A Review of the Literature:
Learning Disabilities and
Juvenile Delinquency
Priscilla – Prevalence of Learning Disabilities in Young Offenders
Rachel – Incarcerated Youth, Learning Disabilities and Recidivism
Cyndi – Literacy Interventions in Youth Detention Centres
July 23, 2010
Prevalence of Learning Disabilities
in Young Offenders
1.) Definitional Issues: How can we really identify the
actual proportion of students with disabilities that are
juvenile delinquents when different studies use different
definitions (Morris & Morris, 2006)?
• Future Recommendations for Definitional Issues: A
standardized definition of the “disability” should be used
across studies.
Implications
2.) Methodological Problems: Although there have
been a multiplicity of studies conducted in the
United States regarding the prevalence rate of
individuals with disabilities and delinquency;
these estimates vary greatly due to a variety of
factors (Morris & Morris, 2006).
 Future Recommendations: A large scale
epidemiological study is needed.
Implications
3.) Hypotheses regarding the link between LD & delinquency: Three
hypotheses have been proposed regarding the link between learning
disabilities and delinquency. These three hypothesis are:
• School Failure Hypothesis
• Susceptibility Hypothesis
• Differential Treatment Hypothesis
• Future Research: In the future, we need to “partial-out those
variables which contribute to youth becoming juvenile delinquents
versus examining those protective and resiliency factors that
contribute to youth not becoming juvenile delinquents.” (Morris &
Morris, 2006).
Incarcerated youth, learning
disabilities and recidivism
Similarities and Common Trends
• The number of incarcerated youth with learning disabilities
is higher than in their non-incarcerated peers
Archwamety, T. & A. Katsiyannis (1997 & 1998)
Grigorenko, G. (2006)
Katsuyannis, A., Ryan, J., Zhang, D., & A. Spann (2008),
Rucklidge, J., McLean, A. & P. Bateup (2009)
Virginia Juvenile Justice Summit on Children and Youth with
Disabilities: Executive Summary (2001)
Differing Trends
Reading and math
• Reading comprehension
(Rucklidge, McLean & Bateup, 2009)
• Mathematics
(Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 1997 & 1998) (Grigorenko, 2006)
• Virginia Youth Detention Centers
(Virginia Juvenile Justice Summit on Children and Youth with Disabilities: Executive
Summary, 2001)
Other Factors
• Female young offenders
(Archwamety & Katsyannis, 1998)
• Factors that make youth less likely to
re-offend
(Archwamety & Katsyannis, 1998)
Implications
• Interventions (Rucklidge, McLean & Bateup, 2009)
• Family and Community
• Reduce dropouts and increase programs
to obtain GED
(Archwamety & Katsyannis, 1998)
• Further research is needed
Literacy Interventions in Youth
Detention Centres
• High levels of transient youth in detention
centres which effects the efficacy of the
education program (Drakeford, 2002)
• Youth should be required to complete
education programs while incarcerated but
also as a part of their integration back into
the community
Implications
• While incarcerated, it is imperative for youth
who have learning difficulties to have
educational programs that are high-quality,
intensive and on-going (Malmgrem and Leone,
2000)
• Facilities would have to employ experienced
teaching staff that would provide this type
support for youth, as well as ensure that youth
with learning disabilities have an Individualized
Education Plan (IEP)
Implications
• Students who have learning difficulties are at-
risk for becoming young offenders but may also
have behavioural/social/emotional needs that
should be addressed (Grigorenko, 2006)
• This could be done through counselling, referrals
to child and youth workers, linking their families
with resources in their community
Implications
• It is apparent that most of these recommendations are
not possible until some government and policy issues are
changed at a community, provincial and national level.
• A motivating factor for government may be that it is cost
effective to provide education programs to youth with
learning difficulties as it reduces recidivism, which, is
more expensive (Simpson, Swanson & Kunkel, 1992)
• Further research is needed