to make academic progress. The Principal shall exercise discretion in deciding the consequence for the offense and in cases not involving possession of a controlled substance, a weapon, an assault on staff or felony charges, shall avoid using long-term suspension from school until alternatives have been tried. Non-exclusionary Alternatives: Mediation; Conflict resolution; Restorative justice; Positive intervention and supports; Probation; Detention; Saturday School; Contracting; Loss of Privileges; Restitution. To ensure there is not an overrepresentation of low-income, youth of color and youth with disabilities among those suspended from school, each year the Department of Education is required to publish the district level data, to include an analysis dis-aggregated by student status and categories to be established. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/index.html

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is the most recent version (2015) of the federal government’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Each state is required to set statewide, long-term goals and interim progress targets for improving outcomes for all students and including economically disadvantaged students, students from major ethnic and racial groups, children with disabilities, and English learners. All states must also submit an annual Civil Rights Data Collection survey that includes disaggregated data on the following: in-school suspensions; out-of-school suspensions; expulsions; school related arrests; referrals to law enforcement; allegations and reports of bullying and harassment; chronic absenteeism. https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/What-is-in-ESSA.pdf

Strategies, their effects, limitations Zeldin (2004) identifies restorative justice strategies, such as peer juries and peace circles, as antidotes to punitive discipline policies by promoting instructive and inclusive approaches. Suvall (2009) notes restorative justice approaches in schools show promise in helping to address broader issues of youth connectedness and agency within by providing youth an opportunity to resolve discipline problem and make repairs to the school community through reflection and participation in the correct action process. Such restorative approaches have the potential to increase school community safety with evidence of a positive impact on youth re-engagement and reduction in interpersonal violence rates and delinquent behaviors. There is, however, a lack of evaluation research on restorative justice curricula and best practices with the reasons cited (Nussbaum, 2018) as inconsistent implementation, as well as, lack of local, state and federal funding for development and school staff training.

Civic education advocates (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2018) also point to the need to include intercultural competence as an important component of restorative justice programming and youth re-engagement initiatives. Teaching youth of color the history of racial inequality and the systemic and structural policies and practices that act to sustain such inequalities, works to empower youth towards social action and away from internalized messages of self-blame and marginalization.

Kiesa and Vito (2018) highlight the need for youth-centered participatory approaches to help youth develop civic literacy and individual civic agency: “Democracy needs all young people to see themselves as participants and for leaders and practitioners to ensure they have received messages supporting and welcoming their participation” (P.2). Formal programs like YouthBuild and AmeriCorp, designed to provide career/vocational and civic activities, show immediate and long-term impact on youth perceptions and levels of community engagement (Godsey & Kawashima-Ginsberg, 2012). A study by Godsey and Kawashima-Ginsberg (2012) finds that graduates of these and seven other similar programs, are more likely to be employed and less likely to be arrested: “African American men who graduated from the program were more than four times as likely to have voted than their counterparts in a control group” (P.43).

Pasek et al. (2008) identified positive long-term impacts on civic engagement associated with the Student Voices program, a combination of hands-on service-learning activities and education about how political institutions address problems in local communities. In this program, students are given independence and autonomy to identify local problem(s) and to practice communicating with stakeholders and lawmakers. The use of interactive media opportunities for youth as part of civics education programming has shown initial increases in internal sense of control and sense of empowerment to affect change (Feldman et al., 2007).

Youth interviews (Evans, 2007) reveal that opportunities for decision-making and direct influence over agenda setting and action steps is closely associated with youth “sense of community”. Additionally, empowerment and agency are positively influenced when young people believe that adults and figures of authority value and act on their ideas and suggestions (Evans, 2007). Positive skill and knowledge development as well as positive self-identify are associated with youth advisories models (Roholt, VeLure, & Mueller, 2013) that include youth participation in program evaluation, civic projects and community organizing activities. A review of advisory models utilized with juvenile justice involved youth found highest rates of sustained positive civic engagement and social connectedness was associated with authentic opportunities for youth to shape policies, program design and community projects, prepare and train in civics and effective group skills, and that provided youth with multiple platforms for self-expression (Roholt, VeLure, & Mueller, 2013).

References

1. Atkins, R., & Hart, D. (2003). Neighborhoods, adults, and the development of civic identity in urban youth. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 156-164.
2. Baldi, S., Perie, M., Skidmore, D., Greenberg, E., & Hahn, C. (2001). What democracy means to ninth graders: U.S. results from the international IEA Civic Education Study. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
3. Checkoway, B., & Aldana, A. (2013). Four forms of youth civic engagement for diverse democracy. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(11), 1894-1899.
4. Evans, S. (2007). Youth Sense of Community: Voice and Power in Community Contexts. Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 6, 693–709.
5. Feldman, L., Pasek, J., Romer, D., & Jamieson, K. H. (2007). Identifying best practices in civic education: Lessons from student voices Philadelphia. American Journal of Education, 114, 75–100.
6. Fine, M., Weis, L. & Powell, L. (1997). Communities of difference: A critical look at desegregated spaces created by and for youth. In Harvard Educational Review, 67 (2), 247–284.
7. Ginwright, S. & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing, and youth development. In New Directions for Youth Development. 96, 27–46.
8. Godfrey, E. B., Santos, C. E., & Burson, E. (2019). For Better or Worse? System-Justifying Beliefs in Sixth-Grade Predict Trajectories of Self-Esteem and Behavior Across Early Adolescence. Child Development.
9. Hahn, C. (2001). Student views of democracy: The good and bad news. In Social Education, 65(7), 456–460.
10. Ispa-Landa Simone. (2017) Racial and Gender Inequality and School Discipline: Toward a More Comprehensive View of School Policy. The Southern Sociological Society.
11. Kahne, J., & Westheimer, J. (2003). Teaching democracy: What schools need to do. In Phi Delta Kappan, 85(1), 34–66.
12. Kirk, David and Robert Sampson. 2013. “Juvenile Arrest and Collateral Educational Damage in the Transition to Adulthood.” Sociology of Education 86(1):36–62.
13. Kathleen Knight Abowitz and Jason Harnish, “Contemporary Discourses of Citizenship.” Review of Educational Research 76 (2006), 653-690.
14. McFarland, D. A., & Thomas, R. J. (2006). Bowling young: How youth voluntary associations influence adult political participation. American Journal of Sociology. 71, 401-425
15. Niemi, R., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16. Rubin, Beth, C. (2007). “‘There’s Still Not Justice’: Youth Civic Identity Development Amid Distinct School and Community Contexts.” Teachers College Record 109 : 449- 481.
17. Rubin, Beth, C. (2010). “Youth Civic Identity Development in the U. S. History Course.” Social Education 74(3), pp 144–147
18. Sampson, Robert J. and John H. Laub. 1997. ‘‘A Life-Course Theory of Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency.’’ In Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency (Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 7)
19. Suvall, C. (2009). “Restorative Justice in Schools: Learning from Jena High School.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 44:547–69.
20. VeLure, R., Mueller, M. (2013) New Directions for Youth Development. Youth advisory structures: Listening to young people to support quality youth services Vol. 2013 Issue 139, p79-100. 22p.
21. http://lawyerscom.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Not-Measuring-up_-The-State-of-School-Discipline-in-Massachusetts.pdf