Special Education and the Juvenile Justice System

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

John J. Wilson, Acting Administrator

From the Administrator

Large numbers of youth involved with

the juvenile justice system have

education-related disabilities, and as

many as 20 percent of students with

emotional disabilities are arrested at

least once before they leave school.

Information regarding disabilities can

assist those providing needed services

to youth at every stage of the juvenile

justice process and even help to

determine whether formal delinquency

proceedings should take place.

Special Education and the Juvenile

Justice System

is intended to inform

judges, attorneys, advocates, proba-

tion officers, institutional staff, and

other youth-serving professionals

about the impact of special education

issues on juvenile justice matters.

The Bulletin summarizes the provi-

sions of the Individuals with Disabili-

ties Education Act and analyzes their

relevance to the juvenile justice

process—from intake and initial

interview to institutional placement

and secure confinement.

While special education considerations

may impose significant responsibilities

on the juvenile justice system, they

also serve as a substantial information

resource for juvenile justice profession-

als. This Bulletin increases our under-

standing of issues surrounding special

education, helping equip those who

work with juveniles to meet the special

needs of all youth.

John J. Wilson

Acting Administrator

July 2000

Helping youth to reach their educational

potential by protecting their rights under

IDEA can give them the tools they need to

succeed in life. In fact, many of the behav-

ioral and educational issues addressed

through the special education system

closely parallel issues encompassed in the

juvenile court disposition process. In en-

suring that disability-related needs are

identified and met, IDEA may play a signifi-

cant role in reducing delinquent behavior.

This Bulletin, directed to judges, attorneys

and advocates, probation officers, educa-

tors, institutional staff, mental health pro-

fessionals, and service providers, seeks to

heighten awareness of special education

issues in the juvenile justice system and

ensure that youth with disabilities receive

the services they need. The Bulletin sum-

marizes pertinent provisions of Federal law

related to special education, discusses how

the special education process and informa-

tion about disabilities may be useful in juve-

nile delinquency proceedings, and exam-

ines special education in the context of

juvenile and adult institutions.

Federal Laws Related

to Special Education

Congress first enacted a comprehensive

special education law in 1975: the Edu-

cation for All Handicapped Children Act

Special Education and

the Juvenile Justice

System

Sue Burrell and Loren Warboys

A significant proportion of youth in the

juvenile justice system have education-

related disabilities and are eligible for spe-

cial education and related services under

the Federal Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act (IDEA). While 8.6 percent of

public school students have been identi-

fied as having disabilities that qualify them

for special education services (U.S. Depart-

ment of Education, 1998), youth in the ju-

venile justice system are much more likely

to have both identified and undiscovered

disabilities. For example, youth with learn-

ing disabilities or an emotional disturbance

are arrested at higher rates than their non-

disabled peers (Chesapeake Institute, 1994;

SRI International, Center for Educational

Human Services, 1997), and studies of in-

carcerated youth reveal that as many as

70 percent suffer from disabling conditions

(Leone et al., 1995).

Information about a youth’s disability may

be relevant at every stage of a juvenile

court case. It may help to determine

whether formal delinquency proceedings

should proceed or suggest important di-

rections for investigation and case strat-

egy. Information about the disability often

helps to explain behavior in a way that

facilitates constructive intervention, and it

is essential to arriving at a disposition that

will both meet the youth’s rehabilitative

needs and comply with IDEA requirements.

for IDEA concepts. For example, California

uses “individual with exceptional needs”

to refer to “a child with a disability,” as

defined by IDEA, and “designated instruc-

tion and services” to refer to “related ser-

vices,” as defined by IDEA.

While a State

may grant protections beyond those re-

quired by IDEA, States may not provide

fewer rights than would be afforded under

Federal law.

Definition of Disability

To be eligible under IDEA, a youth must

have one or more of the disabilities listed

in the statute and implementing final re-

gulations and, because of that disability,

require special education and related ser-

vices. The range of qualifying disabilities

is broad, including:

◆ Mental retardation.

◆ Deaf-blindness.

◆ Deafness.

◆ Hearing impairment.

◆ Speech or language impairment.

◆ Visual impairment.

◆ Emotional disturbance.

◆ Orthopedic impairment.

◆ Autism.

◆ Traumatic brain injury.

◆ Other health impairment.

◆ Specific learning disability.

◆ Multiple disabilities.

Disabilities that are frequently encountered

among delinquents include emotional dis-

turbance, specific learning disability, men-

tal retardation,

other health impairment,

and speech or language impairment.

The two most common disabilities found

in the juvenile justice system are specific

learning disability and emotional distur-

bance. Specific learning disability is de-

fined as “a disorder in one or more of the

basic psychological processes involved in

understanding or in using language, spo-

ken or written, that may manifest itself in

an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak,

read, write, spell, or do mathematical cal-

culations.”

It may include conditions such

as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, mini-

mal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and de-

velopmental aphasia but not a learning

problem that is primarily the result of envi-

ronmental, cultural, or economic disadvan-

tage.

Emotional disturbance is defined as:

(i) [A] condition exhibiting one or

more of the following characteristics

(EHA).

Since then, Congress has amended

the law a number of times and renamed it

the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA). The first broad revision of the

law occurred in 1997, with amendments

that significantly changed a number of key

special education provisions.

Proposed

implementing regulations for the 1997

IDEA amendments were widely debated.

Final regulations were published March

12, 1999, and took effect May 11, 1999.

As a condition of receiving Federal funds

under IDEA, States must demonstrate to

the U.S. Secretary of Education that they

have policies and procedures in effect that

fulfill specific requirements of the law.

Lo-

cal education agencies (LEA’s) must have

policies, procedures, and programs consis-

tent with State policies and procedures

that demonstrate eligibility.

The Federal

program is administered by the Office of

Special Education Programs, Office of Spe-

cial Education and Rehabilitative Services,

U.S. Department of Education.

Two other Federal statutes provide addi-

tional protection for youth with disabili-

ties: the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

and

the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Al-

though both Acts have a broader purview,

they are often invoked to ensure fair treat-

ment for youth with educational disabili-

ties. Both provide for the filing of adminis-

trative complaints with the Office of Civil

Rights, U.S. Department of Education,

which has the authority to investigate

and order compliance.

In addition, all States have enacted laws

and regulations reflecting IDEA require-

ments. Some of these, however, are being

revised to reflect the 1997 IDEA amend-

ments and the implementing regulations.

These laws are often found in State edu-

cation codes and regulations. Although

most State special education laws closely

track IDEA, some use different terminology

over a long period of time and to a

marked degree that adversely affects

a child’s educational performance:

(A) An inability to learn that

cannot be explained by intellec-

tual, sensory, or health factors.

(B) An inability to build or main-

tain satisfactory interpersonal

relationships with peers and

teachers.

havior or feelings under normal

circumstances.

(D) A general pervasive mood

of unhappiness or depression.

(E) A tendency to develop

physical symptoms or fears

associated with personal or

school problems.

(ii) The term includes schizophre-

nia. The term does not apply to chil-

dren who are socially maladjusted,

unless it is determined that they

have an emotional disturbance.

Additional IDEA definitions of disability

terms can be found in 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(c).

Free Appropriate Public

Education

Every youth with a disability, as defined

by IDEA, is entitled to free appropriate

public education (FAPE). This entitlement

exists for all eligible children and youth,

including those involved in the juvenile

justice system,

“. . . between the ages of

3 and 21, inclusive, including children with

disabilities who have been suspended or

expelled from school.”

IDEA also requires that, “to the maximum

extent appropriate,”

youth with disabili-

ties, including those in public and private

institutions or other care facilities, are

educated with youth who are not disabled.

Placement in special classes, separate

schooling, or other removal from the regu-

lar educational environment occurs only

if the nature or severity of the disability is

such that education in regular classes with

the use of supplementary aids and ser-

vices cannot be satisfactorily achieved.

This provision is often referred to as the

requirement for education in the “least

restrictive environment.”

Identification, Referral,

and Evaluation

IDEA requires school districts and other

public agencies to seek out all youth who

Twenty percent of students with emo-

tional disturbances are arrested at least

once before they leave school, as com-

pared with 6 percent of all students

(Chesapeake Institute, 1994). By the

time youth with emotional disturbances

have been out of school for 3 to 5 years,

58 percent have been arrested. Simi-

larly, by the time youth with learning

disabilities have been out of school for

3 to 5 years, 31 percent have been

arrested (SRI International, Center for

Education and Human Services, 1997).

◆ At least one regular education teacher

of the child (if the youth is or may be

participating in a regular education

environment).

◆ At least one special education teacher of

the child or, if appropriate, at least one

special education provider of the child.

◆ A qualified representative of the LEA.

◆ An individual who can interpret the

institutional implications of evaluation

results.

◆ Others (at the discretion of the parents

or the agency) who have knowledge or

special expertise regarding the youth,

including related service personnel as

appropriate. This category also could,

at the discretion of the parents or the

agency, include persons such as proba-

tion officers, institutional staff, or other

service providers with knowledge or

special expertise regarding the youth.

◆ The child with a disability (if appro-

priate).

In developing the IEP, the IEP team con-

siders, among other factors, the youth’s

present levels of educational performance,

his or her special education needs, the

services to be delivered, objectives to be

met, timelines for completion, and assess-

ment of progress. IDEA requires each IEP

to include the following basic elements:

◆ A statement of the child’s present levels

of educational performance, including:

❖ How the child’s disability affects his

or her involvement and progress in

the general curriculum (i.e., the

same curriculum as for nondisabled

children).

❖ For preschool children, if appropri-

ate, how the disability affects the

child’s participation in appropriate

activities.

◆ A statement of measurable annual

goals, including benchmarks or short-

term objectives, related to:

❖ Meeting the child’s needs that result

from his or her disability to enable the

child to be involved in and progress in

the general curriculum, or for pre-

school children, as appropriate, to

participate in appropriate activities.

❖ Meeting each of the child’s other

educational needs that result from

his or her disability.

◆ A statement of the special education

and related services and supplemen-

tary aids and services to be provided to

the child, or on behalf of the child, and

a statement of the program modifica-

tions or supports for school personnel

that will be provided for the child to:

❖ Advance appropriately toward

attaining the annual goals.

❖ Be involved and progress in the gen-

eral curriculum and participate in

extracurricular and other nonaca-

demic activities.

❖ Be educated and participate with

other children with disabilities and

nondisabled children in the activi-

ties described above.

◆ An explanation of the extent, if any, to

which the child will not participate

with nondisabled youth in the regular

class and in extracurricular and other

nonacademic activities.

◆ A statement of any individual modifica-

tions in the administration of State or

districtwide assessments of student

achievement that are needed in order

for the child to participate in the as-

sessment. If the IEP team determines

that the child will not participate in a

particular State or districtwide assess-

ment of student achievement (or part

of an assessment), a statement of why

that assessment is not appropriate for

the child and how the child will be as-

sessed is needed.

◆ A projected date for the beginning of

services and modifications and the an-

ticipated frequency, location, and dura-

tion of these services and modifications.

◆ A statement of how the child’s progress

toward the annual goals will be mea-

sured and how the child’s parents will

be regularly informed of their child’s

progress—at least as often as parents

are informed of their nondisabled

may have a disability. States and LEA’s

must identify, locate, and evaluate all

youth with disabilities and implement a

system to determine which ones are cur-

rently receiving special education and

related services. This is often called the

child find obligation.

In conjunction with

these requirements, States typically have

statutes, regulations, policies, and proce-

dures designating who may refer youth

for evaluation and the process that must

be followed.

To determine eligibility for special educa-

tion and related services, States must no-

tify parents, obtain parental consent to

evaluation, use a variety of assessment

tools—administered by knowledgeable

personnel—appropriate to the youth’s

cultural and linguistic background, and

provide for reevaluation.

State policies

and procedures typically set time limits

for each step in the notice, consent, and

evaluation/reevaluation process. Reevalu-

ation must occur at least once every 3

years, but a child’s parents and teachers

may request it at any time.

The Individualized

Education Program

Under the 1997 IDEA amendments, an

LEA is required to have an individualized

education program (IEP) in effect at the

beginning of each school year for each

youth with a disability in its jurisdiction.

Federal regulations call for no more than

30 days to pass between the determina-

tion that a child needs special education

and related services and the conduct of

the meeting

to develop an IEP for the

child. A team that includes the following

people develops the IEP:

◆ The child’s parents.

children’s progress—toward the annual

goals and the extent to which that pro-

gress is sufficient to enable the child to

achieve the goals by the end of the year.

IDEA also requires IEP’s to include:

◆ A statement of transition service needs

of the student that focuses on the

student’s courses of study (e.g., ad-

vanced placement courses, vocational

education) if the youth involved is 14

years old (or younger if determined

appropriate by the IEP team). The

statement must be updated annually.

◆ A statement of needed transition ser-

vices for the student, including, if ap-

propriate, a statement of the inter-

agency responsibilities or any needed

linkages for transition services if the

youth involved is 16 years old (or

younger if determined appropriate by

the IEP team).

The requirement that transition services

be provided to assist youth in moving from

school to postschool activities has particu-

lar significance for youth in the juvenile

justice system. These services include post-

secondary education, vocational training,

employment (including supported employ-

ment), continuing and adult education, spe-

cific adult services, independent living, and

community participation.

For example,

the IEP may call for the student to receive

specific assistance in applying for admis-

sion to a local community college or en-

rollment in an automobile mechanics pro-

gram. When the purpose of the meeting will

be consideration of the student’s transition

service needs or needed transition ser-

vices, or both, the youth with a disability

of any age must be invited to the IEP meet-

ing. Finally, the 1997 IDEA amendments

require the IEP team to consider special

factors in developing the IEP. Accordingly,

the amendments direct the IEP to:

(i) In the case of a child whose be-

havior impedes his or her learning

or that of others, consider, if ap-

propriate, strategies, including

positive behavioral interventions,

strategies, and supports to address

that behavior;

(ii) In the case of a child with limited

English proficiency, consider the

language needs of the child as those

needs relate to the child’s IEP;

(iii) In the case of a child who is

blind or visually impaired, provide

for instruction in Braille and the

use of Braille unless the IEP team

determines, after an evaluation of

the child’s reading and writing

skills, needs, and appropriate read-

ing and writing media (including an

evaluation of the child’s future

needs for instruction in Braille or

the use of Braille), that instruction

in Braille or the use of Braille is not

appropriate for the child;

(iv) Consider the communication

needs of the child, and in the case

of a child who is deaf or hard of

hearing, consider the child’s lan-

guage and communication needs,

opportunities for direct communi-

cations with peers and professional

personnel in the child’s language

and communication mode, aca-

demic level, and full range of needs,

including opportunities for direct

instruction in the child’s language

and communication mode; and

(v) Consider whether the child re-

quires assistive technology devices

and services.

IEP’s must be implemented as soon as pos-

sible after the IEP meeting and must be re-

viewed by the IEP team at least once per year

and revised as needed to address any lack

of expected progress, results of reevalua-

tion, information provided by the parents,

the youth’s anticipated needs, or other mat-

ters.

By statute, most States set specific

timelines for each stage in the referral,

evaluation, and IEP development process.

Special Education and

Related Services

Under IDEA, special education means

“. . . specially designed instruction, at no

cost to parents, to meet the unique needs

of a child with a disability. . . .”

It includes

“instruction conducted in the classroom,

in the home, in hospitals and institutions,

and in other settings and instruction in

physical education. . . .”

IDEA also re-

quires that related services be provided to

help youth with disabilities benefit from

special education services. These services

include “. . . transportation, and such de-

velopmental, corrective, and other support-

ive services as are required to assist the

child with a disability to benefit from

special education . . . (including speech-

language pathology and audiology services,

psychological services, physical and occu-

pational therapy, recreation, including thera-

peutic recreation, early identification and

assessment of disabilities in children, coun-

seling services, including rehabilitation

counseling, orientation and mobility ser-

vices, and medical services, except that

such medical services shall be for diagnos-

tic and evaluation purposes only).” The term

also includes social work services in schools

and parent counseling and training.

Due Process Protections

Parents are involved to the maximum

extent possible. They are provided with

a full range of procedural safeguards,

including the right to examine records,

receive written notice of proposed actions

(or refusal to take requested actions), and

participate in meetings relating to the iden-

tification, evaluation, and educational

placement of their child and the provision

of FAPE to the child. Federal law also re-

quires States to provide an opportunity

for parents to initiate due process pro-

ceedings and the mediation of disputes

with respect to identification, evaluation,

and educational placement of their child

and the provision of FAPE to the child.

When a parent (as defined in 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.20) cannot be identified, the where-

abouts of the parent cannot be discovered

after reasonable efforts, or the student is a

ward of the State (as defined by State law),

IDEA provides for the assignment of a sur-

rogate parent to protect the educational

rights of the child. The surrogate parent

may not be an employee of the LEA, State

educational agency (SEA), or other agency

involved in the education or care of the

child (with the exception of nonpublic

agency employees providing noneduca-

tional care for the child who meet the

other requirements); must have no inter-

est that conflicts with the interest of the

child he or she represents; and must have

knowledge and skills that ensure ad-

equate representation of the child.

States may provide for the transfer of pa-

rental rights to a student with a disability

when the student reaches the age of ma-

jority as defined by State law (except if the

student has been determined incompetent

under State law). Such provisions must

ensure that the individual student and the

parents receive any required notice under

the regulations, that all other rights ac-

corded to the parents under IDEA transfer

to the student, that all rights accorded to

the parents under IDEA transfer to students

incarcerated in adult or juvenile State or

local institutions, and that the parents and

individual student shall be notified of

whatever rights are transferred pursuant

to such provisions. There is also a special

rule for States that have a mechanism to

determine that a student with a disability

who has reached the age of majority does

not have the capacity to provide informed

consent to his or her educational program

(even though there has been no determi-

nation of incompetence). Such States

must provide procedures for appointing

the parent or, if the parent is not avail-

able, another individual to represent the

student’s educational interests through-

out the period of IDEA eligibility.

Under IDEA, States and LEA’s must establish

a mediation procedure to resolve disputes

and make it available whenever a due pro-

cess hearing is requested. Mediation must

be voluntary, scheduled in a timely manner,

held in a place convenient to the parties

to the dispute, and conducted by a quali-

fied and impartial mediator who is trained

in effective mediation techniques. Media-

tion must not be used to deny or delay the

parents’ right to pursue their complaints

through the due process hearing procedures

or to deny any other rights afforded under

part B of IDEA. Any agreement reached

through mediation must be put in writing.

Parents may pursue complaints through

a due process hearing conducted by the

State or, in some States, the LEA.

States

are required to develop model forms to

assist parents in filing due process re-

quests. Each party (e.g., the parents, the

educational agency) must disclose any

evaluations and recommendations the

party intends to use at least 5 business

days prior to the hearing. The hearing

officer must not be employed by the State

agency or the LEA that is involved in the

education or care of the child. At the hear-

ing, the parents may be accompanied by

and advised by an attorney and by other

persons with special knowledge of or train-

ing about the problems of youth with dis-

abilities. Parents have the right to present

evidence; prohibit the introduction of any

evidence not disclosed 5 business days

before the hearing; confront, cross-examine,

and compel the attendance of witnesses;

obtain a written or, at the option of the

parents, electronic verbatim record of the

hearing; and obtain written or, at the op-

tion of the parents, electronic findings of

fact and decision.

If the due process hearing is conducted

by an LEA, any party aggrieved by the find-

ings and decision in the hearing may ap-

peal the decision to the SEA.

Any party

who does not have a right of appeal from a

due process hearing to the SEA, or who

wishes to appeal an SEA ruling, may file a

civil action in the appropriate State court

or Federal district court.

Reasonable at-

torneys’ fees may be awarded by the court

at its discretion to the parents of a child

with a disability who is the prevailing

party in any action or proceeding brought

under section 615 of the Act. IDEA also

provides for the award of attorneys’ fees in

connection with IEP meetings convened as

the result of administrative proceedings,

judicial action, or, at the discretion of the

State, precomplaint mediation. However, it

prohibits the awarding of attorneys’ fees

following the rejection of a settlement of-

fer, unless the parents were substantially

justified in rejecting the offer.

In addition to the remedies offered through

due process hearings or civil actions in

relation to individual cases, States must

have a complaint procedure in place for

alleged IDEA violations. Possible outcomes

of these procedures include monetary

reimbursement or other corrective action

appropriate to the needs of the child and

appropriate provision of future services.

Any organization or individual may use

the State complaint process, and com-

plaints must be resolved within 60 days

after a complaint is filed.

The “Stay Put” Rule

As a general matter, Federal law requires

that, absent some agreement to the con-

trary, the youth shall remain in his or her

current education placement pending the

completion of any due process proceed-

ings, court proceedings, or appeals.

Honig v. Doe,

the U.S. Supreme Court

interpreted this provision to mean that

school officials may not unilaterally ex-

clude youth with disabilities from their

educational placement. Except as pro-

vided in 34 C.F.R. § 300.526, such youth

must be allowed to “stay put” in existing

Special Education Timeline

Referral/request Public agency must ensure that within a reasonable

for evaluation: amount of time following parental consent to evaluation,

the child is evaluated, and if the child is determined eligible,

special education and related services are provided (34

C.F.R. § 300.343(b)(1)).

Development of IEP: Meeting to develop IEP must be held within 30 days of a

determination that a child needs special education services

(34 C.F.R. § 300.343(b)(2)).

Implementation of IEP: Must occur “as soon as possible” following the IEP meeting

(34 C.F.R. § 300.343(b)(ii)), and at the beginning of every

school year, the LEA must have in effect an IEP for each

child with a disability (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(a)).

Review of IEP’s: Periodically and at least annually, the IEP team must review

IEP’s and revise as appropriate (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(A);

34 C.F.R. § 300.343(c)).

Reevaluation: At least once every 3 years or when the child’s parent or

teacher requests it (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.536(b)).

States have many more specific time limits and requirements in their statutes and regulations than this sample

timeline provides.

educational placements during the pen-

dency of any administrative or judicial

proceeding. Prominent in the Court’s rea-

soning was that Congress enacted the Fed-

eral law after finding that school systems

across the country had excluded one of

every eight youth with disabilities from

classes. Congress intended to strip

schools of the unilateral authority they

had traditionally employed to exclude stu-

dents with disabilities, particularly stu-

dents with emotional disturbances.

Since the enactment of IDEA in 1975 (then

EHA), there has been considerable discus-

sion of the stay put requirement. Some

people have argued that the schools’ op-

tions were too limited and cumbersome

when there was a legitimate need to re-

move a dangerous or extremely disrup-

tive youth. The 1997 IDEA amendments

attempt to strike a balance between the

need to provide a safe, orderly environ-

ment and the need to protect youth with

disabilities from unwarranted exclusion

through disciplinary proceedings. The

amendments include limited exceptions

for misconduct involving weapons, illegal

drugs, or situations in which the youth or

others are in danger of injury.

Under the 1997 IDEA amendments, school

personnel may suspend youth with dis-

abilities for up to 10 school days or less at

a time for separate incidents of misconduct

to the extent such action would be applied

to youth without disabilities. If, for example,

a student without a disability would be

suspended from class for 3 days for particu-

lar misbehavior, the same sanction could

be imposed on a student with a disability

for the same kind of behavior. School per-

sonnel may also remove such youth to an

interim alternative educational setting for

up to 45 days if they possess or carry weap-

ons to school or school functions, know-

ingly possess or use illegal drugs, or sell

or solicit the sale of controlled substances

while at school or school functions.

IDEA

specifically defines controlled substances,

illegal drugs, and weapons.

The 1997 amendments also permit a hear-

ing officer to order a change in the place-

ment of a child with a disability to an appro-

priate interim alternative educational

setting for not more than 45 days if the

hearing officer determines that the public

agency has demonstrated by substantial

evidence that maintaining the current

placement “is substantially likely to result

in injury to the child or to others.” Before

making such an order, the hearing officer

must consider whether the current place-

ment is appropriate and whether the public

agency has made reasonable efforts to mini-

mize the risk of harm in the current place-

ment (e.g., with supplementary aids and

services). The officer should determine that

the interim alternative educational setting

would enable the youth to continue to

progress in the general curriculum and con-

tinue to receive those services and modifi-

cations that will enable the child to meet

the goals called for in the IEP.

In addition,

services and modifications to attend to the

child’s behavior and prevent the behavior

from recurring must be addressed.

Disciplinary removal for more than 10 con-

secutive school days (or a series of remov-

als adding up to more than 10 days and

constituting a pattern of removal) consti-

tutes a change of placement, which trig-

gers a number of procedural safeguards.

For example, the LEA must review the

youth’s behavioral intervention plan and

modify it as necessary to address the

behavior not later than 10 business days

after either first removing the child for more

than 10 school days in a school year or

commencing a removal that constitutes a

change in placement. If the LEA did not

previously conduct a functional behavioral

assessment and implement a behavioral

intervention plan, it must convene an IEP

meeting to develop a plan to address the

behavior.

Moreover, the public agency

must provide services to the extent re-

quired under section 300.121(d).

If it is contemplated that a youth with a dis-

ability will be removed from school for

more than 10 school days, the IEP team

must immediately (or within 10 school days

of the decision to take disciplinary action)

review the relationship between the child’s

disability and the behavior subject to disci-

plinary action. In making this “manifesta-

tion determination,”—a requirement under

the 1997 amendments—the team and other

qualified personnel consider all relevant

information including evaluation and diag-

nostic results and other relevant informa-

tion from the parents and observations

of the youth. The team also considers

whether the IEP and placement were appro-

priate, whether services were being pro-

vided consistent with the IEP, whether the

disability impaired the youth’s ability to

understand the consequences of the behav-

ior subject to discipline, and whether the

disability impaired the youth’s ability to

control the behavior.

If it is determined that the behavior was

not a manifestation of the youth’s disability,

the disciplinary procedures applicable to

youth without disabilities may be applied.

If the behavior was a manifestation of the

youth’s disability, the LEA should immedi-

ately remedy any deficiencies in the IEP or

its implementation

and observe the 10-

day or 45-day limits and other protections

on placing the youth in an interim alterna-

tive educational setting. Again, even if the

behavior was not a manifestation of the

youth’s disability, the LEA must continue

to provide educational services to the ex-

tent required under section 300.121(d).

Parents have the right to an expedited ap-

peal of the manifestation determination and

the placement. While proceedings challeng-

ing the interim alternative placement or

manifestation determination (in the case of

drugs, weapons, and hearing officer place-

ment) are pending, the youth must remain

in the interim alternative placement until

the pertinent time period expires unless

the parents and public agency agree other-

wise. However, if the school proposes to

change the youth’s placement after this

time period, the youth has the right to

return to the original placement unless a

hearing officer has extended his or her

placement. The only exception is that, if

school personnel maintain that it is dan-

gerous for the youth to be in the current

placement, the LEA may request an expe-

dited hearing to determine whether he or

she should be placed in the alternative edu-

cational setting or other appropriate place-

ment during the due process proceedings.

The stay put rule also protects the rights

of some youth who have not officially been

determined eligible for special education

and who have engaged in behavior subject-

ing them to disciplinary removal. Under

the 1997 IDEA amendments, such youth are

entitled to the stay put rule and other disci-

plinary due process protections if the LEA

had “knowledge that the child was a child

with a disability before the behavior that

precipitated the disciplinary action oc-

curred.”

The agency is deemed to have

that knowledge if the parents have ex-

pressed concern in writing to agency per-

sonnel that the youth is in need of special

education; his or her behavior or perfor-

mance demonstrates the need for such

services; the parents have requested an

evaluation of special education eligibility;

or the teacher or other LEA personnel, in

accordance with the agency’s established

child find or special education referral sys-

tem, have expressed concern to the direc-

tor of special education of the agency or

other personnel about the youth’s behav-

ior or performance.

Special Education in

Juvenile Delinquency

Cases

IDEA’s comprehensive system of identifi-

cation, evaluation, service delivery, and

review has special relevance for juvenile

justice professionals. The purpose of the

special education system, like the juvenile

justice system, is to provide individualized

services designed to meet the needs of a

particular youth. The enhanced behavioral

intervention and transition service needs

requirements in the 1997 IDEA amendments

bring special education goals even closer

to those of the juvenile court. Moreover,

the careful documentation of service needs

and ongoing assessment of progress re-

quired by IDEA bring valuable informational

resources to juvenile justice professionals.

This section presents a brief overview of

how special education information may be

helpful as cases make their way through

juvenile court. Some of the issues discussed,

such as insanity or incompetence, arise

only occasionally. Others, such as the im-

pact on disposition of whether a child has

a disability, are relevant in every case in

which a delinquent youth is eligible for

special education services.

Intake and Initial Interviews

The short timeframe for juvenile court pro-

ceedings leaves little room for missed op-

portunities. Juvenile justice professionals

must be alert from the earliest moment for

clues to the youth’s special education sta-

tus or existing unidentified disabilities.

This process, which should become part

of the standard operating procedure, in-

cludes carefully interviewing the youth

and his or her parents, routinely gathering

educational records, procuring examina-

tions by educational and mental health

experts, investigating educational services

at potential placement facilities, and coor-

dinating juvenile court proceedings with

the youth’s IEP team. Under the 1997 IDEA

amendments, whenever a school reports a

crime allegedly committed by a youth with

a disability, school officials must provide

copies of the youth’s special education

and disciplinary records to the appropri-

ate authorities to whom the school reports

the crime, but only to the extent that the

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

(FERPA) permits the transmission. FERPA

allows school officials to transmit school

records to law enforcement officials only

if parents consent in writing to the trans-

mission and in certain other narrowly

tailored situations (see 34 C.F.R. § 99.30).

This requirement should help ensure

that, at least in appropriate school-related

cases, special education history, assess-

ments, and service information are readily

available early in the court process.

Juvenile justice professionals can learn to

recognize disabilities by carefully reading

the legal definitions of disability. It is impor-

tant to understand that youth may have a

variety of impairments that are not immedi-

ately apparent. Numerous checklists and

screening instruments are available to help

recognize signs of disabilities and to deter-

mine eligibility for special education ser-

vices (National Council of Juvenile and

Family Court Judges, 1991).

If circumstances suggest the need for an

eligibility evaluation, modification of a pre-

viously existing IEP, or some other exercise

of the youth’s rights under special educa-

tion law, juvenile justice professionals

should ensure that appropriate action is

expeditiously taken. They should request

that parents give written consent for the

release of records and should submit a

written request for information, evaluation,

or review to the LEA.

Juvenile justice professionals could start

by contacting the LEA to obtain its policies

and procedures for providing special edu-

cation services to youth in the juvenile jus-

tice system. Some districts have designated

an individual to deal with compliance issues,

and that person may be helpful in expedit-

ing or forwarding requests to the right per-

son or agency. Most jurisdictions have a

number of other groups that can provide

advocacy or other assistance in navigating

the special education system. Protection

and advocacy offices, special education

advocacy groups, learning disabilities as-

sociations, and other groups providing

support or advocacy for particular disabili-

ties may greatly assist juvenile justice

professionals.

Determination of Whether

Formal Juvenile Proceedings

Should Go Forward

Nothing in IDEA prohibits an agency from

“reporting a crime committed by a child

with a disability to appropriate authorities”

or prevents law enforcement and judicial

authorities from “exercising their responsi-

bilities with regard to the application of

Federal and State law to crimes committed

by a child with a disability.”

These provi-

sions, outlined in the 1997 amendments,

were made in response to concerns that

IDEA’s procedural protections could be in-

terpreted to preclude juvenile court juris-

diction over school-related crimes commit-

ted by youth with disabilities. In the past, at

least one court ruled under State law that a

school could not initiate a juvenile court

prosecution as a means of evading the pro-

cedural requirements of IDEA.

Other courts

found the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction

in cases involving noncriminal school-

related misconduct in which special educa-

tion procedures had not been followed.

In at least one case decided after the 1997

amendments, the court confirmed that

IDEA does not prevent juvenile courts

from exercising jurisdiction over students

with disabilities, even if the school is at-

tempting to evade its special education

responsibilities. Nonetheless, intake offi-

cers and prosecutors should scrutinize

whether such evasion has occurred in

determining whether a particular case

belongs in the juvenile justice system and

how it should be processed.

Courts and

hearing officers have stressed that the

school’s responsibility to comply with

IDEA procedural requirements does not

end when a youth with a disability enters

the juvenile justice system.

Even if courts have the power to act, that

does not mean the power should be exer-

cised in every case. Long before the 1997

IDEA amendments, a number of courts

found that the best course was to dismiss

the juvenile court case or defer it until spe-

cial education proceedings stemming from

the misbehavior could be completed.

Many juvenile justice professionals have

encountered cases in which a youth en-

ters the juvenile justice system for a rela-

tively minor offense and his or her stay

escalates into long-term incarceration be-

cause of the youth’s inability to succeed

in programs developed for low-risk

delinquent youth. This may happen either

because the disability-related behavior

makes it difficult for the youth to under-

stand or comply with program demands or

because his or her behavior is misinter-

preted as showing a poor attitude, lack of

remorse, or disrespect for authority.

If the juvenile court petition involves a

youth with an identified or suspected

disability, juvenile justice professionals

should first consider whether school-based

special education proceedings could pro-

vide services or other interventions that

would obviate the need for juvenile court

proceedings. This is particularly true for

incidents occurring at school. The 1997

IDEA amendments require thorough scru-

tiny of behavioral needs and implementa-

tion of appropriate interventions that may

far exceed what most juvenile courts are

able to provide. In appropriate cases, the

juvenile court may wish to consider:

◆ Continuing or deferring the formal pros-

ecution pending the outcome of special

education due process and disciplinary

proceedings that may alleviate the need

for juvenile court intervention.

◆ Placing first-time offenders and/or youth

alleged to have committed offenses that

are not considered too serious for infor-

mal handling into diversion or informal

supervision programs. Through such

programs, the court imposes specific

conditions on the youth’s behavior, such

as regular school attendance, participa-

tion in counseling, observation of speci-

fied curfews, or involvement in commu-

nity service programs. If the youth

successfully complies with these condi-

tions, the case is dismissed at the end of

a specified period—usually 6 months to

1 year. Allowing the youth to remain in

the community, subject to such condi-

tions, may facilitate the completion of

special education proceedings while

ensuring heightened supervision of

the youth. Through IEP development

or modification, the youth might be

determined eligible for services that

supplant the need for formal juvenile

court proceedings.

◆ Dismissing the case in the interest of jus-

tice. This option should be considered

in cases in which the disability is so

severe that it may be difficult or impos-

sible for the youth to comply with court

orders. This may occur, for example, if

the offense is relatively minor; the youth

suffers from mental illness, emotional

disturbance, or mental retardation; and/

or services are forthcoming through the

special education system.

Detention

Youth taken into secure custody at the time

of arrest are entitled to judicial review of

the detention decision within a statutory

time period. Depending on the jurisdiction

and characteristics of the case, the length

of detention may range from several hours

to several months. Many professionals view

the detention decision as the most signifi-

cant point in a case. Detention subjects the

youth to potential physical and emotional

harm. It also restricts the youth’s ability to

assist in his or her defense and to demon-

strate an ability to act appropriately in the

community.

Unfortunately, youth with disabilities are

detained disproportionately (Leone et al.,

1995). Experts posit that one reason for this

is that many youth with disabilities lack the

communication and social skills to make a

good presentation to arresting officers or

intake probation officers. Behavior inter-

preted as hostile, impulsive, unconcerned,

or otherwise inappropriate may be a re-

flection of the youth’s disability. This is

another reason why it is important to es-

tablish the existence of special education

needs or suspected disabilities early in the

proceedings. Juvenile justice professionals

must be sensitive to the impact of disabili-

ties on case presentation at this initial

stage and work to dispel inaccurate first

impressions at the detention hearing.

In some cases, it may be appropriate for the

court to order the youth’s release to avoid

disrupting special education services. This

is particularly true if adjustments in super-

vision (e.g., modification of the IEP or

behavioral intervention plans) may reduce

the likelihood of further misbehavior pend-

ing the jurisdictional hearing. Similarly, if

there are early indications that a special

education evaluation is needed, it may be

important for the youth to remain in the

community to facilitate the evaluation.

Many jurisdictions have home detention

programs that facilitate this type of release

by imposing curfews or other restrictions

on liberty that allow the youth to live at

home and attend school pending the out-

come of the delinquency proceedings.

Waiver or Transfer to Adult

Criminal Court

Every jurisdiction has a mechanism by

which some juveniles may be tried in the

criminal justice system. Juveniles waived

or transferred to the criminal justice sys-

tem are treated like adults and may receive

any sentence that could be imposed on an

adult criminal (with the exception, in some

States, of the death penalty). Although

some jurisdictions have automatic filing

rules (statutory transfer) for particular

offenses and others provide for prosecuto-

rial direct file (concurrent jurisdiction),

many have waiver provisions that involve

the exercise of judicial discretion. In judi-

cial waiver jurisdictions, the judge must

consider whether the youth is amenable

to treatment and rehabilitation in the ju-

venile justice system.

When making this determination, the exist-

ence of specific learning disabilities, mental

retardation, serious emotional disturbance,

traumatic brain injury, developmental dis-

abilities, or other disabilities qualifying the

youth for special education services should

be taken into account (Barnum and Keilitz,

1992; Woolard et al., 1992). For example, it

may be significant for the court to know

that the youth has a previously undiag-

nosed learning disability that could be ad-

dressed through special education and

related services available in the State’s ju-

venile training school or other State facili-

ties for secure confinement of serious juve-

nile offenders. Information about particular

disabilities (e.g., mental retardation) may

also help to dispel inaccurate images of

the youth in relation to waiver criteria

such as criminal sophistication or miti-

gate his or her role in the alleged offense.

The court should also be informed of the

status of previous juvenile court orders

or service mandates through the special

education system for mental health, edu-

cation, or other services (Beyer, 1997). If

these services were not implemented, it

would be unjust to place the mantle of

rehabilitative failure on the youth. In such

cases, the juvenile court should retain

jurisdiction to ensure that appropriate

special education and other services are

provided.

Evidentiary Issues

The record documenting the extent and

nature of any disability—and its impact on

the youth’s thinking and acting—may play

a critical role in helping to determine the

existence of important evidentiary issues:

◆ Insanity. Occasionally, mental illness

or mental status may affect functioning

so drastically that the youth may be

legally insane under State law. Records

of special education evaluation and

services in connection with emotional

disturbance, traumatic brain injury,

or other disabilities may be helpful in

evaluating sanity.

◆ Incompetence. A youth may be declared

incompetent for adjudication if the court

finds that he or she is unable to under-

stand the nature of juvenile court pro-

ceedings or is unable to assist the de-

fense attorney.

Information about the

impact of the youth’s disability (e.g.,

a low level of intellectual functioning,

problems in communicating, emotional

disturbance, perceptual difficulties,

and deficits in memory) may have a

bearing on the court’s finding (Grisso,

1997; Grisso, Miller, and Sales, 1987).

◆ Intent to commit the offense (mens

rea). As in criminal cases, delinquency

allegations may be sustained only if

each element of the offense is proved

beyond a reasonable doubt.

One of

the required elements is the intent to

commit the particular offense. Evi-

dence of a disability, particularly one

involving limited mental functioning,

may suggest the need to evaluate this

issue and may sometimes be relevant

and admissible on the issue of intent.

◆ Confessions. The admissibility of con-

fessions in State court may be chal-

lenged on the grounds that the youth

did not make a valid waiver of rights

under Miranda v. Arizona

or the con-

fession was not made voluntarily. In

determining the validity of Miranda

waivers, courts consider all of the cir-

cumstances, including the youth’s age,

experience, education, background, and

intelligence, and his or her capacity to

understand the nature of the warnings,

the meaning of the right to counsel and

privilege against self-incrimination,

and the consequences of waiving those

rights.

Whether the confession was

made voluntarily is also measured

against all of the circumstances sur-

rounding the interrogation, with the

focus on circumstances showing coer-

cion.

Many of the criteria governing

admissibility of confessions involve

areas that may be affected by any

number of disabilities.

Thus, a youth with mental retardation who

is unable to explain to counsel what hap-

pened in relation to the alleged offense

may have grounds to claim incompetence.

A youth whose learning disability relates

to comprehension of written materials

may have grounds to challenge a claimed

waiver of Miranda rights if the waiver was

based on written forms. A youth who is

mentally ill or emotionally disturbed may

have grounds to claim that his or her state-

ment was not voluntary (Greenburg, 1991;

Grisso, 1980; Shepherd and Zaremba, 1995).

Records of a youth’s special education his-

tory may be useful to advocates in decid-

ing whether to seek the advice of experts

on the impact of the disability on such is-

sues. The records may also help show past

impairment with respect to particular

issues (Bogin and Goodman, 1986).

Disposition

Education may be the single most impor-

tant service the juvenile justice system

can offer young offenders in its efforts to

rehabilitate them and equip them for suc-

cess. School success alone may not stop

delinquency, but without it, troubled

youth have a much harder time (Beyer,

Opalack, and Puritz, 1988). When special

education needs are evident, they should

be an essential part of the social study

report prepared by the probation depart-

ment to guide the court in making its dis-

position order. Moreover, juvenile justice

professionals should coordinate disposi-

tion planning with education profession-

als to avoid conflict and to take advan-

tage of the rich evaluation resources and

services available through IDEA.

The resulting disposition order should re-

flect the court’s review of special education

evaluations and the goals, objectives, and

services to be provided under the IEP. If the

youth is to be placed out of the home, the

court should demand specific assurance

that the facility will meet the youth’s educa-

tional needs under IDEA. The juvenile court

should also use its disposition powers to

ensure special education evaluation and

placement for previously unidentified youth

who show indications of having a disability.

In deciding whether or where to place a

youth with a disability, it is also important

for the court to understand the impact of

the disability on behavior. Youth with at-

tention deficit disorder (ADD), for ex-

ample, commonly act impulsively, fail to

anticipate consequences, engage in dan-

gerous activities, have difficulty with de-

layed gratification, have a low frustration

threshold, and have difficulty listening to

or following instructions. They may begin

to associate with delinquents or self-

medicate through drugs and alcohol be-

cause they are rejected by others. Proper

medication has a dramatic effect in helping

many of these youth control their behav-

ior, and a variety of professionals are skilled

in treating ADD in medical, psychiatric, or

educational settings (Logan, 1992). Unless

the characteristics of ADD and the exist-

ence of effective interventions are recog-

nized, youth with this disability stand a

good chance of being treated harshly, often

through incarceration, based on the out-

ward manifestations of their disability.

Juvenile justice professionals should re-

spond appropriately to evidence of such

disabilities by ensuring that appropriate

medical, mental health, and other services

are provided.

Juvenile justice professionals also must

learn to recognize potential problems for

youth with certain disabilities in particu-

lar settings, so as not to set the youth up

for failure. This does not mean that juve-

nile justice professionals need to become

diagnosticians or clinicians. However,

they should consult with education, men-

tal health, and medical professionals. It is

important to seek professional advice

about the kinds of settings in which the

youth can function best and the kinds of

settings most likely to lead to negative

behavior. For example, a youth with an

emotional disturbance may not be able

to function in the large dormitory setting

typical of some institutions. Such youth

may feel especially vulnerable because of

past physical or sexual abuse or may sim-

ply suffer from overstimulation in an open

setting. They may require a setting in which

external stimuli are reduced to the greatest

extent possible and intensive one-on-one

supervision is provided. Youth with other

disabilities may need programs that mini-

mize isolation and emphasize participation

in group activities.

Postdisposition monitoring. Juvenile jus-

tice professionals should ensure that youth

with disabilities receive the services or-

dered at disposition. Cases should be

reviewed to determine whether different

or additional services are needed and

whether the placement continues to be

appropriate. As part of this monitoring,

juvenile justice professionals should en-

sure that special education rights under

IDEA are being protected. When modifi-

cation of the disposition plan is needed,

they should coordinate its development

with the youth’s IEP team. When it appears

that the youth’s special education needs

are not being met in the current place-

ment, the court should order appropri-

ate changes or, if necessary, terminate

juvenile court jurisdiction.

Youth With Disabilities

in Institutional

Settings

Nationally, youth and adults confined in

institutions have an astonishingly low

level of functioning with respect to basic

skills needed for living in the community:

About one third of prisoners are

unable to perform such simple job-

related tasks as locating an inter-

section on a street map, or identify-

ing and entering basic information

on an application. Another one-

third are unable to perform slightly

more difficult tasks such as writing

an explanation of a billing error or

entering information on an automo-

bile maintenance form. Only about

one in twenty can do things such as

use a schedule to determine which

bus to take. Young prisoners with

disabilities are among the least

likely to have the skills they need

to hold a job. For them, education

is probably the only opportunity

they have to become productive

members of society.

Institutional education has a clear, posi-

tive effect in reducing recidivism and in-

creasing postrelease success in employ-

ment and other life endeavors. For youth

with disabilities, special education and

related services provided through institu-

tional schools are critically important to

that success.

The provisions of IDEA cover all State and

local juvenile and adult criminal correc-

tions facilities.

The only exclusion from

the entitlement to a FAPE applies (to the

extent that State law does not require spe-

cial education and related services under

part B to be provided to students with dis-

abilities) to any youth ages 18 through 21

who, in his or her last educational place-

ment prior to incarceration in an adult

criminal corrections facility, was not actu-

ally identified as a child with a disability

and did not have an IEP under part B.

A facility failing to comply with IDEA may be

challenged through administrative proceed-

ings, individual lawsuits, or class-action civil-

rights litigation. Over the years, court and

administrative decisions have applied IDEA’s

protections to youth in juvenile detention

centers and training schools and those in

jails and prisons (Youth Law Center, 1999).

Dozens of decisions, rulings, and consent

decrees address a range of issues, including

identification of youth with disabilities, ac-

cess to educational records, evaluation, IEP

development, service delivery, staff qualifi-

cations, and timelines for compliance with

required components in the special educa-

tion program (Puritz and Scali, 1998; Youth

Law Center, 1999). Additional decisions ad-

dress remedies such as compensatory edu-

cation for failure to provide special edu-

cation services to youth in institutions.

Providing special educational services

to youth in custody presents many chal-

lenges. Factors to be dealt with include

length of stay, the facility’s physical lay-

out, and the need for heightened security.

This section discusses a number of issues

that often arise.

Identification of Youth With

Disabilities in Institutional

Settings

IDEA’s child find obligation requires that

all youth with disabilities be identified,

located, and evaluated and that a practi-

cal method be implemented to determine

whether eligible youth are receiving needed

special education and related services.

One way to meet this obligation is to have

an efficient system in place to determine

whether the youth has been previously

identified as eligible. Routine screening

when the youth is admitted to or enters

the school program could reveal informa-

tion about previous placements, special

classes, and other indicators that the youth

was in special education. Because it is im-

portant to obtain prior school records

promptly, it may be helpful to identify a

contact person at the LEA who can verify

special education records. As noted pre-

viously, the 1997 IDEA amendments re-

quire LEA’s to forward special education

and disciplinary records.

Facilities also must find youth with disabili-

ties who have not been identified previously

as eligible for special education. Intake staff,

probation officers, and regular education

staff should be trained to recognize students

who may have disabilities and take immedi-

ate steps to initiate referral for evaluation.

Because the evaluation process calls for

parental consent, the referral is best initi-

ated by parents. LEA’s should assist par-

ents in making written requests. However,

nothing in Federal law prevents other indi-

viduals or agencies from making the initial

request for evaluation of IDEA eligibility.

Educators, probation officers, or attorneys

should consider making the formal request

if parents are unavailable or unwilling.

This identification process must occur

even in facilities such as detention centers,

in which the typical length of stay may be

only a few days or weeks. In reality, some

youth in short-term facilities spend much

longer periods in custody (e.g., awaiting

placement or trial in adult criminal court),

and many will return to the facility in con-

nection with probation violations or future

cases. In addition, useful information gath-

ered at one facility may be shared with sub-

sequent placements.

Evaluation

Facilities and agencies that have custody

of a youth for only a short time are not ex-

empt from the mandate to begin the evalu-

ation process, even though the complete

evaluation may take several weeks. If a

youth is moved before the evaluation is

complete, the school should forward the

information to the student’s next educa-

tional placement.

A common problem, particularly for short-

term facilities, is that the education pro-

gram may have insufficient staffing or staff

without the requisite qualifications to con-

duct eligibility evaluations.

In such cases,

the facility should make arrangements

through the LEA serving its youth to en-

sure that full evaluations by qualified per-

sonnel are provided. The facility also must

ensure that requests for reevaluation by

parents and teachers are honored.

Interim Services and

Implementation of the IEP

When a facility confines a youth who has

an IEP, it must implement the existing IEP

or hold a new IEP meeting in accordance

with Federal law,

just as a school district

would have to implement the IEP of a

special education student transferring

from another district. If the IEP team elects

to modify the IEP, it must provide interim

services comparable to those called for in

the existing IEP until the new IEP is devel-

oped. Federal law requires IEP’s to be

implemented as soon as possible after

initial IEP or revision meetings.

Many

States have set time limits on the maxi-

mum duration of interim services.

In some cases, juvenile facilities confine

youth who have had IEP’s in the past but

who have no current IEP or who were not in

school immediately prior to incarceration.

Federal law does not specifically address

the length of time after which IEP’s are no

longer required to be implemented. How-

ever, the existence of a previous IEP is

strong evidence that the youth has a

disability and is eligible for services. In

practice, officials should implement the

previous IEP unless they can document

persuasive reasons for not doing so.

If the

IEP is no longer appropriate, a new program

should be developed as soon as possible.

Several of the IEP requirements called for

in the 1997 IDEA amendments have par-

ticular significance for youth in institutional

settings. The requirements for positive be-

havioral interventions may overlap with

institutional case plans. Accordingly, edu-

cational staff should coordinate goals and

objectives with institutional staff to ensure

consistent practice and enable institutional

staff to recognize and deal effectively with

disability-related behavior.

The inclusion of transition service needs

in IEP’s beginning at least by age 14 (or

younger if determined appropriate) should

be closely coordinated with institutional

planning for parole or release of juvenile

offenders. When appropriate, planned

services should include assistance in ob-

taining full-time employment or enrolling

in college (Leone, Rutherford, and Nelson,

1991). As part of transition planning, it is

advisable to establish contact with local

community programs. Local school dis-

tricts often are reluctant to take students

back after out-of-district placements, so

early contact is critical for effective post-

release programs. At least one court has

confirmed that institutions must ensure

that students’ special education needs

can be met and that current IEP’s are imple-

mented as soon as possible in their next

placement.

In addition, the 1997 IDEA amendments

provide that youth with disabilities are

entitled to extended school year services

if the child’s IEP team determines they

are needed to ensure FAPE. The youth’s

IEP team determines whether extended

school year services are needed on an

individual basis.

Extended school year

services may be an important right for

youth with disabilities who are incarcer-

ated during the summer.

Integration With

Nondisabled Students

The Federal requirement that special educa-

tion students be educated, to the extent

appropriate, with students who are not dis-

abled applies in the juvenile institutional

context.

Institutions may not provide a

generic special education program and force

all youth with disabilities to attend. Students

may be placed in special education classes

only as specifically called for in each IEP.

As in the outside community, youth must

be served with nondisabled students to

the maximum extent appropriate.

Discriminatory

Disincentives

Facilities must not allow discriminatory

disincentives to participation in special

education services.

Special education pro-

grams should not interfere with programs

in which youth with disabilities may other-

wise participate, including extracurricular

activities. Detention staff, for example, may

not require youth to choose between spe-

cial education services and other desirable

programs, such as vocational classes. Simi-

larly, a disability may not preclude a stu-

dent’s placement in a less secure facility,

such as a camp, or keep the student from

being granted a furlough.

Due Process Protections

for Confined Youth

The due process protections embodied in

special education law are particularly im-

portant for youth in institutional care. At

the time of confinement, youth should

receive a handbook that sets forth their

rights and affirms that officials will not

discriminate on the basis of disability.

Facilities should also inform youth and

their parents (or surrogate parents) of

their rights under IDEA. Documentation of

all actions taken to provide special educa-

tion to an individual student is essential.

The due process protections outlined in

special education law must remain distinct

from any institutional grievance procedure.

It is impermissible for officials to require

students or parents to fulfill steps not

called for by IDEA in order to challenge

school officials’ decisions. In meeting the

due process requirements, facilities must

be careful to meet mandated timelines be-

cause delays may undermine the purpose

for which the timelines were established.

Especially in short-term placements, offi-

cials should establish expedited proce-

dures to quickly resolve challenges to

agency decisions by the youth or parent.

Officials must include parents in the IEP

process consistent with IDEA. Unless a

court expressly limits their rights, parents

of youth in institutional settings have all

the rights that are accorded to parents of

youth who are not in out-of-home place-

ments.

For some placements, especially

prisons, distance is the biggest obstacle

to parental involvement. Distance must

not prevent a parent from participation.

If a youth is placed far from his or her

parents’ residence, teleconferencing may

be essential. The burden is on the facility

to keep all parties—especially parents—

involved in the IEP process.

In some cases, surrogate parents could be

appointed as an important part of a youth’s

due process protection. Surrogate parents

have all the rights regarding education that

the parents have. In institutional settings,

as in the community, the surrogate parent

must be independent and have no conflict

of interest. For example, in a juvenile de-

tention center, the surrogate parent may

not be a probation department employee.

Special Education in

Lockdown and Other

Restricted Settings

When youth with disabilities are removed

to lockdown units or other restricted set-

tings, facilities must still provide special

education services required by the IEP.

While the 1997 IDEA amendments provide

for modification of IEP’s of students with

disabilities incarcerated in adult criminal

corrections facilities if there is a “bona fide

security or compelling penological inter-

est,”

no such exception exists for juvenile

facilities. Accordingly, the normal rules for

implementing and modifying IEP’s would

seem to apply. If misbehavior is school

related, placement in lockdown or other

restricted settings where youth with dis-

abilities are unable to attend the regular

institutional school may constitute a

change of placement. A change of place-

ment triggers additional disciplinary pro-

cedural safeguards, including review of

behavioral intervention plans, functional

behavioral assessments, manifestation de-

terminations, and time limits on exclusion.

As in noninstitutional settings, students and

parents have the right to challenge changes

in placement or modifications to their IEP’s.

The practical difficulties in providing ser-

vices to youth in lockdown and restricted

settings should prompt institutional and

educational administrators to work to re-

duce the length of time spent in such set-

tings. To reduce the need for lockdown,

institutional educators also should pay

close attention to behavior intervention

strategies when developing the initial IEP.

Finally, staff development should include

Online Resources

National Information Center

for Children and Youth With

Disabilities (NICHCY)

Washington, DC

www.nichcy.org

This is a national information and referral

center for families, educators, and advo-

cates on specific disabilities, special edu-

cation and related services, educational

rights, and referral organizations that can

help with information, advocacy, and

support. NICHCY publishes fact sheets

on disabilities and legal issues, news

digests, guides for parents and students,

IDEA training materials, and publications

on educational rights.

Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, Office of

Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice

Washington, DC

www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

This Web site offers a wide range of in-

formation on juvenile justice issues, in-

cluding publications, resources, grants

and funding, and ways to contact the

agency with particular questions or re-

search needs. It includes many educa-

tion-related resources. For example, the

Web site’s search function yields close to

150 documents on special education.

Office of Special Education

Programs (OSEP), Office

of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services

(OSERS), U.S. Department

of Education

Washington, DC

www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/index

This Web site gives practitioners access to

the 1997 IDEA regulations, annual reports

to Congress, links to OSEP-sponsored

Web sites of other organizations, research

on youth with disabilities, and materials

on implementation of the 1997 IDEA.

A wealth of information about IDEA, re-

search on disabilities, methods of pro-

viding special education and related

services, organizations that focus on par-

ticular disabilities, and special education

in the juvenile justice system is available

on the Internet. These are just a few of

the many Web sites for practitioners in-

terested in special education and juve-

nile justice issues.

Bazelon Center for Mental

Health Law

Washington, DC

www.bazelon.org

Bazelon presents a number of online in-

formational publications, legal briefs and

analyses, and advocacy primers relating

to youth with disabilities, with an empha-

sis on mental disabilities.

Coordinating Council

on Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC

www.childrenwithdisabilities.ncjrs.org

As part of its effort to promote a national

agenda for children and foster positive

youth development, the Coordinating

Council has created the Children With

Disabilities Web site. The site offers

families, service providers, and others

information about advocacy, education,

employment, health, housing, recreation,

technical assistance, and transportation

covering a broad array of developmen-

tal, physical, and emotional disabilities,

including learning disabilities.

Learning Disabilities

Association (LDA)

Pittsburgh, PA

www.ldnatl.org

This national nonprofit organization has

chapters in 50 States. Its Web site offers

families and professionals information on

advocacy, research, legal developments,

and access to local LDA chapters. LDA

has a broad range of fact sheets, news

alerts, and other publications on specific

learning disabilities, legal issues, and ad-

vocacy for youth with disabilities.

National Association of

Protection and Advocacy

Systems, Inc.

Washington, DC

www.protectionandadvocacy.com

This national association of protection and

advocacy and client assistance programs

serves people with disabilities. The Web

site contains publications and fact sheets

on disability-related legal issues, legal

alerts, an extensive list of organizations

focusing on disabilities, and information

about how to access protection and advo-

cacy services.

The National Center on

Education, Disability, and

Juvenile Justice

College Park, MD

www.edjj.org

This newly created center is jointly funded

by the Office of Special Education Pro-

grams, U.S. Department of Education and

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention, Office of Justice Pro-

grams, U.S. Department of Justice. The

National Center on Education, Disability,

and Juvenile Justice (EDJJ) was created to

develop more effective responses to the

needs of youth with disabilities in the juve-

nile justice system or those at risk for in-

volvement in the juvenile justice system.

EDJJ’s home is at the University of Mary-

land, with partners at Arizona State Univer-

sity, University of Kentucky, American

Institutes for Research, and the Pacer

Center. EDJJ’s Web site offers training and

materials, publications, parent support,

links to other resources, and conferences

and forums. Particular areas of focus in-

clude prevention, education programs,

transition and aftercare, and policy studies.

training institutional staff on IDEA man-

dates and on problems youth with dis-

abilities may experience in institutional

settings.

In many ways, behavior intervention pre-

scribed through IDEA’s mandates overlaps

with the mission of the greater juvenile

institution to intervene in and prevent

inappropriate behavior. Institutional staff

and educators should work together to

meet the behavioral needs of incarcerated

youth with disabilities.

Youth With Disabilities

Convicted in Adult Criminal

Court and Incarcerated

in Prison

Most youth with disabilities under the age

of 22 incarcerated in adult criminal correc-

tions facilities are covered under IDEA’s

provisions. The only group excluded from

entitlement to FAPE comprises inmates

ages 18 through 21 (to the extent that State

law does not require that special education

and related services under part B be pro-

vided to students with disabilities) who,

in the last educational placement prior to

their incarceration in adult criminal cor-

rections facilities, were not identified as

having disabilities and did not have IEP’s.

The 1997 IDEA amendments also provide

that youth convicted as if they were adults

under State law and incarcerated in prison

are not entitled to participation in State

and districtwide assessments, the benefit

of requirements related to transition plan-

ning, or transition services if their eligi-

bility for services will end, because of

their age, before they are eligible to be re-

leased from prison based on consideration

of their sentence and eligibility for early

release.

As noted previously, the 1997

IDEA amendments permit the IEP team to

modify the IEP of an inmate convicted in

adult criminal court under State law and

incarcerated in a prison if the State has

demonstrated a bona fide security or com-

pelling penological interest that cannot

otherwise be accommodated.

Other than

these limitations, all IDEA protections ap-

ply to eligible youth in prisons.

Conclusion

Although the special education system im-

poses significant duties on the juvenile jus-

tice system, it offers substantial resources

to professionals working throughout that

system. Its emphasis on identifying behav-

ior related to disabilities and developing

practical ways to address that behavior

offers a constructive, positive approach to

serving the needs of the many delinquent

youth who have disabilities. Ensuring that

special education needs are met at every

point in the juvenile justice process will

inevitably support and enhance the success

of delinquency intervention.

Endnotes

1. Pub. L. No. 94–142 (1975).

2. Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., revised and

amended by Pub. L. No. 105–17, 111 Stat. 37

(1997). Some of the 1997 amendments be-

came effective on their passage; others

took effect in 1998.

3. 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 et seq. (1999). The U.S.

Department of Education issued a notice

clarifying that compliance with new provi-

sions in the regulations was not required

for fiscal year 1998 but was required for

fiscal year 1999 and carryover funds from

fiscal year 1998.

4. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a); 34 C.F.R. § 300.110,

§§ 300.121–300.156.

5. 20 U.S.C. § 1413(a); 34 C.F.R. § 300.220,

§§ 300.121–300.156.

6. 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1973).

7. 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990); see also

Pennsylvania v. Yeskey, 118 S. Ct. 1952 (1998)

(holding that the Americans with Disabili-

ties Act extends to prison inmates).

8. California Education Code § 56026.

9. California Education Code § 56363.

10. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.7(a)(1).

11. Children with ADD or ADHD may be

eligible for services under the category of

“other health impairment,” 34 C.F.R. § 300.7

(c)(9)(i) or through section 504 of the Re-

habilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794).

12. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A); 34 C.F.R. §

300.7(c)(10)(i).

13. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(B) and (C); 34

C.F.R. § 300.7(c)(10)(i) and (ii).

14. 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(c)(4).

15. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a); 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)

(iv). The 1997 IDEA amendments permit

States to exclude youth ages 18 through 21

who, in the educational placement prior to

their incarceration in an adult criminal cor-

rections facility, were not actually identified

as being a youth with a disability or did not

have an IEP. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(B)(ii).

Note that the implementing regulation per-

mits exclusion of this group for those who,

in the last educational placement prior to

incarceration in an adult criminal correc-

tions facility, were not actually identified

as being a youth with a disability and did

not have an IEP. 34 C.F.R. § 300.311(a).

16. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.121(a). However, the general age eli-

gibility provisions do not apply to youth

ages 18 through 21 if State law or practice,

or the order of any court, does not provide

for public education to youth in that age

range. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.122(a)(1).

17. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5); 34 C.F.R. § 300.550.

18. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.125.

19. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)–(c); 34 C.F.R.

§§ 300.532–500.543.

20. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.536.

21. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(A), 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.342(a).

22. 34 C.F.R. § 300.343(b)(2).

23. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.344(a).

24. The importance of parental participa-

tion is underscored in detailed notice,

scheduling, and documentation of efforts

requirements. 34 C.F.R. § 300.345.

25. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(vii); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.347(b).

26. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(30); 34 C.F.R. § 300.29.

27. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(B); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.346(a)(2).

28. 34 C.F.R. § 300.342(b)(ii), § 300.343(c).

29. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(25); 34 C.F.R. § 300.26

(a)(1).

30. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(25)(A)–(B); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.24(a)(1)(i)–(ii).

31. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(22); 34 C.F.R. § 300.24.

32. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b); 34 C.F.R.

§§ 300.501–300.512.

33. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.515.

34. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(m); 34 C.F.R. § 300.517;

see also Paul Y. v. Singletary, 979 F. Supp.

1422 (S.D. Fla. 1997).

35. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e); 34 C.F.R. § 300.506.

36. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f); 34 C.F.R. § 300.507.

37. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(h); 34 C.F.R. § 300.509.

38. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g); 34 C.F.R. § 300.510.

39. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.512.

40. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513.

41. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.660–300.662. Apart from

the State complaint process pursuant to

IDEA, complaints may be filed with the

Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of

Education, for discrimination on the basis

of disability under section 504 of the Reha-

bilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794) or

title II of the Americans with Disabilities

Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.).

42. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.514.

43. 484 U.S. 305 (1988).

44. 484 U.S. at 323–324.

45. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.520(a).

46. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(10); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.520(d).

47. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(2); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.521.

48. 34 C.F.R. § 300.519; see generally 20

U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(a).

49. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.520(b).

50. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A), § 1415(k)(3);

34 C.F.R. § 300.121(d), § 300.522.

51. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4); 34 C.F.R. § 300.523.

52. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(5); 34 C.F.R. § 300.524.

53. 34 C.F.R. § 300.523(f).

54. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.121(d).

55. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(2), § 1415(k)(7); 34

C.F.R. § 300.525, § 300.526, § 300.528.

56. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(8)(A); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.527(a).

57. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(8)(B); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.527(b).

58. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(9)(B); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.529(a); see also Northside Indepen-

dent School District (No. 106–SE–1297),

28 Individuals With Disabilities Education

Law Report (IDELR) 1118 (State Education

Agency Texas 1998); Smith v. Wheaton (No.

H–87–190 (TPS)), 29 IDELR 200 (D. Conn.

1998); Cabot School District (No. H–99–02),

29 IDELR 300 (Ark. 1998).

59. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(9); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.529(a).

60. Morgan v. Chris L., 25 IDELR 227

(6th Cir. 1996) (unpublished decision).

61. See, e.g., Flint Board of Education v.

Williams, 276 N.W.2d 499 (Mich. App. 1979)

(violation of school rules and regulations);

In re McCann, 17 Educ. for the Handicapped

L. Rep. [now the IDELR] 551 (Tenn. Ct.

App. 1990) (truancy and unruly behavior).

62. State of Wisconsin v. Trent N., 26 IDELR

434 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997); Cabot School Dis-

trict (No. H–99–02), 29 IDELR 300 (Ark. 1998).

63. Cabot School District (No. H–99–02),

29 IDELR 300 (Ark. 1998); State of Connecti-

cut v. David F., 29 IDELR 376 (Conn. Super.

Ct. 1998).

64. In the Matter of Shelly M., 453 N.Y.S.2d

352 (1982); In re Ruffel, 18 IDELR 1171 (N.Y.

Fam. Ct. 1992).

65. See Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402

(1960); Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162

(1975); see, e.g., In re Patrick H., 63 Cal.

Rptr. 2d 455 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).

66. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 368 (1970).

67. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Miranda warnings

must precede any custodial interrogation.

Note that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide

in Dickerson v. United States, 120 S. Ct. 578

(mem.) (No. 99–5525) (review granted, Dec.

6, 1999), Fourth Circuit, U.S. Court of Ap-

peals, No. 97–4750, 166 F.3d 667, whether

Miranda has been overruled in Federal

cases by a statute (18 U.S.C. § 3501) that

purports to restore voluntariness as the

test for admissibility.

68. See Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 725

(1979).

69. See Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 599

(1948); Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 442 (1961);

see, e.g., In re J.J.C., 689 N.E.2d 1172 (Ill.

App. Ct. 1998), suppressing as involuntary

the confession of a youth with a history of

mental problems and learning disabilities.

70. Letter to Mr. George M. Galarza, War-

den of California State Prison-Corcoran; 30

IDELR 50 (U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Special Education Programs, 1997).

71. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.2(b)(iv).

72. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(B)(ii); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.122(a)(2).

73. See, e.g., State of Connecticut-Unified

School District No. 1 v. State Department of

Education, 27 IDELR 3 (Conn. Super. Ct.

1997).

74. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(9)(B); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.529(b)(2).

75. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532.

76. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c); 34 C.F.R. § 300.536.

77. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.346(b); Alexander S. v. Boyd, 876 F.

Supp. 773, 802 (D.S.C. 1995), affd. in part and

rev’d. in part on other grounds, 113 F.3d 1373

(4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. (1998).

78. 34 C.F.R. § 300.342(b)(ii).

79. See, e.g., C

ALIF. EDUC. CODE § 56325 (West

1998), requiring immediate provision of an

interim placement implementing the exist-

ing IEP to the extent possible within existing

resources, with review by the IEP team

within 30 days.

80. See, e.g., Boyd, 876 F. Supp. at 802.

81. 34 C.F.R. § 300.342(b)(ii). Different rules

apply to some juveniles in adult criminal

corrections facilities. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.122

(a)(2) concerning individuals ages 18

through 21 convicted as adults under

State law and housed in adult criminal

corrections facilities.

82. Smith v. Wheaton (No. H–87–190 (TPS)),

29 IDELR 200 (D. Conn. 1998).

83. 34 C.F.R. § 300.309.

84. 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.550.

85. OCR Region IX, No. 09–91–1343–I (1992)

(unreported).

86. 29 U.S.C. § 794.

87. OCR Region IX, No. 09–91–1343–I (1992)

(unreported) (OCR found discrimination

against students with hearing impairments

in violation of section 504 in part because the

student handbook lacked such a statement).

88. See, e.g., Maine Department of Education,

17 IDELR 211 (State Education Agency,

Maine, 1990), but see 34 C.F.R. § 300.122(a)

(2) regarding individuals ages 18 through

21 convicted as adults under State law

and residing in adult criminal corrections

facilities.

89. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(2); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.515(c)(2), but see 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.517(a)(2) if State transfers rights

at the age of majority for all students.

90. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(6)(B); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.311(c).

91. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(B)(ii); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.311(a).

92. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(6)(A)(ii); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.311(b)(2).

93. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(6)(B); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.311(c); see, e.g., New Hampshire De-

partment of Education v. City of Manchester,

N.H. School District, 23 IDELR 1057 (D.N.H.

1996).

References

Barnum, R., and Keilitz, I. 1992. Issues in

systems interactions affecting mentally

disordered juvenile offenders. In Respond-

ing to the Mental Health Needs of Youth in

the Juvenile Justice System, edited by J.

Cocozza. Seattle, WA: The National Coali-

tion for the Mentally Ill in the Criminal

Justice System.

Beyer, M. 1997. Experts for juveniles at risk

of adult sentences. In More Than Meets the

Eye: Rethinking Assessment, Competency

and Sentencing for a Harsher Era of Juvenile

Justice, edited by P. Puritz. Washington, DC:

American Bar Association, Juvenile Justice

Center, pp. 12–13.

Beyer, M., Opalack, N., and Puritz, P. 1988.

Treating the educational problems of delin-

quent and neglected children. Children’s

Legal Rights Journal 9(2):2–11.

Bogin, M., and Goodman, B. 1986. Repre-

senting the learning disabled child in the

juvenile justice and family court systems. In

Representing Learning Disabled Children: A

Manual for Attorneys, 2d ed. Washington, DC:

American Bar Association, pp. 104–107.

Chesapeake Institute. 1994. National Agenda

for Achieving Better Results for Children and

Youth With Serious Emotional Disturbance.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Educa-

tion, Office of Special Education and Reha-

bilitative Services, Office of Special Educa-

tion Programs.

Greenburg, S. 1991. Learning disabled ju-

veniles and Miranda rights—What consti-

tutes voluntary, knowing and intelligent

waiver. Golden Gate University Law Review

21:487–527.

Grisso, T. 1980. Juveniles’ capacities to

waive Miranda rights: An empirical analy-

sis. California Law Review 68:1134–1166.

Grisso, T. 1997. The competence of ado-

lescents as trial defendants. Psychology,

Public Policy, and Law 3(1):3–32.

Grisso, T., Miller, M., and Sales, B. 1987.

Competency to stand trial in juvenile court.

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

10(1):9–15.

Leone, P., Rutherford, R., and Nelson, C.

1991. Juvenile Corrections and the Excep-

tional Student. ERIC Digest. Reston, VA: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted

Education.

Leone, P.E., Zaremba, B.A., Chapin, M.S.,

and Iseli, C. 1995. Understanding the

overrepresentation of youths with dis-

abilities in juvenile detention. District of

Columbia Law Review 3(Fall):389–401.

Logan, D. 1992. Attention-deficit hyperac-

tivity disorder (ADHD): Potential mitiga-

tion in capital cases. Forum 19:21–25.

National Council of Juvenile and Family

Court Judges. 1991. Learning Disabilities and

the Juvenile Justice System, edited by Hon.

L.G. Arthur. Reno, NV: National Council of

Juvenile and Family Court Judges, pp. 51–56.

Puritz, P., and Scali, M.A. 1998. Beyond the

Walls: Improving Conditions of Confinement

for Youth in Custody. Report. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Shepherd, R.E., Jr., and Zaremba, B.A. 1995.

When a disabled juvenile confesses to a

crime: Should it be admissible? Criminal

Justice 9:31–35.

SRI International, Center for Education

and Human Services. 1997. The National

Longitudinal Transition Study: A Summary

of Findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-

ment of Education, Office of Special Edu-

cation Programs.

U.S. Department of Education. 1998. To As-

sure the Free Appropriate Public Education of

All Children With Disabilities: Twentieth An-

nual Report to Congress on the Implementa-

tion of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-

tion Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Education.

Woolard, J.L., Gross, S.L., Mulvey, E.P., and

Reppucci, N.D. 1992. Legal issues affecting

mentally disordered youth in the juvenile

justice system. In Responding to the Mental

Health Needs of Youth in the Juvenile Justice

System, edited by J. Cocozza. Seattle, WA:

The National Coalition for the Mentally Ill

in the Criminal Justice System.

Youth Law Center. 1999. Court Cases and

Agency Rulings on Special Education in Ju-

venile and Correctional Facilities: A Special

Education Clearinghouse (Case Summaries).

San Francisco, CA: Youth Law Center.

Additional Resources

Coffey, O.D., and Gemignani, M.G. 1994.

Effective Practices in Juvenile Correctional

Education: A Study of the Literature and

Research (1980–1992). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Jus-

tice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Community Alliance for Special Education

(CASE) and Protection and Advocacy, Inc.

(PAI). 2000. Special Education Rights and

Responsibilities, 8th ed. San Francisco, CA:

Community Alliance for Special Education.

[This manual is based in California but

contains citations to Federal law and pro-

vides clear, practical advice for families

and practitioners everywhere on protect-

ing youth’s special education rights. This

edition incorporates the 1997 IDEA amend-

ments and 1999 Federal regulations.]

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention. 1997. Youth

With Learning and Other Disabilities in the

Juvenile Justice System: Focus Group Meet-

ing Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-

ment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Correctional Education Bulletin. Horsham,

PA: LRP Publications. (Published monthly.)

Individuals With Disabilities Law Report.

Horsham, PA: LRP Publications. (Compre-

hensive looseleaf service with statutes,

regulations, case decisions, rulings, and

memorandums; biweekly highlights; and

frequent special reports.)

Leone, P.E., Rutherford, R.B., Jr., and

Nelson, C.M. 1991. Special Education in

Juvenile Corrections. Reston, VA: Council

for Exceptional Children.

Medaris, M. 1998. A Guide to the Family

Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Fact

Sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Medaris, M., Campbell, E., and James, B.

1997. Sharing Information: A Guide to the

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

and Participation in Juvenile Justice Pro-

grams. Report. Washington, DC: U.S. De-

partment of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-

grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention.

Nelson, C.M., Rutherford, R.B., Jr., and

Wolford, B.I. 1987. Special Education in the

Criminal Justice System. Columbus, OH:

Merrill Publishing Company.

Seltzer, T. 1998. A New IDEA: A Parent’s

Guide to the Changes in Special Education

Law for Children With Disabilities. Wash-

ington, DC: Judge David L. Bazelon Center

for Mental Health Law.

Tulman, J.B. 1996. The best defense is a

good offense: Using special education ad-

vocacy for delinquency cases. ABA Child

Law Practice 15(7):97, 102–103.

Tulman, J.B., and McGee, J.A., eds. 1998.

Special Education Advocacy Under the

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA) for Children in the Juvenile Justice

System. Washington, DC: University of the

District of Columbia, School of Law, Juve-

nile Law Clinic.

Warboys, L.W., Burrell, S., Peters, C., and

Ramiu, M. 1994. California Juvenile Court

Special Education Manual. San Francisco,

CA: Youth Law Center.

Woolard, J.L., Gross, S.L., Mulvey, E.P., and

Reppucci, N.D. 1992. Legal issues affecting

mentally disordered youth in the juvenile

justice system. In Responding to the Men-

tal Health Needs of Youth in the Juvenile

Justice System, edited by J. Cocozza. Se-

attle, WA: The National Coalition for the

Mentally Ill in the Criminal Justice System.

Youth Law Center. 1999. Court Cases and

Agency Rulings on Special Education in Ju-

venile and Correctional Facilities: A Special

Education Clearinghouse (Case Summaries).

San Francisco, CA: Youth Law Center.

PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

NCJ 179359

Bulletin

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the authors and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention is a component of the Of-

fice of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin is dedicated to the memory of Loren Warboys, who passed away in

December 1999 after an extended struggle with leukemia. Early in his career,

Loren recognized the need for advocacy on behalf of youth with disabilities in the

juvenile justice system, and he worked for the next two decades to protect their

legal rights. As one of only a handful of nationally recognized legal experts in this

field, Loren was constantly involved in policy discussions over legislation and

regulations. He was counsel in a number of groundbreaking cases on behalf of

youth with disabilities in institutions and wrote many articles and training manuals

on the interplay between juvenile justice and special education. He also spent

countless hours consulting on these issues with families, educators, public

officials, and juvenile justice professionals. Loren’s unflagging compassion and

commitment have had a lasting effect in making the juvenile justice system more

attuned and better equipped to meet the needs of youth with disabilities.

Sue Burrell is a staff attorney and Loren Warboys was the managing director of

Youth Law Center, a San Francisco-based private, nonprofit law firm specializing

in protecting the rights of youth in juvenile justice and child welfare systems

throughout the Nation. The authors were guided in the preparation of this Bulletin

by the many ideas and experiences offered to them over the years by youth with

disabilities in the juvenile court process and juvenile institutions. The hope that

these youth may enjoy a bright future and reach their greatest potential has truly

inspired this work.

Renee Bradley, Ph.D., from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special

Education Programs, contributed significantly to the review of this Bulletin to ensure

its relevance to both the education and juvenile justice communities.