For States Looking to Reform Juvenile Justice Education, a Road Map Exists

As a teacher, I have seen many students become entangled in the criminal justice system at a young age. This led me to wonder: What is the educational experience of youth in the criminal justice system? According to the Individuals with Disabilities Act, States are required to provide them with a “Free and Appropriate Education.” However, the actual services students receive while incarcerated varies from state to state and facility to facility.

According to a 2014 Dear Colleague Letter, published jointly by the Department of Education and Department of Justice, there are roughly 60,000 youth in detention. Many of these students have been diagnosed with learning or emotional disabilities, meaning they need additional educational services.

The challenges faced when educating juveniles in detention facilities are numerous: Youth come in with a variety of needs and at different skill levels, staff are often not trained to provide educational services and resources are frequently scarce. How do states grapple with these challenges? One state provides an example of effective policies and practices.

In the 1990s, Connecticut’s system was as bad as anywhere else in the country when a class-action lawsuit, Emily J. vs. Weicker, brought awareness to the issue. Investigations related to the lawsuit exposed deplorable conditions within the Connecticut detention facilities. Among other things, the state agreed to reform its juvenile justice education programs under court supervision.

By 2012, the state was considered a national model of reform and best practices. For states looking to undergo the same sort of transformation and move towards a more equitable juvenile justice system, it provides clear lessons on how to do so:

1. Deprioritize Incarceration-In 1993, the number of detained juveniles at the state’s training school was 229 (Mendal). By 2016, this number had fallen to the low 30s (Thomas, J.R. 2016). Keeping students out of facilities allowed them to be educated in their schools and

2. Invest in Non-Residential Alternatives-In 1993, the state had allocated $0 for alternatives to youth detention. By 2009, the state budget grew to $29 million. These funds were used for programs such as therapy for juveniles and gender specific programs (Mendal).

3. Embrace the Research-Research in juvenile justice education has been growing since the 1990s and more and more best practices are now documented. Connecticut has embraced this research by developing programs such as educational intake assessments, staff trainings and juvenile transition teams all proven to promote more positive outcomes for youth (Geib et. al. 2011).

By embracing policies that deprioritize incarceration, investing in alternatives to incarceration and grounding decision making in research, states can ensure, as Connecticut did, that they are taking steps toward a more equitable and just juvenile justice system and world.

References

Geib, C. F., Chapman, J. F., Damaddio, A. H., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2011). The education of juveniles in detention: Policy considerations and infrastructure development. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(1), 3-11. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.05.002

Mendal, R. (n.d.). Juvenile Justice Reform in Connecticut: How Collaboration and Commitment Have Improved Public Safety and Outcomes for Youth (Rep.). Retrieved November 25, 2017, from Justice Policy Institute website: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/jpi_juvenile_justice_reform_in_ct.pdf

Thomas, J. R. (2016, July 18). Juvenile justice reform in CT: 5 things to know. Retrieved November 29, 2017, from https://ctmirror.org/2016/05/05/juvenile-justice-reform-in-ct-5-things-to-know/