Addressing the Needs of Youth in Juvenile Justice

Systems

October 26, 2004Dr. Bill East, Executive Director

National Association of State Directors of Special Educationbill.east@nasdse.org

www.nasdse.org

Mental Health and Juvenile Justice

• Congressional investigators report 15,000 children with psychiatric conditions were improperly incarcerated when mental health services were not available.

• These children were as young as 7 years old.

Source: New York Times (2004)

Mental Health and Juvenile Justice

• More than 340 detention centers reported that children with mental illness were being housed there as there was nowhere else for them to go.

• 71 centers in 33 states were holding children with psychiatric conditions with no charges.

Source: New York Times (2004)

Juvenile Crime Statistics

Students with Disabilities and Juvenile Justice

• Research suggests the prevalence of special education disabilities is about 4 to 5 times greater in the juvenile justice system than the rate of special education disabilities in the general population.

• Approximately 30-50% of youth in the correctional system have a disability.

Source: Rutherford, Bullis, Anderson and Griller-Clark (2002)

Increase in Juvenile Population

Source: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

National Resources

• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)– www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

• National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice (EDJJ)– www.edjj.org

• National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice (NCMHJJ)– www.ncmhjj.com

Juvenile Education Initiative: A Successful Model Addressing Educationfor Special Education and “At Risk” Youth

Juvenile Education Initiative: A Successful Model Addressing Educationfor Special Education and “At Risk” Youth

Marcia Harding, DirectorSpecial Education Unit

Arkansas Department of Education1401 West Capitol, Suite 450Little Rock, AR 72201-2936

501-682-4221/mharding@arkedu.k12.ar.us

October 26, 2004

“Research and best practices initiatives are contributing to improved practices in juvenile justice. As we continue to learn more about the causes and correlations of delinquency, we are developing a better understanding of how programs and services can help youth. Education is one of these critical services and can assist a troubled youth to return to a law abiding lifestyle.”

(Shay Bilchek, former administrator, OJJDP)

Detention Education vs. Corrections Education Detention Education vs. Corrections Education

Different purpose Short lengths of stay vs. long term stay Short term stays are difficult to measure

effectiveness No standard system of delivery

Carol Cramer Brooks, President,

Council for the Education of At Risk

and Delinquent Youth, 2003

Detention Education GoalsDetention Education Goals

Maximize learning and remedial opportunities for incarcerated youth

Provide wrap-around, holistic services through collaborative programs

Carol Crammer Brooks, 2003

Detention Education - General BeliefsDetention Education - General Beliefs

Education is the cornerstone of institutional programsThe public school design and instructional strategies

are not compatible with the needs of the typical juvenile justice populations

Detention Education programs are largely understaffed and under funded.

The public schools have generally abdicated their responsibility to fund and deliver effective education to youth who represent few redeeming qualities.

Carol Crammer Brooks, 2003

Detention Education – A National ProblemDetention Education – A National Problem

Unregulated Lack of consensus regarding purpose Identity Crisis Inappropriate model Untrained and inappropriate staff Carol Crammer

Brooks, 2003

Purpose of this PresentationPurpose of this Presentation

To briefly explain the history, regulations, and governance of educational programs in Juvenile Detention Centers in Arkansas

To explain the purpose of JEdI and show results of our studies

Arkansas Juvenile Detention Facilities EducationArkansas Juvenile Detention Facilities Education

1991- Juvenile Detention Facilities Review Commission set standards for programs.

Educational programs were originally the responsibility of Juvenile Justice.

1995-Arkansas Department of Education became legally responsible for the reimbursement of educational services provided in juvenile detention facilities.

2000 – IDEA - Section 18.03.3 defines Juvenile Detention Facility (JDF) Any facility operated by a political subdivision of the State for the temporary care of juveniles alleged to be delinquent, or adjudicated delinquent, who require secure custody in a physically restricting facility. Under Ark. Code Ann. 9-27-330(a)(11), such facility must provide educational and other rehabilitative services to adjudicated delinquents who may be ordered by the court to remain in the juvenile detention facility for an indeterminate period not to exceed Ninety (90) days.

2001- Memorandum of Understanding

2001- Memorandum of Understanding

Annual Program Approval

Annual Budget Requests

Attendance Reporting

ShareholdersShareholders

Juvenile Judges (45)And Juvenile Justice Programs

Special Education Unit, DOE School Districts where

JDFs are located County Governments,

Quorum Courts, County Judges, County Sheriffs

JDF Classrooms / Educational ProgramsJDF Classrooms / Educational Programs

45 educators work with Arkansas’ incarcerated youth

Educational facilities range in size, number of classrooms, and resources

A variety of programs have been used to delivery services through the years: PACE, Plato, Nova Net, teacher made lesson plans, individual school lessons

The number of youth incarcerated in Arkansas JDFs

August 2002 – July 2003 6,812

August 2003 – July 2004 8,213

Arkansas youth who attended class while incarcerated within the 15

Juvenile Detention Facilities

August 2002 – July 2003 5,457

August 2003 – July 2004 6,340

Juveniles of the JDF ClassroomsJuveniles of the JDF Classrooms

37% African American56% Caucasian 5% Hispanic1% Asian1% Native

American/Other

28% Female

72% Male

Gender Race/Ethnicity

Our JDF Students are: FINS or Delinquents

• Between 10-18 years of age• 19% are Special Education students• Attend school 3-6 hours Monday – Friday• May attend school 9.5 to 12 months a year• Stay in the JDC an average of 17 days• 29% are repeat offenders

Arkansas’ aggressive approach to providing a

statewide quality educational program for its incarcerated and “at-risk”

youth.

JEdI Project GoalsJEdI Project Goals

1. To ensure FAPE in every JDF (Free and Appropriate Public Education)

2. To ensure that Mathematics and Literacy (Reading) be given priority-as mandated by NCLB

3. To ensure that students in the JDF environment be physically tracked throughout their education

4. To ensure continuity of instruction as students pass into and out of JDF environments

One unwritten goal is to compile data about our students so that better decisions can be made about future programs

Phases of JEdIPhase 1 - In 2001 a web based program was

Piloted in Sebastian County JDC and all other JDFs were given software program SkillsBank4

Phase 2- In early 2003, all JDFs were required to submit demographic information and the results of SkillsBank interventions for a research project

Phase 3- In 2003, JDFs began converting their system of delivering FAPE from SkillsBank to the web based program SkillsTutor.

Phase 4- By May 2004, ten sites had become regional web sites. By November, 14 of the 15 JDFs will be regional sites. All sites are required to submit reports on www.arkjedi.com

JEdI is a two-way street at Regional SkillsTutor Sites

JEdI is a two-way street at Regional SkillsTutor Sites

Juveniles currently residing in detention centers can be placed on our SkillsTutor programs and when released can continue on the program at school, home, libraries, etc.

“At Risk” and Special Education students from surrounding schools can be placed on the SkillsTutor program before they ever come to a JDF -- free of cost to their school

Academic Outcomes (Feb 2003 – August 2004)Academic Outcomes (Feb 2003 – August 2004)

Tutorial Areas PreTest AveragesPostTest Averages

Mathematics 60% 75%

Reading 56% 75%

Language Arts 50% 64%

Tutorial Areas PreTest AveragesPostTest Averages

Mathematics 55% 71%

Reading 53% 73%

Language Arts 39% 51%

Special Ed Outcomes (Feb 2003 – August 2004)

What JEdI has AccomplishedWhat JEdI has Accomplished

• Implemented a remediation program in every JDF assuring FAPE

• Contributed to the wrap-around service by improving the educational portion of the holistic approach- with continuity of education

• Placed emphasis statewide on reading and math instead of trying to teach everything through traditional educational settings and methods (NCLB)

• Regulated educational programs by increasing reporting requirements and adding a fulltime project coordinator to assist JDFs statewide

• Helped JDFs change their overall educational goals by emphasizing that JDFs are short term stay facilities and different from long term correctional facilities that can offer a wide range of courses necessary for students to earn HS credit

• Created a JEdI Website (www.arkjedi.com) and trained staff to perform online reporting to the DOE.

• Helped to organize and network JDF teachers and provided training and the sharing of information

• Provided a standard and successful system of delivery of educational programs while each detention center maintained its uniqueness

Sites to VisitSites to Visit

• www.arkjedi.com- to find out what is happening with JDF Education and the short cut to the educational program

• http://arksped.k12.ar.us- Arkansas Department of Education / Special Education

• http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/- Arkansas Legislative Home Page

• http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/NXT/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid=blr: code – Arkansas Code 6-20-104

Florida Department of

EducationJuvenile Justice Education

Programs

NASDSE Annual ConferenceOctober 26, 2004

Florida’s 2004 Hurricane Season

Tropical Depression Bonnie

Hurricane Charley Hurricane Frances Hurricane Ivan Hurricane Jeanne

www.volunteerflorida.org

Florida’ Juvenile Justice Programs

Framework and Governance

DJJ Population Characteristics

Funding, Reporting, and Accountability Mechanism

Outcomes

Framework for DJJ Educational Programs Florida has a law specific to DJJ

educational programs (s. 1003.52, F.S.) that: identifies educational expectations including

supporting treatment goals and leading to the receipt of a standard diploma or its equivalent

requires annual quality assurance reviews with the Department of JJ

requires an annual cooperative agreement specifies funding, reporting, and accountability

mechanisms

Local Governance Florida’s 67 local school districts

are responsible for providing education services to youth in juvenile justice facilities located in their district

may deliver education services directly or contract with a private provider

must fund these programs at same or higher level of funding than equivalent students in the district

must negotiate a cooperative agreement with DJJ on delivery of educational services

State Governance The Department of Education (DOE) is

serves as the lead agency for juvenile justice education programs.

DOE and the Department of Juvenile Justice have developed cooperative agreement and plan for JJ

education service enhancement State Plan for Vocational Education for Youth in

DJJ facilities DOE produces and annual report on DJJ

educational programs.

Juvenile Justice Population In 2002-03, school districts provided

educational services to a total of 46,322 students in juvenile justice facilities.

76% male, 24% female 73% were in grades 8-10, 41% in grade 9 70% were overage for grade placement 38% were eligible for exceptional student

education programs

Funding, Reporting, and Accountability Funding

DJJ educational programs are funded to local school districts in the same manner as other public school students (Florida Education Finance Program).

The funding system includes a “hold harmless” for the “high cost” DJJ students with disabilities (weighted cost factors 254 and 255).

Funding, Reporting, and Accountability – cont. Reporting

Student and teacher data regarding DJJ programs is submitted by local school districts on the same frequency as other public school students.

Additional data is also collected during annual quality assurance visits.

Funding, Reporting, and Accountability – cont. Accountability

All academic requirements for low performing students also apply to DJJ students (e.g., academic improvement plans, etc.).

Participation in the statewide assessment program (FCAT) is also required.

DJJ programs were included in the state’s calculation of AYP. Some met AYP.

Funding, Reporting, and Accountability – cont. DOE administers a discretionary project

(Juvenile Justice Educational Enhancement Program (JJEEP)) to assist in the provision of high-quality education through quality assurance reviews provision of technical assistance research in best practices provision of policy recommendations to ensure

successful transition back into community

http://www.jjeep.org/

Quality Assurance Review Process Examines juvenile justice education

programs in four areas Transition Service Delivery Educational Resources Contract Management

Standards/indicators are revised annually by facility/program type Detention Day treatment Residential commitment

Quality Assurance Ratings ScaleNumerical Score Rating 7,8,9 Superior Performance 4,5,6 Satisfactory

Performance 1,2,3 Partial Performance 0 Nonperformance

2003 Mean Scores by Standard and Overall (n=180)

5.43

5.84

5.70

5.02

5.65

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Overall Score

Contract Management

Administration

Service Delivery

Transition

Quality Assurance and Monitoring The DJJ QA process includes the review of

some of the requirements for students with disabilities.

Records of DJJ SWD’s are included in DOE’s system for monitoring programs for students with disabilities.

Have had a few IDEA complaints regarding services to these students filed within the past five years.

JJ Education Outcomes 95.6% of 2002-03 juvenile

justice education students taking the GED tests passed

70% of the students were promoted at the end of the school year

4.5% of students in grades 9-12 dropped out of school

Quality DJJ Educational Programs

Expectations

Governance

Collaboration

Accountability