
Growing up in a small, New England town, I often felt sheltered from the real world. Never once have I had to experience poor education or an impoverished community, and I am truly grateful for that. Yet, so many others in the United States experience these hardships on a daily basis, and my question is, how do these issues determine the outcome of a teenager's life? Will poor education and a low-income family increase teenagers' chances for incarceration? I believe that there is a strong correlation between poor education and low-income, and the result is simply a direct path to juvenile incarceration. After looking at studies done by Ashley Dugger, Professor Greg Nuncan, and numerous others, I will prove that children who grow up in a low-income family and who also suffer from poor education are at higher risk for becoming incarcerated as a juvenile, and are at great risk for entering a life of imprisonment deteriorating our national economy. However, if we change our education system, creating equal education for all, education can benefit both the social and economic aspects of juvenile incarceration. 

Juvenile delinquency usually refers to the violation of a law by a juvenile. Many people use the term juvenile delinquency to include anything a young person does that is against society permission, legal or illegal. The legal term juvenile delinquent was established so that young lawbreakers could avoid the disgrace of being classified in legal records, and was implicated as a way to modify the rulings based on each individual case: "The beauty of the juvenile system is that it can be applied and modified to deal with the needs of the particular juvenile" (Kumli). Thompson Reuters defines juvenile delinquency as, "delinquents are minors, usually defined as being between the ages of 10 and 18, who have committed some act that violates the law" (FindLaw). These acts in fact are not called "crimes," as they would be for adults. Rather, crimes committed by minors are called "delinquent acts." Unlike in the adult legal system where they would go through a trial, the juvenile has an "adjudication." After this, he or she receives a "disposition" and a sentence. Yet, there are even more differentiations between juvenile proceedings than in adult proceedings, such as the seriousness of the crime and the obscurity of the crime, both of which I will go into detail in the preceding paragraph. 

Delinquent acts generally fall into two categories. For particularly serious crimes, some jurisdictions will even try juveniles as adults. An example of this is the case of a teenager named Jose, who took part in an alleged gang related violent fight, in which one person was killed and another injured (Kumli). On the contrary, looking at the economic factor, when children are tried as juveniles, their parents become responsible for paying the court for the cost of the child. The second type of a delinquent act is one that would not normally be a crime had an adult committed it (Find Law). These are often referred to as "status" or "age-related" crimes. The most common example of an age-related crime is "truancy," which is the continued failure to attend school. Originally the government aimed to eliminate states' ability to keep youth in detention for such offenses as "status" or "age-related", but a provision added in 1980 allows for an exception, where judges can issue detention orders in certain circumstances (Knefel). Once this happens, the child enters the criminal justice system, and he or she is deemed a "juvenile delinquent," changing their life path forever.

The problem with juvenile delinquency is not exclusive in certain areas of the country, it is a nationwide epidemic. We must see how this problem stems from failing schools, a crumbling child welfare system, and juvenile courtrooms filled with families of all races and ethnicities who live at or below the poverty level. The reality of the fact is that once a child is in the system, it is likely that they will live the remainder of their life in and out of prison. Professor Tamar Bircjkhead from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill wrote that "once the label of 'juvenile delinquent' is formally imposed, it is readily accepted by both the child and the community; the child is then defined and perceived by others through the lens of this label" (Bircjkhead). The amount of men and women who live their lives in out of incarceration pose a huge burden on our economy. In order to see where these causes stem from, we must take a deeper look into the reasons behind juvenile delinquency: low-income and poor education. 

Professor Greg Duncan along with his colleagues conducted two sets of analyses. They looked at the amount of completed schooling and the relation to parental income during early and middle childhood, as well as during adolescence (Duncan). Duncan and his team concluded that family economic conditions have the greatest impact on achievement among children in families throughout the United States. This should not be surprising seeing that the road to an elite Ivy League is often sought after by attending one of the nations' most elite private schools. A similar study showed that "between 1975 and 2009 the school dropout rate for juveniles in low-income families was found to be six times greater than the juvenile drop out rate in high income families" (Dugger). This problem expands throughout the system, often times shown clearly through the distrust the court has with children from low-income families. It has been stated that "children from low-income homes do not have to be as 'guilty' as those from families of means in order to enter and remain in the system, widening the net of court intervention for the poor" (Birckhead). We must create equal opportunities both in the classroom as well as outside the classroom in order to even out the playing field, and we can do this by shrinking the income gap and providing equal quality of education to all public schools. 

Low-income families and communities have a direct correlation to education, which many of us wish not to believe could be such a problem in a country as progressive as the United States. Education historically has been considered a great equalizer in American society, capable of lifting less advantaged children and improving their chances for success as adults. But we have had movements within the education department in hopes to change our national system, that have since failed. Back in 1954 during the monumental court case, Brown v. Board of Education, Chief Justice Early Warren was quoted saying, "In these days, it is doubtful that any child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunities of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right that must be made available on equal terms" (Chief Justice Early Warren). Almost 65 years later we are still struggling with these terms. What is even more troubling is that we are beginning to see that the achievement gap between rich and poor children is widening, a development that threatens to mitigate education's leveling effects (Tavernise). Sadly, education is not simply a problem in developing countries, it a problem here in our own backyard. 

Here in the United States schools serving low-income students are being short handed because school districts across the country are inequitably distributing their state and local wealth. Many high-poverty schools receive considerably less than their fair share of state and local funding, leaving students in high-poverty school systems with fewer resources than schools attended by their wealthier peers; "If you are a young man from a poor neighborhood, the odds of moving on to a productive adulthood are stacked against you" (Buery). Although it is easy to think the school-to-prison pipeline only impacts particular students and their respective families, we must remember that our whole society will feel the consequences. The economic burden the prison system puts on our country is catastrophic. We truly cannot continue to afford such a depletion in our economy. Today's youth are tomorrow's leaders. And we must remember that we cannot teach a student who is not in school.

One reason for the growing gap in achievement could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children, such as in sports, music lessons, tutors, and increased overall involvement in their children's schooling, while lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly strained for time and resources. Juvenile delinquents often come from impoverished environments, not only in an economic sense but also in an intellectual and emotional sense (McDavid & McCandless). It is possible that many delinquent acts may spring directly from the frustration of boredom. The homes of delinquents are often impoverished and their neighborhoods fall short on facilities for constructive out-of-school occupation. School itself seldom provides satisfactory outlets or experiences of success for the delinquent (McDavid & McCandless). This is when it becomes a problem because with so little stimulation, teenagers are more likely to seek out or enter into negative stimulators such as risk taking or gangs. However, if intervention is done early enough to prevent such catastrophic and destructive behaviors, we can prevent the path to incarceration.

Early intervention prevents the onset of delinquent behavior and supports the development of a youth's resilience (Osher, Quinn, Porier & Rutherford). Once a teenager begins to get involved in criminal activity, it is less likely that they will be able to break that cycle. Too often we see that teenagers begin the cycle, losing all hope of creating a better life for themselves. A study by the National Institute of Justice found that within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested (Recidivism). "If you reach a kid early, chances are they won't re-offend. But with each additional entry into the system our success, our potential for rehabilitation gets slimmer and slimmer" (Kumli). It is simple. If we intervene early on in a teenager's life, decreasing their chance of incarceration, less juveniles will enter into the life-long incarceration system. 

Our country is taking a great risk by not creating enough government-funded programs to allow schools to intervene and have programs for kids who are more at risk of juvenile delinquency; "the idea is to do something that is significant early on" (Kumli). Examples of those who face greater risk are children living in poverty or those who belong to low-income families, children who are academically challenged, and children who have shown signs of aggression and disobedience from a young age. If we begin to see these signs early on, and deal with them accordingly, there will be a significant decrease in the amount of juvenile delinquents. 

Well known Republican Senator Rand Paul said that, "though only 5 percent of the world's population lives in the United States, it is home to 25 percent of the world's prison population.  ...  Not only does the current overpopulated, underfunded system hurt those incarcerated, it also digs deeper into the pockets of taxpaying Americans" (Senator Rand Paul). The Senator clearly states that the prison system takes a huge chunk out of the pockets of Americans. Our system is not only an economic issue; it is also an issue of safety in itself being that the majority of prisons face a problem with overpopulation. Teens face real danger, not only with their safety, but when becoming a juvenile so early on, one is extremely likely to enter a cycle of the system throughout their lifetime. Somewhere between 10 percent and 30 percent of offenders' start offending during early adulthood (Piquero). Often times offending from the adolescent into the adult years is higher not only for those who start offending at a very young age, but also chronic delinquents, and violent offenders. This downward spiral does not only deprive the juvenile of a life worth living, but it also takes effect on the pockets of American tax-payers as well.

In general, our national incarceration system imposes a huge financial toll on our economy. In addition to increased medical expenses and lost years of productivity for both offenders and victims, there are also tremendous costs related to providing juvenile justice services. A study done by the Advancement Project and the Power U Center for social change reports that the U.S. spends almost $70 billion annually on incarceration, probation and parole. This number lends itself to a 127% funding increase for incarceration between 1987-2007. Compare that to a 21% increase in funding for higher education in the same 20-year span. If we did not have such an economic burden from this system, we would be able to spend the nearly $70 billion figure on beneficial funding that could go to education, poverty, health care, and the environment (Hawkins). In fact, "allowing just one juvenile to leave school for a life of crime and drug abuse costs society approximately 2,000,000 dollars a year" (Dugger). It is necessary to shift both resources and readjust attitudes to combat, prevent, and treat youth violence and delinquency in a sustainable and efficient method.

One of the most predominant agencies working towards changing the incarceration system, is The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). This organization helps states and communities develop and use programs that are designed to benefit teenagers who are at risk of facing juvenile delinquency. Programs such as these are set up to prevent juveniles of committing crimes as well as help to prevent juveniles from being the victims of crime. OJJDP believes that, "juveniles in crisis -- from those who commit serious and violent offenses to victims of abuse and neglect -- pose a challenge to the nation" (Dugger). OJJDP sponsors research, programs, and training initiatives, as well as developing priorities and goals to guide and help correct federal juvenile-justice issues. For young offenders, receiving supportive services close to home, where they can remain connected to families and local institutions offers the most reliable path for ensuring that they do not grow up to become lifelong criminals (Buery). As if that is not enough, OJJDP also awards funds to states to support local programming (Dugger). These programs are a start for the type of change we need to be implementing in order to fix the issues with juvenile delinquency. As a country we can take note of what The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is doing, and begin to demand more funding by our government to put agencies throughout the country. 

It is clear that children who grow up in a low-income family and who also suffer from poor education are at an increased risk for becoming incarcerated as a juvenile, and are at greater risk for entering a life of imprisonment. And in fact, we are aware of the solutions. The way we can fix these problems is by fixing what is already in place. We must fix our broken education system, and level the playing field for all children no matter their family's financial status. Our second task as a Nation is to intervene before teenagers are already in the system, at a time where they are showing signs of violence and disobedience. "If the two are done correctly, they can work together to benefit, in both social and economic aspects" (Balfanz). 

After looking at studies done by Ashley Dugger, Professor Greg Nuncan, and numerous others, it is clear that there is in fact a direct correlation between low-income teenagers who suffer from poor education and the path to juvenile delinquency. This path will lead to the life-long battle with the incarceration system, furthermore depleting our national economy. However, by creating equal education for all, no matter the income level, education can benefit both juvenile incarceration, as well our national economy. 

