Last updated: January 2019 www.ojjdp.gov/mpg

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 1

Suggested Reference: Development Services Group, Inc. 2019. “Education for Youth Under Formal Supervision of the Juvenile Justice System.” 

Literature review. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Education-for-Youth-in-the-Juvenile-Justice-System.pdf

Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under cooperative agreement number 2013–JF–FX–K002. Points of view or opinions expressed in 

this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.

Education for Youth Under Formal Supervision of the 

Juvenile Justice System

Education and school attendance are normal developmental milestones for youth and can serve as 

important protective factors against delinquency and involvement in the juvenile justice system 

(Development Services Group, 2015c). They can also have long-term positive effects on employment 

and desistance from crime (Laub and Sampson, 2001; Lochner and Moretti, 2001). However, poor 

academic performance, school suspension and expulsion, and school dropout are among known 

school-related risk factors for delinquency, crime, and involvement in the justice system (Cuellar and 

Markowitz, 2015; Development Services Group, 2015a; Lee and Villagrana, 2015; Pettit and Western, 

2004).

Youth involved in the juvenile justice system are less likely to benefit from education-related protective 

factors and more likely to experience negative outcomes related to learning challenges and school 

failure (Foley, 2001; Sedlak and Bruce, 2010). Although system-involved youth are guaranteed an 

education under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 19651, providing education for 

detained and confined youth is particularly challenging, given their highly transient nature and their 

complicated mental health and academic needs (Foley, 2001; Gagnon and Barber, 2010; Sedlak and 

McPherson, 2010). However, those youth who do achieve higher levels of education while in the 

juvenile justice system are more likely to experience positive outcomes in the community once released 

(Blomberg et al., 2011; Cavendish, 2014).

This literature review will discuss the intersection of the educational and the juvenile justice systems. 

Specifically, it will outline the academic characteristics and challenges of youth in the juvenile justice 

system (including those in detention and long-term secure residential facilities, and under probation 

supervision) and interventions aimed at improving educational outcomes for this high-risk population.

Scope of the Problem

Educational risk factors are associated with juvenile and adult offending, justice system involvement, 

and recidivism (Cottle, Lee, and Heilbrun, 2001; Cuellar and Markowitz, 2015; Moffitt et al., 1981; 

Moretti, 2005; Petitt and Western, 2004; Wang, Blomberg, and Li, 2005). These risk factors include low 

academic achievement, academic failure, negative attitudes toward school, low bonding to school, low 

school attachment and commitment to school, frequent school transitions, low academic aspirations, 

suspensions and expulsions, truancy and absenteeism, inadequate school climate, and school dropout 

(Development Services Group, 2015a).

1 H. R. 2362, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., Public Law 89-10.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 2

While some researchers have found that involvement in the juvenile justice system can also serve as a 

risk factor resulting in poor educational outcomes (Aizer and Doyle, 2015; Hirschfield, 2009; Kirk and 

Sampson, 2013; Widdowson, Siennick, and Hay, 2016), others have posited that the causal 

relationship is not clear (Moretti, 2005; Witte, 1997).

Education-Related Characteristics of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

Most of the research on the relationship between academic problems and delinquency has been 

implemented with confined and detained populations. The research on youth involved with the 

juvenile justice system but who are not incarcerated is much more limited.

Low IQ and Academic Achievement. Research suggests that those in the juvenile justice system exhibit 

intellectual deficiencies and low academic achievement at a greater proportion than their non-systeminvolved peers (Foley, 2001; Krezmien et al., 2013). Almost half (48 percent) of youth responding to a 

national survey of more than 7,000 in custody during 2003 indicated that they were achieving below 

their grade level, compared with 28 percent in the general population (Sedlak and Bruce, 2010; U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2005; Lugaila, 2003). Specific challenges include lower scores on standardized 

achievement tests (Krezmien, Mulcahy, and Leone, 2008; Zamora, 2005); lower levels of language and 

literacy skills (Harris et al., 2009; Krezmien et al., 2013; Wilson, Zablocki, and Bartolotta, 2007); lower 

math scores (Wilson, Zablocki, and Bartolotta, 2007); and lower GPAs and overall grades (Finn, Stott, 

and Zarichny, 1988; Wang et al., 2005). A small study of youth who had brief contact with the Maryland 

juvenile justice system but were not incarcerated found that more than 60 percent demonstrated 

problems in academic performance and school functioning (Brown et al., 2008).

Academic measures can also predict recidivism among system-involved youth. In their study of 12- to 

18-year-old boys in a Nebraska correctional facility, Archwamety and Katsiyannis (2000) found that 

boys who were in the remedial education group were twice as likely to recidivate or violate their parole 

than boys who were not in the remedial group. In their study of more than 4,000 juveniles released 

from secure facilities in Florida, Blomberg, Bales, and Piquero (2012) found that youth with above 

average academic achievement while securely confined were more likely to return to school after 

release, and that youth with above average attendance in public school were less likely to be rearrested. 

Additionally, a meta-analysis of 23 studies examining over 15,000 juveniles found that lower 

standardized achievement scores, lower full-scale IQ scores, and lower verbal IQ scores were associated 

with increased risk of recidivism (Cottle, Lee, and Heilbrun, 2001). 

Special Education Needs2. In their analysis of data from a national survey completed by 38 heads of 

state departments responsible for youth in long-term secure residential facilities, Quinn et al. (2005) 

found that during the 2000–2001 school year, one third of youth in secure juvenile facilities received 

special education services, compared with less than 9 percent of students nationally. Prevalence of 

disabilities varied greatly across juvenile residential facilities, ranging from 9 percent to as high as 77 

percent. These prevalence rates included all disabling conditions such as emotional disturbances, 

specific learning disabilities, and multiple disabilities.

Disability types vary in their association with juvenile justice system involvement. In a study of youth 

in Minnesota, Kincaid (2017) found that youth with emotional-behavioral disorders, specific learning 

disabilities, and other health impairments were overrepresented in the juvenile courts, while youth 

with autism spectrum disorder, developmental cognitive disabilities, physical or sensory impairments,

2 For more information, see the Model Programs Guide literature review on Youth with Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 3

and speech-language impairments were underrepresented.

Students with disabilities may struggle more to be successful in school while involved in the juvenile 

justice system. A study of youth in juvenile justice facilities in Florida found that although juveniles 

with disabilities earned high school credits and grade point averages on par with their peers without 

disabilities during commitment, they were less likely to earn a grade promotion or obtain any type of 

high school diploma, compared with students without disabilities (Cavendish, 2014). A history of 

special education can also be a predictor of recidivism among justice-involved youth (Black et al., 1996; 

Cottle, Lee, and Heilbrun, 2001). However, at least one study found that students with disabilities were 

more likely to return to school after release from a juvenile justice facility, compared with juveniles 

without disabilities (Cavendish, 2014).

School Enrollment. The most recent and comprehensive data on the educational characteristics and 

backgrounds of youth in confinement comes from the 2003 Survey of Youth in Residential Placement 

(SYRP). Results from this national survey show that 76 percent of the youth (12–17 years old) in 

placement were enrolled in school when taken into custody (Sedlak and Bruce, 2010), which is less than 

the 88 percent of youth enrolled in school in the general population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). 

Truancy and Absenteeism. Truancy and absenteeism3 are prevalent among youth in the juvenile justice 

system (National Center for School Engagement, n.d.; Wang et al., 2015). Considered a status offense, 

truancy is a noncriminal violation of the law based on the youth’s status as a minor (Development 

Services Group, 2015b; Mallett, 2016). Out of 100,000 petitioned status offense cases in 2015, 55 percent 

were for truancy, with most resulting in probation as a disposition. Historically, the number of 

petitioned truancy cases outnumber all other status offense cases across genders and race groups

(Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2018).

Schools play a large role in the referral of truancy cases to juvenile court; specifically, schools referred 

92 percent of truancy cases to juvenile court (Hockenberry and Puzzanchera, 2018). In their analysis of 

data from the 2003 SYRP data, Sedlak and Bruce (2010) found that over half (53 percent) admitted to 

skipping classes in the previous year. These rates vary by jurisdiction. In their examination of data from 

youth on probation in Chicago, Axelrod et al. (2017) found that more than three quarters were 

chronically absent.

Grade Repetition. Data from the 2003 SYRP also revealed that 26 percent of 12- to 17-year-olds 

repeated a grade in the year prior to entering custody (Sedlak and Bruce, 2010), which is more than 

twice the lifetime rate of grade retention (11 percent) among youth of the same age in the general 

population (Lugaila, 2003). Individual studies of specific jurisdictions have found varying rates of 

grade repetition. A study of more than 500 boys in a juvenile correctional facility in a mid-Atlantic 

state reported that more than 60 percent had been held back a grade (Krezmien, Mulcahy, and Leone,

2008), while another study of almost 300 incarcerated girls found that 55 percent had been held back a 

grade (Wilson, Zablocki, and Bartolotta, 2007). Balfanz et al. (2003) found that ninth graders in a large 

mid-Atlantic city were the most likely to be dropped from the school rolls because of incarceration, 

and that two thirds were repeating ninth grade when securely confined. In their study of youth in 

Maryland who had brief contact with the juvenile justice system but were then returned to the 

community, Brown et al. (2008) found that one quarter had failed a grade. 

3 Truancy is a child’s unexcused absence from school exceeding a certain amount decided by the state. For more 

information, see the Model Programs Guide literature review on Truancy Prevention.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 4

Wang et al. (2015) conducted research that compared students who were confined to juvenile justice 

facilities in Florida with a matched nondelinquent group. They controlled for a series of variables (such 

as age, race, gender, socioeconomic status, disability status, and individual school) that could explain 

education-related differences between the groups. However, the results showed that confined students 

were still more likely to have been held back a grade.

School Exclusion. School suspension and expulsion are also related to juvenile justice system 

involvement. Examining data from the 2003 SYRP, Sedlak and Bruce (2010) found that most youth (57 

percent) had been suspended in the same year that they entered placement. Individual studies found 

similarly high levels of risk, but they varied in the exact rates. A study of more than 500 male youth 

from a juvenile correctional facility in a mid-Atlantic state found that more than 80 percent had been 

suspended, and more than half had been expelled from school (Krezmien, Mulcahy, and Leone, 2008).

In addition, a study of 300 incarcerated girls found that 46 percent had been expelled from school 

(Wilson, Zablocki, and Bartolotta, 2007). A 2008 study by Brown et al. of non-incarcerated youth in 

Maryland found that 70 percent reported having been suspended (2008).

Cuellar and Markowitz (2015) incorporated controls for offenses committed and suspensions in the 

prior academic year to examine the effect of school suspension on referrals to the juvenile justice system 

among a group of youth from an urban school district with a history of offending behavior. Even after 

taking into consideration these prior behaviors, the results suggested that out-of-school suspension 

increased referrals to the juvenile justice system. They also found that this effect was larger for African 

American students.

School Dropout. Because of the timing, most studies of school dropout examine involvement in the 

adult system instead of the juvenile system. For example, a 2004 evaluation by Pettit and Western, using 

more than 30 years of time-series data on imprisonment, found that youth who dropped out of high 

school were three to four times more likely to be imprisoned than those who completed high school.

They found that among black men born between 1965 and 1969, 30 percent of those without college 

education and nearly 60 percent of high school dropouts went to prison by 1999. However, some 

research has been done on the effect of school dropout on juvenile crime. In an examination of policies 

related to the minimum age at which youth can legally drop out of high school, Anderson (2012) found 

that higher minimum age dropout requirements have a statistically significant effect on property and 

violent crime arrest rates for individuals ages 16 to 18. 

Juvenile Justice System Involvement and Educational Outcomes

In addition to educational risk factors (discussed above) that can increase the likelihood of delinquency, 

crime, and justice system involvement, some researchers have studied the effect of the justice system 

itself on educational outcomes. Many concluded that system responses to delinquent behavior (such as 

arrest, secure detention, and secure confinement) can be contributing factors to negative educational 

outcomes (Aizer and Doyle, 2015; Eren and Mocan, 2017; Kirk and Sampson, 2013; Robinson et al., 

2017). 

Arrest. Many studies have demonstrated the relationship between arrest and subsequent high school 

dropout (Bernburg and Krohn, 2003; Hjalmarsson, 2008; Sweeten, 2006; Tanner, Davies, and O’Grady, 

1999). However, some researchers have looked more closely to try to isolate the effect of the arrest from 

other related factors that may predict both arrest and school failure. In an analysis that controlled for 

demographics, family characteristics, behavioral factors, academic behaviors and attitudes, and 

community-level variables such as the crime rate, school dropout rate, and concentrated disadvantage, 

Hirschfield (2009) found that contact with the legal system still increased school dropout above and
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 5

beyond those other factors in a sample of more than 4,500 inner-city students in Chicago. Similarly, 

Kirk and Sampson (2013) found that arrest had a large impact on dropping out of school and not 

attending college, independent of other characteristics (such as neighborhood and family factors) and 

frequency of criminal offending. 

Widdowson, Siennick, and Hay (2016) compared arrested youth with a matched group of non-arrested

youth in a national sample and found that arrest still reduced the odds of enrolling in a 4-year 

institution directly after high school. Arrest also had a continued impact on college attendance that 

extended into adulthood. Litwok (2014) found a sizeable positive effect of expungement4 on college 

attendance for youth who had juvenile delinquency records. Finally, in their analysis of students in 

Louisiana, Robinson et al. (2017) found that contact with the juvenile justice system was a statistically 

significant predictor of school dropout, even after controlling for race, gender, socioeconomic status, 

school failure, age, and school expulsion. 

Probation. Probation placement is the most common juvenile court disposition for youth who have 

offended (Development Services Group, Inc., 2017b) and can also affect school outcomes. Attending 

school is a common requirement for youth who are on probation (Arthur and Waugh, 2008; NeMoyer, 

et al. 2016). Probation officers are often responsible for checking that youth are attending school and

frequently make in-school visits. These relationships provide the opportunity to better engage youth in 

their schooling and educational development. In some communities, probation officers are physically 

located in schools to increase supervision and monitoring of probationers (Griffin, 1999; Torbet et al., 

2001).5 Other jurisdictions have created advocacy units within their probation departments to advocate 

for appropriate educational services and increase parental awareness about their children’s educational 

rights (Burke and Dalmage, 2016).

However, many youth do not successfully comply with their school requirements of probation, which 

may lead to revocation of probation status and deeper involvement in the juvenile justice system 

(Arthur and Waugh, 2008; NeMoyer et al., 2016). In their study of 268 review hearings in a large, urban 

county in the mid-Atlantic region, NeMoyer et al. (2016) found that one of the four most significant 

factors leading to probation revocation and placement in a residential facility was failure to attend 

school. Even in truancy cases, failure to comply with probation conditions can lead to deeper system 

involvement. Although the truancy process varies across states, generally once a truancy petition has 

been referred to the court and there is a guilty disposition, the judge can order mandatory school 

attendance. If there is failure to comply, the youth may receive a legal response such as a fine, probation, 

community-based programming, or community service (Gleich-Bope, 2014; Mallett, 2016; White et al.,

2001).

Secure Confinement. While the current level of educational attainment among juveniles in the juvenile 

justice system at the national level is unknown, there have been studies of certain jurisdictions. In 

research on juvenile justice residential facilities in Florida, Cavendish (2014) found that only 9 percent 

of returning youth earned a diploma during their commitment. Similarly, another study (Blomberg et 

al., 2011) found that only 7 percent of the more than 10,000 delinquent youth returning from residential 

facilities in Florida had earned a high school diploma or GED before their reentry into the community.

4

Juvenile records are typically sealed, which means that they are not accessible to the public. In certain 

circumstances, such as a specified offense or a court order, court records are unsealed. Expungement laws allow 

for the erasure or destruction of juvenile records once a juvenile becomes an adult. These laws and policies vary 

by state.

5 For more information, see the Model Programs Guide literature review on Formal, Post-Adjudication Juvenile 

Probation Services. 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 6

There is also some evidence to suggest that youth in state-run facilities have a higher rate of high school 

graduation and GED achievement, compared with those in locally run facilities (Suitts, Dunn, and 

Sabree, 2014). 

Youth reentering the education system after secure confinement in a residential facility face many 

barriers that put them at risk of dropping out of school (Wallace, 2012)6. According to the U.S. 

Department of Education (2016b), while most youth returning to their communities from a residential 

facility wish to reenroll in school, only about one third actually do so. Other studies report that two 

thirds of youth do not return to school after they are released from confinement (Sweeten et al., 2009; 

Osgood et al., 2010). Cavendish (2014) found that only 44 percent of youth released from juvenile 

residential facilities in Florida returned to school, and only 8 percent leaving the facility without a high 

school diploma earned a diploma within 3 years after release. Additionally, more than a quarter of 

youth housed in juvenile justice facilities drop out of school within 6 months, and only 15 percent of 

students in ninth grade released from confinement graduate from high school in 4 years (U.S. 

Department of Education, 2016a).

Some researchers have attempted to isolate the effect of secure confinement on educational outcomes 

separate from other confounding variables such as involvement in crime, family risk factors, and 

disadvantaged neighborhoods. For example, a study by Aizer and Doyle (2015) analyzed data across 

10 years looking at judges randomly assigned to cases in Chicago and found that, after controlling for 

demographic characteristics and crime severity, juvenile incarceration reduced high school graduation 

rates by 13 percent and increased adult incarceration rates by 22 percent. In their analysis of individuals 

convicted of a crime as a juvenile in Louisiana, Eren and Mocan (2017) found that incarceration had a 

detrimental impact on high school completion on earlier but not on later cohorts. They argued that this 

may be because of school reform in the late 1990s. 

However, this does not mean that all youth who have contact with the juvenile justice system 

experience negative educational outcomes. Educational achievement can be a protective factor for 

youth in secure residential facilities (Leone et al., 2005). For example, Blomberg et al. (2011) found that 

confined youth in Florida with higher levels of educational achievement during confinement were more 

likely to return to school after release. Cavendish (2014) found that an increase in the number of credits 

earned during confinement was related to an increase in the likelihood of returning to school and 

earning a diploma after release.

Provision of Education for Youth in Residential Facilities

All youth, including those in custody, have the right to a publicly funded education in the United States7

and education in juvenile justice residential facilities is subject to federal civil rights laws such as the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

8 However, the agencies charged with overseeing and 

providing education in juvenile residential facilities vary by state and type of facility. For example, in 

some states the juvenile justice system is responsible for providing educational services, while in other 

states the department of education remains responsible for educating youth in confinement (The 

Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015). Also, in some states (such as California, Texas,

6 For more information, see the Model Programs Guide literature review on Juvenile Reentry. 

7

 Two federal statutes often cited to demonstrate this right include the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act and the No Child Left Behind Act. Examples of Supreme Court cases related to education while youth are in 

custody include Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482 (2000); No Child Left 

Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301–7941 (Supp. V 2005) and Id. § 6315(b)(2)(D); Donnell C. v. Illinois State Board of 

Education, 829 F. Supp. 1016 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Green v. Johnson, 513 F. Supp. 965 (D. Mass. 1981).

8 H. R. 2362, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., Public Law 89-10.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 7

Massachusetts, and Colorado), state-level juvenile justice systems and agencies are responsible for the 

schooling of committed youth while local school districts are responsible for the education of detained 

youth (Benner et al., 2017; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, n.d.; Colorado 

Division of Youth Corrections, 2014; Suitts, Dunn, and Sabree, 2014; Texas Juvenile Justice Department, 

n.d.). Some states also rely on private external vendors to provide educational services (Kaufman, Ellis, 

and Moore, 2008; Macomber et al., 2010).

Screening and Assessment. When juveniles enter a residential facility, screening or assessment can 

assist in determining the appropriate educational services. In 2016, 86 percent of residential placement 

facilities reported conducting educational screenings of youth within 1 week of admission. This is an 

increase from 2000, when only 64 percent of facilities reported doing so (Puzzanchera and Hockenberry,

2018). 

Education Quality. There is a sparse body of literature on the provision of effective instructional 

approaches in secure juvenile facilities; however, the research that does exist demonstrates several 

shortcomings (Gagnon, Houchins, and Murphy, 2012). Studies have found that education within 

facilities may not meet the same standards as education in the community. For example, one study 

investigated educational policies within detention facilities at the state level and found that facility staff 

often do not receive adequate training on how to address the developmental needs of the population 

of youth in confinement and how to ensure continuity of education (Geib et al., 2011). A 2015 national 

survey sent out to all state juvenile correctional agencies found that only eight states provided 

educational and vocational services of equal quality to the services that youth received in the 

community (The Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015). 

A survey of 78 juvenile justice educators from facilities in Louisiana found several factors identified as 

barriers to providing quality education to incarcerated youth, including lack of support from 

administration, low staff morale, safety issues, unrealistic expectations for students, and low student 

motivation (Houchins et al., 2009). Additional barriers to educational services provided in residential 

facilities can include challenges with the physical space, insufficient funding, inadequate time for 

classes, lack of incorporation of research-based instructional and behavioral approaches, and changes 

in the daily schedule (Gagnon and Barber, 2010). There is also research that suggests that educating 

incarcerated girls is particularly challenging given their small numbers, compared with boys, and 

because of their placement in a system historically designed for boys that may not meet girls’ unique 

needs (Chesney-Lind, 2001; Morris, 2016). 

Compounding these challenges, the disruption inherent in changing schools can also have a negative 

effect (National Research Council, 2013). Youth who enter the juvenile justice system may experience 

disruption in access to and continuity of education as they transition at various points during and after 

their case proceedings. For example, the transition from receiving public education in the community 

to education within a juvenile residential facility requires coordination between the educational and 

juvenile justice systems to ensure the timely transition of academic records and overall continuity of 

schoolwork (NDTAC, 2016). The transition from educational programming in a short-term detention 

facility to that in a long-term incarceration facility requires a similar degree of coordination. Lack of 

coordination between the juvenile justice and educational systems may also inhibit the delivery and 

continuity of service provision as youth experience numerous transitions inherent in justice-system 

involvement (Suitts, Dunn, and Sabree, 2014; U.S. Department of Education, 2016b).

Provision of Education for Youth with Special Education Needs. As previously discussed, a 

disproportionate number of youth in the juvenile justice system have special education needs. Youth
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 8

with disabilities are required to receive educational services under Part B of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)9, which extends to youth in state and local juvenile residential

facilities. Under IDEA, it is required that all youth who are identified as having a disability receive an 

Individualized Education Plan (IEP),10 which is to be enacted at the beginning of each academic year. 

Elements of the IEP include measurable goals and a statement of provided educational supports and 

services (Mallett, 2008). 

The education system assumes responsibility for determining if a child is IDEA eligible and for the 

development of the IEP; however, issues involving the timely transfer of academic records and 

psychological screenings to juvenile correctional facilities and juvenile courts have been cited 

(Rutherford et al., 2002; Leone and Wruble, 2015). For example, one qualitative study involving 48 

teachers working within pretrial detention facilities in Connecticut found that 46 percent had received 

no academic or psychological screening information about students before youth entered the facilities, 

67 percent reported that school districts drastically differed in their ability to provide academic records 

to detention center education staff in a timely manner, and 31 percent reported that youth did not 

receive any educational screening assessments upon admission to a detention facility, which would 

serve to designate whether the youth is in need of special education facilities (Macomber et al., 2010). 

Given the high levels of special education needs among youth in residential facilities, there is a high 

financial cost associated with appropriately serving them. Specifically, because of the special 

accommodations and documentation necessary to process this population, youth who qualify for 

education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) cost twice as much to 

educate as their nondisabled counterparts (Chambers, Parrish, and Harr, 2004).

Unique Needs of Youth in Short-Term Detention. A comparative study (Krezmien et al., 2008) used 

a sample of more than 500 males in secure confinement and detention and found that detained and 

committed youth share similarly poor academic profiles and complex mental health needs. This 

underscores the similarity of youth involved in the justice system at different points, and the 

importance of determining their special education or mental health needs, even if they are only in

detention for a short time (Krezmien et al., 2008; Chassin, 2008). Despite having academic and mental 

health needs similar to those of youth in confinement, youth awaiting adjudication in detention 

experience distinct challenges to education delivery because of 1) the relative transience of this 

population; 2) the relatively limited educational resources, compared with those resources in 

confinement facilities; and 3) their undetermined legal status (Krezmien et al., 2008; Koyama, 2012).

Educational Guidance. In 2014, the U.S. Department of Education partnered with the U.S. Department 

of Justice to issue the Correctional Education Guidance Package (U.S. Department of Education and 

U.S. Department of Justice, 2014; Gagnon, Read, and Gonsoulin, 2015). The five suggestions presented 

by the two agencies were as follows: 

1. Prioritize safety and education throughout the facility climate, provide optimal 

conditions for learning, and encourage use of social support services that address needs 

for all youth.

9 The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 USC 1400 Public Law 108-446 - 108th Congress, 

2004. http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cstatute%2C

10 34 C.F.R. § 300.323 (c)(1)
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 9

2. Ensure that facilities receive the necessary funding to provide educational opportunities 

for justice-involved youth that are comparable to those provided to youth who are not 

justice-involved.

3. Hire and retain high-quality educators who have skills to tend to the needs of systeminvolved youth and positively impact them by providing compelling and enriching 

learning environments.

4. Apply challenging and up-to-date curricula that meet state academic or career and 

technical standards and that employ instructional methodology and materials 

encouraging college or career readiness. 

5. Facilitate successful system navigation and reentry transition for every youth through 

the utilization of formal processes and procedures (U.S. Department of Education and 

U.S. Department of Justice, 2014).

Alternative Schools

Alternative schools are specialized educational environments designed to provide academic instruction 

to students expelled or suspended for disruptive behavior or weapons possession, or who are unable 

to succeed in the mainstream school environment (Ingersoll and Leboeuf, 1997). Youth involved in the 

juvenile justice system and living in the community may also be served by alternative schools. 

Tobin and Sprague (2000) recommend eight evidence-based practices for alternative schools: 1) reduce 

class size, 2) provide high-quality academic instruction, 3) foster positive class climate, 4) provide 

highly structured classroom with behavioral classroom management, 5) offer social skills instruction,

6) conduct functional behavior assessments, 7) use school-based adult mentors, and 8) foster parent 

involvement. 

Although alternative schools use a case-by-case approach for each student’s educational needs, 

classrooms are highly structured to eliminate the anxiety or uncertainty that at-risk learners often 

experience in the classroom (Solar, 2011). Alternative schools may use social skills instruction to 

improve at-risk students’ interpersonal problem solving (Kazdin, Siegel, and Bass, 1992). Such trainings 

have been found to decrease disruptive behaviors and negative interactions, which correspond to an 

increase in academic engagement (Lane et al., 2003). Many alternative schools also pair students with 

mentors11, which as numerous studies show, result in social, emotional, and academic benefits for atrisk students (Komosa-Hawkins, 2012; Herrera, DuBois, and Grossman, 2013). 

Much of the recent research on alternative schools focuses on student perspectives of the programs

(Lagana-Riordan et al., 2011; Zolkoski, Bullock, and Gable, 2016). For example, one study examined the 

traditional and alternative school experiences of at-risk students who attended a public alternative 

school, and asked students about their experiences in both their former traditional schools and in their 

alternative school. Results indicated that students felt traditional schools lacked the personal 

relationships with teachers, schoolwide focus on maturity and responsibility, understanding about 

social issues, and positive peer relationships provided by alternative schools (Lagana-Riordan et al.,

2011). 

Some alternative schools are designed specifically for youth in the juvenile justice system. For example, 

11 For more information, see the Model Programs Guide literature review on Mentoring.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 10

the State of Texas implements the Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Program (JJAEP). The goal of 

this language arts, mathematics, science, social studies and self-discipline intervention is to assist 

students in performing at grade level. Students are assigned to a JJAEP program as a result of a 

mandatory expulsion from their home school for serious infractions, a discretionary expulsion for 

serious infractions, a court order, or under an agreement with the local school district (Texas Juvenile 

Probation Commission, 2009). 

Outcome Evidence 

Limited research is available on the effect of educational interventions for youth in secure residential 

facilities. However, there is not a lot of available research for interventions targeted to youth under 

court supervision who are not in secure facilities. There is research, however, on more general types of 

interventions for system-involved youth that have resulted in positive educational outcomes. 

Educational Interventions in Confinement

Research on the impact of educational programming for youth while in confinement is limited 

(Cavendish, 2014; Gagnon and Barber, 2010; Leone et al., 2005). In general, Lipsey et al. (2010) found 

that skill-building interventions that focus on cognitive-behavioral techniques, social skills, and 

academic and vocational skill building can lead to decreases in recidivism by juvenile offenders. 

An evaluation of education reform at the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services (DYS) found 

that DYS was able to make changes to educational services, transition services, and system management 

capacities (Kaufman, Ellis, and Moore, 2008). Preliminary analysis suggested that these changes 

resulted in increases in perceptions of educational quality, decreases in teacher turnover, increases in 

the percentage of teachers holding a teaching license, greater implementation of recommended 

educational practices, and a stronger professional culture among the education programs.

One systematic review assessed and compared the strength of evidence relative to types of juvenile 

educational programs in correctional facilities (Davis et al., 2014). The analysis was conducted by 

program type and included packaged and branded reading programs, computer-assisted instruction, 

personalized instruction, GED completion, vocational education, and other remedial education 

programming. Of the 18 studies included in the review, the strength of evidence favored 1) Read 180, 

a computer-based curriculum, which addresses reading improvement; and 2) the Avon Park Youth 

Academy, an educational and vocational training program, which targets diploma completion and 

postrelease employment12. Specifically, across two evaluation studies (Slavin et al., 2008; Loadman et 

al., 2011) the preponderance of evidence suggested a positive impact of participation in Read 180 on 

reading for juveniles in correctional facilities. Participation in the Avon Park Youth Academy program 

was associated with a statistically significant increase in diploma completion (high school diploma, 

GED, or diploma for those with special education needs) at the time of release. Program participants’ 

rate of diploma completion was about 27 percentage points higher than the rate for comparison youth. 

However, despite these educational findings at the 1-year follow up, no statistically significant 

difference in recidivism rates (defined as rearrests) was found for the Avon Park program (Davis et al., 

2014). Other evaluations (Malmgren and Leone, 2000; Drakeford, 2002) have found statistically

12 While the same evaluation of the Avon Park Youth Academy program (National Council on Crime and 

Delinquency, 2009) received a No Effects rating through the Model Programs Guide review process, it should be 

noted that the program did show statistically significant findings at the 1-year follow-up period. However, 

Model Programs Guide scored the most distal, 3-year postrelease outcomes, which were largely nonsignificant. 

For more information, see the program profile on CrimeSolution.gov: Avon Park Youth Academy and STREET 

Smart Aftercare Program. 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 11

significant gains in reading scores and oral fluency for juveniles who participated in the Corrective 

Reading program, a literacy curriculum.

One synthesis of results from 16 studies of education interventions for adolescents in secure 

confinement found that implementing targeted and explicit academic interventions that show promise 

with adolescents in a general school setting can also be successful with system-involved juveniles 

(Wexler et al. 2014). For example, a study of incarcerated students in three different states showed that 

an intensive, explicit, and highly structured reading instruction intervention can increase reading 

performance in a relatively short period (Houchins et al., 2008).

Interventions that Impact Educational Outcomes

Although not exclusively designed as educational interventions, several programs have shown promise 

in improving academic outcomes among youth in the juvenile justice system. A few examples can be 

found on OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide:

Boys Town Family Home Program is a residential program that targets behavioral, interpersonal, and 

academic skills among both delinquent and at-risk youth. The average length of stay is 12 to 18 months, 

and youth attend an on-campus school run by the Boys Town organization. While the program showed 

a statistically significant increase in children’s grade point averages and their perceived level of 

importance of going to college, it did not have an impact on the years of school completed or receipt of 

a high school diploma or GED (Thompson et al., 1996).

YouthBuild Offender Program is a full-time, comprehensive, community-based training and youthdevelopment intervention for youth convicted of a crime. Participants live, learn, and work in a familylike environment, where there are various work and educational opportunities available. The program 

showed a statistically significant reduction in recidivism and an increase in the likelihood of youth 

receiving a high school diploma, GED, trade license, or training certificate; however, there was no effect 

on enrollment in postsecondary courses or employment (Cohen and Piquero, 2015; Miller et al., 2016).

Additionally, there are educational interventions that serve at-risk and high-risk youth, many of whom 

may also be on probation or otherwise court involved. For example, Career Academies are schools 

within schools that link students with teachers, peers, and community partners in a disciplined 

environment, fostering mental and emotional health, academic success, and labor market success. Each 

Career Academy has a specific career concentration, including law enforcement, homeland security, 

tourism, finance, and health. This program has evolved into a multifaceted, integrated approach to 

reducing delinquent behavior and enhancing protective factors among at-risk youth. A large-scale, 

multisite experiment design with random assignment, which was conducted at nine high schools, 

found that the program had a statistically significant, positive effect on earnings among young men

who participated (Kemple and Scott–Clayton, 2004; Kemple and Willner, 2008; Page, 2012). High school 

completion rates and postsecondary enrollment and attainment were the same for both the intervention 

and the comparison groups; however, among those students most likely to drop out, there was a 

statistically significant decrease in the dropout rate for those who participated in Career Academy

(Kemple and Scott–Clayton, 2004; Kemple and Willner, 2008). 

Gaps in Evaluation Research

There are notable gaps in the evaluation literature surrounding education interventions with youth in 

the juvenile justice system. There are also no rigorous research studies examining educational 

interventions for youth being served in the community who are on probation or parole. 
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 12

In their synthesis of educational interventions for confined youth, Wexler et al. (2014) found that it was 

difficult to draw conclusions regarding the relative effectiveness of educational interventions for 

adolescents in confinement because of methodological limitations and a general lack of research in the 

area. They identified the following three intervention characteristics as areas that would benefit from 

further research: 

1. Delivery of instruction. This refers specifically to the degree that a program provides instruction 

that is targeted, explicit, and systematic. 

2. Intervention duration and session length. Notably, no studies included in the synthesis 

analyzed the impact of session length and duration on youth outcomes.

3. Group size. The majority of educational interventions have focused on the youth’s ability to 

work independently or as a member of a small group; however, little research has addressed 

the impact of group size on youth performance. 

Several studies cited the challenges of conducting controlled evaluation research in correctional settings 

(Leone et al., 2005). Similarly, as it relates to juvenile delinquency programs more broadly (those that 

target academic outcomes and are not limited to those administered in a correctional setting), much of 

the synthesized effectiveness research that is available is not current and may not account for the current 

state of programming in this area (Sander et al., 2012, Leone et al., 2005). 

Furthermore, some researchers have pointed out definitional challenges. Gagnon and Barber (2010) 

explained that broad constructs such as “disability” are frequently used to identify effective approaches 

instead of more specific student characteristics. Compounding this challenge, the research on effective 

strategies for system-involved youth requiring special education services is especially limited (Burke 

and Dalmage, 2016).

Additionally, the existing research on education in residential facilities largely focuses on the 

population of youth in secure confinement, as opposed to detained youth; thus, more research is 

necessary to evaluate best practices for this population (Koyama, 2012). Lastly, there is a lack of research 

available that has been conducted within the past decade. More recent datasets could shed more light 

on the current state of education within secure facilities. 

Conclusion

Youth in the juvenile justice system face a myriad of challenges in educational engagement, 

performance, and outcomes. Their unique and varied educational needs and transient nature are just a 

few of the obstacles that may hinder or prevent them from consistently accessing education (Krezmien 

and Mulcahy, 2008; Chambers, Parrish, and Harr, 2004; Sedlak and McPherson, 2010). 

In addition, contact with the juvenile justice system can result in more negative educational outcomes. 

For example, arrest has been linked to higher school dropout rates and lower levels of college 

enrollment, and placement in a juvenile residential facility has been linked to lower rates of high school 

completion and increased odds of criminal involvement as an adult (Aizer and Doyle, 2015; Kirk and 

Sampson, 2013; U.S. Department of Education, 2016a). However, academic achievement while securely 

confined has been shown to be related to returning to school after release, and participation in school 

after release can result in lower recidivism (Blomberg, Bales, and Piquero 2011). 

Finally, when educational programs in residential facilities are delivered effectively, researchers have 

been able to demonstrate that these programs may improve students’ math and reading scores (Suitts, 

Dunn, and Sabree, 2014) and diploma completion (Slavin et al., 2008; Loadman et al., 2011), even though
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 13

there are significant research gaps on how certain program characteristics (such as delivery intensity, 

length, and group size) impact academic outcomes (Wexler et al., 2014). Other broader interventions 

for youth under formal juvenile justice system supervision have also demonstrated positive impacts on 

educational outcomes; however, the research on these programs is less rigorous. 

References

Aizer, A., and Doyle Jr., J.J. 2015. Juvenile incarceration, human capital, and future crime: Evidence 

from randomly assigned judges. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130(2):759–803.

Anderson, D.M. 2012. In school and out of trouble? The minimum dropout age and juvenile 

crime. Review of Economics and Statistics 96(2):318–331.

Archwamety, T., and Katsiyannis, A. 2000. Academic remediation, parole violations, and recidivism 

rates among delinquent youths. Remedial and Special Education 21(3):161–170.

Arthur, P. J., and Waugh, R. 2008. Status offenses and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Act. Seattle Journal for Social Justice 7(2):555–576.

Axelrod, J., Goerge, R., Mader, N., Foley, K., and Byers, K. 2017. Understanding the Profiles of Youth 

Entering Juvenile Probation. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. 

Balfanz, R., Spiridakis, K., Neild, R.C., and Legters, N. 2003. High‐poverty secondary schools and the 

juvenile justice system: How neither helps the other and how that could change. New Directions 

for Youth Development 99:71–89.

Benner, G.J., Zeng, S., Armstrong, A.L., Anderson, C., and Carpenter, E. 2017. Strengthening Education 

in Short-term Juvenile Detention Centers: Final Technical Report. No. 251118. Retrieved January 15, 

2019, from the web: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/251118.pdf

Bernburg, J.G., and Krohn, M.D. 2003. Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect 

effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology 41:1287–

1318.

Black, T.H., Brush, M.M., Grow, T.S., Hawes, J.H., Henry, D.S., and Hinkle Jr., R.W. 1996. Natural 

Bridge transition program follow-up study. Journal of Correctional Education 47(1): 4–12.

Blomberg, T. G., Bales, W.D., and Piquero, A.R. 2012. Is educational achievement a turning point for 

incarcerated delinquents across race and sex? Journal of Youth and Adolescence 41(2):202–216.

Blomberg, T.G., Bales, W.D., Mann, K., Piquero, A.R., and Berk, R.A. 2011. Incarceration, education and 

transition from delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice 39(4):355-365. 

Burke, M.M., and Dalmage, H. 2016. Special education advocacy in the juvenile justice system: 

Perspectives from probation officers. Exceptionality 24(3):151–164. 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. n.d. Division of Juvenile Justice Education 

Services. Retrieved January 14, 2019 from the web: 

https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Juvenile_Justice/Education_Services.html

Cavendish, W. 2014. Academic attainment during commitment and postrelease education-related 

outcomes of juvenile justice-involved youth with and without disabilities. Journal of Emotional 

and Behavioral Disorders 22(1):41–52.

Chambers, J. G., Parrish, T.B., and Harr, J. J. 2004. What Are We Spending on Special Education in the United 

States, 1999–2000? Report 1. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research Center for 

Special Education Finance. Retrieved February 3, 2014, from the web: 

https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/SEEP1-What-Are-We-Spending-On.pdf

Chassin, L. 2008. Juvenile justice and substance use. Future of Children 18(2):165–183. Retrieved January 

15, 2019, from the web: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ815080.pdf

Chesney-Lind, M. 2001. What about the girls? Delinquency programming as if gender 

mattered. Corrections Today 63(1):38-45.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 14

Cohen, M.A., and. Piquero, A.R. 2015. Costs and Benefits of a Targeted Intervention Program for Youthful 

Offenders: The Youthbuild USA Offender Project. Retrieved January 15, 2019, from the web: 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1154055

Colorado Division of Youth Corrections. 2014. A Guide for Colorado Families, 3rd ed. Denver, CO: Office 

of Children, Youth, and Families. 

Cottle, C. C., Lee, R.J., and Heilbrun, K. 2001. The prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles: A metaanalysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior 28(3):367–394.

Cuellar, A.E., and Markowitz, S. 2015. School suspension and the school-to-prison 

pipeline. International Review of Law and Economics 43:98-106.

Davis, L.M., Steele, J.L., Bozick, R., Williams, M.V., Turner, S., Miles, J.N.V., Saunders, J., and Steinberg, 

P.S. 2014. How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? The RAND 

Corporation. 

Development Services Group, Inc. 2015a. “Risk Factors for Delinquency.” Literature review. 

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved January 15, 

2019, from the web: www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Risk%20Factors.pdf 

Development Services Group, Inc. 2015b. “Status Offenders.” Literature review. Washington, DC: 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved January 15, 2019, from the web: 

www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Status_Offenders.pdf

Development Services Group, Inc. 2015c. “Protective Factors Against Delinquency.” Literature review. 

Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved January 15, 

2019, from the web: https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Protective%20Factors.pdf

Development Services Group, Inc. 2017a. “Youth with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in 

the Juvenile Justice System.” Literature review. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention.

Development Services Group, Inc. 2017b. “Formal, Post-Adjudication Juvenile Probation Services.” 

Literature review. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Retrieved January 15, 2019, from the web:

www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Probation_Services.pdf

Drakeford, W. 2002. The impact of an intensive program to increase the literacy skills of incarcerated 

youth. Journal of Correctional Education 53:139–144.

Eren, O., and Mocan, N. 2017. Juvenile Punishment, High School Graduation and Adult Crime: Evidence from 

Idiosyncratic Judge Harshness. No. w23573. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic 

Research.

Finn, J.D., Stott, M. W. R., and Zarichny, K.T. 1988. School performance of adolescents in juvenile court. 

Urban Education 23(2):150–161. 

Foley, R.M. 2001. Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional education programs. 

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 9(4):248–259. 

Geib, C.F., Chapman, J.F., D’Amaddio, A.H., and Grigorenko, E.L. 2011. The education of juveniles in 

detention: Policy considerations and infrastructure development. Learning and Individual 

Differences 21:3–11. 

Gagnon, J.C., and Barber, B. 2010. Characteristics of and services provided to youth in secure care 

facilities. Behavioral Disorders 36(1):7-19. 

Gagnon, J.C., Houchins, D.E., and Murphy, K.M. 2012. Current juvenile corrections professional 

development practices and future directions. Teacher Education and Special Education 35(4):333–

344.

Gagnon, J.C., Read, N.W., and Gonsoulin, S. 2015. Key Considerations in Providing a Free Appropriate 

Public Education for Youth with Disabilities in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Facilities. Issue Brief. 

Washington, DC: National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of 

Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth (NDTAC).
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 15

Gleich-Bope, D. 2014. Truancy laws: How are they affecting our legal systems, our school, and the 

students involved? The Clearing House 87:110–114. 

Griffin, P. 1999. Juvenile probation in the schools. NCJJ In Focus 1(1): 1–11. 

Harris, P.J., Baltodano, H.M., Bal, A., Jolivette, K., and Malcahy, C. 2009. Reading achievement of 

incarcerated youth in three regions. Journal of Correctional Education 60(2):120–145.

Hirschfield, P. 2009. Another way out: The impact of juvenile arrests on high school dropout. Sociology 

of Education 82(4):368–393.

Hjalmarsson, R. 2008. Criminal justice involvement and high school completion. Journal of Urban 

Economics 63:613–630.

Hockenberry, S., and Puzzanchera, C. 2018. Juvenile Court Statistics 2015. Pittsburgh, PA: National 

Center for Juvenile Justice. Retrieved January 17, 2019, from the web: 

http://www.ncjj.org/pdf/jcsreports/jcs2015report.pdf

Houchins, D.E., Jolivette, K., Krezmien, M.P., and Baltodano, H.M. 2008. A multi-state study examining 

the impact of explicit reading instruction with incarcerated students. The Journal of Correctional 

Education 59(1):65–85.

Houchins, D.E., Puckett-Patterson, D., Crosby, S., Shippen, M.E., and Jolivette, K. 2009. Barriers and 

facilitators to providing incarcerated youth with a quality education. Preventing School Failure 

53(3):159-166. 

Ingersoll, S., and LeBoeuf, D. 1997. Reaching out to youth out of the education mainstream. OJJDP’s

Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Kaufman, L., Ellis, S., and Moore, H. 2008. Evaluation of the Department of Youth Services Education 

Initiative: Final Report. Hadley, MA: University of Massachusetts Donohue Institute. 

Kemple, J.J., with Scott–Clayton, J. 2004. Career Academies: Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes and 

Educational Attainment. San Francisco, CA: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.

Kemple, J.J., with Willner, C.J. 2008. Career Academies: Long-Term Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes, 

Educational Attainment, and Transitions to Adulthood. San Francisco, CA: Manpower 

Demonstration Research Corporation.

Kincaid, A. 2017. Prevalence of youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. Unpublished 

doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota. 

Kirk, D.S., and Sampson, R.J. 2013. Juvenile arrest and collateral educational damage in the transition 

to adulthood. Sociology of Education 86(1):36–62.

Koyama, P.R. 2012. The status of education in pre-trial juvenile detention. The Journal of Correctional 

Education 63(1):35–68.

Krezmien, M.P., Mulcahy, C.A., and Leone, P.E. 2008. Detained and committed youth: Examining 

differences in achievement, mental health needs, and special education status. Education and 

Treatment of Children 31(4):445–464.

Krezmien, M.P., Wilson, M., Mulcahy, C., Wells, C., and Travers, J. 2013. Reading performance of 

incarcerated youth: Understanding and responding to a unique population of readers. Journal 

of Special Education Leadership 26(2):71–81. 

Krezmien, M.P., and Mulcahy, C.A. 2008. Literacy and delinquency: Current status of reading 

achievement and reading interventions among detained and incarcerated youth. Reading and 

Writing Quarterly 24(2):219–238.

Krezmain, M.P., Mulcahy, C.A., and Leone, P.E. 2008. Detained and committed youth: Examining 

differences in achievement, mental health needs, and special education status. Teaching, Learning 

and Educational Leadership Faculty Scholarship. Retrieved January 15, 2019, from the web:

https://orb.binghamton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=education_fac

Lagana-Riordan, C., Aguilar, J.P., Franklin, C., Streeter, C.L., Kim, J.S., Tripodi, J.S., and Hopson, L.M. 

2011. At-risk students’ perceptions of traditional schools and a solution-focused public
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 16

alternative school. Preventing School Failure 55 (3):105–114. 

Laub, J.H., and Sampson, R.J. 2001. Understanding desistance from crime. Crime and Justice 28:1–69.

Lee, S.Y., and Villagrana, M. 2015. Differences in risk and protective factors between crossover and noncrossover youth in juvenile justice. Child and Youth Services Review (58):18–27. 

Leone, P.E., Krezmien, M., Mason, L., and Meisel, S.M. 2005. Organizing and delivering empirically 

based literacy instruction to incarcerated youth. Exceptionality 13(2):89–102. 

Leone, P.E., and Wruble, P.C. 2015. Education services in juvenile corrections: 40 years of litigation and 

reform. Education and Treatment of Children 38(4):587–604.

Lochner, L., and Moretti, E. 2001. The Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence from Prison Inmates, Arrests, 

and Self-Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Lipsey, M.W., Howell, J.C., Kelly, M.R., Chapman, G., and Carver, D. 2010. Improving the Effectiveness 

of Juvenile Justice Programs. Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown 

University.

Litwok, D. 2014. Have you ever been convicted of a crime? The effects of juvenile expungement on 

crime, educational, and labor market outcomes. Unpublished manuscript. East Lansing, MI: 

Michigan State University, Department of Economics.

Loadman, W.E., Moore, R.J., Ren, W., Zhu, J., Zhao, J., and Lomax, R.G. 2011. Striving Readers Year 5 

Project Evaluation Report: Ohio: An Addendum to the Year 4 Report. Columbus, OH: The Ohio 

State University.

Lugaila, T.A. 2003. A Child’s Day, 2000 (Selected Indicators of Child Well-Being). Washington, DC: U.S. 

Census Bureau. Retrieved January 15, 2019, from the web:

https://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p70-89.pdf

Macomber, D., Skiba, T., Blackmon, J., Esposito, E., Hart, L., Mambrino, E., Richie, T., and Grigorenko, 

E.L. 2010. Education in juvenile detention facilities in the state of Connecticut: A glance at the 

system. Journal of Correctional Education 61(3):223–261. 

Mallett, C.A. 2008. The disconnect between youths with mental health and special education disabilities 

and juvenile court outcomes. Corrections Compendium 33(5):134.

Mallett, C.A. 2016. Truancy: It’s not about skipping school. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal

33:337-347. 

Malmgren, K.W., and Leone, P. E. 2000. Effects of a short-term auxiliary reading program on the reading 

skills of incarcerated youth. Education and Treatment of Children 23:239–247.

Miller, C., Millenky, M., Schwartz, L., Goble, L., and Stein, J. 2016. Building a Future: Interim Impact:

Findings from the YouthBuild Evaluation. New York, NY: MDRC.

Moffitt, T.E., Gabrielli, W.F., Mednick, S.A., and Schulsinger, F. 1981. Socioeconomic status, IQ, and 

delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 90(2):152.

Moretti, E. 2005. (October). Does education reduce participation in criminal activities? In The Social Costs 

of Inadequate Education. Symposium conducted at Columbia University Teachers College, New 

York.

Morris, M.W. 2016. Pushout: The Criminalization of Black Girls in Schools. New York, NY: The New Press. 

National Center for School Engagement. n.d. Truancy. Fact Sheet. Denver, CO: National Center for 

School Engagement. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from the web: 

http://www.schoolengagement.org/index.cfm/index.cfm/Truancy

National Research Council. 2013. Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach. Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press.

NeMoyer, A., Brooks Holliday, S., Goldstein, N.E., and McKitten, R.L. 2016. Predicting probation 

revocation and residential facility placement at juvenile probation review hearings: Youthspecific and hearing-specific factors. Law and Human Behavior 40(1):97.

NDTAC [The National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent 

Children and Youth]. 2016. Transition Toolkit 3.0: Meeting the Educational Needs of Youth Exposed
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 17

to the Juvenile Justice System. Washington, DC: NDTAC. Retrieved January 15, 2019, from the 

web:https://www2.ed.gov/students/prep/juvenile-justice-transition/transition-toolkit-3.pdf

Osgood, D.W., Foster, E.M., and Courtney, M.E. 2010. Vulnerable populations and the transition to 

adulthood. The Future of Children 20(1):209–229. 

Page, L.C. 2012. Understanding the impact of career academy attendance: An application of the 

principal stratification framework for causal effects accounting for partial 

compliance. Evaluation Review 36:99–132.

Pettit, B., and Western, B. 2004. Mass imprisonment and the life course: Race and class inequality in 

U.S. incarceration. American Sociological Review 68:151–169. 

Puzzanchera, C., and Hockenberry, S. 2018. Service availability increased in juvenile residential 

placement facilities. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved August 15, 2018, 

from the web: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/snapshots/DataSnapshot_JRFC2016.pdf

Quinn, M.M., Rutherford, R.B., Leone, P.E., Osher, D.M., and Poirier, J.M. 2005. Youth with disabilities 

in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children 71(3):339–345. 

Robinson, S., Jaggers, J., Rhodes, J., Blackmon, B.J., and Church, W. 2017. Correlates of educational 

success: Predictors of school dropout and graduation for urban students in the Deep 

South. Children and Youth Services Review 73:37–46.

Rutherford, R.B., Bullis, M., Anderson, C.W., and Griller-Clark, H.M. 2002. Treating offenders with 

educational disabilities. In Treating Adult and Juvenile Offenders With Special Needs, edited by J.B. 

Ashford, B.D. Sales, and W.H. Reid. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Sander, J.B., Patall, E.A., Amoscato, L.A., Fisher, A.L., and Funk, C. 2012. A meta-analysis of the effect 

of juvenile delinquency interventions on academic outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review

34:1695–1708. 

Sedlak, A.J., and Bruce, C. 2010. Youth’s characteristics and backgrounds: Findings from the survey of 

youth in residential placement. OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention. 

Sedlak, A. J., and McPherson, K. S. 2010. Youth’s needs and services: Findings from the survey of youth 

in residential placement. OJJDP’s Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

Slavin, R.E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., and Lake, C. 2008. Effective reading programs for middle and high 

schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly 43(3):290–322.

Suitts, S., Dunn, K., and Sabree, N. 2014. Just Learning: The Imperative to Transform Juvenile Justice Systems 

into Effective Educational Systems. Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Foundation.

Sweeten, G. 2006. Who will graduate? Disruption of high school education by arrest and court 

involvement. Justice Quarterly 23(4):462–480.

Sweeten, G., Bushway, S.D., and Paternoster, R. 2009. Does dropping out of school mean dropping into 

delinquency? Criminology 47(1):47–91. 

Tanner J., Davies, S., and O’Grady, B. 1999. Whatever happened to yesterday’s rebels? Longitudinal 

effects of youth delinquency on education and employment. Social Problems 46:250–274.

Texas Juvenile Justice Department. n.d. Educational program. Retrieved January 15, 2019, from the 

web: https://www.tjjd.texas.gov/programs/education.aspx 

Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. 2009. Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs. Austin, TX: 

Texas Juvenile Probation Commission. 

The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center. 2015. Locked Out: Improving Educational and 

Vocational Outcomes for Incarcerated Youth. Washington, DC: Council of State Governments.

Thompson, R.W., Smith, G.L., Osgood, D.W., Dowd, T.P., Friman, P.C., and Daly, D.L. 1996. Residential 

care: A study of short- and long-term educational effects. Children and Youth Services Review
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention www.ojjdp.gov 18

18(3):221–242. 

Tobin, T., and Sprague, J. 2000. Alternative education strategies: Reducing violence in school and the 

community. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders 8(3):177. 

Torbet, P., Ricci, R., Brooks, C., and Zawacki, S. 2001. Evaluation of Pennsylvania’s School-Based Probation 

Program. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Juvenile Justice. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. Single Grade of Enrollment and High School Graduation Status for People 3 Years 

Old and Over, By Age (Single Years for 3 to 24 Years), Race, and Hispanic Origin. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Education and Social Stratification Branch. 

U.S. Department of Education. 2016a. FACT SHEET: Reducing Recidivism for Justice-Involved Youth.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 15, 2019, from the web: 

https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/fact-sheet-reducing-recidivism-justice-involvedyouth

U.S. Department of Education. 2016b. You Got This: Educational Pathways for Youth Transitioning from 

Juvenile Justice Facilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 15, 

2019, from the web: https://www2.ed.gov/students/prep/juvenile-justicetransition/pathways-transitioning-justice-facilities.pdf

U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice. 2014. Guiding Principles for Providing 

High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Education and U.S. Department of Justice.

Wallace, P. 2012. Juvenile justice and education: Identifying leverage points and recommending reform 

for reentry in Washington, DC. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy 19:159–179.

Wang, X., Blomberg, T.G., and Li, S.D. Comparison of the educational deficiencies of delinquent and 

nondelinquent students. 2005. Evaluation Review 29(4):291-312. 

Wexler, J., Pyle, N., Flower, A., Williams, J.T., and Cole, H. 2014. A synthesis of academic interventions 

for incarcerated adolescents. Review of Educational Research 84(1):3–46. 

White, M.D., Fyfe, J. J., Campbell, S.P., and Goldkamp, J.S. 2001. The school-police partnership: 

Identifying at-risk youth through a truant recovery program. Evaluation Review 25:507-532. 

Widdowson, A.O., Siennick, S.E., and Hay, C. 2016. The implications of arrest for college enrollment: 

An analysis of long‐term effects and mediating mechanisms. Criminology 54(4):621–652.

Wilson, M., Zablocki, M., and Bartolotta, R. 2007(April). Educational and Behavioral Status of Females in a 

State Juvenile Detention and Commitment Facility. Louisville, KY: Council for Exceptional Children 

Convention and Expo.

Witte, A.D. 1997. Crime. In The Social Benefits of Education, edited by J. Behrman and N. Stacey. Ann 

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Zamora, D. 2005. Levels of academic achievement and future delinquency among detained youth. The 

Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice 2:42–53.