Juvenile Delinquency and Disabilities: A Global Perspective

Although the rates of juvenile delinquency vary from country to country, as do responses to the antisocial acts committed by youth, countries around the world share an interest in reducing crime. A common response to crime is incarceration. Nonetheless, there is evidence that incarceration is an ineffective response to adolescent criminal behavior and can be counterproductive as a crime-reduction tool (Ortega-Campos et al., 2016). It is important to understand the factors associated with the development of behaviors that lead to juvenile delinquency and incarceration (Young et al., 2018). One group of youth particularly vulnerable to incarceration is the school-age population of students with behavioral and learning disabilities who drop out or are pushed out of school (Annamma et al., 2014).

In some countries, youth with learning and behavioral disabilities are recognized as having a distinct and specific category of disability and therefore require special consideration under the law. According to Ortega-Campos et al. (2016), risk factors predict incarceration or recidivism, whereas protective factors mitigate the effects of risk factors. As youth with behavioral and learning disabilities are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system, it is not only important to understand the risk and protective factors associated with their becoming involved with the juvenile justice system so as to reduce the probability of their involvement with the law, but it is also important for academic researchers to collaborate with the practitioners who work directly with youth who are in custody. To that end, the author collaboration for this introduction seeks to include a practitioner’s view of this special series.

Theresa A. Ochoa, Corinne C. Datchi, Nicole M. Weller, Miriam Northcutt Bohmert, and Derek Grubbs, authors of “Education and Transition Requirements for Students with Disabilities in American Juvenile Correctional Facilities,” report research in the United States showing an 85% recidivism rate for students with disabilities, compared with a 55% recidivism rate for their typical peers in the general population. These authors explore the transition requirements identified in the Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) and the challenges parents encounter when trying to engage in the transition process with their children.

Likewise, Nina Beatriz Stocco Ranieri and Mirella de Carvalho Bauzys Monteiro describe the set of barriers associated with the education of students with disabilities in Brazil’s complex national legal structure within its juvenile justice system. The structure of its legal system sets the stage for youth to become “invisible” and consequently deprived of adequate treatment for their special needs. This is discussed in “Students with Learning Disabilities in the Brazilian Juvenile Justice System.”

Claire de Mezerville López, Ana Estrella Meza Rodríguez, and Yanúa Ovares Fernández indicate that although people in vulnerable conditions in Costa Rica remain in its Open Education system, the authors of “Costa Rican Education Supports for Youth with Disabilities within Correctional Confinement” reveal a lack of specific research regarding minors who are deprived of their liberty and access to education. In contrast, Marisol Sanchez, Aída Imelda Valero Chávez, Matthew D. O’Donnell, Berenice Pérez Ramírez, and Theresa Ochoa, the authors of “Legal Framework for the Education of Individuals with Disabilities in Mexico,” describe how youth in Mexico with psychosocial disabilities do not receive the same educational services mandated for students in general education.

Ingrid Engene Gøranson, Kathrine Zoeller, and Theresa Ochoa, the authors of “Strengths, Pitfalls, and Potential in Norway’s Approach to Special Education,” point out that although Norway provides individualized instruction to students who qualify for special education services, the educational system in Norway still needs to improve special education competency among general education teachers so they can meet the needs of students with behavioral disabilities.

The five articles in this issue explore four key themes that address the circumstances of youth with disabilities who are likely to end up in correctional confinement. The first theme recognizes the legal framework under which education, and more specifically, special education services, is provided to children and youth inside and outside of confinement. The authors of “Strengths, Pitfalls, and Potential in Norway’s Approach to Special Education” discuss the country’s comprehensive approach to educating its citizens, dividing services into “ordinary, adapted, and special education.” In Norway, youth in confinement are required to receive the services they need to successfully reach their goals; however, they often do not receive those services due to lack of teacher training.

In addition, the authors of “Students with Learning Disabilities in the Brazilian Juvenile Justice System” discuss a legal framework, which results in poverty and low education in general, as well as a lack of responsiveness to youth in confinement who need special education services. They describe the history of Brazilian education as “characterized by exclusion,” and state that this “affects the impact of education as an instrument of social mobility.” They posit the need to promote learning and mitigate the negative impact of functional illiteracy in general, and specify what needs to be done to improve special education services for youth in correctional confinement.

The authors of “Education and Transition Requirements for Students with Disabilities in American Juvenile Correctional Facilities” explore the mandated rules for providing special education services to incarcerated youth and posit the need for better school–community–family partnerships to help students with disabilities become successful. Although the law is clear regarding the provision of special education services for youth in confinement, the role of parents is often minimized, resulting in unsuccessful transitions for youth who are reentering their communities.

In “Costa Rican Education Supports for Youth with Disabilities within Correctional Confinement,” the authors show that incarcerated youth with disabilities do not receive special education services as required under the law. The use of Costa Rica’s “Open Education” curriculum, originally designed for a wide range of people who failed in the traditional education system, unintentionally serves as the de facto approach to providing education services to youth in correctional confinement. The Open Education approach does not include identifying youth for special education services, and there are no data reporting on youth with disabilities in correctional confinement. Also, those who teach youth in confinement are not specifically trained to address the needs of students with disabilities.

The second key theme reflects the punitive versus restorative attitude toward working with youth. Once again, teacher training is highlighted, as teachers often fail to recognize negative behaviors as manifestations of a student’s disability. Consequently, they respond to negative behavior punitively instead of implementing appropriate behavior interventions to reduce the student’s disruptive behavior. Repeated removals from the classroom due to negative behavior leads to expulsion from school, and expulsion from school often leads to involvement in criminal activity, resulting in incarceration.

Gøranson et al. state that Norway is culturally prepared to adopt a non-punitive approach with its youth as evidenced by the rehabilitative approach it takes with incarcerated adults; however, the country’s teachers need to be trained on how to respond to students’ negative behaviors in the classroom. Similarly, Ochoa et al. note that some juvenile correctional jurisdictions in the United States are implementing a framework known as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), but by and large, most youth in confinement are treated harshly and impersonally. They also note the need for teachers to have more training in classroom management techniques and in special education.

The third theme regards “youth who become invisible.” Each article speaks to this, either explicitly or implicitly. Authors Ranieri and Monteiro write about youth who are “invisible” because of a complex legal structure and system that do not provide legislation specific to students with disabilities, or define processes for identifying youth with disabilities, especially in correctional facilities. Similarly, Ochoa et al. write about youth transitioning from confinement to their communities, where they are supposed to enroll back in school, but often do not. Even when staff from the correctional facility notify the public school to expect the student to enroll, the student often becomes “invisible” because the returning student might move to a different geographical location where the public-school staff are not aware of the students’ existence. Thus, the student avoids enrolling in school and there is no way to track them.

Gøranson et al. note that those students who break the law in Norway are often part of a child welfare system, which is largely unregulated and hidden. They also state that some students in Norway who have behavioral disorders are likely to go through school without appropriate education due to the way Norway relies on its ordinary, adapted, and special education system without identifying disabilities in a specific category. The authors suggest that by identifying specific disabilities, adaptations in teaching could be provided, and would prevent eventual delinquent behaviors. Likewise, in Costa Rica, the authors note the lack of data describing youth with disabilities in confinement noting that the Open Education curriculum model does not require youth with disabilities to be identified. Therefore, no data are kept. This becomes a problem when youth return to the community and try to receive special education services in the community school.

Finally, the fourth key theme, teacher training, is woven throughout all of the articles. Generally, all of the articles state that teachers who work with youth in confinement need training in the provision of special education services. In addition, to meet the high percentage of youth with emotional and behavioral needs, teachers need training in the use of PBIS. They also need to know how to implement social emotional learning strategies into their instruction. All of this speaks to the deficits in services provided to youth with disabilities who are in confinement.

This special series sheds light on a demographic of society that is often ignored and invisible. When it comes to the provision of special education services, youth with disabilities who are in confinement are perhaps the group that has the greatest needs of all. While every country approaches special education in a different way, care should be taken in making comparisons. This collection of articles shows the urgency to collect data that can clearly define this group’s needs and outcomes to successfully intervene before they come into contact with their country’s justice system. These articles also highlight the need for policies that explicitly address this group. In addition, the articles in this issue show the importance of funding to meet the myriad of education, social, emotional, and physical interventions necessary to impact the negative life trajectory for those involved. In addition to a description of the seriousness of the problem in providing educational services to youth with behavioral and learning disabilities, nuggets of hope are identified, which can encourage educators to continue to work and move forward in helping this vulnerable population.