Zero tolerance (ZT) policies require school officials to apply predetermined consequences for certain infractions, regardless of situational context or circumstances. Consequences are usually severe, such as suspension or expulsion1. Federal law mandates student expulsion for firearm possession; many schools and districts implement additional zero tolerance policies focused on offenses such as tobacco, alcohol, or drug use, knife possession2, fighting, disobedience, disrespect, truancy, or class disruption3. According to the US Department of Education, schools assign most suspensions for nonviolent, minor interruptions such as tardiness or disrespect4.
Evidence of Effectiveness
There is some evidence that school and district level zero tolerance (ZT) policies increase student suspension and expulsion rates5, 6, 7, 8, but do not improve learning environments, school climate, or perceptions of school safety6, 9. Available evidence suggests ZT policies reduce academic achievement, increase poor behavior and the likelihood of future suspensions and expulsions, and may negatively affect future earnings and employment prospects6, 9.
Suspension and expulsion rates vary among schools. Schools with high percentages of minority students and students from highly disadvantaged backgrounds generally have higher suspension and expulsion rates than other schools6, 2, 10. Students with disabilities and minority students, especially black students, are suspended or expelled more often than their peers4, 7. Rates of school disruption or violence do not appear higher among black students than other students6, 2. Students with the lowest incoming academic achievement, from the lowest income neighborhoods, or who are victims of abuse or neglect are also more likely to be suspended than peers without such risk factors10.
School staff have been shown to use discretion to determine which behaviors are addressed through zero tolerance2. In one mid-size urban district, ZT expansion was associated with a doubled suspension rate for black students while suspension rates for white and Hispanic students remained statistically unchanged5. Zero tolerance policies for unexcused absences appear to be disproportionately applied to students who are already failing; the majority of these students also receive free or reduced lunch and have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)11.
Surveys indicate that zero tolerance policies are not associated with feeling safer at school, satisfaction with school governance, or staff spending less time on discipline6. Overall, suspension and expulsion are associated with low academic achievement6, increased dropout, and reduced on-time high school graduation6, 4, 9, 12. Suspension may also lead to more behavior offenses in school6 and juvenile delinquency4, 13, 14. High levels of exclusionary discipline, as seen in schools with zero tolerance policies, can negatively influence academic achievement for suspended and non-suspended students15.
Researchers suggest that ZT policies are not cost effective, as they are associated with poor student outcomes, may increase use of the juvenile justice system6, and may disregard students’ rights to proportional punishment and due process16, 17. Experts recommend strict scrutiny of school exclusion decisions, and possibly state level reforms of such policies18. Schools can replace zero tolerance policies with strategies that have been shown to improve school climate and student behavior such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports and social and emotional instruction4, 6.
Impact on Disparities
As of 2008, zero tolerance (ZT) policies appear widespread in American schools6. Starting in 2009, several states passed laws to revise zero tolerance policies in schools, including Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Rhode Island19, 20. Cities, school districts, and schools are also replacing ZT policies with more flexible disciplinary codes and more restorative, supportive practices, as in Chicago, IL10 and Philadelphia, PA21.
* Journal subscription may be required for access.
1 Teske 2011* - Teske SC. A study of zero tolerance policies in schools: A multi-integrated systems approach to improve outcomes for adolescents. Journal of child and adolescent psychiatric nursing. 2011;24(2):88-97.
2 Welch 2012* - Welch K, Payne A. Exclusionary school punishment: The effect of racial threat on expulsion and suspension. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. 2011;10(2):155-171.
3 Monahan 2014* - Monahan K, VanDerhei S, Bechtold J, Cauffman E. From the school yard to the squad car: School discipline, truancy, and arrest. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2014;43(7), 1110-22.
4 US ED-School climate 2014 - US Department of Education (US ED). Guiding Principles: A Resource Guide for Improving School Climate and Discipline; 2014.
5 Hoffman 2014* - Hoffman S. Zero benefit: Estimating the effect of zero tolerance discipline polices on racial disparities in school discipline. Educational Policy. 2014;28(1), 69-95.
6 APA 2008 - American Psychological Association (APA) Zero Tolerance Task Force. Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist. 2008;63(9), 852-62.
7 Boccanfuso 2011 - Boccanfuso C, Kuhfeld M. Multiple responses, promising results: Evidence-based, nonpunitive alternatives to zero tolerance. Washington DC: Child Trends; 2011.
8 Heilbrun 2015* - Heilbrun A, Cornell D, Lovegrove P. Principal attitudes regarding zero tolerance and racial disparities in school suspensions. Psychology in the Schools. 2015;52(5):489-499.
9 Skiba 2014* - Skiba RJ. The failure of zero tolerance. Reclaiming Children & Youth. 2014;22(4):27.
10 Sartain 2015 - Sartain L, Allensworth EM, Porter S, et al. Suspending Chicago's students: Differences in discipline practices across schools. Chicago: The University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research; 2015.
11 Gage 2013* - Gage NA, Sugai G, Lunde K, DeLoreto L. Truancy and zero tolerance in high school: Does policy align with practice? Education & Treatment of Children. 2013;36(2):117.
12 Kang-Brown 2013 - Kang-Brown J, Trone J, Fratello J, Daftary-Kapur T. Generation later: What we’ve learned about zero tolerance in schools. New York: Vera Institute of Justice; 2013.
13 Borgwald 2012 - Borgwald K, Theixos H. Bullying the bully: Why zero-tolerance policies get a failing grade. Social Influence. 2013;8(2-3), 149-160.
14 Martinez 2009 - Martinez S. A system gone berserk: How are zero-tolerance policies really affecting schools? Preventing School Failure. 2009;53(3), 153-158.
15 Perry 2014* - Perry BL, Morris EW. Suspending progress: Collateral consequences of exclusionary punishment in public schools. American Sociological Review. 2014;79(6):1067-1087.
16 Lowenstein 2008 - Lowenstein AK. Dignity denied: The effect of 'zero tolerance' policies on students' human rights. New Haven: International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School; 2008.
17 Black 2015 - Black D. The constitutional limit of zero tolerance in schools. Minnesota Law Review. 2015;99(3):823-904.
18 Black 2016 - Black DW. Reforming school discipline. Northwestern University Law Review (Forthcoming). 2016:1-50.
19 NCSL-ZT reform 2012 - National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). What states are reconsidering their zero tolerance policies in schools for weapons and/or drugs? December 2012.
20 RW-Colorado bill - Restorative Works Learning Network (RW), Restorative Practices Foundation. Colorado bill ends zero tolerance in schools.
21 PPS-Hardy 2014 - Hardy D. Philadelphia's shift in discipline policy. Philadelphia Public School (PPS) The Notebook. 2014.
22 ABA-Krebs 2014 - Krebs C. Zero Tolerance does not make schools safer. American Bar Association (ABA). 2014.
23 ACLU-ZT - American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). School-to-prison pipeline and zero tolerance policies.
Related What Works for Health Strategies
To see citations and implementation resources for this strategy, visit:
To see all strategies: