ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY

Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Scope of the policy
4. Responsibilities
5. Definitions
6. Types of behavior that are not acceptable
7. Communication
8. Training
9. Risk assessment
10. Emergency Procedures
11. Dealing effectively with violence at work
12. The informal stage
13. The formal stage
14. Options for formal action
15. Debriefing
16. Post-incident Support
17. Reporting of incidents
18. Monitoring References
References:
 East London & the City Mental Health NHS Trust
 NHS Greater Peterborough Primary Care Partnership
 NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service
1.0 INTRODUCTION:
1.1 The Zero Tolerance Campaign is a nationwide initiative to tackle
violence, abuse, and illegal acts against staff working in the NHS. The
campaign was initiated by the Secretary of State for Health in 1999 and
has the full support of the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, and
the Attorney General.
1.2 Resource sheets have been developed. Of particular reference to this
Trust is “Managing Violence in Mental Health”. This document
acknowledges that the average number of violent incidents in mental
health is over three times the average in non-mental health Trusts.
2.0 BACKGROUND:
2.1 Suffolk Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust is committed to the Zero
Tolerance Campaign and has adopted the following statement.

The Trust does not accept that members of staff should be subjected to
verbal abuse or physical violence of any nature. The Trust will
encourage Police intervention and offer support to staff that has
suffered mental and/or physical trauma. Any assault on a member of
staff will be treated extremely seriously and may result in criminal
charges being bought or access to Trust sites being restricted.

“Any form of violence against our staff from any person will not be
tolerated. Violence against a person is a crime and we will press for the
maximum possible penalty for anyone who commits an assault against
our staff. We operate a policy of withholding treatment, as
appropriate, from violent and abusive patients.”
2.2 The Trust aims to prevent incidents of violence from occurring. It
recognizes that this is not always possible but strives to achieve the
lowest level possible through exerting suitable controls. The Trust
promotes the use of proactive strategies, interpersonal skills, de-
escalation, and nonphysical interventions when responding to
situations of conflict, violence, and aggression.
 2.3 When a violent incident does occur, the Trust will seek to ensure that
receives appropriate support in recovering from the effects of the
incident and in trying to prevent a recurrence. Any assault on a
member of staff will be treated extremely seriously and may result in
criminal charges being bought or access to Trust sites being restricted.
2.4 When a violent incident does occur the Trust is committed to ensuring
that incidents are correctly reported to the Counter Fraud and Security
Management Service.
2.5 The Trust is committed to cultivating good relations with local police
and their intervention will be encouraged. It is important that staff
members who are victims of or witnesses to violence in their
workplace, understand and have confidence in the criminal justice
system.
2.6 The Trust is committed to its responsibility as an employer under the
Health & Safety Act 1974 to ensure the safety of its employees, visitors,
and service users by providing safe working environments, including
the promotion of guidance that promotes the minimization of violent
incidents.
2.7 There are other Trust policies and guidelines that may have an impact
on the Zero Tolerance Policy, e.g. Prevention and Management of
Aggression Policy, Harassment and Bullying Policy, Disciplinary Policy
and Procedure, Lone worker policy, Search policy, Illicit substances
policy.
3.0 SCOPE AND POLICY:
3.1 This policy and procedure apply to all staff and workers who work for
the Trust intending to eliminate the acceptance of any type of violence
in the workplace, whether from contact with service users, relatives,
carers, or other staff or members of the public or whilst on Trust
business.
3.2 This policy has been developed to eliminate the acceptance of any type
of violence in the workplace. It could also be used by people who are
not employed by the Trust, such as students or contractors, who wish
to report violence, which arises from contact with service users,
relatives, carers, or other members of the public whilst on Trust
premises.
 3.3 The Equality Act 2010 defines nine ‘protected characteristics. These are
age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership,
pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, gender, and sexual
orientation. The Trust is committed to its responsibility as an employer
under the Equality Act to ensure that employees should not receive
less favorable treatment on these grounds.
3.4 This policy should be read in conjunction with the Trust’s Equal
Opportunities Policy. Violence against staff on these or any other
grounds is completely unacceptable and will be dealt with under this
policy.
3.5 This policy should also be read in conjunction with the following
policies and guidelines:
 Prevention and Therapeutic Management of Aggression and Violence
Policy,
 Harassment and Bullying Policy,
 Disciplinary Policy and Procedure,
 Lone worker policy,
 Search policy,
 Illicit substances policy,
 Whistleblowing Policy.
NB: These are the most important policies and are not an exhaustive list of
policies that should be referenced.
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES:
4.1 The responsibilities given below are not intended to be exclusive or
exhaustive.
4.2 The Chief Executive is responsible for:
 Ensuring the health and safety of all staff at risk from violence
and abuse; ensuring that this policy is effective; advising the
Trust Board on performance in managing violence and
aggression in the workplace.
4.3 The Risk Manager is responsible for: Identifying and following protocols
in reporting incidents to the Counter; Fraud Security Management
Service.
4.4 The Environmental Performance Group will ensure:
  risk assessment, preventative and safety measures are in place
and are effective;
 monitoring and ensuring compliance with directions issued by
the Secretary of State;
 Approving and overseeing the implementation of a strategy to
tackle violence and aggression in SMHP.
4.5 Managers are responsible for:
 ensuring that staff are aware of this policy and understand the
methods and timing of reporting incidents;
 identifying appropriate training for staff and ensuring that
training is available in appropriate techniques for dealing with
incidents of violence, abuse, and aggression;
 taking all reported incidents of violence at work seriously;
 providing immediate support to staff who experience abusive,
violent, or aggressive incidents by listening to the account of the
incident and discussing with the member of staff the options to
them;
 ensuring that staff understand the methods and timing of
reporting;
 ensuring that incident report forms are completed as fully as
possible for all reported incidents of violence within 24 hours;
 supporting and debriefing staff following aggressive incidents;
 informing senior managers/supervisors;
 Conducting environmental risk assessments.
4.5.1 The environment where staff work, patients are treated and
members of the public visit can have a significant influence on
behavior. Managers must assess environmental factors such as
cleanliness, lighting, temperature, staff provision, control of
access, and signage. This should aim to ensure that the
physical features of a place do not trigger or exacerbate a
stressful situation.
 4.6 Staff (at all levels) are responsible for:
 ensuring that they understand and comply with the
requirements of this policy;
 attending appropriate training and applying principles learned in
the workplace;
 reporting all incidents of violence when they occur correctly;
 ensuring that they do not put themselves or their colleagues at
risk of violence intentionally or unintentionally;
 Support colleagues who have been the victim of a violent
incident or witnessed it;
 Co-operate fully in any subsequent investigation of an incident
and take appropriate steps to protect themselves or others in
line with the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 and Professional
Codes of Conduct.
4.7 Trade Union / Health and Safety representatives are responsible for:
 Supporting their members in reporting cases of violence;
 Providing ongoing support to their members who experience
abusive, violent, or aggressive incidents;
 Monitoring incidents across the Trust through the Risk
Management forum.
5.0 DEFINITIONS:
5.1 Definition of Violence:
 Violence is defined as the application of force, serious abuse, or
severe threat, which is judged likely to turn into actual violence.
 The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) defines violence at work
as “any incident in which an employee is abused, threatened or
assaulted in circumstances relating to their work.”
5.2 Definition of Aggression:
 Aggression is defined as behavior that is hostile, destructive,
and/or violent.
5.3 Definition of Assault:
 There are two clear legally based definitions of assault for the
NHS.
  Physical assault is defined as “the intentional application of force
to the person of another, without lawful justification, resulting in
physical injury or personal discomfort”.
 No physical assault has defined as the use of inappropriate
words or behavior causing distress and/or constituting
harassment. This can include the use of actions or words in such
a way as to coerce the victim to make him or her feel
uncomfortable, fearful, or unsafe.
6.0 THE BEHAVIOR THAT ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE:
6.1 Examples of behaviors that are not acceptable on Trust premises or
when staff elsewhere on Trust business, including patients’ homes and
other places where services are provided:
 assault or threatening behavior;
 threatening or abusive language involving excessive swearing or
offensive remarks;
 derogatory racial or sexual remarks;
 malicious allegation relating to members of staff, other patients,
or visitors
 Offensive sexual gestures or behaviors;
 inappropriately consuming alcohol on our premises;
 use, possession, or supply of illegal drugs;
 wilful damage to Trust property;
 theft ;
 threatening behavior;
 Violence.
7.0 COMMUNICATION:
7.1 Where necessary, the Trust will invest in methods of communication,
which will facilitate safe working practices, e.g. the use of two-way
radios, mobile telephones, silent alarms linked to telephone
switchboards
7.2 The Trust will ensure that the standards of behavior expected of
patients/clients and their relatives, careers, and visitors are publicized
in patient care areas and other places accessed by the public. SMHPT
Zero Tolerance Policy (HR21) Page 8 of 15 Final Version (January 2011).
 7.3 Written information about the Trust’s Zero Tolerance Policy will be
made available for staff who work with patients/clients in their homes
or on other premises to give out when necessary.
7.4 The Trust is committed to ensuring that all staff who work with
individuals in their homes or other premises who may exhibit signs of
aggression or violence have an understanding of strategies used in the
prevention of such behaviors.
7.5 All staff are responsible for their own verbal and non-verbal
communication behaviors and should be aware of the effect that their
communication and interpersonal style may have on an individual with
whom they are in contact.
7.6 All staff should be aware of the communication behaviors of an
individual with whom they are working as these behaviors may indicate
escalating risk to personal safety.
8.0 TRAINING:
8.1 Relevant staff employed within the Trust will have full access to
applicable training, including refresher training.
8.2 Examples of applicable training include personal safety, breakaway, de-
escalation techniques, and control and restraint training. The Trust will
ensure that relevant staff receives training annually in the management
of violence and aggression. Particular attention should be given to:
 training in interpersonal skills, personal safety, prevention of
violence, and appropriate assessment of risk; ensuring that the
training is appropriate to the context in which the individual
works and is provided by experts;
 making provision for line managers to receive the same training
as their team, to ensure consistency of approach
 Ensuring regular refresher training is available.
8.3 Managers will receive training in how to deal with violent incidents and
conduct risk assessments.
8.4 The Education and Training Department will maintain a register of
training of what training is available and who has received training.
Managers will be required to keep local records.
9.0 RISK ASSESSMENT:
9.1 Environmental Risk Assessments will be carried out by the manager of
the area on an annual basis, or when circumstances change
significantly or when requested. Risk Assessments will be subject to a
Risk Management audit. SMHPT Zero Tolerance Policy (HR21) Page 9 of
15 Final Version (January 2011)
9.2 Post-Incident Risk Assessments are to be completed following any
serious incident, or upon request, to prevent any re-occurrence of the
incident.
10.0 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES:
10.1 Staff employed within the Trust must be aware of the emergency
procedure to be followed in the event of a violent or aggressive
incident. This would include summoning help in the form of a 999 call.
11.0 DEALING EFFECTIVELY WITH VIOLENCE AT WORK:
11.1 This policy incorporates both the informal and formal procedures for
dealing with incidents of violence against staff.
11.2 Incidents of violence reported by staff will be dealt with as speedily
as possible. Incidents must always be reported to the manager of the
ward or service and an incident form completed and sent to the Risk
Management Department.
11.3 Managers will ensure that the ensuing investigation will be thorough,
impartial, and objective and carried out with sensitivity, in a no
confrontational way with respect for the rights of all parties. Managers
should receive appropriate training and guidance on conducting
investigations to ensure uniformity across the Trust.
11.4 Managers must make it clear to staff that any report of violence may
be acted upon, to protect staff, in line with the Trust’s responsibilities
under health and safety and employment law. However, managers
should be sensitive to the situation and recognize that the member of
staff may have anxieties that any resultant action could worsen the
situation. Ideally, the member of staff and the manager should agree
on a course of action, which may include the involvement of the police.
The member of staff must be kept informed throughout the
proceedings, whilst maintaining service user confidentiality.
12.0 THE INFORMAL STAGE:
 12.1 Depending on the seriousness of the violent or aggressive behavior,
it may be sufficient for the member of staff to raise the problem with
the abuser by pointing out the unacceptable behavior, showing this
policy to them, and asking them to sign to state they understand the
possible ramifications should they persist in this behavior.
12.2 Staff should avoid confrontation if possible, and should seek to bring
any confrontation to a safe conclusion. Any incident of violence that
occurs should be documented in the client’s/patient’s notes and via the
Trust’s incident reporting system. SMHPT Zero Tolerance Policy (HR21)
Page 10 of 15 Final Version (January 2011)
12.3 It should always be reported to a senior member of staff but staff
members should be mindful of the differing perceptions staff may have
to a variety of potentially violent situations. The Trust expects the line
managers and colleagues to be supportive of their staff.
13.0 THE FORMAL STAGE:
13.1 The formal stage of the Policy can be used when:
 incidents consistently occur over some time;
 the informal stage has failed;
 It is decided that a detailed investigation needs to take place; the
formal stage of the Policy should be used when violence is more
serious. This can include incidents of assaults, threats, and verbal
abuse.
13.2 Assaults
In the event of an assault, the Duty Senior Nurse/Senior Manager will
consider the following:
 Is it an incident that caused death or serious injury or was life as
defined in the Trust’s Serious Untoward incident policy? If so
please refer to the Trust’s ‘Serious Untoward Incident (SUI)
Policy and ‘Adverse Incident Policy’;
 Was the assailant deemed responsible for their actions? If so, it
should be reported to the Police. All assaults should be
considered for referral to the Police;
 If the assailant is not deemed responsible for their actions, the
necessary immediate action to maximize a safe environment
should be identified and implemented;
  If the assailant is a user of the service, and their medical history
is unclear with regards to their mental state and diagnosis then
at the earliest opportunity, the RMO should be asked for an
opinion and then decide on how to proceed;
 Ensure the victim’s safety and refer to an appropriate physician,
e.g. GP or A & E;  Consult with the victim’s manager and discuss
appropriate professional support/counseling.
13.3 Threats and Verbal Abuse
13.3.1 Involving visitors to Trust sites
 In the event of verbal abuse and/or threats to staff, then
the abuser should be asked to leave the premises.
 The use of a security to assist in this request should be
considered and if appropriate, the assistance of the
police should be sought. SMHPT Zero Tolerance Policy
(HR21) Page 11 of 15 Final Version (January 2011)
 The incident should be documented and referred to the
management, for a decision as to whether or not the
abuser should be banned from the site.
 Depending on the severity of the violent incident, a
detailed investigation should be carried out by an
appropriate manager (please refer to the Trust’s ‘Serious
Untoward Incident (SUI) Policy and ‘Adverse Incident
Policy’).
13.3.2 Involving Service Users
 The incident should be documented and referred to a
senior manager, so a decision on further action should
be determined.
 Depending on the severity of the violent incident, a
detailed investigation should be carried out by an
appropriate manager (please refer to the Trust’s ‘Serious
Untoward Incident (SUI) Policy and ‘Adverse Incident
Policy’).
 When deciding on further action the Duty Senior
Nurse/Senior Manager will consider the following:
 o the degree to which the incident undermines
personal dignity, relationship with the service
users, and the working climate;
o any record of previous incidents; their nature and
degree of severity;
o the effectiveness of options for formal action (see
section 14 of this policy) in preventing the
repetition of the behavior, for example, the health
problem of the user will need to be taken into
account;
o the effects on the member of staff;
o the degree of risk of harm to members of staff;
o How vulnerable the service user is. The Trust has a
duty of care to clients and must provide
emergency treatment;
o Whether the user is detained under a section of
the mental health act (1983). If they are, the trust
cannot withdraw services, but should transfer the
users to an alternate environment, depending on
the severity of the incident;
o If the abuser is a service user, are they can control
and understand his or her actions?
13.3.3 There may be more complex situations such as where a
patient under the Trust’s care in the community is involved in
an incident at other Trust premises as a visitor. Such incidents
require careful handling and joint working with other Trust
services.

14.0 OPTIONS FOR FORMAL ACTIONS:

14.1 Changing the level of care or the way it is provided:
 It may be appropriate, if the abuser is a service user, for the
clinical team, with advice from senior management, to work with
 the user to develop a contract or care plan, setting clear
standards for behavior. If the standards are not met, the user
should understand that services might be withdrawn. The
contract and any breaches should be cleared.
 Alternatively, it may be decided that where or how services are
provided to the user changes. For instance, a user who is treated
in his or her home by a lone worker may be asked to come into a
health center or clinic for treatment.
 It may be decided that a high level of care is required for the
user, for instance by transferring the user from an admission
ward to a more secure setting. If a user refuses services on racial
or other discriminatory grounds, they should be informed that
they are effectively refusing services altogether.
 It would not be acceptable to provide the user with a different
member of staff unless specifically requested to do so by the
member of staff experiencing harassment.
14.2 Service users who behave in an unreasonable manner unacceptable
to the Trust
 In extreme circumstances service users who behave in any
unreasonable manner, e.g. physical, and/or verbal abuse of a
discriminatory nature e.g. racial or sexual, or may pose a danger
to themselves, staff, and the wider public.
 When reviewing the care provided to these individuals, the
multidisciplinary team must take into account the service user’s
mental health state and the Trust’s Zero Tolerance policy. The
“Zero tolerance decision tree” in Appendix A describes the
process to be followed.
 It may be appropriate to restrict access to part or all Trust
services or sites for a fixed time. The “zero-tolerance decision
tree” in Appendix A should also be used for this purpose.
14.3 Legal action:
 In the event of criminal prosecution because of violent or
aggressive acts, staff will be guided through the process with
appropriate legal and managerial support. SMHPT Zero
 Tolerance Policy (HR21) Page 13 of 15 Final Version (January
2011).
 A member of staff or the Trust on their behalf, who has been
subject to harassment or violence by a service user has the right
to report the incident to the Police with a view to criminal
prosecution or failing that civil proceeding. To demonstrate a
zero-tolerance culture in the workplace, the Trust expects that
serious incidents should be routinely reported to the police. In
addition, recognizes the pivotal role that clinicians have in
supporting staff.
 The Trust will co-operate fully with the Police and Crown
Prosecution Service in the event of possible or actual criminal
proceedings of a member of staff, during the course in
connection with, his or her unlawful conduct of another person.
Co-operation will include providing administrative support,
access to relevant health records where the appropriate and
permissible, provision of paid time off either to prepare for a
court hearing or submit a compensation claim and reasonable
time off work for colleagues where they would act as necessary
legal witnesses in a case.
 If a member of staff suffers injury because of a crime, then he or
she may make Claymation to the Criminal Injuries Compensation
Authority. They may also make a civil claim for compensation.
The Trust will co-operate fully with any reasonable request for
support by a member of staff who makes such a claim following
the injury sustained during, or otherwise in connection with, his
or her employment.
 In exceptional circumstances, it may be appropriate for the Trust
to undertake injunction proceedings against a person that
threatens abuse of violence and is causing real concern to its
staff about their or other service users’ safety.
14.4 In the event of a member of staff wishing to take civil action against
an individual outside of Trust processes, the staff is requested to keep
their manager and the HR department informed. Staff is advised to
seek advice from the Citizen Advice Bureau.
15.0 DEBRIEFING:
15.1 It is vital thStaff must havhavens debriefing following incidents of
violence as soon as practicable afterward to address some of the issues
that may have been raised or concerns highlighted. It is acknowledged
that some clinical areas have procedures and support structures in
place for debriefing. SMHPT Zero Tolerance Policy (HR21) Page 14 of 15
Final Version (January 2011)
15.2 Debriefing aims to encourage staff groups to review their practices
and identify their strengths and areas for improvement and the
approaches they used to manage the incidents. The exercise supports
the principles of peer review and learning from mistakes, and may
illuminate training needs, ideas for change toward routine, or
suggestions for changes to existing policy and procedures.
15.3 A debrief can be initiated by:
 the duty nurse responding to the incident;
 the appointment senior member of staff on duty;
 The individual’s line manager.
16.0 POST-INCIDENT SUPPORT:
16.1 The Trust recognizes that violence and aggression can have a serious
impact on the health and work performance of staff. In the first
instance, managers should provide support to their staff empathic and
take appropriate prompt action, on the member of staff’s behalf, to
deal with the incident.
16.2 Support and counseling will be routinely offered to staff as soon as
possible following an aggressive or violent incident.
16.3 The manager should consider sympathetically requests for transfer
by an affected member(s) of staff.
16.4 In some circumstances, other service users may have witnessed the
incident and may need specific support. The manager should take
responsibility for ensuring that this support is provided as soon as
possible after the incident.
16.5 Managers should always consider allowing a staff member to be
excused from duties to recover from an incident. Each incident should
be examined on its own merits and account should be taken of the
nature of the incident, the individual staff member and their reaction
 to the incident as well as the client involved. Managers should ensure
that this option is made fully available to staff but that some members
of staff may prefer not to be relieved from duties and this should be
respected. Managers should still ensure that this option remains open
to staff in the medium term should any circumstance change.
17.0 REPORTING OF INCIDENTS:
17.1 Under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases, and Dangerous
Occurrences Regulation 1995, the Trust must report all incidents of
violence using the Trust incident form.
17.2 All incidents of violence, aggression, or abuse must be recorded on
the Trust Incident Form (RM1) by the Trust’s incident reporting
systems, and the ‘Serious and Untoward Incident Policy and SMHPT
Zero Tolerance Policy (HR21) Page 15 of 15 Final Version (January 2011)
Procedure’. The incident form must be completed as soon after the
event as possible, or by the end of the shift, to ensure accuracy. Staff
should ensure that relevant factors such as alcohol or drug abuse,
medication issues, etc., are recorded.
17.3 A note of an incident involving a patient must be recorded in the
patient’s record and the care plan reviewed as appropriate.
17.4 The Estates, Environment, Health and Safety Governance Committee
monitors incidents of violence.
17.5 Incidents will be reported to Service Managers and Directors who will
receive a quarterly breakdown of the incidents within the service. The
executive Directors, Human Resources, and Staff Side coordinator will
also receive a report every six months showing all reported incidents of
violence within the Trust
18.0 MONITORING:
18.1 The effectiveness of this policy will be monitored by the Risk
Management Forum regularly, and the Board will receive regular
reports on the nature, type, and consequences of incidents.

(IN)TOLERABLE ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY

Author: Sean L. Dickerson, M.A.

University: University of South Florida

Contents:
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Public Development
4. Disproportionality
5. Policy Consequences
6. Considering Alternative Solutions
7. Conclusions
8. References
1. ABSTRACT:
The spread of zero-tolerance policies for school-based scenarios flourished under
President William J. Clinton who wanted to close a loophole in the Guns-Free
School Zones Act of 1990. Expansion in the coverage of zero-tolerance policy to
offenses outside the initial scope of weapon and drug offenses has led to a
disproportional ratio of African American students and students with disabilities
being excluded from schools through punitive measures including suspensions,
expulsions, and in many cases, referral to law enforcement agencies. The buck
must stop with school administrators; they are in the unique position of
determining how discipline matters escalate at the point of interaction with the
student. Alternatives to the zero-tolerance policy are suggested based on a
review of relevant literature.

2. INTRODUCTION:
Stories on the over-application of zero-tolerance school policies for student
behaviors that have typically been characterized as expressions of youthful
mischievousness are innumerable. Case in point, Andrew, a 14-year-old freshman
from Virginia decides to entertain himself during a lunch period by launching
small plastic pellets from a tube at other students; spit-balling (Sieff, 2011). While
Andrew’s peers find it to be an annoyance, a faction of school officials determine
Andrew has fashioned a projectile weapon to intimidate, threaten, or harm
others. In the name of zero tolerance, Andrew is expelled from school for the
remainder of the school year for possession of a weapon, and a deputy sheriff is
called to the school to place Andrew under arrest. The charge? Three counts of
misdemeanor assault. Internal email correspondence between school officials
shows escalating language in the description of events. Plastic pellets become B-
B’s and the plastic ink pen casing is now a metal tube. The principal stands firm on
their position and explains the need for the harshness of the penalty as a measure
to protect students from those who pose a threat to the learning environment.
Andrew’s situation reverberates throughout school districts across the country.
To operate to the letter of the law for the protection of the learning environment,
school administrators are liberally applying zero-tolerance penalties to situations
where other alternatives are more effective. Their behavior of Andrew does
warrant a disciplinary response from the administration. Calling in law
enforcement to arrest Andrew for misdemeanor assault is absurd and over the
top in the use of the zero-tolerance policy. A safe learning environment is 2
http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/ something everyone wants for their student and
other students. However, how punishments in the name of zero tolerance are
being doled out to students for minor offenses exhibits negative impacts on the
student, the school, and the community as a whole. School administrators must
place a moratorium on the application of zero-tolerance policies. The policy of
zero tolerance is designed to address a specific set of circumstances involving
drugs and weapons at school. Along the way, the policy has expanded to include
offenses like Andrew’s and other infractions including disrespect, tardiness to
school, doodling on desks, and many other minor infractions. This paper aims to
trace the development of the zero-tolerance policy and the escalation in its broad
application. Embedded within the application of zero-tolerance discipline is the
issue of disproportionality. While policy language emphasizes equality,
researchers point out the existence of disparities showing African American males
are especially targeted for the harsher discipline practices of zero tolerance. The
disparities in policy over the application for African American males lead to
disparities supporting academic underachievement through loss of instructional
hours, dropout rates, and school-to-prison pipeline dialogue. School
administrators are on the front lines in addressing the use of zero-tolerance
punishment and this paper ends with suggestions on alternative solutions that
can be implemented in schools to replace the harsh extremes for minor offenses.
3. PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT:
Zero tolerance policy emerged from the Federal Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) of
1994. Preceding the GFSA were the Safe and Drug-Free School and Communities
Act of 1986 and the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The Gun-Free Schools Act
of 1990 made it illegal for an unlicensed individual to possess a firearm on school
property. A person caught possessing a firearm on school property would be fined
$5,000, and jailed for up to 5 years or
both (18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(4)). The constitutionality of the Act was challenged by
Alfonso Lopez, Jr. from Texas. In particular, the question was whether Congress
had the authority to limit how commerce operated around public schools. Alfonso
Lopez, Jr. was a senior at Edison High School in San Antonio, TX. On March 10,
1992, he carried a concealed, unloaded .38 caliber gun to school along with five
cartridges of ammunition to sell to another individual for $40. Upon being
confronted by school officials through anonymous tips, Lopez, Jr. admitted he had
the firearm and was subsequently charged with violating the Gun-Free School
Zones Act. After being convicted in the trial court, Lopez, Jr. appealed to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals where the original decision was reversed. The United
States Government brought the case to the U.S. Supreme Court in United States
v. Lopez (514 U.S. 549 115 S. Ct. 1624) where the court affirmed the Court of
Appeals decision in a 5-4 vote. While this case was essentially about the power of
Congress to legislate commerce in and around public school property, a clear gap
was left exposed in how guns could make their way onto school grounds. On the
heels of the Supreme Court decision, President William J. Clinton wrote a letter to
Congress on May 10, 1995, expressing his concern with the decision and outlined
the forthcoming Gun-Free School Zones Amendments Act of 1995 (Clinton, 1995).
The amendments closed loopholes of the original act by removing issues related
to commerce and 3 http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/ putting the onus on the
individuals’ knowledge of possessing a firearm on school grounds as the primary
factor for conviction under the new law. The amendments were added, approved,
and signed into law as the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1995. Keeping guns and drugs
off of school grounds was the expressed purpose of GFSA. Following the
legislation, guidance was provided to schools by Assistant Secretary Thomas W.
Payzant from the U. S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, which outlined the responsibilities of the state and local
educational agencies as it relates to the GFSA. States receiving federal funds were
obligated to have a law in place by October 20, 1995, which required schools to
expel students for a minimum of one year for bringing weapons or drugs to
school. States scrambled to address the directive of the new legislation to limit
the interruption of state funds supporting education. In Florida, the first zero-
tolerance discipline law was enacted in 1997 and was rewritten three times by
2002 (ACLU, 2011). In Spring 2009, the language of the zero-tolerance legislation
was once again amended to exclude offenses considered to be “petty disciplinary
infractions”. The Office of Safe Schools within the Florida Department of
Education has guidelines on its website by which educational agencies are to
operate within. Explicitly written in the policy language is both the intent and
expectation of how the policy is meant to apply in school environments.
Acknowledgment is made by the Florida Legislature that the promotion of safe
schools for students and staff is a priority as is the equal application of the policy
for students “regardless of their economic status, race, or disability” (Florida DOE
website). Specific changes to the Florida zero-tolerance policy through Senate Bill
1540 in the spring of 2009 were: (1) Schools are encouraged to handle petty
disciplinary practices in a way that does not include the intervention of law
enforcement. (2) Schools are encouraged to apply alternative solutions such as
restorative justice. (3) Equal application of zero-tolerance policy to eliminate the
discipline disparity is addressed. (4) Students are to be looked at in total rather
than applying a one size fits all solution. (5) Due process for the student is made
available whereas only those students expelled had that option previously. (6)
Corporal punishment policies are to be reviewed every 3 years at a school board
meeting with public testimony (ACLU, 2011). Changes in policy language at both
the federal and state level have primarily been words of guidance except for the
mandate for expulsion in cases where drugs or guns are involved. The final say in
the application of zero tolerance is the responsibility of the school administrator
at the point of action; when the behavior of the student necessitates a response.
By the written policy using language such as encourage, authority is relinquished
to local educational agencies for the expressed purpose of determining under
which scenario disciplinary penalties are to be applied. By zero-tolerance policy,
schools are encouraged to consider whether or not the behaviors of students
warrant punishment from the least severe such as a warning to the severest of
penalties leading up to and including expulsion and the involvement of law
enforcement personnel. It is important to note, that however eloquent and
respectful the written language of the policy intent is, the application of zero-
tolerance policy will continue to fall short of equality and equity measures as
offenses that fall outside of the mandated actions are subjective at best (Flannery,
Fenning, Kato, & Bohanon, 2011; Walker, 4 http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/ 2012)
or racially biased at worst (McNeal & Dunbar, 2010; Verdugo, 2002).
Discrepancies in how administrators interpret and handle the subjective aspects
of student behavior increase the disproportionality when suspension and
expulsion data are looked at in totality.
4. DISPROPORTIONALITY:
Zero tolerance is contrary to the best educational practices. Zero tolerance
policies set equal expectations on an already unequal playing field, reject the
developmental needs of children, deny educational opportunities by contributing
to dropouts, produce poor achievement, and criminalize student behavior.
(Reyes, 2006, p. 8) Research has continued to point out the ongoing
disproportionality in the application of and consequences of relatinzero-tolerance
range policies (Carter, Fine, & Russell, 2014; Fenning & Rose, 2007; Gregory &
Mosley, 2004; Hoffman, 2014; Losen & Skiba, 2010). Bethe for implementation of
the zero-tolerance policy, the historical “unequal playing field” Reyes (2006)
describes is highlighted in the Children’s Defense Fund (1975) report, School
Suspensions: Are They Helping Children? The report looked at suspensions of
students by race across 2,862 school districts for the 1972-1973 school year in
elementary and secondary schools. Findings showed Black students were twice as
likely as their White counterparts to be suspended at least once. Even then, there
was evidence to suggest something more was happening in the application of
disciplinary measures amongst students. Fast-forward almost 40 years after that
Children’s Defense Fund report and we can see much of the same discrepancies
within schools related to discipline. And although Black students are typically a
smaller percentage of schools’ enrollments, Black students make up the majority
of the students suspended and expelled from school (Gregory & Mosley, 2004).
Hoffman (2012) zeroed in on the effects of the zero-tolerance policy before and
after implementation and the policy’s contribution to the racial disparity using
data from the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). Suspension
percentage for a Black student in a public high school increased “from 37% in
1999 to 49% in 2007, compared to a slight decline in the rate for White students,
from 18.2% in 1999 to 17.7% in 2007” (p. 71). Skiba, Michael, Nardo, and
Peterson (2002) revealed that even when the factor of socioeconomic status is
controlled for; Black students still represent the majority of suspensions and
expulsions compared to other races. The propensity of local educational agencies
to apply harsher disciplinary measures toward marginalized populations shows
policy alone will not change the direction of the trend that has been occurring in
educational institutions. Research has shown how some of the more vulnerable
populations within schools have been subjected to the wrath of zero-tolerance
policies even when laws are in place to protect them (Brown, 2012; Losen &
Martinez, 2013). In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA)
was passed by Congress, eventually becoming known as the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which had the purpose of providing students
with disabilities the right to receive a free and appropriate public education.
Before the passage of EAHCA, students were excluded by the millions. When they
were included, discipline was used as a tool to exclude those deemed unable to
be served by the existing structural educational offerings due to the students’
needs and the difficulties that came with serving them (Honing v. Doe, 1988). As
part of the 1997 amendment of IDEA, parents were 5
http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/ provided procedural protections and the aspects of
due process to challenge actions taken by schools to exclude students from school
using suspension and expulsion as a tool (Rothstein & Johnson, 2014). This was
especially important, as students with special needs could not be suspended or
expelled under IDEA if the offending behavior was a manifestation of their specific
disability. Before this amendment, once the administration had removed the
student from the school, parents had very little recourse in getting educational
services for their child. In the 2004 reauthorization of the 1997 version of IDEA,
more authority was given to schools in the area of discipline removals due to
accountability measures of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Brown, 2012;
McCarthy & Soodak, 2007). Policy language changed to favor schools. Where the
language around disproving the students’ behavior was not a manifestation of
their disability was more rigid and inflexible under the previous version of IDEA,
the newer language provides “fewer and less specific” (Brown, 2012, p. 821)
conditions by which schools need to adhere to. Parents are required to take a
more active role in documenting the needs of their child for schools and be able
to show how the school is not meeting those needs under the IDEA due process
provision. The task of outlining the educational needs of a child with special needs
is an onerous responsibility for those parents ill-equipped with the resources or
knowledge to evaluate the child, then articulate to and hold accountable the
school for not meeting those needs is one that may fall outside the skill set of
many parents. The results of the shift in language can be seen in the data, as
“students covered under IDEA are over twice as likely to receive one or more out-
of-school suspensions” (Office of Civil Rights, 2012).
5. POLICY CONSEQUENCES:
Zero-tolerance policies were developed to eradicate the perceptions of schools
being drug-ridden, violence-induced environments unfit for quality learning to
happen. Even though the statistical likelihood of a student being killed in school is
less than 1 in 1 million (Austin, 2003), massive school shootings like the
Columbine High School shooting in 1999 and the more recent event at Sandy
Hook Elementary School in 2012 serve as tragic reminders of the level of
destruction that can terrorize a community on a large scale and the vulnerabilities
of educational institutions. Reaction to both incidents heated the debate on
issues of gun control with Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president for the
National Rifle Association (NRA) responding to critics through a highly publicized
press address where he called for the expansion of armed guards in schools to
protect children (NY Times, 2012). Surely some may not be as boisterous as
LaPierre but empathize with his position just the same. Similarly, some
vehemently disagree with LaPierre’s position of armed guards being the
appropriate solution to warding off future tragedies. For many, solutions like
LaPierre’s increase the likelihood those students already overrepresented in the
disproportionality of zero-tolerance policy enforcement will add to the number of
students going from the schoolhouse to the jailhouse. Referring offending
students to law enforcement agencies for weapons and drug violations while on
school grounds is a reasonably clear directive in circumstances of imminent
danger and threats to the safety of students and school personnel. However, the
literature notes only a small percentage of infractions are comprised of weapons
and drug-related offenses while the majority of offenses are categorized as
defiance, disobedience, insubordination, and other infractions considered more
subjective than explicit (Duran, Zhou, Frew, Kwok, & Benz, 2011; Flannery, et 6
http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/ al., 2011; Hall & Karanxha, 2012; Losen, Hewitt, &
Toldson, 2014; Mendez & Knoff, 2003). Many students are being introduced to
the justice system through a pipeline leading directly from the school to a
succession of bad decisions, which lead them further into the depths of the
judicial system. Attorney General Eric Holder remarked during his speech at the
Department of Justice and Department of Education school discipline guidance
rollout that far too many students across the country are diverted from the path
to succeed by unnecessarily harsh discipline policies and practices that exclude
them from school for minor infractions. During critical years that are proven to
impact a student’s later chances for success, alarming numbers of young people
are suspended, expelled, or even arrested for relatively minor transgressions like
school uniform violations, schoolyard fights, or showing “disrespect” by laughing
in class (U.S. Department of Justice, 2014, para. 3). Walker’s (2012) study of nine
African American males offered several insights from the group of youth ranging
in age from 14-17 years old, one of the themes prevalent in the dialogue was
desensitization to the juvenile justice system once they had overcome their initial
fears. Growing accustomed to the conditions of the environment, the youth were
less concerned with the consequence of being sent back if the situation
warranted it. Primarily in urban school districts, youth are given clues as to the
perceived safety of the school environment by the presence of school resource
officers (often law enforcement personnel), metal detectors, and surveillance
cameras to keep students safe (Hall & Karanxha, 2012). In contrast to the
expectation of perceived safety, McNeal and Dunbar (2010) provided research
from the perspective of students in urban school districts whom these advanced
measures are in place to protect that directly contradicts safety discussions.
Findings from the study illuminate concerns from students of inadequate security,
quality of security services, and lack of consistency in policy enforcement. Tales of
security personnel (school resource officers) befriending the students known for
getting in trouble, understaffing of security personnel due to budget cuts, and lack
of training offered to the personnel present potential problems for those in and
around the school as situations can quickly escalate. Urban schools with metal
detectors are sometimes faulty at best or not working at all leaving security
personnel or teachers to check bags as students enter. According to Sonya, “Bags
are simply often given a quick look-see, and students are told to move on (McNeal
& Dunbar, 2010, p. 304). Haphazard measures such as these neither deter those
who look to be offenders nor make safe the environment in which the measures
are implemented. Criminalization of student behavior has also played a key role in
supporting the school-to-prison pipeline (Giroux, 2003; Rocque & Paternoster,
2011) due in large part to the expansion of zero-tolerance policies. “(Z)zero-
tolerance policy attempts to prevent violence by punishing young people because
of their potential for violence and their displayed dangerousness” (Casella, 2003,
p. 875). Aligning with the general trend in policing tactics towards the latter part
of the 20th century from punishing past crimes to the use of incarceration as a
preventative tactic for the potential of future violations from offenders. Local
education agencies have strategically adopted this method under the guise of a
zero-tolerance policy to the detriment of students and the overall school
environment as this method does not prove to be successful in deterring students
(American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008) or
empowering school 7 http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/ personnel to respond to
behaviors appropriately (Bon, Faircloth, & LeTendre, 2006; Brownstein, 2009;
Rabile & Irizarry, 2010; Gonsoulin, Zablocki, & Leone, 2012).
6. CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS:
For all of the documented outcomes associated with the implementation of zero-
tolerance policies in schools, a statistic that should concern everyone interested
in the education of generations of students is the academic underperformance of
those students suspended or expelled from school. At the school administrator
level, providing every student with a quality education to ensure they are better
global citizens prepared for what the future holds should be the absolute priority.
Arica (2006) as cited in Gregory, Skiba, and Noguera (2010) followed two cohorts
of students over two years, one cohort consisted of students who had been
suspended at least once, and the other cohort was comprised of students who
had never been suspended to that point and the results were telling. At the end
of year 1, students that were suspended at least one time were three grade levels
behind their peer cohort in reading. After year 2, the suspended cohort was
almost five years behind their peers. When students are disproportionally
removed from school environments even for a short time, research shows the
underachievement that can occur leads to increased chances of those individuals
not graduating on time or simply dropping out altogether (Brownstein, 2010;
Villarruel & Dunbar, 2006). Identifying solutions school administrators can utilize
to address the gaps zero-tolerance policies have left is the right thing to do for the
students, the school environment, and communities that are also directly
impacted by the disproportionalities in the policy application. Alternative
solutions are being implemented successfully in a myriad of school districts across
the country (Reyes, 2014). In Florida’s sixth-largest school district, Broward
County, Superintendent Robert Runice has put a moratorium on the use of zero-
tolerance punishments for minor infractions. As opposed to calling in law
enforcement personnel for non-violent offenses, the procedure is to refer
offending students to social workers and drug abuse counselors as needed. The
positive results are noticeable. A drop in suspensions, expulsions, and arrests by
66 percent, 55 percent, and 45 percent respectively has been realized for the
school district (Reyes, 2014). Bringing in counselors and social workers is one
alternative for school administrators to implement as a way of addressing minor
infractions. Themes surfacing from the literature and practitioners include
violence prevention programs, positive behavioral supports, early intervention,
and personnel development strategies (ACLU, 2011; Hall & Karanxha, 2012;
Lamont, 2013; National Association of School Psychologists, 2008; Shippen,
Patterson, Green, & Smitherman, 2012; Sullivan, Dollard, Sellers, & Mayo, 2010;
U.S. Department of Education, 2014; Walker, 2012). There is no assumption every
alternative works for every school. The buck stops with the school administrators
as the responsibility to identify effective alternative solutions lies with them. In a
report issued in early 2014, the U.S. Department of Education offered three
guiding principles for schools to consider in developing local approaches to ensure
safe and successful school environments. Considering the results of research,
evaluation, and consultation throughout the educational field, the principles are:
(1) create positive climates and focus on prevention; (2) develop clear,
appropriate, and consistent expectations and consequences to address disruptive
student behaviors; and (3) ensure fairness, equity, and continuous improvement
(U.S. 8 http://nau.edu/COE/eJournal/ Department of Education, 2014). School
administrators should use these principles as a tool to develop alternative
practices that are fair and equitable for all students. In doing so, a moratorium is
placed on zero-tolerance discipline practices for the minor infractions and the
policy is reserved for its original intent, drugs, and a weapons violation
7. CONCLUSION:
Three misdemeanor assault charges and an arrest record that is the punishment
Andrew received for spit-balling at fellow students. The use of zero tolerance as a
measure to remove students from the school environment is overused and in
many cases causes irreparable damage to the potential of the student. The policy
intends to address issues of drugs and weapons on school grounds. Considering
this, a moratorium must be placed on the use of zero-tolerance discipline
practices by school administrators. In doing so, room for alternative solutions to
this tragic phenomenon is created whereby school administrators can institute
the three guiding principles offered by the U.S. Department of Education.
8. REFERENCES:
 ACLU of Florida. (2011). Still haven’t shut off the school-to-prison pipeline:
Evaluating the impact of Florida’s new zero-tolerance law. Florida.
 American Psychological Association Task Force on Zero Tolerance Policies.
(2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in schools? An evidentiary
review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63: 852-856.
 Austin, V. (2003). Fear and loathing in the classroom: A candid look at
school violence and the policies and practices that address it. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, 14, 17-22. doi:10.1177/10442073030140010301
 Bon, S. C., Faircloth, S. C., & LeTendre, G. K. (2006). The school violence
dilemma: Protecting the rights of students with disabilities while
maintaining teachers’ sense of safety in schools. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 17(3), 148-157. doi:10.1177/10442073060170030301
 Brown, T. (2012). The effects of educational policy and local context on
special education students’ experiences of school removal and transition.
Educational Policy, 26(6), 813-844. doi:10.1177/0895904811417589
Brownstein, R. (2009, Fall). Pushed Out. (Blog). Retrieved from
http://www.tolerance.org/pushed-out
 Casella, R. (2003). Zero tolerance policy in schools: Rationale,
consequences, and alternatives. Teachers College Record, 105(5), 872-892.
 Children’s Defense Fund (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping
children? Cambridge, MA: Edelman, M. W.
 Clinton, W. J. (1995, May 9). Gun-Free School Zones Amendment Act of
1995. Retrieved from
http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/DigitalLibrary/BruceReed/Crime/
76/647420-gun-freeschools.pdf
 Duran, J. B., Zhou, Q., Frew, L. A., Kwok, O., & Benz, M. R. (2011).
Disciplinary exclusion and students with disabilities: The mediating role of
social skills. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 24(1), 15-26. DOI:
10.1177/1044207311422908
 Flannery, K. B., Fenning, P., Kato, M. M., & Bohanon, H. (2011). A
descriptive study of office disciplinary referrals in high schools. Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 21(2), 138-149.
doi:10.1177/1063426611419512
 Giroux, H. A., (2003). Racial injustice and disposable youth in the age of
zero tolerance. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(4), 535-565.
 Gonsoulin, S., Zablocki, M., & Leone, P. E. (2012). Safe schools, staff
development, and the school-to-prison pipeline. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 35(4), 309-319. doi:10.1177/0888406412453470
 Gregory, A., & Mosely, P. M. (2004). The discipline gap: Teachers’ views on
the overrepresentation of African American students in the discipline
system. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37, 18-30.
 Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and
the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher,
39(1), 59-68. doi:10.302/0013189X09357621
 Hall, E. S., & Karanxha, Z. (2012). School today, jail tomorrow: The impact of
zero tolerance on the over-representation of minority youth in the juvenile
system. PowerPlay: A Journal of Educational Justice, 4(1), 1-30. Hoffman, S.
(2014). Zero benefits: Estimating the effect of zero-tolerance discipline
policies on racial disparities in school discipline. Educational Policy, 28(1),
69-95. doi:10.1177/0895904812453999
 Honing v. Doe (1988), 484 U.S. 305, 324.
 Lamont, J. H. (2013). Out of school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics,
131(3), 1000-1007. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-3932
 Losen, D., Hewitt, D., & Toldson, I. (2014). Eliminating excessive and unfair
exclusionary discipline in schools policy recommendations for reducing
disparities.
 McCarthy, M. R., & Soodak, L. C. (2007). The politics of discipline: Balancing
school safety and rights of students with disabilities. Council for Exceptional
Children, 73(4), 456-474.
 McNeal, L., & Dunbar, C. Jr. (2010). In the eyes of the beholder: Urban
student perceptions of the zero-tolerance policy. Urban Education, 45(3),
293-311. doi:10.1177/0042085910364475
 Mendez, L. R., & Knoff, R. M. (2003). Who gets suspended from school and
why: A demographic analysis of schools and disciplinary infractions in a
large school district. Education and Treatment of Children, 26(1), 30-51.
 National Association of School Psychologists. (2008). Zero tolerance and
alternative strategies: A fact sheet for educators and policymakers.
Bethesda, MD.
 NY Times. (December 21, 2012). Text of the N.R.A Speech. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/21/us/nra-news-
conference-transcript.html?_r=0
 Rabile, J., & Irizarry, J. G. (2010). Redirecting the teacher’s gaze: Teacher
education, youth surveillance and the school-to-prison pipeline. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 26, 1196-1203.
 Rausch, M. K., & Skiba, R. J. (2006). Exclusion is not the only alternative: The
children left behind the project. In Reyes, A. H. (Ed.), Discipline,
Achievement, Race: Is Zero Tolerance the Answer? (105-126). Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Education.
 Reyes, A. H. (2006). Discipline, achievement, race: Is zero tolerance the
answer? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education
 Reyes, R. (2014, February 6). Bold lesson: Florida school district swaps cops
for counselors. NBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/bold-lesson-florida-schooldistrict-
swaps-cops-counseling-n13936
 Rocque, M., & Paternoster, R. (2011). Understanding the antecedents of
the “school-to-jail” link: The relationship between race and school
discipline. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101(2), 633-665.
 Rothstein, L., & Johnson, S. F. (2014). Special Education Law (5th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
 Shippen, M. E., Patterson, D., Green, K. L., & Smitherman, T. (2012).
Community and school practices to reduce delinquent behavior:
Intervening on the school-to-prison pipeline. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 35(4), 296-308. doi:10.1177/0888406412445930
 Sieff, K. (2011, February 1). Plastic pellet incident at Va. School ends in
expulsion, and assault charges. Washington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/02/01/AR2
011020104097.html
 Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of
discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school
punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317-342.
 Sullivan, C. J., Dollard, N., Sellers, B., & Mayo, J. (2010). Rebalancing
response to school-based offenses: A civil citation program. Youth Violence
and Juvenile Justice, 8(4), 279-294. doi:10.1177/1541204009358656
 The Center for Civil Rights Remedies. (2013). Out of school & off track: The
overuse of suspensions in American middle and high schools. Los Angeles,
CA: Losen, D. J., & Martinez, T. E.
 U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Revealing new truths about our
nation’s school. Washington, DC: Office for Civil Rights.
 U.S. Department of Education. (2014). Guiding principles: A resource guide
for improving school climate and discipline. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
 U.S. Department of Justice. (2014). Attorney General Eric Holder delivers
remarks at the Department of Justice and Department of Education school
discipline guidance rollout at Frederick Douglass high school. Retrieved
from http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2013/ag-speech-
131221.html
 Verdugo, R. R. (2002). Race-ethnicity, social class, and zero-tolerance
policies: The cultural and structural wars. Education and Urban Society, 35,
50-75. doi:10.1177/001312402237214
  Villarruel, F. A. & Dunbar, C., Jr. (2006). Culture, race, and zero-tolerance
policy: The implications. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 6(2).
doi:10.1300/J158v06n02_04
 Walker, B. L. T. (2012). Teacher education and African American males:
Deconstructing pathways from the schoolhouse to the “big house”. Teacher
Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education
Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 35(4), 320-332.
doi:10.1177/0888406412461158

EDUCATION POLICY BELIEFS

AUTHOR: BY RUSSELL SKIBA
Contents:
1. Zero Tolerance: The Assumptions And Facts
2. Zero Tolerance School Discipline
3. What Is Zero Tolerance?
4. References
1. ZERO TOLERANCE: THE ASSUMPTIONS AND FACTS:
 In the face of serious incidents of violence in our schools in the last
decade, the prevention of school disruption and violence has become a
central and pressing concern. Beyond the prevention of deadly violence,
we know that teachers cannot teach and students cannot learn in a
school climate characterized by disruption. A recently released national
survey of middle and high school teachers and parents found almost
universal support for the proposition that schools need good discipline
and student behavior to flourish; a large majority felt that the school
experience of most students suffers at the expense of a few disruptive
students.1 Clearly, schools have the right and responsibility to use all
effective means at their disposal to maintain the integrity, productivity,
and safety of the learning climate. About this, there can be no dispute.
 Great controversy has arisen, however, about how to keep schools safe
and productive. In the last ten to fifteen years, many schools and school
districts have applied a disciplinary policy that has come to be known as
zero tolerance. The philosophy of zero tolerance, adapted from the war
on drugs in the late 1980s (see What is Zero Tolerance? sidebar on page
2), encourages a no-nonsense approach to school discipline, increasing
both the length and numbers of suspensions and expulsions for a
broader range of behavior. By punishing both serious and less serious
disruptions more severely, the goal of zero tolerance is to send a
message to potential troublemakers that certain behaviors will not be
tolerated.
 Zero tolerance discipline relies upon a certain set of assumptions about
schools, violence, and the outcomes of discipline. In the period of
heightened fear about school-based violence during the 1990s, it was
 not always easy to dispassionately examine the evidence for different
strategies of violence prevention. It seemed imperative to put an end to
school shootings immediately, and those strategies promising the
shortest route to that goal were often the most appealing.
 In the last few years, however, there has been an enormous amount of
study concerning the most promising methods for preventing school
violence and promoting effective school learning climates.
Unfortunately, much of this evidence has not supported the
assumptions that guided the acceptance of zero-tolerance discipline in
the 1990s. The purpose of this briefing paper is to examine that
evidence. To what extent are the promises and assumptions of zero
tolerance borne out by our rapidly increasing knowledge about school
violence prevention?
 Fifteen years after the rise of zero-tolerance ... there is still no credible
evidence that zero-tolerance suspensions and expulsions are an
effective method for changing student behavior.
 It should be noted that, unlike future briefing papers, not all of the
specific information presented in this paper may directly reflect the
experience of Indiana’s schools. Indiana has not included an explicit
reference to zero tolerance in its regulations governing school discipline.
Much of the rhetoric about zero tolerance has emerged in political
conversations at the national level; it is difficult to gauge how much that
discussion has affected local school practice in Indiana. Nevertheless, we
believe that reviewing the national controversy and the national data
about school discipline may provide a useful starting point for educators
wishing to reflect upon their local experiences. More specific
information about practices in Indiana will follow in Briefing Papers 2
and 3 (see About the Children Left behind Project to insert on page 8).

2. ZERO-TOLERANCE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE: WHAT HAVE WE ASSUMED? WHAT

DO WE KNOW?
  Federal educational policy under No Child Left Behind has begun to
stress the importance of using only those educational interventions that
are supported by research-based evidence. Thus, it makes sense to
examine the empirical support for a disciplinary practice that has been
widely implemented in our schools. Below, we list each assumption
commonly associated with zero tolerance, briefly review the evidence
concerning that assumption, and close with the facts reflecting the
match between the assumption and the research-based evidence.
 Over time we have come to understand that violence is not rampant in
America’s schools, nor does it appear to be increasing.

ASSUMPTION:
a. “School violence is nearing an epidemic stage, necessitating forceful, no-
nonsense strategies for violence prevention”
 There was indeed a substantial increase in youth violence in the early
1990s, an increase that leveled off in the latter part of the decade.3
Advocates of zero tolerance pointed to the presumed increase in
violence in schools as a rationale for a newer, tougher approach to
school safety.
 Over time, however, we have come to understand that violence is
not rampant in America’s schools, nor does it appear to be
increasing. Data consistently support the assertion of the U.S.
Department of Education’s Annual Report on School Safety that “The
vast majority of America’s schools are safe places.” 4 Serious crimes
involving gangs, weapons, or drugs constitute less than 10% of the
problems cited by principals in their schools; where crimes against
students occur, the majority of incidents appear to be theft or
vandalism, rather than physical attacks or threats with a weapon.
With a school homicide rate of less than one in a million, the chances
of violent death among juveniles are almost 40 times as great out of
school as in school. Nor does there appear to be any evidence that
violence is becoming more prevalent in schools. While shocking and
senseless shootings give the impression of dramatic increases in
school-related violence, national surveys consistently find that school
 violence has stayed essentially stable or even decreased slightly over
time.
 As noted school violence researcher Irwin Hyman concludes from an
examination of these data, “Despite public perceptions to the
contrary, the current data do not support the claim that there has
been a dramatic, overall increase in school-based violence in recent
years.”
FACT:
“Violence and disruption are extremely important concerns that must be
addressed in our schools, but national reports have consistently found no
evidence that violence is out of control in America’s schools, nor is that
school violence worsening.”
ASSUMPTION:
b. “Zero tolerance increases the consistency of school discipline and thereby
sends an important message to students”.
 Unless an intervention can be implemented with some degree of
consistency, it is unlikely that intervention can have a positive effect.
In particular, behavioral psychologists have argued that punishment,
applied inconsistently, will be ineffective and probably lead to a host
of side effects, such as counter aggression. Federal policy in the Gun-
Free Schools Act of 1994 mandating a one-year expulsion for firearms
appears to have increased statewide consistency in response to
students bringing weapons to school. But zero tolerance has also
been extended to a host of other infractions from fighting to drugs
and alcohol to threats to disruption, and these other applications of
zero tolerance have resulted in a high degree of inconsistency and
controversy.6
 In general, there is wide variation across states, school districts, and
schools in how suspension and expulsion are used. Although student
behavior does contribute to the probability of discipline, idiosyncratic
classroom, and school characteristics may be more important than
student behavior in determining who will be suspended or expelled.
In one study, one-quarter of classroom teachers were found to be
responsible for two-thirds of the referrals to the office (see Figure 1
 on page 5). School-to-school variability in suspension and expulsion is
so great that one set of investigators concluded that students who
wish to change their chances of being suspended or expelled “will be
better off by transferring to a school with a lower suspension rate
than by improving their attitudes or reducing their misbehavior.” 7
FACT:
“Beyond federal policy on weapons possession, the consistency of
implementation of zero tolerance is so low as to make it unlikely that it could
function effectively to improve school climate or school safety.”

ASSUMPTIONS:
c. “The no-nonsense approach of zero tolerance leads to improved school
climate.”
 Advocates of zero tolerance argue that it makes sense that removing
the most troublesome students from a school would lead to an
overall improvement in the quality of the learning climate for those
students that remain. Once again, however, the facts don’t support
intuition. Rather than contributing to school safety, the increased use
of suspension and expulsion seems to be associated with student and
teacher perceptions of a less effective and inviting school climate.
Schools with higher rates of suspension have been reported to have
higher student-teacher ratios and a lower level of academic quality,
spend more time on discipline-related matters, pay significantly less
attention to issues of school climate, and have less satisfactory
school governance.8 In the long-term, there is a moderate
correlation between the use of exclusionary discipline and school
dropout. Even more troubling are emerging data suggesting that
higher rates of school suspension are associated with lower average
test scores on tests of achievement.9

FACT:
“It is difficult to argue that disciplinary exclusion is an essential tool in promoting
a productive learning climate when schools that use suspension more frequently
appear to have poorer school climates, higher dropout rates, and lower
achievement.”
ASSUMPTION:
d. Zero tolerance has made a difference in school safety and improved student
behavior.
 There are currently no controlled and comprehensive studies that
could be used as an evaluation of the effectiveness of zero tolerance
at the national level. The most comprehensive data, released by the
U.S. Department of Education in its progress report on the Gun-Free
Schools Act,10 showed a change in weapons reports on school
campuses over two years after the implementation of the Act, but
there was also a concurrent change in reporting requirements during
that period, making the data all but uninterpretable.
 More generally, data on the effectiveness of suspension and
expulsion for changing student behavior are not promising.
Descriptive studies of school suspension have typically found that
30% to 50% of those suspended are repeat offenders. Such a high
rate of recidivism suggests that school suspension is not a particularly
effective deterrent to future disruptive behavior. Indeed, in one
study, students who were suspended at the sixth-grade level were
more likely to be referred to the office or suspended in eighth grade,
leading the researchers to conclude that “for some students,
suspension functions more as a reinforce than a punisher.”11
FACT:
“Fifteen years after the rise of zero tolerance, and almost ten years since it
became national policy for weapons, there is still no credible evidence that zero-
tolerance suspensions and expulsions are an effective method for changing
student behavior.”
ASSUMPTION:
e. “Students learn important lessons from the application of zero tolerance,
and ultimately feel safer.”
 The purpose of the application of punishment is to teach students a
lesson about behavior. Yet published interviews of students
regarding suspension and expulsion have found them less likely than
adults to believe that discipline keeps them safe and more likely to
perceive that school suspension and expulsion are ineffective and
unfair. Even students who are most successful within current school
structures are likely to criticize school disciplinary policies as
meaningless and stultifying. Those students whose behavior does put
them at risk for contact with school discipline believe that
enforcement is based more on reputation than behavior. Regardless
of their background, most high school students appear to share the
perception that school discipline, especially school suspension,
unfairly targets poor students and students of color.12
FACT:
“Students resent arbitrary enforcement of rules and tend to believe that
suspension and expulsion are used unfairly against certain groups.”
3. WHAT IS ZERO-TOLERANCE?
 Zero tolerance first received national attention as the title of a
program developed in 1986 by U.S. Attorney Peter Nunez in San
Diego, impounding seagoing vessels carrying any amount of drugs.
U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese highlighted the program as a
national model in 1988, and ordered customs officials to seize the
vehicles and property of anyone crossing the border with even trace
amounts of drugs, and charge those individuals in federal court.
 Beginning in 1989, school districts in California, New York, and
Kentucky picked up on the term zero tolerance and mandated
expulsion for drugs, fighting, and gang-related activity. By 1993, zero-
tolerance policies had been adopted across the country, often
broadened to include not only drugs and weapons but also smoking
and school disruption.
 This tide swept zero tolerance into national policy when the Clinton
Administration signed the GunFree Schools Act of 1994 into law. The
 law mandates a one-year calendar expulsion for possession of a
firearm, referral of law-violating students to the criminal or juvenile
justice systems, and the provision that state law must authorize the
chief administrative officer of each local school district to modify
such expulsions on a case-by-case basis.
 State legislatures and local school districts have broadened the
mandate of zero tolerance beyond the federal mandates of weapons,
to drugs and alcohol, fighting, threats, or swearing.2 Many school
boards continue to toughen their disciplinary policies; some have
begun to experiment with permanent expulsion from the system for
certain offenses. Others have begun to apply school suspensions,
expulsions, or transfers to behaviors that occur outside of school.
4. REFERENCES:
Public Agenda. (2004). Teaching interrupted: Do discipline policies in today’s
public schools foster the common good? [online]. http://www.publicagenda.org/
research/research_reports_details.cfm?list=3
Hyman, I.A., & Perone, D.C. (1998). The other side of school violence: Educator
policies and practices that may contribute to student misbehavior. Journal of
School Psychology, 30, 7-27.