Juvenile Justice Education Research
and Quality Assurance
Thomas G. Blomberg
Dean and Sheldon L. Messinger
Professor of Criminology
George B. Pesta
JJEEP
Research Coordinator
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
Florida State University
Prepared for Presentation at the Transition Conference
National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for Education of Children
and Youth Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk
Sponsored by the office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S.
Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
1
Presentation Outline
I - Introduction
II - Assessing Quality Education in relation
to Academic Attainment and
Community Reintegration
III - Developing a Quality Assurance
Monitoring System for Juvenile Justice
Schools
IV - Questions and Answers
2
Background Information

JJEEP’s Major Goals

Best Education Practices Research

Educational Quality Assurance (QA)
of Florida’s Juvenile Justice Schools

Technical Assistance for School
Districts and Educational Providers

State Legislative and Department of
Education Policy Recommendations
3
Florida’s Juvenile Justice
Schools






Approximately 196 facilities with education
services provided onsite
Approximately 10,000 youth on any given day
Facility size ranges from 15 to 350 youth
75% of residential custody & care services are
privatized
50% of education services are privatized
Local school districts are ultimately
responsible for all educational services
4
Prior Literature
While there are variations in the findings reported
in the delinquency and life course literature, a
major theme that has emerged is continuity in the
life course. It has been found in numerous studies
that problem children often become adolescent
delinquents and subsequent adult criminals. As a
result, an often voiced conclusion is that the “best”
predictor of future behavior is past behavior (Robins
1966, West and Farrington 1977, Wolfgang et al. 1987,
Patterson 1992, and Moffit 1993).
5
A Dynamic Life Course Conceptualization

In a well received study, Sampson and Laub (1993) argue
that childhood antisocial behavior and adolescent
delinquency are linked to adult crime in part through weak
social bonds. However, they also contend that certain life
events and socialization experiences in the life course may
counteract earlier life experiences. Specifically, Sampson and
Laub present findings demonstrating that such young adult
transitions and subsequent social ties resulting from
marriage, employment or military service can serve as
positive turning points in the life course.

Sampson and Laub recommend that subsequent research
needs to identify and explore more fully other potential life
course transitions and associated social ties occurring not
only during young adulthood but during adolescence that
may facilitate either continuity or change in the life course.
6
Self Selection and Life Events

Self-Selection = Social Control and
Individual Decisions

Life Events = Education, Jobs, Marriage,
Military Service, etc.

Combining Self-Selection and Life Events
7
Research Methods and Data


Cohort of 4,794 youth released from 113
residential juvenile justice facilities
throughout Florida in fiscal year 20002001 are being longitudinally tracked
Student data from official State Databases



DOE and FDLE
Program level data on Educational
Quality and Program Characteristics
Statistical method


Logistic regression
Statistical significance is <.05
8
Research Question 1
1.



Does receipt of high quality education while
incarcerated increase the likelihood of particular youth
returning to school following release?
Exposure to high quality education while incarcerated
increased the likelihood of youth returning to school
following release from low/moderate risk programs.
Youth released from high/maximum risk programs did
not benefit from high quality education as measured by
return to school.
Youth released from low/moderate risk programs
comprised 73% of the residential releases in the cohort
and the 27% of the youth released from high/maximum
risk programs represented youth who were likely more
entrenched in delinquency.
9
Research Question 2
2.
Does above average academic achievement
while incarcerated increase the likelihood of
particular youth returning to school following
release?

Academic attainment was strongly correlated to
whether youth return to school following
release

This finding was statistically significant for
youth released from low/moderate risk
programs
10
Research Question 3
3.
Does the receipt of high school or GED
diplomas while incarcerated reduce the
likelihood of particular youth begin rearrested
following release?

Youth who earned a high school or GED
diploma while incarcerated were less likely to
be rearrested following release

This finding was statistically significant for
youth release form high/maximum risk
programs
11
Research Question 4
4.
Does returning to school with above average
attendance reduce the likelihood of particular
youth being rearrested following release?

Youth who return to school are less likely to be
rearrested following release

Moreover, above average school attendance
further reduces the likelihood of rearrest

This finding was statistically significant for
youth released from low/moderate risk
programs
12
Research Question 5
5.



How does prior school performance and attachment
influence the response of particular youth to education
while incarcerated, their subsequent return to school,
and rearrest following release?
Prior school performance and attachment significantly
influences youths’ participation in school while
incarcerated and their likelihood of returning to school
and being rearrested following release
Youth with high attachment to school are more likely to
benefit from exposure to high quality education while
incarcerated, regardless of their level of delinquency, by
increasing their likelihood of returning to school
Youth with high prior school performance and
attachment to school were also more likely to benefit
from returning to school by reducing their likelihood of
being rearrested
13
Summary

Our combined cohort of maximum, high,
moderate, and low risk delinquent youth was
comprised of youth characterized by
disproportionate educational deficiencies as
compared to matched public school students
resulting in major challenges for the provision of
quality and effective educational services while
incarcerated

The results indicate that high quality education
can serve as a turning point particularly in the
life course of low and moderate risk incarcerated
delinquents
14

While our cohort of delinquent youth suffered
disproportionate educational deficiencies, it is
likely that the moderate and low risk youth were
less entrenched and committed to their delinquent
life course as compared to the maximum and high
risk delinquents

Continued longitudinal tracking of our cohort is
necessary to more fully address the conditions
under which continuity or turning points occur
and are sustained or not during transition from
incarceration into the community and throughout
the life course including the role of marriage,
jobs, military service, etc.
15
Policy Implications:

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001
is intended to increase the educational
opportunities for all students in public schools
and in juvenile justice facilities throughout the
United States.

Since the inception of Juvenile Courts at the
turn of the Twentieth Century, the quality of
juvenile justice education programs
throughout the country has been uneven and
inferior to public schools.
16

If states are able to successfully implement the
various NCLB juvenile justice school
requirements and practices, educational
opportunity will be substantially increased for
incarcerated delinquent youth throughout the
country thereby providing the potential for
positive turning points in the life course of
countless numbers of youth.

Indeed, the challenge will be to overcome
various impediments during the
implementation of NCLB (i.e. ideological and
professional resistance, politics, and various
other bureaucratic obstacles)
17
Continuing Research

Extended longitudinal findings


2-3 years post release
Second cohort using same methods
Different year of release
 1-2 years post-release


Comparison of specific subgroups within
the population



Special education students (behavior disorders v.s.
learning disabled)
Students who earn diplomas while incarcerated
(GED v.s. Standard H.S. Diploma)
Younger and older youth
18
Developing an Effective
Educational Quality Assurance
System for Juvenile Justice
Schools
19
The Context of Delinquent Populations –
Difficulties with Educating Incarcerated Youth








An average 1-2 years behind their age appropriate grade
level
43% have some form of disability
Chronic histories of school failure, truancy, dropout, and
school discipline problems
High mobility rates
Large facilities in rural areas make providing parental
involvement and transition services difficult
The juvenile justice system is often not part of the public
school system
Difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified teachers
The education component of a juvenile justice program
often competes for resources with other areas such as
security and treatment
20
Litigation in Juvenile Justice

1983 - Florida’s juvenile justice system fell under
scrutiny for excessive use of force, lack of due
process, lack of educational services, IDEA

In the past two decades 34 states have
experienced litigation regarding their juvenile
justice institutions (most common cause for these
suits has been educational services) n=50

As a result, 19 states have changed their
organizational structure (n=48)

And 16 states developed or changed their
accountability system (n=48)
21
Florida’s Reaction to Litigation – Bobby M.

1990 – 1994 Began revamping the juvenile justice
system.



In 1995, the Florida DOE developed the first set of
Quality Assurance Education Standards


Closed one state training school and reduced population in two
others
Created one agency for Dependent youth and a separate agency
for Delinquent youth
Based on Special Education performance standards and
statutory authority
In 1998, the Florida DOE contracted with FSU



Added research component
Began providing technical assistance
Used research to guide the Quality Assurance system
22
The Initial Development of Florida‘s
Quality Assurance System
In 1998, JJEEP conducted an extensive
literature review in the areas of juvenile
justice education and the education of atrisk students
 Sponsored five regional meetings
throughout the state to solicit input from
juvenile justice teachers and principals

23
Promising Educational Practices from
the Literature



Initial Assessments
Educational Planning
Transition Planning &
Services




Parent Involvement
Curriculum & Instruction






Individualized Curriculum
Vocational Programming
Special Education
GED Prep
Cultural Diversity
Psychosocial Education
Teacher Qualifications &
Professional
Development
Effective School
Environment





Adequate Space
Instructional Materials
Community Involvement
Separate Educational
Budget
Aftercare
24
Continuing Development of
Florida's Quality Assurance System

Annual Raising of the Bar
Incorporating Latest Best Practice Research
& Experience
 Implementing New Legislation
 Facilitating School District and Provider
Input Annually through Standard Revisions

25
Increasing Accountability for Juvenile
Justice Education
 1999 – HB 349

Research and technical assistance, Sanctions and
interventions, LEA contract management
 2000 – State Board of Education Rule


Testing, Student planning, Records, School related
transition services, Diversified curriculum and
diploma options
2001 – SB 2464

Educational Funding, Space, Vocational
 2002 – No Child Left Behind

Improve education services, Return to school, Highly
qualified teachers, Program evaluation,
26
Quality Assurance Standards

Transition


Service Delivery


Curriculum and instruction (vocational, academic,
reading, employability/social), special education
services
Educational Resources and Learning
Environment


Enrollment, testing, planning (academic and
transition), guidance, parent involvement
Teacher qualifications, collaboration, educational
resources
Contract Management

Local school district accountability and oversight
For a full version of JJEEP’s Standards, visit our website at
www.jjeep.org
27
Quality Assurance Process

QA Review Protocol and Methodology

Triangulation of Information




Documentation, Interviews, & Observations
Peer Reviewers
Follow-up with low performing programs
Provide technical assistance through site visits
and conferences
Process vs. Component Compliance


Talk to teachers and kids, Observe classrooms
How are materials and information used?
Is the process part of the program’s culture?
28
Current Longitudinal Research

How should outcome information
influence new Quality Assurance
standards and process?

What types of educational services best
benefit which type of students?

The only thing constant in JJEEP is
change (continuous evaluation, strategic
planning, new legislation, new research)
29
Contact Us for Information
JJEEP
325 John Knox Road
Bldg. L, Suite 102
Tallahassee, FL 32303
_______________(850) 414-8355______________
Visit our website for information on research,
standards, technical assistance documents,
and links related to juvenile justice education
www.jjeep.org
30