----

##  Students with Disabilities in Correctional Facilities. ERIC Digest.          

Youth with disabling conditions are over represented in juvenile                correctional facilities (Burrell & Warboys, 2000). Many special                 educators, parents, and advocates are interested in ensuring that               these youth receive the education and related services to which they            are entitled under federal and state statutes. Until recently,                  however, the nature and extent of over representation, the                      educational services provided, and the credentials of teachers in               juvenile corrections have not been adequately examined. 
The Center            for Effective Collaboration and Practice, in collaboration with the             National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile                           Justice (CECP/EDJJ), recently completed a national survey of the                prevalence of youth with disabilities in juvenile detention, and in             juvenile and adult correctional facilities in the United States.                Preliminary analysis of findings from the survey of public and                  private facilities and state agencies sheds light on the status of              education services to youth with disabilities in juvenile detention,            and in juvenile and adult correctional facilities (Quinn,                       Rutherford, Wolford, Leone, & Nelson, 2001). This digest presents               the survey's major findings on the prevalence of students with                  disabilities in correctional facilities and the educational and                 related services offered to them. PREVALENCEIn the mid 1980s,             Rutherford, Nelson, and Wolford (1985) conducted a national survey              of state special education and correctional education agencies to               determine the need for, and provision of, special education services            to incarcerated youth with disabilities. Rutherford and his                     colleagues found that youth with disabilities were substantially                over represented in the juvenile justice system. Casey and                      Keilitz (1990) conducted a meta-analysis of studies of the                      prevalence of youth with learning disabilities and mental                       retardation in juvenile corrections and found that students with                learning disabilities and mental retardation were over                          represented (average weighted prevalence estimates were 35.6 % and              12.6%, respectively). More recent studies have also found                       disproportionate representation in juvenile corrections (e.g.,                  Bullock & McArthur, 1994). 
While the mechanisms associated with               over representation are not well understood, some evidence suggests             that police officers, attorneys, judges, corrections staff, and                 probation officers are typically unaware of characteristics                     associated with youths' disabilities (Keilitz & Dunivant, 1986).                That is, youth may be more vulnerable to involvement in the juvenile            or criminal justice system when poorly developed reasoning ability,             inappropriate affect, and inattention are misinterpreted by                     professionals as hostility, lack of cooperation, and other                      inappropriate responses. 
A conservative, preliminary estimate of              the prevalence of youth with disabling conditions in juvenile                   corrections is 32%. This finding is notably higher than the                     prevalence of disabilities among school-age children in the United              States, which is about 9% (U.S. Department of Education,                        2000). 
The results of this survey suggest that youth with a                   specific learning disability or an emotional disturbance are more               vulnerable to placement in juvenile or adult corrections than youth             not identified as disabled. The survey found that 46% of youth with             a disability in corrections had a primary diagnosis of specific                 learning disability and 45% were identified with an emotional                   disturbance. 
This phenomenon has several implications. First,                 local schools and communities must recognize that youth placed at               risk for involvement in the juvenile justice system, including                  students with disabilities, must receive support and preventative               services to minimize their vulnerability. Early identification of               youth placed at risk can lower the odds of incarceration and assist             youth, their families, and their communities in developing more                 productive relationships and experiences. In addition to prevention,            community-based services in lieu of incarceration can provide                   appropriate sanctions for youth while avoiding the negative outcomes            associated with imprisonment. With daily costs as high as $200                  to $500 per day for youth placed in juvenile corrections, financial             incentives to develop alternatives should exist (South Dakota                   Department of Corrections, 2001). EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND RELATED            SERVICESIn their 1985 survey, Rutherford, Nelson, and Wolford               found that although services offered in most states varied widely,              not all youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections were                    receiving the special education services to which they were                     entitled. Findings from the current CECP/EDJJ survey indicate that              most juveniles who are detained or incarcerated are enrolled in an              educational program, with the type of facility affecting the                    availability of education. Respondents reported that 84% of youth in            short-term detention facilities, 48% of youth in long-term                      correctional facilities, and 29% of youth in adult corrections                  facilities were enrolled in education programs. 
The finding that              only 29% of juveniles in adult corrections facilities were enrolled             in education programs is disturbing, particularly as states have                increased the number and percentage of youth transferred from                   juvenile to criminal courts and from juvenile to adult correctional             facilities (Juszkiewicz, 2000). This finding may also confirm the               difficulty that adult correctional facilities have had in providing             educational services, especially to youth with disabilities. 
Most             facilities reported that they had procedures in place to determine              whether incarcerated youth were eligible for special education and              related services. While 89% of juvenile and adult correctional                  facilities reported procedures for identification and placement,                only 73% of the local detention facilities had procedures in place.             Within the 27% of local detention facilities lacking these                      procedures are approximately 3,400 youth. 
The CECP/EDJJ survey                found variability in the credentials of teachers serving special                education students in juvenile and adult correctional facilities, as            well as in the related services students received. Facilities                   reported that only 17% of their teachers were fully certified to                teach special education. Of the related services offered to detained            or incarcerated youth, counseling and speech and language services              were the most prevalent. For all types of facilities, about 60%                 offered related services for counseling; 34% for speech and language            services; 21% for occupational therapy; and 39% for other types of              services. 
These findings imply that correctional facilities need              to develop programs and services that meet statutory requirements.              The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles                 eligible youth to special education services in juvenile and adult              corrections, with some limitations. Similarly, Title II of the                  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that public entities,            including detention facilities and prisons, provide accommodations              in programs and services for individuals with disabilities. However,            the record of class action litigation during the past 20 years in               this area suggests that in many jurisdictions, correctional                     facilities have provided inadequate services until they were                    sued (Leone & Meisel, 1997). Providing adequate services to youth in            corrections involves communicating with the home school, developing             effective screening and assessment procedures, and providing quality            special education and related services. 
Clearly, more research is             needed to understand the impact of disability on delinquent                     behavior. Currently, a number of hypothesized relationships exist               but empirical evidence is scarce. Further, information about the                adequacy of education services for youth with disabilities in                   correctional settings is limited to a description of compliance with            statutory requirements and not a review of the implementation of                empirically based instructional practices and outcomes for                      youth. 
The over representation of youth with disabilities in                  corrections raises questions for policymakers and the public.                   Alternatives to incarceration and more widely available prevention              services can reduce the number of youth with disabilities in                    juvenile and adult correctional                                                 institutions. REFERENCESBullock, L. M., & McArthur, P. (1994).            Correctional special education: Disability prevalence estimates and             teacher preparation programs. Education and Treatment of Children,              17, 347-355. 
Burell, S., & Warboys, L. M. (2000). Special                     education and the juvenile justice system. Washington, DC: US                   Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency               Prevention. (ED 450 515) 
Casey, P., & Keilitz, I. (1990).                     Estimating the prevalence of learning disabled and mentally retarded            juvenile offenders: A meta-analysis. In P. E. Leone (Ed.),                      Understanding troubled and troubling youth (pp. 82-101). Newbury                Park, CA: Sage. 
Juszkiewicz, J. (2000). Youth crime/adult time: Is            justice served? Washington, DC: Building Blocks for Youth, Youth Law            Center. [http://buildingblocksforyouth.org/ycat/] 
Keilitz, I., &              Dunivant, N. (1986). The relationship between learning disability               and juvenile delinquency: Current state of knowledge. Journal of                Special Education, 7, 18-26. 
Leone, P. E., & Meisel, S. (1997).               Improving education services for students in detention and                      confinement facilities. Children's Legal Rights Journal, 17(1),                 2-12. 
Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Wolford, B. I., Leone, P.              E., & Nelson, C. M. (2001). The prevalence of youth with                        disabilities in juvenile and adult corrections: Analysis of a                   national survey. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research,              National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile                          Justice. 
Rutherford, R. B., Nelson, C. M., & Wolford, B.                      I. (1985). Special education in the most restrictive environment:               Correctional/special education. Journal of Special Education, 19,               59-71. 
South Dakota Department of Corrections (2001). State                   Training School Phase-Out FAQs. Retrieved from                                  http://www.state.sd.us/corrections/STSPhaseOutFAQ.htm 
US                      Department of Education (2000). Twenty-second annual report to                  Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities             Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. (ED 444                                  333) 
----- 
References with an ED number are available for a fee             through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) at                        http://edrs.com/ or 800-443-3742. 
Internet resources cited in this            document were current at the time of publication. Please note that              Web addresses are subject to change. 
ERIC Digests are in the                  public domain and may be freely reproduced and disseminated, but                please acknowledge your source. This digest was prepared with                   funding from the Office of Educational Research and                             Improvement (OERI), US Department of Education, under Contract No.              ED-99-C0-0026. The opinions expressed in this publication do not                necessarily reflect the positions of OERI or the Department of                  Education.                                                                   **Title:** Students with Disabilities in Correctional Facilities. ERIC Digest.          **Note:** Digest number E621.                                                          **Document Type:** Information Analyses---ERIC Information Analysis Products (IAPs) (071); Information Analyses---ERIC Digests (Selected) in Full Text (073); **Available From:** ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education, Council for            Exceptional Children, 1110 North Glebe Rd., Arlington, VA                       22201-5709. Tel: 800-328-0272 (Toll Free); Fax: 703-620-2521;                   e-mail: [email protected]. For full text: http://www.ericec.org.           **Descriptors:**  Access to Education, Adolescents,  Correctional Education,                      Correctional Institutions, Delinquency, Delinquent Rehabilitation,              Disabilities, Emotional Disturbances,  Incidence, Institutionalized            Persons,  Juvenile Justice, Learning Disabilities, National Surveys,            Prisoners, Special Education                                                 **Identifiers:**  Related Services                                                            
###
[Return to ERIC Digest Search Page]