Journal of the Institute

Assessment and Evaluation

There are a number of issues involving assessment of the at-risk youth offenders. Mobility issues with this population present challenges not only within the public schools but also with students served in different agencies such as the courts, detention centers, and holding facilities. Another hurdle impairing the assessment process is the difficulty of securing current school records and other record exchanges. There is a need to differentiate among the programs and services to meet the needs of this population. Basic education and tutoring are needed; however, the needs of the identified youth with disabilities must not be overlooked. The in-service needs are great for the staff working with this population.

Disproportionate Representation

Juveniles that require special services are over-represented in juvenile facilities. It is highly disconcerting that the percentage of incarcerated juveniles requiring special services is one and a half to two times that of the general population of juveniles with special service needs. In a study completed by Heidbrink (2002), the incidence rate in the public education system of juveniles requiring special services was 14.43%. When compared to the incidence rate of DYS at 29.80% and DOC at 23.72%, it becomes apparent that among populations of incarcerated juveniles, the prevalence of offenders with special service needs is alarmingly high. This corresponds to numerous data sources that indicate the prevalence of juveniles with disabilities in correctional facilities far exceeds the prevalence within the general population (Leone, Rutherford, & Nelson, 1991; Morgan, 1979; Rutherford, Nelson, & Wolford, 1985; Snyder & Sickmund, 1995).

Based upon the results of this same study by Heidbrink, the juvenile offenders with learning disabilities and behavior disorders/emotional disturbance represented the largest percentages in juvenile detention facilities. While data supports a disproportionate representation of juveniles requiring special services among incarcerated juveniles, it does not indicate why. It is entirely possible that failure in regards to educational performance does set these juveniles on a path of delinquency.

The data found in this same study supports prevalence rates found in the literature. The prevalence of offenders with disabilities is alarmingly high. The most commonly occurring disabilities within the correctional facilities are learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, and mental retardation (Bullock & McArthur, 1994; Leone et al., 1991). Data indicated that over 60% of incarcerated youth exhibit behavioral or emotional disorders, 50 % have a learning disability and 10% have mental retardation.

The link between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency has been investigated more extensively than the relationship between juvenile delinquency and any other categorical labels (Robinson & Rapport, 1999). In fact the National Center for Learning Disabilities (1996/1997) reports that when juvenile delinquents were tested for learning disabilities 50% met the criteria. Tragically, their learning disabilities had not been previously identified and therefore support services were not implemented to promote early academic, social and emotional success. However, when special education services were provided, the recidivism rate for the LD delinquents dropped to less than 2%.

Attributes of learning disabilities that may predispose youth to engage in delinquent behaviors include immature social skills, excessive dependency on others, misinterpretation of social situations, deficits in problem solving skills, impulsivity, inability to focus attention, deficits in memory and reliance on an external locus of control to explain their successes and failures (Lerner, 2003). Furthermore, Osher (1999) notes, that the attributes of learning disabilities may be the behaviors that trigger misunderstanding and even abuse of youth with learning disabilities by staff in juvenile facilities. Therefore, training of judicial staff, judges, juvenile and parole officers is critical in order to break the cycle of behaviors that get youth with learning disabilities in difficulty with the law (Ross-Kidder, 2002). Early identification of learning disabilities, coupled with special education and staff training will lessen crime rates and recidivism for this population.

Juvenile Incarceration Facilities in Missouri

The State of Missouri has three types of juvenile incarceration facilities. First there is the Missouri Juvenile Justice System (JJS), second is the Division of Youth Services (DYS), and finally, the Department of Corrections (DOC). While these three divisions operate under a separate mission statement, their common goal is the detainment of juvenile offenders.

Missouri Juvenile Justice System (JJS) is comprised of 45 Judicial Circuit Juvenile Divisions. A circuit may range in size from one to five counties; however, all 115 counties in the State of Missouri are accounted. The mission of JJS is to “facilitate the care, protection, and discipline of children who come within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court” (Rempe, 1999). JJS strives to offer guidance and control regarding the welfare of juveniles as well as acting in the best interests of the State. When juveniles are incarcerated in a JJS facility, the educational requirements become the responsibility of the school district in which the facility is located.

The Division of Youth Services (DYS) is responsible for the development and administration of statewide programs designed for the care and rehabilitation of youth (Rempe, 1999). DYS publishes an Annual Statistical Report that provides statistics regarding the number and characteristics of youth served. Categorical data provided includes information such as race, gender, type of offense committed, and family constellation.

The Department of Corrections (DOC) is responsible for the administration of all sentences set by the court. These sentences can range from probation to capital punishment. Juveniles who are sentenced as adults are committed to DOC.

Maintaining data at all levels, as well as the local districts, is critical to monitoring the numbers of youth incarcerated, over-representation, and educational services received. Unavailability of student records could be a contributing factor to the school districts ability to address the needs of the incarcerated juveniles.