1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
resides the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), formally known as the California Youth
Authority (CYA). The DJJ houses offenders, ages 12-25, who have been convicted of
committing a crime under California state law. These youthful offenders are placed in the
correctional facility by both the juvenile and superior court system. Regardless of
whether the youth offender was tried as an adult or a juvenile they are committed to a DJJ
facility. While in detention residents receive an array of training and treatment services,
such as education, mental health, and substance abuse treatment.
In 2005, the California Welfare and Institutions code section 707(b) went into
effect. This code states that juveniles convicted of the thirteen most serious and violent
offenses are to be committed to a facility within the CDCR. All other juvenile offenders
are sent to county facilities to serve their sentence. The CDCR has eight institutions, one
community-based youth forestry camp and sixteen parole offices located throughout
California. All DJJ wards are required to attend school full time. According to the
population overview summary by the CDCR as of June 30, 2009, there are a total of
1,480 incarcerated youth offenders in DJJ in either facilities or camps.
Statement of the Research Problem
Of the number of incarcerated youth within the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) under the division of juvenile justice correctional
detention centers, a significant percentage of these young offenders qualify for special
2
education services. In fact, a survey completed by The Center for Effective Collaboration
and Practice, in collaboration with the National Center on Education, Disability and
Juvenile Justice (CECP/EDJJ), found that the estimate, nationwide of incarcerated youth
with disabilities and receiving special education services is 32 percent. Of this 32 percent,
the survey found that 46 percent of these incarcerated youth qualified for special
education services with a primary diagnosis of specific learning disability (SLD); and, 45
percent of the incarcerated youth qualified for special education services with a diagnosis
of emotional disturbance (ED) (Quinn, Rutherford, & Leone, 2002). It was also noted in
the survey by the CECP/EDJJ, that 32 percent is significantly higher than the nine
percent of non-incarcerated school-aged youth with disabilities receiving special
education services within the United States.
It is estimated that more than half of the juvenile offenders in correctional
facilities have one or more disabilities. In a national survey, Quinn, Rutherford, Leone,
Osher, and Poirier (2005) reported that 34% of incarcerated youth within correctional
facilities were identified as having a diagnosed disability. Of the 34% incarcerated youth
identified with disabilities, 47.7% had a diagnosis of specific learning disability. The
authors called juvenile correction facilities a “default system” (meaning education
system), due to the high rate of students with learning and/or emotional/behavioral
disorders (Quinn et al., 2005).
One of the many risk factors that may contribute to youthful delinquent or
criminal behavior is the presence of a disability. In addition to these identified with
disabilities, are many other youth who may have gone undiagnosed and therefore did not
3
receive the special education services they are entitled under federal law. A serious
concern that requires further investigation is whether or not these youth could have been
helped educationally prior to becoming delinquent and incarcerated. Are these students
being referred to court for behaviors related to their disabilities that have not been
appropriately addressed in our California education system? If we explore the data of
youth currently incarcerated what would we find out about their education experience?
What is their highest level of completed education prior to incarceration? Do they qualify
for special education services? Is there a relationship between the break down in the
current educational system and why do so many of our incarcerated youth qualify for
special education?
Although there is an overrepresentation of incarcerated youth who receive special
education services and there is evidence that a higher increase in the number of students
dropping out of school turn to delinquency (Larson, 1988), there is a lack of research that
connects the two.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to examine current research and provide a
comprehensive meta-analysis review into what current studies (1994 to 2009) have
found. This work will focus on studies of incarcerated youth identified with disabilities
and the data collected on achievement scores and other key correlational variables. This
study will address what the current literature shows regarding the numbers and
percentages of youth with varying disabilities who are incarcerated, the demographics of
4
incarcerated youth with disabilities and, the correlational and predictive data that exists
regarding this population.
Theoretical Framework
Since the late 1960s and early 1970s there have been a number of theories
developed to explain the relationship between learning disabilities and juvenile
delinquency. The most prevailing of the theories for this study are: the school failure
theory and the susceptibility theory.
According to Murray (1976) the school failure theory links learning disabilities to
school failure, dropout, and to delinquency. Murray stated that the school failure theory
was based upon the labeling process, wherein an adolescent was labeled as a “problem”
due to behaviors and a lack of success prior to dropping out of school (Murray, 1976;
Post, 1981). Once the adolescent was labeled, the new label often reinforced their selfperceptions, and the perceptions of others.
The susceptibility theory held that adolescents with learning disabilities (LD)
acquired certain cognitive and personality characteristics that caused them to engage in
delinquent behavior (Murray, 1976; Post, 1981). Keilitz and Dunivant (1986) recognized
such characteristics caused by LD as a lack of impulse control, an inability to anticipate
consequences of one's own actions, a lack of social cues, an ill-tempered demeanor,
suggestibility, and a tendency act out. These characteristics with or without a LD were
deemed to be factors that are the exact proponents of the susceptibility theory, which the
authors’ felt were the cause of delinquency. An adolescent with a certain type of LD,
accompanied by social and personal atypical characteristics trigger the adolescent to act
5
out. The theory presumes that these individuals do not realize that if there is a negative
consequence after taking inappropriate action a first time, there will be the same
consequence again if that same or similar act is committed. The adolescent fails to
demonstrate the ability to learn from his or her own experiences or to use the knowledge
gained to think before again acting or reacting (Keilitz & Dunivant, 1986).
Research indicates that incarcerated youth have lower academic achievement
levels than non-incarcerated youth and that the academic gap is even more significant
with those incarcerated youth with learning disabilities (Baltodano, Harris, & Rutherford,
2005; Harris, Baltodano, Bal, Jolivette, & Malcahy, 2009; Krezmien, Malcahy, & Leone,
2008). Baltodano, Harris, and Rutherford (2005) conducted a study on the examination of
academic achievement in juvenile correctional facilities and the impact of age, ethnicity,
and disability. In 1999, Katsiyannis and Archwametry compared achievement levels of
incarcerated male youth to achievement levels of non-incarcerated male youth using the
Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery Test of Achievement (WJIII). They
found that incarcerated male youth scored at the 7th grade level; and, that the nonincarcerated male youth scored between the eighth and ninth grade level in both
academic areas of reading and math. In the study conducted by Katsiyannis and
Archwametry (1999) the average reading level of incarcerated boys was between the
fourth and seventh grade level while their math scores were between the fifth and sixth
grade level. Their data also yielded consistent results with Quinn et al. (2005), indicating
that approximately 30% of the youth incarcerated were identified as having disabilities.
6
Definition of Terms
Correctional education authority in California. In 1993, following an
extensive data analysis of the educational practices and services within its DJJ facilities
and the appointment of the new superintendent of education, the CDCR began to address
the problems of structure in both the areas of providing and supporting crucial academic
practices (Mulvey, Arthur & Reppucci, 1993). Although changes needed were realized as
early as 1989, due to the lack of educational structure within the CDCR, it was not until
1997 that State Legislature passed Assembly Bill 2131. This bill granted the Division of
Juvenile Justice of the CDCR (at the time, the California Youth Authority (CYA)) the
correctional education authority. At that time the DJJ within the CDCR became a
recognized school district.
The California Education Authority functions as any other school district in the
state and therefore must abide by all education laws enforced in public schools. In
complying with Assembly Bill 2131, the California Education Authority school district
has the following established duties: verifying and issuing diplomas, meeting state
curriculum standards, and providing the same education as the public sector by exposure
and differentiated instruction to students who qualify and receive special education
services.
As youth enter the CDCR, their educational records from their last school district
of attendance often do not follow them. Consequently, prior to a student starting school
within the youth facility, the CDCR conducts a number of assessments to determine
proper placement of the student to receive the necessary education. In these assessments,
7
math and reading levels are derived and a determination is made regarding whether the
youth qualifies to receive special education services. Once the youth’s academic needs
are assessed the student has a legal right to attend educational classes based on state
standards to earn a high school diploma or appropriate education degree (i.e. GED, AA).
Juvenile justice system. As it is stated in the World of Criminal Justice reference
guide, the Juvenile Justice system is a distinct and separate system within the United
States created to deal with young individuals who have committed criminal offenses
(Phelps, 2002). A juvenile is a person whose age is below a statutory limit. In California
the age limit is set at a person’s eighteenth birthday. Prior to 1900, juveniles were treated
the same as adults in the criminal justice system. The juvenile court system is a civil
rather than a criminal court.
Incarcerated youth. An incarcerated youth is a person between the ages of 12 and
25 years old who is placed in a jail, correctional or special facility under the authority of
the law. According to the World of Criminal Justice reference, persons are incarcerated in
jails or detention centers after arrest and before trial, or for a short while upon conviction
for a lesser offense (Phelps, 2002). Typically, persons incarcerated for a year or more are
placed in jails or in prison, commonly called correctional facilities. The latter of the two
customarily house persons convicted of serious crimes.
Delinquent. In the United States a delinquent is a juvenile who has been
adjudicated by a judicial officer of a juvenile court to commit a delinquent act. A
delinquent act is one committed by a juvenile for which an adult could be prosecuted in a
criminal court but for which a juvenile can either be adjudicated in a juvenile court or be
8
prosecuted in a court having criminal jurisdiction of the juvenile and is transferred to
adult court (Phelps, 2002).
Assumptions
The assumptions of this descriptive, meta-analysis were first, that data analyzed
across other states will be useful to systems in California; and second, that this study
would be a practical way of looking at consistencies and inconsistencies with the link
between disability and juvenile delinquency/incarceration.
Justification
The intent of this meta-analysis is to provide valuable information by
summarizing the findings of the current research on incarcerated youth and on factors
that may contribute to their educational needs. Information yielded from this research
will also provide data on current practices of delivering special education services to
juvenile offenders within youth correctional facilities.