Transcript Document

Preventing Youth
Delinquency
Identifying School Risk &
Protective Factors
Christine A. Christle
2004
School to Prison Pipeline
School Failure
Suspension
Dropout
Delinquency
The Co$t of Incarceration
Penn State or The State Pen
It’s your money!
Risk Factors - Delinquency
Life Domains
 Individual
 Family
 School
 Community
 Peer Relations
School






Weak academics
Low school
involvement
Truancy
Suspension
Expulsion
Dropout
Weak Academics & Poverty
Exposure to print material
 Low SES - 40 hrs
 High SES - 1000 hrs
 Vocabulary skills
 Following directions

Failure Cycle
Cognitive deficits lead to
poor academic
performance
 Poor academic
performance is a strong
risk factor for delinquency

Weak Academics & Behavior
Low school achievement predicts
delinquency
 20% of students with EBD are
arrested while in school
 58% are arrested 5 years after
school
 70-87% of incarcerated youth have
LD or EBD

School Factors
3 Studies in Kentucky
747 Elementary Schools
 161 Middle Schools
 196 High Schools

Elementary School Study



Stage 1
 Correlation analysis of school
characteristics & academic achievement
Stage 2
 Regression analysis
Stage 3
 Qualitative analysis of climate in 3 HPHA &
3 HPLA schools
Ke ntuck y Ele m e ntar y School Data - 2000/2001
The Re lations hip Be tw ee n Pove r ty and Achie ve m e nt
3.000
2.000
Free & Reduced Lunch Z Scores
1.000
0.000
-4.000
-3.000
-2.000
-1.000
0.000
-1.000
-2.000
-3.000
CTBS Z Scores
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
Research Questions
1.
What specific school
characteristics are related to
academic achievement?
2.
What characteristics separate
HPHA schools from HPLA
schools?
Results Stages 1 & 2
School Characteristics Related
to Academic Achievement
Correlation
 Poverty: % of students in FRLP
- 34%
 Attendance rate: + 26%
Regression
 Together (FRLP % & ATT) 42%
Results Stage 3
Case Studies - HPHA vs HPLA








Smaller schools
Better building conditions
More adult/student interactions
More positive interactions
Higher staff morale & collegiality
Higher level of student task
engagement
More money per student
More family involvement
Suspension
Most common disciplinary
consequence in schools
 Disproportionately used
 Ethnicity, SES, gender, academic
competence
 Most at Middle School level
 Poor academic skill - strong
predictor of school exclusion

Suspension
Rates increasing
 US: steady increase over last 25
years
 Kentucky:
00-01 68,523
01-02 74,054
02-03 76,886
 Most are repeat offenders

Middle School Study



Stage 1
 Correlation analysis of school
characteristics & suspension
Stage 2
 Comparison analysis of 20 HSS & 20
LSS
Stage 3
 Qualitative analysis of climate in 4
HSS & 4 LSS
The Re lations hip Be tw e e n Pove rty and Achie ve m e nt in KY M iddle Schools for 20012002 (FRLP Pe rce ntage s and CTBS Pe rce ntile s )
3.00
2.00
FRLP z Scores
1.00
0.00
-4.000
-3.000
-2.000
0.000
-1.000
-1.00
-2.00
-3.00
CTBS z Scores
1.000
2.000
3.000
Research Questions
1.
What specific school
characteristics are related to
suspension rate?
2.
What characteristics separate
high-suspending schools from
low-suspending schools?
Results Stage 1 & 2
Characteristics Differentially Related





20 HSS 
Number of board
violations
Dropout rate
Low SES
Law violations
$tudent
$pending



20 LSS 
Attendance rate
Academic test
scores
Ethnic
background C/W
HSS and LSS Difference - Suspension
1
1
-
HSS and LSS Difference - Ethnicity
HSS and LSS Difference - Poverty
1
-
Results Stage 3
Case Studies - LSS vs HSS
Administrative Leadership
 More support for staff
 Proactive discipline
philosophy
 Teacher & Staff Behaviors
 More positive interactions
 Active teaching style

Results Stage 3
Case Studies - LSS vs HSS


Student Behaviors
 More positive interactions
 More engagement in class
Structure & Programming
 Better building condition
 More ambiance
 School-wide focus
 More school connections
Dropout
Low SES youth 2.4 X more likely
to drop out
 Suspended youth 3 X more likely
to drop out & become delinquent
 Over 80% of prison inmates are
dropouts
 1/2 of heads of households on
welfare are dropouts

High School Study



Stage 1
 Correlation analysis of school
characteristics & dropout
Stage 2
 Comparison analysis of 20 HDOS &
20 LDOS
Stage 3
 Qualitative analysis of climate in 4
HDOS & 4 LDOS
Dropout and Achie ve m e nt
14.00%
12.00%
Dropout Rate 01-02
10.00%
8.00%
Series1
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
CTBS NP Scores 01-02
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
Research Questions
1.
What specific school
characteristics are related to
dropout rate?
2.
What characteristics separate
high-dropout schools from lowdropout schools?
Current Study
School Variables







Enrollment
FRLP %
# Rule violations
# Law violations
Suspension rate
Retention rate
Expulsion rate




Ethnic
background
Attendance rate
Academic
achievement
scores
% of students
with disabilities
Results: Pending
Lessons Learned Thus Far
Resilience

Meaningful Participation
 Students
help develop dress code,
lunch menus

High Expectations
 All

students & staff (PRIDE program)
Caring Adult Relationships
 All
staff involved with students in
clubs, activities
BIG IDEA !
SCHOOL STAFF KNOW
 Problems
 Solutions
ASK THEM!
Dilemma
How can we transform this
research into practice?
Thank You
Christine A. Christle
University of Kentucky
The National Center on Education,
Disability, and Juvenile Justice