A Follow-Up Study on Recidivism among Adjudicated Juveniles with Special Education in the Juvenile Correctional Facility

Abstract

This study examines recidivism among adjudicated juveniles in special education programs in the juvenile correctional facility during the period of 2009–2015. There were two aims of this research: to conduct exploratory analyses of recidivism and to examine whether level of education relates to recidivism among this segment of juvenile offenders. Results revealed that 37.6 % of adjudicated juveniles with special education recidivated and that 52 % of those who recidivated were recommitted within 12 months of being released. Results from logistic regression also show that education failed to significantly predict recidivism once other factors were controlled for in multivariate analyses.

Keywords

adjudicated juvenile juvenile offender juvenile recidivism special education

Introduction

Today, juvenile correctional administrators and practitioners have coped with an array of complex problems such as learning disabilities, substance abuse problems, or mental health issues among incarcerated juveniles in juvenile residential settings (Chen, 2016; Church et al., 2015; Craig et al., 2019; Jennings et al., 2016; Thompson and Morris, 2016; White, 2016). Due to the complexities of educational needs and behavioral concerns among adjudicated juveniles, the juvenile correctional facility needs to establish a comprehensive program to improve the success of juvenile reentry and to reduce the post-release recidivism. For incarcerated juveniles, juvenile correctional education is an essential component for successful reentry into the community upon release. Research indicates that correctional juvenile education programs would, directly or indirectly, enhance the youth’s social, cognitive, and life skills after release from the juvenile correctional facility (Gemignani, 1994; Howell, 1998; Platt et al., 2006). However, there is a need to examine the extent to which such educational programs are effective in terms of reducing recidivism, particularly among subgroups of the population who may be in need of more extensive and intensive education than can typically be provided in a temporary correctional setting where resources are scarce. Using data from the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC), this study explores recidivism rates among juvenile offenders in special education and examines whether education relates to recidivism with this special population.

Literature Review

Starting in the 1980s, a wave of legislation passed across the United States as a means to address a dramatic increase in juvenile crimes. Accordingly, state laws across the United States made it easier to give judges an array of sentencing options such as adjudication to a juvenile correctional facility in order to hold juveniles accountable for criminal behavior and to protect the public’s safety. Consequently, there was a dramatic increase in the number of youth adjudicated to placement in residential or correctional facilities across states in 1990s. More recently, juvenile arrest rates declined almost 60 % for the age group of 15–17 years during the period of 2008–2017. According to the most recent arrest data from Statistical Briefing Book, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP, 2019), approximately 30 % of an estimated 10.5 million arrests in 2017 by US law enforcement agencies were in the age group of 15–24 years.

Adjudicated juveniles have encountered numerous challenges when they have admitted to the juvenile correctional facility. Research has found that juveniles in correctional facilities have substantially poorer cognitive functioning compared to the general population, with studies often finding that youth in correctional facilities score so low that they qualify as having learning disabilities (Baltodano et al., 2005; Foley, 2001; Lansing et al., 2014). Furthermore, research has also indicated that having a learning disability is the most prevalent type of disability among juvenile offenders in the juvenile correctional facilities (Platt et al., 2006; Quinn et al., 2005; Richards and Ellem, 2019; Slaughter et al., 2019). In fact, studies focusing on detained juveniles in US populations generally find that about 40 % of youth in juvenile correctional facilities have a learning disability, with emotional disturbance being the most frequent designation (Cruise et al., 2011).

Indeed, having a learning disability is a significant risk factor to offending and reoffending for youth. The linkage between learning disability and juvenile delinquency has been extensively studied and the prevalence of learning disability is significantly higher among adjudicated juveniles than non-justice-involved juveniles (Defoe et al., 2013; Dowse et al., 2014; Evans et al., 2015; Mallett, 2014; Molina et al., 2014). Youth who have a learning disability have been found to come into contact with the juvenile justice system earlier, receive longer probation supervision, and are more likely to recidivate compared to those without a learning disability (Mallett et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2011a). Among juveniles with learning disabilities, African Americans and males are particularly likely to reoffend compared to others (Zhang et al., 2011b). However, despite the large percentage of juveniles in correctional facilities with learning disabilities, there has been little investigation into whether other risk factors that are traditionally associated with recidivism among the general population are also important for those with learning disabilities.

Research has identified a number of risk factors found to be associated with recidivism among juveniles. For instance, research has found that past involvement in criminality, age of first offense, having a conduct or mental health disorders, having family risk factors (i.e. family disruption, substance use, poor supervision, monitoring, and relationships), associating with deviant peers, and community disadvantage (Intravia et al., 2017; Mallett et al., 2012; Mulder et al., 2010). Moreover, research on among juvenile offenders has also found several demographic correlates to recidivism. For example, males have consistently been reported to have higher rates of recidivism than females (Minor et al., 2008). In addition, there appears to be some variability in terms of specific risk factors of recidivism for males and females (McReynolds et al., 2010). With respect to race, the picture is less clear. Some studies find that White juvenile offenders report lower rates of recidivism compared to African American juvenile offenders (Barrett and Katsiyannis, 2015), while other research finds no differences in recidivism by race once background factors are accounted for (Conrad et al., 2014; Mbuba, 2005).

Educational deficiency, however, is generally regarded as one of the major risk factors to delinquent or criminal behavior among juveniles (Barnert et al., 2015; Leverso et al., 2015; Smeets, 2014; Ungar et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2014). Quite often, educational deficiency among adjudicated juveniles or young adult offenders has prevented them from a suitable employment or becoming self-sufficient. The impact of educational deficiency on recidivism is significant. Research indicates that educationally illiterate ex-offenders are likely disproportionally unemployed (Lockwood et al., 2015; Nally et al., 2013; Steurer and Smith, 2003; Winterfield et al., 2009). Subsequently, the recidivism rate among those educationally illiterate ex-offenders is significantly high. For example, a recent study found that the recidivism rate among ex-offenders who had a college education was 31 %, but the recidivism rate was 56 % among ex-offenders who did not complete high school prior to release from the prison (Lockwood et al., 2015).

Education may be a particularly relevant risk factor for juveniles with learning disabilities. Quite often education deficiency, which is commonly associated with school dropout or delinquent behavior, is the most challenging issue among adjudicated juveniles (Peguero et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2018). Education may be particularly crucial for juveniles with learning disabilities, as learning disabilities are closely related to academic incompetency or school dropout among adolescents, and school dropout is one of the major contributing factors to delinquent or criminal behavioral among adolescents (Jarrett et al., 2014; Kliewer and Lepore, 2015; Morris et al., 2011). Moreover, education for juvenile offenders with learning disabilities may also be especially crucial as these youth likely have greater educational deficiencies and needs compared to others. On the other hand, the deficiencies and needs may be so great, the academic ceiling may be too low, or the variability in level of education so small that education may not relate to recidivism among juvenile offenders with learning disabilities as it is with the general population.

That being said, the juvenile correctional facility has to equip with a well-established special education curriculum to meet with educational needs among adjudicated juveniles, and particularly the many with learning disabilities. Due to the fact that all adjudicated juveniles will eventually reenter the community from the juvenile correctional facility, school reenrollment is one of the most important transitional services for adjudicated juveniles prior to release from juvenile correctional facility. Furthermore, research indicates that school reenrollment is an essential pathway to the success of juvenile reentry upon release from the juvenile correctional facility (Feierman et al., 2009; Hawkins et al., 2009; Hirschfield, 2014; Mathur and Clark, 2014). However, some scholars have been critical of the quality of educational programs and general care that juveniles receive in correctional facilities, especially those who are in adult prisons (Cate, 2010). Moreover, even when juveniles with learning disabilities are able to make significant education gains while incarcerated, it is difficult to sustain satisfactory educational progress when released or to complete the degree (Cavendish, 2014).

To sum, a large proportion of juveniles in correctional facilities have learning disabilities (Cruise et al., 2011). However, research on recidivism among those with learning disabilities or in special educational programs has been infrequent over the years. Therefore, one primary aim of this study is to provide an exploratory analysis of recidivism rates among an overrepresented yet somewhat neglected subgroup of the population – adjudicated juveniles in special education programs. In addition, this study aims to empirically examine the importance of education to recidivism among adjudicated juveniles in special education programs. While previous research has found that education and educational programming have been important predictors of offending and recidivism among juvenile offenders (Barnert et al., 2015; Leverso et al., 2015; Smeets, 2014; Ungar et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2014), few have tested whether this also predicts recidivism among youth with learning disabilities or in special education programs. Thus, our main hypothesis is that adjudicated juveniles in special education programs with a higher level of education will have lower odd of recidivism. While it is possible that education is less consequential to recidivism among youth in special needs educational programs, given the robustness of the finding that education predicts recidivism in the general population we expect it also to predict recidivism in our sample of adjudicated juveniles in special education programs.

Methods

Participants

Data contain a total of 2071 juveniles who had been adjudicated to Indiana juvenile correctional facilities and had registered in special education curriculum during the period of 2009–2015. A majority of adjudicated juveniles with special education were Caucasian males in the age range of 15–17 years. Almost 87.0 % (n = 1820) of 2071 juveniles were male and 13.0 % (n = 269) of juveniles were female. Approximately 53.2 % (n = 1102) of 2071 juveniles were Caucasian, 36.3 % (n = 752) of juveniles were African American, 6.3 % (n = 130) of juveniles were Hispanic, and 4.2 % (n = 87) of juveniles whose racial identities were classified as other races (i.e. Native American, Asian, and Pacific Islander). There were 0.7 % (n = 14) of 2071 juveniles with special education who were admitted to Indiana juvenile correctional facilities at 12 years old, 2.8 % (n = 57) of juveniles were admitted at 13 years old, 9.0 % (n = 186) of juveniles were admitted at 14 years old, 22.8 % (n = 473) of juveniles were admitted at 15 years old, 30.3 % (n = 627) of juveniles were admitted at 16 years old, 33.9 % (n = 702) of juveniles were admitted at 17 years old, and 0.6% (n = 12) of juveniles were admitted at 18 years old.

Instruments

The dependent measure will focus on post-release recidivism among adjudicated juveniles during the study period of 2009–2015. This measure is based on official records from the IDOC. Meanwhile, the juvenile’s education level (prior to release from the facility) will be the main independent variable in the analyses of post-release recidivism among adjudicated juveniles with special education. In this study, the juvenile’s education level will be measured by the grade completion upon release from the juvenile correctional facilities, as reported by the IDOC. This study will control for demographical characteristics (i.e. gender, race, and age) of the juveniles who have registered in special education programs in the juvenile correctional facilities. In addition to the juvenile’s demographical characteristics, this study also controls for the juvenile’s intake status at admission (new commitment vs recommitment). It is important to mention that the adjudicated juvenile is regarded a ‘repeated’ offender if the juvenile has been coded as ‘recommitment’ status on the basis of IDOC admission database. The juvenile’s previous commitment (prior to 2009) will be an important control variable in the present analysis of post-release recidivism among adjudicated juveniles. Meanwhile, the adjudicated juvenile can be released from the Indiana juvenile correctional facilities if he or she has completed legally mandated obligations or under parole supervision. The administrative or legal decision to release the juvenile from the juvenile correctional facility can be an influential factor on the post-release recidivism among adjudicated juveniles in this study.

Procedure

In the United States, the vast majority of children under the age of 18 will have their case adjudicated in juvenile court. After adjudicatory hearing they are sentenced to serve time in a juvenile, or sometimes adult, correctional facility. In the state of Indiana, there are three main juvenile correctional facilities affiliated with the IDOC, with the Division of Youth Services (DYS) overseeing the care of adjudicated juvenile offenders. The DYS utilizes the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model focusing on treatment, youth development, and reentry procedures.

Data collection for this study was sought and approved by the IDOC through its internal review process. After approval from IDOC’s Review Panel, IDOC provided the juvenile admission and release data for the present study’s analyses in regard to post-release recidivism among adjudicated juveniles with special education in the juvenile correctional facilities. It is important to mention that the data sets did not contain any personally identifiable information such as name of the juvenile or social security number (SS#). The researchers relied on the juvenile’s IDOC number to systematically examine the post-release recidivism among adjudicated juveniles in this study.

Academic assessments are important components of juvenile’s intervention which are intended to adequately address the juvenile’s educational needs, such as special education curriculum, when the juvenile has been admitted to the designated facility. The study group was selected on the basis of the juvenile’s education status (i.e. special education) when adjudicated juveniles were registered in correctional schools in the juvenile correctional facilities. All adjudicated juveniles are required to take a variety of tests during the intake process at the diagnostic center of Logansport juvenile correctional facility to determine their intellectual ability, academic achievement, vocational interests, and learning styles. There are five testing instruments used for this purpose; they are as follows: (1) Wide Range Achievement Test–Brief Normative, (2) TC/S-Brief IQ Test, (3) Shipley-2 Brief IQ Test, (4) Self-Directed Search (SDS), and (5) Student Styles Questionnaire (SSQ). The testing results from the intake process, along with previous school records, are used to assign the youth to an appropriate education program. This intake process is crucial for assessing the risk and needs of the adjudicated juveniles in order to enroll them in appropriate educational programs (regular curriculum or special education curriculum). The school curricula in the juvenile correctional facilities are aligned to the Indiana high school Core 40 diploma that are provided in Indiana’s middle or high schools. Therefore, all completed credits from high school courses or career technical education courses will transfer to the community school upon release from the juvenile correctional facility.

Data analysis

To address the first research aim, to explore recidivism among adjudicated juveniles in special education, a univariate analysis will be conducted to understand demographical characteristics (i.e. race, gender, and age) of juveniles who had adjudicated to Indiana juvenile correctional facilities with special education designations and to determine the recidivism rate for this group of juvenile offenders. In addition, bivariate analyses will be carried out to further explore recidivism by focusing on the elapsed time between release and recommission. The present researchers will also conduct a logistic multiple regression analysis to address the second research aim and test our main hypothesis that higher levels of education will relate to lower odds of recidivism.

Findings

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the 2071 adjudicated juveniles with special education designation in our data. In regard to the juvenile’s educational status, the results of this study found that a majority of adjudicated juveniles with special education had completed at least eighth grade of education at admission to Indiana juvenile correctional facility. Approximately 82.0 % (n = 1697) of in a total of 2071 juveniles in this study had completed a minimum of eighth grade of education in the community schools when they were adjudicated to Indiana juvenile correctional facilities. This study’s results also revealed that 7.0 % (n = 146) of 2071 adjudicated juveniles with special education had received a high school diploma or general education diploma (GED) when they attended the schools in the facilities, prior to their release from Indiana juvenile correctional facilities.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics of demographics and education among Indiana adjudicated juveniles with special education (N = 2071).

Variable	Coding	Frequency	Percentage
Gender of juvenile	1 = female	269	13.0
	2 = male	1820	87.0
Race of juvenile	1 = Caucasian	1102	53.2
	2 = African American	752	36.3
	3 = Hispanic	130	6.3
	4 = other races	87	4.2
Age of juvenile (at admission)	1 = 12 years	14	.7
	2 = 13 years	57	2.8
	3 = 14 years	186	9.0
	4 = 15 years	473	22.8
	5 = 16 years	627	30.3
	6 = 17 years	702	33.9
	7 = 18 years	12	.6
Education of juvenile (at release)	1 = 3rd grade	1	.0
	2 = 4th grade	6	.3
	3 = 5th grade	20	1.0
	4 = 6th grade	73	3.5
	5 = 7th grade	205	9.9
	6 = 8th grade	485	23.4
	7 = 9th grade	585	28.2
	8 = 10th grade	421	20.3
	9 = 11th grade	129	6.2
	10 = high school/GED	146	7.0
Intake status at admission	1 = new commitment	1840	88.9
	2 = recommitted after release	159	7.7
	9 = unknown	72	3.5
Reason for release from	1 = obligation completed	1360	65.7
Indiana facility	2 = released to parole supervision	579	28.0
	9 = unknown	131	6.3
Recidivism rate	1 = non-recidivist juvenile	1292	62.4
	2 = recidivist juvenile	779	37.6

GED: general education diploma.

The results of this study further revealed that 88.9 % (n = 1840) of 2071 adjudicated juveniles had no prior commitment to IDOC (i.e. new commitment) during the study period of 2009–2015, 7.7 % (n = 159) of juveniles were recommitted to IDOC, and 6.3 % (n = 131) of juveniles whose intake status were unknown. In regard to the juvenile’s release status, this study’s results showed that almost 65.7 % (n = 1360) of 2071 adjudicated juveniles who had completed court-mandated obligations were released from the juvenile correctional facilities, 28.0 % (n = 579) of juveniles were released to parole supervision under IDOC’s DYS, but 6.3 % (n = 131) of juveniles whose release status were unknown.

Importantly, and in relation to our first exploratory aim of this study, results demonstrate that the recidivism rate of adjudicated juveniles with special education in this study was 37.6 %. Specifically, this study revealed that almost 62.4 % (n = 1292) of 2071 adjudicated juveniles with special education were non-recidivist. However, additional exploration of the data revealed that 16.9 % (n = 349) of 2071 adjudicated juveniles were recommitted to IDOC as a juvenile during this study period (2009–2015), 16.5 % (n = 341) of adjudicated juveniles were recommitted to IDOC as an adult, and 4.3 % (n = 89) of adjudicated juveniles were recommitted to IDOC as a juvenile and as an adult due to their multiple commitments to IDOC.

Table 2 demonstrates further exploratory analysis of recidivism among adjudicated juveniles in special education programs by considering the post-release recidivism rate and number of recommitted juveniles (by quarter) in this follow-up study. The results of this study revealed that almost 10.5 % (n = 82) of a total of 779 recidivist juveniles were recommitted to IDOC within 3 months after release from Indiana juvenile correctional facility. Approximately 52.0 % (n = 405) of 779 recidivist juveniles were recommitted to IDOC within 12 months (i.e. 1 year) after release from Indiana juvenile correctional facility. Furthermore, the return rate among 779 recidivist juveniles within 24 months (i.e. 2 years) after release was 76.9 %. The return rate among 779 recidivist juveniles within 36 months (i.e. 3 years) after release was 90.1 %. This study’s results clearly indicated that juvenile recommitment was likely occurred within 1–2 years after release if there was no adequate intervention to address the juvenile’s criminogenic needs.

Table 2.

Recidivism rate and number of juveniles returned on the basis of elapsed time between release and recommitment among recidivist juveniles (n = 779).

Elapsed time (measured by quarter)	No. of juvenile (cumulative)	Recidivism rate (cumulative) (%)
Within 1 quarter (3 months) after release	82	10.5
Within 2 quarters (6 months) after release	221	28.4
Within 3 quarters (9 months) after release	328	42.1
Within 4 quarters (12 months) after release	405	52.0
Within 5 quarters (15 months) after release	481	61.7
Within 6 quarters (18 months) after release	535	68.7
Within 7 quarters (21 months) after release	566	72.7
Within 8 quarters (24 months) after release	599	76.9
Within 9 quarters (27 months) after release	626	80.4
Within 10 quarters (30 months) after release	656	84.2
Within 11 quarters (33 months) after release	678	87.0
Within 12 quarters (36 months) after release	702	90.1
Within 13 quarters (39 months) after release	721	92.6
Within 14 quarters (42 months) after release	735	94.4
Within 15 quarters (45 months) after release	743	95.4
Within 16 quarters (48 months) after release	753	96.7
Within 17 quarters (51 months) after release	761	97.7
Within 18 quarters (54 months) after release	763	97.9
Within 19 quarters (57 months) after release	770	98.8
Within 20 quarters (60 months) after release	774	99.4
Within 21 quarters (63 months) after release	777	99.7
Within 22 quarters (64 months) after release	779	100.0

Table 3 illustrates the logistic multiple regression analyses of post-release recidivism among 2071 adjudicated juveniles with special education in the study period of 2009–2015. With respect to adjudicated juveniles with special education, results of the logistic multiple regression analysis indicated that the juvenile’s demographic characteristics (i.e. gender, race, and age) were statistically and significantly correlated (p < .001) with post-release recidivism. In other words, male juveniles, African American juveniles, and younger juveniles, who had registered in the special education curriculum, were likely to be recidivist juveniles after release from the juvenile correctional facility. This logistic multiple regression analysis also revealed that the juvenile’s previous commitment to IDOC was statistically and positively correlated (p < .001) with post-release recidivism. Adjudicated juveniles with special education were likely to be recidivist juveniles if they were previously committed to IDOC’s juvenile correctional facility. Meanwhile, the juvenile’s release status was statistically and positively correlated (p < .005) with post-release recidivism. In other words, adjudicated juveniles with special education were likely to be recommitted to IDOC if they were released to parole supervision under the IDOC’s DYS. Furthermore, and contrary to the expectations of our main hypothesis, the results of logistic multiple regression analysis also revealed that the juvenile’s grade completion in the special education curriculum had no effect on post-release recidivism while controlling for other variable in the equation.

Table 3.

Logistic multiple regression analysis of post-release recidivism among adjudicated juveniles with special education (N = 2071).

Variable	Coefficient (B)	SE	Wald	Odds ratio
Male juvenile	.73***	.17	18.18	2.08
African American juvenile	.46***	.11	17.34	1.58
Age of juvenile	−.37***	.07	31.09	.69
Education level of juvenile	−.04	.06	.58	.96
Release to parole supervision	.30*	.12	6.51	1.36
Recommitment status at admission	1.30***	.21	38.67	3.66
Constant				2.72
−2 log likelihood				2055.79
Nagelkerke R²				.14

SE denotes standard error of coefficient in a given variable in the model and Wald is the chi-square test in the equation. Only Caucasian and African American juveniles are included in the equation due to a relatively small sample of juveniles are other races.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

Recidivism has been frequently used as the benchmark to evaluate the success (or failure) of the juvenile justice system. Yet, limited research has examined recidivism among special populations of youth because of difficulties acquiring official data on juvenile offenders, particularly those that examine whether similar risk factors are present as those typically found in the general population. This study explored recidivism rates among adjudicated juveniles with special education and tested whether levels of education were related to recidivism.

The first aim of this study was an exploratory analysis of the degree of recidivism among adjudicated juveniles with special education. This study found that 37.6 % of adjudicated juveniles with special education were recommitted to IDOC, as a juvenile or an adult, after they had been released from the juvenile correctional facility. This rate is slightly higher than the 33 % average reported by the IDOC for 2018 (IDOC, 2019). Another notable finding from this study was that more than 52 % of 779 recidivist juveniles with special education in this study period (2009–2015) were recommitted to IDOC within 12 months after release from the juvenile correctional facility. Moreover, supplemental analyses (not shown) revealed that more than 55 % (n = 430) of the 779 recidivist juveniles with special education were recommitted to IDOC as an adult after release from the juvenile correctional facility during this study period.

The finding that adjudicated juveniles with special education report slightly higher rates of recidivism is consistent with prior literature. Specifically, while focused on learning disabilities more generally, past studies have reported that juveniles with learning disabilities are more likely to recidivate compared to those without a learning disability (Mallett et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2011a). There are many reasons why this may be the case. For example, those in special education programs are more likely to struggle in school or dropout altogether after being released, even if educational gains are made while incarcerated (Cavendish, 2014). The poor academic performance and achievement experienced by this group may therefore push those in special education programs to reoffend (Jarrett et al., 2014; Kliewer and Lepore, 2015; Morris et al., 2011). In addition, some of the cognitive and behavioral factors (i.e. low self-control neuropsychological deficits, or having an emotional disturbance learning disability) that cause youth to be identified as being placed in special education programs may also directly increase the likelihood of offending and reoffending (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Moffitt, 1993). Future research should further explain why juveniles in special educational programs are more likely to offend than others. The second aim of this study was to examine the relationship between education and recidivism and entailed our main hypothesis, that those with higher levels of education will have lower odds of recidivism among adjudicated juveniles with special education. Interestingly, we failed to find support for this hypothesis. Specifically, the effect of the juvenile’s education level (i.e. grade completion prior to release) on post-release recidivism was not statistically significant (at p < .05) while controlling for other variables in the equation.

We had expected education to predict recidivism among adjudicated juveniles because of prior research with the general population shows that education-related factors, such as school dropout, are significant predictors of recidivism for juveniles (Barnert et al., 2015; Leverso et al., 2015; Smeets, 2014; Ungar et al., 2014; Williams et al., 2014). That this is not the case for those in special education programs is interesting and warrants further explanation. It is possible that education is less predictive of recidivism because the deficiencies and challenges are so great that few gains are ever made. Researchers have been critical of the degree to which correctional facilities are able to provide adequate care for juveniles with special education needs (Cate, 2010). Relatedly, it could also be that education simply has less of a pay-off for adjudicated juveniles in special education programs because of other traits or characteristics. For example, education may help youth get a job or be admitted to college, but those with special education needs may have characteristics that make it difficult to keep a job, advance in a job, do well in college, or graduate (Kaye, 2009; Murray et al., 2000; Siperstein et al., 2013). Future research should examine the external validity of this finding by testing whether education relates to recidivism with adjudicated juveniles in special education programs in samples outside of the state of Indiana. Moreover, future research should also look to use mediated-moderation techniques to try and empirically explain why there may be differences in the relationship between education and recidivism by special education status of juvenile offenders.

Other notable findings were that the juvenile’s intake status (i.e. recommitment) and release status (i.e. under parole supervision) were relatively influential factors on post-release recidivism among adjudicated juveniles with special education. In many ways it is not surprising that juvenile’s intake status predicted recidivism. Those who are recommitted are essentially repeat offenders and likely represent more serious or, at the very least, more persistent offenders. There are a number of reasons why this may be the case. For example, Sampson and Laub (1990) discuss how being institutionalized in adolescence can put youth on criminal trajectories throughout the life course by cutting off or limiting pro-social opportunities and activities. Thus, repeat offenders may have less room for error and lose more pro-social opportunities than first-time offenders. In contrast, it may also be that institutionalized youth who are repeat offenders are more likely to have pre-existing traits such as low self-control or neuropsychological deficits that drive their likelihood to recidivate (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Moffitt, 1993). Furthermore, it could also be that the system is giving up on reoffenders and putting less time and effort in rehabilitative efforts. Given the nature of this special population, more research is needed to further unpack exactly why those who have been recommitted are more likely to recidivate among juveniles in special education.

Similarly, the finding that those who were released while under parole supervision were more likely to reoffend is quite interesting. On the one hand, youth released under parole supervision would have had to petition to be released early to receive this status. Hence, one would expect less serious, non-violent offenders to be more likely granted this status. On the other hand, there is an abundance of research and criticism on what can be the punitive nature of some types of parole (Caputo, 2004). Namely, critics have argued that intensive supervision programs can increase recidivism because of the extreme scrutiny and requirements it places on individuals, so much so that people often reoffend by violating a technical condition of parole rather than recommitting an actual crime. While adjudicated youth may not be part of intensive supervision parole programs per se, the increased monitoring and supervision they experience relative to those not released under parole could explain the increased likelihood to recidivate. This is particularly concerning for youth with special education needs, as they may have more cognitive and behavioral difficulties understanding and adhering to heavily scrutinized and technical requirements that can come with parole. Future research should further examine the types of offenses being committed among those who recidivate who are released on parole among youth with special education needs.

Aside for education, it is also worth noting that other demographic variables were related to recidivism in the expected ways among this subgroup of the population. Namely, as with studies on the general population (Barrett and Katsiyannis, 2015; Minor et al., 2008), findings from our sample of adjudicated youth in special education revealed that males were more likely to recidivate than females, African American youth were more likely to recidivate than White youth, and younger youth were more likely to recidivate than older youth. While these findings demonstrate similar basic patterns as with the general population, future research should consider more nuanced ways in which demographic characteristics and juveniles in special education intersect. For example, perhaps educational treatments and services are more or less effective for some groups of special education offenders than others. Similarly, it could be that level of education is more important for some subgroups of the special education juveniles than others.

There are limitations with this study. The first limitation is with respect to external validity, as this study is based on data from special education juveniles in detention centers in the state of Indiana. Recidivism rates with this population are not only likely to vary state by state, but recidivism also varies internationally by country. For instance, the degree to which some countries or states place efforts to criminalize the behaviors of youth, to involve youth in the criminal justice system, to put resources to rehabilitation, or to provide services to youth in need of special education likely will result in different rates of recidivism. Moreover, level of education among this juveniles in special education may be more varied or consequential for youth in other parts of the country or internationally. A second limitation is that the data contain limited information about adjudicated juveniles after release from the juvenile correctional facility. Thus, this study could not examine the contributing factors to recidivism associated with the juvenile’s peers, family, school-related activities, substance use, or criminality. Moreover, although this study found that there was a notable number of adjudicated juveniles recommitted to IDOC, a longitudinal study is needed to further examine the linkage between juvenile delinquency and adult criminality in the near future.

Conclusion

Despite the aforementioned limitations, this study makes an important contribution to the juvenile delinquency literature by exploring recidivism among adjudicated juveniles in special education programs. We found that nearly 40 % of juvenile offenders in special education recidivate, with over 50 % of those who recidivated doing so within the first year upon being released. We also found that, unlike studies with a general population of juvenile offenders, education did not predict recidivism among our sample of adjudicated juveniles in special education programs. Special-education juveniles represent an array of complex challenges to the criminal justice system when they have been adjudicated to the juvenile correctional facility. It is important that juvenile correctional facilities put the care and resources toward meeting the needs of those in special education programs, as this is a high-risk group to reoffend. One promising set of programs that can be implemented deal with offering enhanced services. For instance, research by Clark et al. (2011) found that juveniles with disabilities who received enhanced services were 64 % less likely to recidivate compared to others. Our findings regarding education are perplexing, however, and suggest that educational services alone will not be effective in reducing recidivism among juveniles in special education programs. It may thus be more fruitful for treatment services to focus on other aspects of care, such as improving behavior, temperament, emotional regulation, communication skills, or adaptive skills.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Taiping Ho

Gregory C. Rocheleau

Author biographies

Taiping Ho received his PhD and Master’s degree in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Florida State University. He is currently a full professor of Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Ball State University. He has published more than 50 research publications which are related to issues such as evaluations of competency to stand trial among mentally retarded defendants, police use of force, police recruitment and officer selection process, hotel crimes, recidivism among post-release offenders, and other criminal-justice-related subjects such as correctional education.

Gregory C. Rocheleau is an assistant professor of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Ball State University. His research interests include bullying victimization, criminological theory, and relationships between work and delinquency. His most recent publications examine bullying victimization among food-allergic youth, relationships between problem gambling and deviance, and the influence of peers on e-cigarette use using principles from social learning theory.

References

Baltodano

Harris

Rutherford

(2005) Academic achievement in juvenile corrections: Examining the impact of age, ethnicity and disability. Education and Treatment of Children 28(4): 361–379.

Barnert

Perry

Azzi

Shetgiri

Ryan

Dudovitz

Zima

Chung

(2015) Incarcerated youth’s perspectives on protective factors and risk factors for juvenile offending: A qualitative analysis. American Journal of Public Health 105(7): 1365–1371.

Barrett

Katsiyannis

(2015) Juvenile delinquency recidivism: Are black and white youth vulnerable to the same risk factors? Behavioral Disorders 40(3): 184–195.

Caputo

(2004) Intermediate Sanctions in Corrections (No. 4). Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press.

Cate

(2010) Teach your children well: Proposed challenges to inadequacies of correctional special education for juvenile inmates. NYU Review of Law & Social Change 34(1): 1–53.

Cavendish

(2014) Academic attainment during commitment and postrelease education–related outcomes of juvenile justice-involved youth with and without disabilities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 22(1): 41–52.

Chen

(2016) Childhood onset of behavioral problems and violent victimization among serious juvenile offenders: A longitudinal study. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14(3): 243–256.

Church

Jaggers

Tomek

Bolland

Hooper

Bolland

(2015) Does permissive parenting relate to levels of delinquency? An examination of family management practices in low-income Black American families. Journal of Juvenile Justice 4(2): 95–110.

Clark

Mathur

Helding

(2011) Transition services for juvenile detainees with disabilities: Findings on recidivism. Education and Treatment of Children 34(4): 511–529.

10.

Conrad

Tolou-Shams

Rizzo

Placella

Brown

(2014) Gender differences in recidivism rates for juvenile justice youth: The impact of sexual abuse. Law and Human Behavior 38(4): 305–314.

11.

Craig

Intravia

Wolff

(2019) What can help? Examining levels of substance (non)use as a protective factor in the effects of ACEs on crime. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 17(1): 42–61.

12.

Cruise

Evans

Pickens

(2011) Integrating mental health and special education needs into comprehensive service planning for juvenile offenders in long-term custody settings. Learning and Individual Differences 21(1): 30–40.

13.

Defoe

Farrington

Loeber

(2013) Disentangling the relationship between delinquency and hyperactivity, low achievement, depression, and low socioeconomic status: Analysis of repeated longitudinal data. Journal of Criminal Justice 41(2): 100–107.

14.

Dowse

Cumming

Strnadova

Lee

Trofimovs

(2014) Youth people with complex needs in the criminal justice system. Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities 1(2): 174–185.

15.

Evans

Clinkinbeard

Simi

(2015) Learning disabilities and delinquent behaviors among adolescents: A comparison of those with and without comorbidity. Deviant Behavior 36(3): 200–220.

16.

Feierman

Levick

Mody

(2009) The school-to-prison pipeline . . . and back: Obstacles and remedies for the re-enrollment of adjudicated youth. New York Law School Law Review 54(10): 1115–1129.

17.

Foley

(2001) Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional educational programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 9(4): 248–259.

18.

Gemignani

(1994) Juvenile Correctional Education: A Time for Change. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

19.

Gottfredson

Hirschi

(1990) A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

20.

Hawkins

Lattimore

Dawes

Visher

(2009) Reentry experiences of confined juvenile offenders: Characteristics, service receipt, and outcomes of juvenile male participants in the SVORI multi-site evaluation (A federally-granted research report to US Department of Justice). Available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/230423.pdf

21.

Hirschfield

(2014) Effective and promising practices in transitional planning and school reentry. Journal of Correctional Education 65(2): 84–96.

22.

Howell

(1998) Guide for Implementing the Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and Chronic Juvenile Offenders. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

23.

Indiana Department of Correction (2019) Juvenile recidivism 2018. Retrieved from: https://secure.in.gov/idoc/files/2018JuvRecidivismRpt.pdf

24.

Intravia

Pelletier

Wolff

Baglivio

(2017) Community disadvantage, prosocial bonds, and juvenile reoffending: A multilevel mediation analysis. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15(3): 240–263.

25.

Jarrett

Siddiqui

Lochman

(2014) Internalizing problems as a predictor of change in externalizing problems in at-risk youth. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 43(1): 27–35.

26.

Jennings

Piquero

Farrington

Ttofi

Crago

Theobald

(2016) The intersections of drug use continuity with nonviolent offending and involvement in violence over the life course: Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14(2): 95–109.

27.

Kaye

(2009) Stuck at the bottom rung: Occupational characteristics of workers with disabilities. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 19(2): 115–128.

28.

Kliewer

Lepore

(2015) Exposure to violence, social cognitive processing, and sleep problems in urban adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 44(2): 507–517.

29.

Lansing

Washburn

Abram

Thomas

Welty

Teplin

(2014) Cognitive and academic functioning of juvenile detainees: Implications for correctional populations and public health. Journal of Correctional Health Care 20(1): 18–30.

30.

Leverso

Bielby

Hoelter

(2015) Back on the streets: Maturation and risk factors for recidivism among serious juvenile prisoners. Journal of Adolescence 41(1): 67–75.

31.

Lockwood

Nally

Knutson

(2015) Racial disparities and similarities in post-release recidivism and employment among ex-prisoners with a different level of education. Journal of Prison Education and Reentry 2(1): 35–50.

32.

McReynolds

Schwalbe

Wasserman

(2010) The contribution of psychiatric disorder to juvenile recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior 37(2): 204–216.

33.

Mallett

(2014) Youthful offending and delinquency: The comorbid impact of maltreatment, mental health problems, and learning disabilities. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 31(4): 369–392.

34.

Mallett

Fukushima

Stoddard-Dare

Quinn

(2012) Significant race differences in factors related to the detention recidivism of youthful offenders. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice 10(1): 24–40.

35.

Mallett

Stoddard-Dare

Seck

(2011) Explicating correlates of juvenile offender detention length: The impact of race, mental health difficulties, maltreatment, offense type, and court dispositions. Youth Justice 11(2): 134–149.

36.

Mathur

Clark

(2014) Community engagement for reentry success of youth from juvenile justice: Challenges and opportunities. Education and Treatment of Children 37(4): 713–734.

37.

Mbuba

(2005) A refutation of racial differentials in the juvenile recidivism rate hypothesis. African Journal of Criminology & Justice Studies 1(2): 51–68.

38.

Minor

Wells

Angel

(2008) Recidivism among juvenile offenders following release from residential placements: Multivariate predictors and gender differences. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 46(3–4): 171–188.

39.

Moffitt

(1993) A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100(4): 674–701.

40.

Molina

Walther

Cheong

Pedersen

Gnagy

Pelham

(2014) Heavy alcohol use in early adulthood as a function of childhood ADHD: Developmentally specific mediation by social impairment and delinquency. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 22(2): 110–121.

41.

Morris

Gerber

Menard

(2011) Social bonds, self-control, and adult criminality: A nationally representative assessment of Hirschi’s revised self-control theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior 38(6): 584–599.

42.

Mulder

Brand

Bullens

Van Marle

(2010) A classification of risk factors in serious juvenile offenders and the relation between patterns of risk factors and recidivism. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health 20(1): 23–38.

43.

Murray

Goldstein

Nourse

Edgar

(2000) The postsecondary school attendance and completion rates of high school graduates with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 15(3): 119–127.

44.

Nally

Lockwood

Knutson

(2013) The marginally employed prisoner: A unique phenomenon among released prisoners. Journal of Correctional Education 64(1): 50–68.

45.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) (2019) Arrest characteristics of older juveniles and young adults. Statistical Briefing Book, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. Available at: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/snapshots/DataSnapshot_UCR2017.pdf

46.

Peguero

Merrin

Hong

Johnson

(2019) School disorder and dropping out: The intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. Youth & Society 51(2): 193–218.

47.

Platt

Casey

Faessel

(2006) The need for a paradigmatic change in juvenile correctional education. Preventing School Failure 51(1): 31–38.

48.

Quinn

Osher

Poirier

Rutherford

Leone

(2005) Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children 71(3): 339–345.

49.

Richards

Ellem

(2019) Young people with cognitive disabilities and overrepresentation in the criminal justice system: Service provider perspectives on policing. Police Practice and Research 20(2): 156–171.

50.

Sampson

Laub

(1990) Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review 55(5): 609–627.

51.

Siperstein

Parker

Drascher

(2013) National snapshot of adults with intellectual disabilities in the labor force. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation 39(3): 157–165.

52.

Slaughter

Hein

Hong

Mire

Grigorenko

(2019) Criminal behavior and school discipline in juvenile justice-involved youth with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 49: 2268–2280.

53.

Smeets

(2014) Education in young prisoner institutions and secure youth care institutions. Educational Research and Evaluation: An International Journal on Theory and Practice 20(1): 67–80.

54.

Steurer

Smith

(2003) Education Reduces Crime: Three-State Inmate Recidivism Study. Lantham, MD: Correctional Education Association.

55.

Tan

Brown

Leibowitz

(2018) School, social-communicative, and academic challenges among delinquents and juvenile sexual offenders. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 35(6): 577–585.

56.

Thompson

Morris

(2016) Juvenile Delinquency and Disability. Cham: Springer.

57.

Ungar

Liebenberg

Ikeda

(2014) Young people with complex needs: Designing coordinated interventions to promote resilience across child welfare, juvenile corrections, mental health and education services. British Journal of Social Work 44(3): 675–693.

58.

White

(2016) Incarcerated youth with mental health problems: A focus on the intersection of race, ethnicity, and mental illness. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 14(4): 426–447.

59.

Williams

LeCroy

Vivian

(2014) Assessing risk of recidivism among juvenile prisoners: The development and validation of the recidivism risk instrument. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work 11(4): 318–327.

60.

Winterfield

Coggeshall

Burke-Storer

Correa

(2009) The effects of postsecondary correctional education. Final report. Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute, Washington, DC.

61.

Zhang

Barrett

Katsiyannis

Yoon

(2011a) Juvenile offenders with and without disabilities: Risks and patterns of recidivism. Learning and Individual Differences 21(1): 12–18.

62.

Zhang

Hsu

Katsiyannis

Barrett

(2011b) Adolescents with disabilities in the juvenile justice system: Patterns of recidivism. Exceptional Children 77(3): 283–298.