9
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The current disproportionate representation of incarcerated youth with disabilities within the United States juvenile correctional facilities is overwhelming when compared to the general population. This is an important concern because all persons, even those incarcerated, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, still have the right to a free and appropriate education (FAPE), including the right to receive special education services. In an article by Morris and Thompson (2008) it was noted that there is a much higher prevalence of incarcerated youth diagnosed with SLD than within the non-incarcerated youth population. Current research indicates that although mandatory formal education programs are offered in the majority of the United States correctional facilities, incarcerated youth with disabilities are not receiving the educational services in an appropriate manner (Morris & Thompson, 2008). Education is a critical factor to being able to transition back into society (Lawson, 1988). For example,
Lawson (1988) stress the importance for our juvenile correctional facilities to provide adequate special education services to incarcerated youth to stop them from falling through the cracks and to enable them to become productive citizens. As Baltodano,
Harris, and Rutherford (2005) noted, “The school experiences of youth prior to incarceration place them at high-risk for academic delays” (p. 362). Many adolescents are falling through the cracks of our public educational system. This is a result of them not being properly identified for special education services. Therefore, school becomes too

10 difficult and the student finds it is simply easier to drop out. Dropping out of school often leads to delinquency and then to incarceration.
Educational Needs
At the time of this meta-analysis, approximately 94,000 youths are in custody at juvenile correctional detention facilities in the United States on any given day (U.S.
Department of Justice, 2010). The adolescents entering such juvenile facilities face a number of challenges ranging from emotional, behavioral, social, health, and academic deficits. In relation to academics, many incarcerated youth have been identified or diagnosed with disabilities in which they were eligible to receive special education services. In fact, Moody (2003) noted that there were a significantly higher number of incarcerated youth who qualified for special education services than in the public school population. As a result, academic educational services provided to incarcerated youth had been looked at closely due to the high impact of proper education and have received greater attention.
Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, and Poirier (2005) examined the number of incarcerated youth with disabilities within the juvenile correction systems in the United
States. Their study was conducted to investigate the knowledge and skills of individuals who work in the correctional education system in order to develop and provide services to better meet the needs of the students with disabilities. Data was collected from juvenile youth under the age of 22 who were incarcerated and committed within each juvenile state correctional system including the District of Columbia. These correctional systems were chosen to include samples from all over the United States. Surveys were used to

11 conduct the research and were sent to fifty-one heads of state departments of juvenile corrections or combined juvenile and adult corrections systems (42 heads of juvenile systems and 9 heads of combined). The surveys asked each correctional facility how many youth were incarcerated under contract with the state as well as the number of incarcerated youth who were receiving special education services. Results indicated that there was an overrepresentation of students identified as having disabilities within the juvenile corrections systems when compared to the United States average. In addition,
Quinn et al. (2005) found that of the total number of 33,831 juveniles incarcerated in secure correctional facilities there were 81% enrolled in some type of education program.
The examination between the total number of juveniles incarcerated that were eligible for special educated services under IDEA indicated 8,613 (33.4% of total). Specific learning disabilities (38.6% of all youth identified with a disability) and emotional disturbance
(47.7% of all youth identified with a disability) were the primary disabilities for which the incarcerated youth were receiving special education services. Quinn et al. concluded that youth in juvenile correctional systems were receiving special education services at a rate of almost four times higher than students within the public school settings in the
United States.
Jonson-Reid, Williams, and Webster (2001) also examined the prevalence of eligibility for educational services for incarcerated youth specifically within the
California juvenile correctional facilities, the California Youth Authority (CYA). In this study, the researchers looked at incarcerated youth who were diagnosed with serious emotional disturbance (SED) and questioned whether they were receiving the proper

12 special education services. Jonson-Reid et al. (2001) collected data from administrative databases on youths, ages 20 or younger, incarcerated in the CYA facilities from 1991 through 1996. This study yielded results that in actuality 2.2% of incarcerated youths were receiving special education services due to their SED classification, when compared to the non-incarcerated youth of California. The high percentage appeared to be due to the mean age of incarceration within the CYA being 16 years old, whereas the mean age of eligibility for SED is 14.6 years old. Johnson-Reid et al. (2001) also found that the majority of the youths had not been assessed and provided special education services prior to incarceration. Thus, any special education services provided to these adolescents were actually received within the CYA juvenile correction facilities for the first time. In conclusion, Jonson-Reid (2001) noted that, as in similar studies, incarcerated youth show a higher incidence of requiring special education services due to mental disorders.
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004 (IDEA), all states receiving federal financial assistance under Part B of the law should be providing special education services. However, incarcerated youths with disabilities have not been receiving such special education services in a timely manner (Morris & Thompson,
2008). In fact, advocates have been aggressively challenging the quality and availability of special education services within the juvenile correctional facilities (Leone, 1994). In a literature review conducted by Foley (2001), she stated, “Correctional education programs have a primary goal of delivering a quality educational program to meet the diverse academic needs of incarcerated youth. This task requires a reliable and valid assessment system, a broad array of curricular options, and a set of highly efficient and

13 effective instructional strategies” (p. 250). Leone (1994) studied educational programs in a large Midwestern state juvenile correctional facility and found that special education services were received but after much delay. He also found that there was no assessment system in place, and that the incarcerated youth were not receiving special services based on their individualized education needs. Foley (2001) pointed out that current studies have found that juvenile systems were not looking into educational files of incarcerated youth. Therefore, they were not being placed in appropriate educational settings (Foley,
2001).
In a survey study done by Rutherford, Nelson, and Wolford (1985) results yielded six components which were critical in implementing meaningful educational programs to serve incarcerated youth with disabilities. The components were as follows: 1) develop a formal assessment procedure to label the individual skills and learning needs of each student; 2) develop a curriculum that not only teaches academic skills but also daily living skills; 3) include vocational training since not all of the students will be transitioning to a high level of education; 4) build programs specializing in transitioning between correctional programs and the community; 5) develop a comprehensive service for those incarcerated youth with disabilities, both institutionally and community wide; and, 6) develop training opportunities for educators within correctional facilities to learn about special education and services. In conclusion, Rutherford et al. stated that there is a critical need for research in the area of training for special education within correctional facilities across the United States.

14
Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) law, every student who is found eligible for receiving special education services must have his/her own IEP. An IEP describes the educational program that has been specifically designed to meet the child’s unique needs. An IEP included a student’s present level of academic and functional educational performance, annual goals, objectives/benchmarks, related services, methods for measuring progress, and transition services where applicable.
Leone (1994) explored the IEP process during his study in a midwestern juvenile correctional facility. He found that IEP meetings were held, but often the legal guardian/parent was not present. He also found that students spent far less time in special education than when they were receiving educational services in the public sector. While incarcerated youth did receive special education services, few related services such as speech and counseling were received. It was noted as well, that incarcerated students
IEPs contained the student’s goals and objectives but did not identify their transition plan
(Leone, 1994). A transition plan is critical for incarcerated students who will need to be transitioned back into the public education system. It is noteworthy and promising to add that since Leone (1994) shared the findings of his study with the juvenile correctional facilities, many positive changes have taken place to improve the educational programs for their incarcerated youth with disabilities.
Transition
The transition of incarcerated youth with disabilities in juvenile correctional facilities is said to be the most neglected aspect in education (Rutherford et al., 1985). In an article written by Baltodano, Mathur, and Rutherford (2005) the authors examined the

15 contextual factors, which influence transition success or failure from the juvenile correction facility back into the community. It is important to look at the various factors, since resilience and recidivism do not always indicate the failure or success of incarcerated youth as they transition back into the community. Baltodano (2005) conducted an extensive quantitative and qualitative analysis of the data and found a number of factors that contributed to a successful transition. Baltodano et al. stated, “The variables that potentially can affect transition success include preplanning for transition, a perceived internal control of life events, engagement in school and/or work, positive rather than negative peer influences, high-quality transition programming, addressing gender differences in programming, and adult mentoring and support” (p. 118).
Bullis, Yovanoff, and Havel (2004) also conducted a study to examine the transition of incarcerated youth in Oregon’s juvenile corrections facilities. They found that youth with disabilities transitioning into the community were more likely to return to incarceration than youth without disabilities (who were more engaged in work or school).
Although, it is crucial to provide appropriate special education services and to develop individualized transition plans for incarcerated youth with disabilities, it should not be assumed that this would be the sole factor in predicting whether they will be successful in transitioning into the community. Studies have shown that special education services and transition plans are an important part of incarcerated youth with disabilities being able to successfully transition (Rutherford, Nelson & Wolford, 1985; Black, Brush, Grow,
Hawes, Henry & Hinkle, 1996; Bullis & Yovanoff, 2005; Brown, Riley, Walrath, Leaf &
Valdez, 2008). However, there must also be measures put in place for those youth

16 formerly incarcerated to succeed within the community (Bullis et al., 2004). Bullis et al. discovered correlations suggesting that providing supports in academics and employment can positively affect incarcerated youth with disabilities as they transition back to the community.
Larson (1988) proposed a theory called the metacognitive deficits hypothesis to explain the overrepresentation of incarcerated youth with disabilities. This theory states that the problem--solving strategies of incarcerated youth are less developed than that of their peers without disabilities who have well-developed social competence.
Metacognition is defined as the awareness and understanding of one's thinking and cognitive processes- thinking about thinking. Metacognition allows a person awareness of personal facets and of task knowledge. According to Larson (1988), “Delinquent youth and youth with learning disabilities appear to have difficulties with this type of social metacognition” (p.361). Therefore, the metacognitive deficits hypothesis theory suggests that there is a link between youth with learning disabilities and delinquency due to lack of metcognitive awareness. In contrast however, Leone (1994) points out that despite the causal link this theory suggests, there still is not adequate empirical evidence to support it. Consequently, at this point in time research indicates that there are no definite social, metacognitive explanations as to the overrepresentation within California’s juvenile correctional detention facilities.
Research Questions
The research questions this study addressed were: (1) What does the research literature show regarding numbers and percentages of youth with varying disabilities who

17 are incarcerated? (2) What are the demographics of incarcerated youth with disabilities? and, (3) What correlational and predictive data exist regarding this population?