Characteristics of and services provided to youth in secure care facilities
CITATION PDF VIEWER PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/IR00000469/00001
 Material Information
Title: Characteristics of and services provided to youth in secure care facilities
Series Title: Gagnon, J. C., & Barber, B. R. (2010). Characteristics of and services provided to youth in secure care facilities. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 7-19.
Physical Description: Journal Article
Creator: Gagnon, Joseph
 Notes
Abstract: Youth who are incarcerated in secure detention and commitment settings display a complex array of educational, behavioral, and mental health issues that affect the services they require, as well as their responsiveness to interventions. Yet, seldom are these needs understood or taken into account when providing services in secure care settings. In this article, research documenting what is known regarding the characteristics of incarcerated youth is summarized. Current research on the use of evidence-based interventions and services for youth in secure settings is reviewed next. Finally, the limitations of existing research and practice and the use of response to intervention (RtI) for linking youth characteristics to research-based strategies are discussed.
Acquisition: Collected for University of Florida's Institutional Repository by the UFIR Self-Submittal tool. Submitted by Joseph Gagnon.
Publication Status: Published
 Record Information
Source Institution: University of Florida Institutional Repository
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the submitter.
System ID: IR00000469:00001

Downloads
Full Text




Characteristics of and Services Provided to Youth in

Secure Care Facilities


Joseph C. Gagnon and Brian Barber
University of Florida


ABSTRACT: Youth who are incarcerated in secure detention and commitment settings display a
complex array of educational, behavioral, and mental health issues that affect the services they
require, as well as their responsiveness to interventions. Yet, seldom are these needs understood or
taken into account when providing services in secure care settings. In this article, research
documenting what is known regarding the characteristics of incarcerated youth is summarized.
Current research on the use of evidence-based interventions and services for youth in secure settings
is reviewed next. Finally, the limitations of existing research and practice and the use of response to
intervention (Rtl) for linking youth characteristics to research-based strategies are discussed.


Characteristics of and Services
Provided to Youth in Secure Care
Facilities

Adolescents in secure care settings have
perhaps the most complex educational, be-
havioral, and mental health needs of any youth
in our society (Gagnon & Richards, 2008).
Only recently have the numerous and interre-
lated difficulties experienced by adjudicated
youth begun to be understood. Educational
disabilities, inappropriate behaviors in school
and the community, mental health problems
and/or substance abuse, and experience with
abuse, neglect, and violence are frequent
characteristics of troubled youth who serve
time in secure care facilities. Due to the
seriousness of these characteristics, these
youth require comprehensive services and
research-based interventions. Direct service
providers in secure care are challenged to
provide empirically validated approaches
while taking into consideration the unique
and complicated characteristics of youth.
Simultaneously, service providers must work
within a juvenile justice system that is largely
driven by security concerns, often at the
expense of other needed supports and services
(e.g., adequate school funding and staffing,
proactive and positive approaches to youth
behavior, screening and treatment of youth
with mental disorders; see Leone & Cutting,
2004; National Mental Health Association,
2004; Nelson, Sugai, & Smith, 2005).
In order to achieve a broad understanding
of the appropriateness of services provided to


youth in secure care, it is necessary to
understand their characteristics, which span
several dimensions (i.e., academic, behavioral,
mental health). The extent to which interven-
tions in secure care address these characteris-
tics and needs can be determined through an
examination of available research. A review of
limitations to current research and practice
then provides a basis for considering one
approach, response to intervention (Rtl), for
selecting and implementing interventions that
consider the unique student characteristics of
incarcerated youth.

Characteristics of Youth in Secure Care

The academic characteristics of all youth
in secure care provide a context for an analysis
of these characteristics among the youth
commonly overrepresented in juvenile correc-
tions, namely those with emotional/behavioral
disorders (E/BD) and learning disabilities (LD).
Regarding student behavior, we summarize
available research on the disability classifica-
tion of E/BD in secure care. Last, we delve into
key mental health characteristics of these
youth, including information available on the
rates of mental disorders, drug abuse, and
histories of abuse and neglect.

Academics

Studies focusing on the academic achieve-
ment of youth with disabilities in juvenile
corrections are relatively limited. However, it
is clear that academic difficulties are a
significant factor affecting the educational


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


November 2010 / 7







and postschool success of incarcerated youth.
In a review of literature, Foley (2001) reported
that academic functioning of students in
juvenile corrections typically was between
the fifth- to ninth-grade levels. Foley (2001)
further noted that a high percentage of youth
who were incarcerated had failed a course,
been retained in grade, and had earned no
high school course credit at the time of
incarceration. A study of 186 incarcerated
youth by Baltodano, Harris, and Rutherford
(2005) similarly indicated that youth in juve-
nile corrections were below the mean on
standardized measures of achievement. More-
over, incarcerated youth are less likely to
graduate-in one study analyzing the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth, incarcerated
youth were 26% less likely to graduate from
high school than nonincarcerated youth (Hjal-
marsson, 2008). Mathematics and reading are
two critical areas affecting the academic and
post-school success of youth, including those
in secure care (Gagnon, Wehby, Strong, &
Falk, 2006). Compared with their non-delin-
quent counterparts, higher percentages of
delinquent youth have difficulties in reading
and mathematics (Allen-DeBoer, Malmgren, &
Glass, 2006; Meltzer, Levine, Karniski, Palfrey
& Clarke, 1984). By middle school, approxi-
mately 50% of delinquent youth are below
average in all academic areas (Meltzer et al.).
Several studies of incarcerated youth have
substantiated the serious academic problems
of youth in secure care. For example, in a
study of 583 incarcerated youth, Beebe and
Mueller (1993) reported that youth have
difficulties, "conceptualizing and processing
information, with basic reading skills, and with
mathematical computation" (p. 195). In a
study of 555 detained and committed youth,
Krezmien, Mulcahy, and Leone (2008) report-
ed that achievement scores on standardized
assessments in reading and mathematics were
about four years behind that of same-aged,
nonincarcerated peers. Similarly, Zamora
(2005) conducted research on 317 male
juvenile detainees in Texas, and reported that
only 25% of the study sample had educational
achievement test scores at the middle or high
school levels in reading and mathematics.
Academic achievement also has a bearing on
recidivism, as evidenced by the studies of
Archwamety and Katsiyannis (1999, 2000)
who found that delinquent youth in remedial
reading or mathematics groups were twice as
likely to recidivate as youth in a control group.


Other researchers have focused on the
reading achievement of youth in secure care
and reported similar results. For example, in a
study of 398 incarcerated youth, Harris,
Baltodano, Bal, Jolivette, and Mulcahy (2009)
noted that incarcerated youth scored below
nonincarcerated youth on reading achieve-
ment assessments. In another study of 91
juvenile offenders ages 15-17 in England,
reported reading skills were, on average, one
standard deviation below expected age levels
on standardized achievement assessments
(Snowling, Adams, Bowyer-Crane, & Tobin,
2000). Brunner (1993) found that incarcerated
youth functioned at a fourth-grade reading
level, and Coulter (2004) noted youth com-
prehension was at a fifth-grade level.
Given the high percentage of incarcerated
youth having an educational disability, a
specific understanding of the academic diffi-
culties of youth with E/BD and LD is particu-
larly relevant. In a national survey of principals
of juvenile corrections facilities for committed
youth, Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, and Leone
(2009) reported that about 40% of these youth
were classified with a disability. Similarly, in a
national survey of heads of state departments
of juvenile corrections and combined juvenile/
adult corrections systems, 33% of incarcerated
youth were classified with a disability (Quinn,
Rutherford, Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005). In
contrast, 12% of students in regular public
schools have identified disabilities (Stizek,
Pittsonberger, Riordan, Lyter, & Orlofsky,
2007). Moreover, of students with disabilities
in regular public schools only about 7.9%
were labeled with E/BD and 46.4% with LD,
whereas of youth with disabilities in secure
care, 47.4% were identified as E/BD and
38.6% are identified as LD (Quinn et al.,
2005).
A comprehensive review of reading and
mathematics research on youth with E/BD and
LD is beyond the scope of the current
discussion. However, in general, youth with
E/BD or LD have serious academic difficulties.
Researchers (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 1996;
Lane, Barton-Arwood, Nelson & Wehby 2008;
Lane, Carter, Pierson & Glaeser, 2006; Trout
Nordness, Pierce, & Epstein, 2003) consistent-
ly report that youth with E/BD and LD possess
significant skill deficits in reading. Similarly,
youth with disabilities commonly score below
their nondisabled peers on national and state
mathematics assessments. For example, on the
National Assessment of Educational Progress


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


8 /November 2010







(NAEP) more than 40% of students with
disabilities scored below the basic level (Lee,
Grigg, & Dion, 2007).
With regard to youth with E/BD, Trout et
al. (2003) reviewed the literature and reported
that 89% of studies on reading indicated
students with E/BD functioned below grade
level. In another study of 155 youth with E/BD,
83% scored below the mean of the norm group
across content areas on the Woodcock-John-
son-Ill (Nelson, Benner, Lane, & Smith, 2004).
Similarly, in a recent meta-analysis Reid,
Gonzales, Nordness, Trout, and Epstein
(2004) noted that the academic achievement
of students with E/BD consistently fell below
that of non-disabled peers in reading and
mathematics. Researchers (Carr-George, Van-
nest, Wilson, & Davis, 2009) also have
reported that only 44% of youth with E/BD
met proficiency standards on state reading
assessments.
Concerning youth with LD, researchers
reported significant deficits in both reading
and mathematics. For example, Lyon (1995)
estimated that 80% of students with LD have
difficulties with reading; specific difficulties
have been reported for reading comprehension
(Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Graetz, 2003), as well
as a host of associated reading skills. Lane et
al. (2006) noted that youth with LD typically
scored two standard deviations below the
mean on a standardized assessment of basic
reading skills (e.g., sight vocabulary, phonics,
structural analysis). Researchers (Algozzine,
O'Shea, Crews, & Stoddard, 1987; Bryant,
Kim, Hatman, & Bryant, 2006; Maccini,
McNaughton, & Ruhl, 1999; Maccini, Mul-
cahy, & Wilson, 2007) also consistently note
that youth with LD have deficits in mathemat-
ics that seriously impact their academic
success (e.g., difficulties with procedural
errors, organizing information, working and
long-term memory, computation skills, and
algebraic reasoning).

Behavior and Mental Health

In addition to academic difficulties, stu-
dents in secure care have several unique and
complicated behavior and mental health char-
acteristics that can affect the provision of
appropriate educational and other services.
As noted, the rate of youth with E/BD in secure
care is roughly six times that of regular public
schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
Common characteristics of students with E/BD


may contribute to their difficulties while in
secure care. For example, many of these youth
lack basic cognitive and social skills needed
for appropriate self-assertion and cooperation
during their time in secure care (Gagnon &
Richards, 2008; Nelson, Leone, & Rutherford,
2004). Additionally, deficits in interpersonal
problem solving, future orientation, reward
sensitivity, and the capacity for self-regulation
are contributors to the maladaptive behavior
exhibited by many juvenile offenders (see
Steinberg, 2009). Students with primary emo-
tional disturbance also exhibit frequent anti-
social and aggressive tendencies that place
them at greater risk for delinquency and
placement in secure care (Connor, 2002).
Substantially increased rates of aggression,
including symptoms of irritability, impulsivity,
and emotional liability also are common to
several clinical diagnoses of mental disorders
prevalent in juvenile corrections, including
conduct disorder (CD), oppositional defiant
disorder (ODD), attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder (ADHD), and various internalizing
disorders such as anxiety and some subtypes of
depression (Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dul-
can, & Mericle, 2002). Research has suggested
that a disproportionate number of detained
and committed youth have behavioral issues
related to the cognitive deficiencies and/or
distortions presented by these disorders (Cauff-
man, 2004; Teplin et al, 2002). Youth with one
or more psychiatric disorders account for
nearly half of youth in juvenile detention
centers (Wasserman, McReynolds, Ko, Katz,
& Carpenter, 2005), and roughly two-thirds of
those in commitment facilities (Coalition for
Juvenile Justice, 2000; Cocozza & Skowyra,
2000), while comparative prevalence rates for
youth in the general population are approxi-
mated at 15-25% (Kazdin, 2000). Specific
reports of the frequency of mental and
behavioral disorders range from approximately
2.9-16% for ADHD to 10-25% for anxiety and
depressive forms in youth in juvenile correc-
tion facilities (Teplin et al., 2002). Not
surprisingly, disruptive behavior disorders
(CD, ODD) occur in over half of youth in
juvenile corrections (Teplin et al., 2002), and
overlap considerably with populations that are
educationally classified as having E/BD.
Of particular concern is the prevalence of
youth with multiple behavior and mental
disorders in secure care. Abram and col-
leagues (2003) used the Diagnostic Interview
Schedule for Children (DISC, V. 2.3) with a


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


November 2010 / 9







randomly selected sample of more than 1,800
detained youth to determine that more than
half of those interviewed met criteria for
multiple disorders. In a recent multi-state study
of over 1,400 youth, Shufelt and Cocozza
(2006) further report that 60% of youth with
mental disorders in the juvenile justice system
actually meet criteria for three or more
disorders. The conferment of comorbid condi-
tions among high proportions of incarcerated
youth suggests that intensive treatment is
necessary, as these youth are particularly
resistant to treatment. For example, adoles-
cents with comorbid CD and ADHD exhibit an
increased tendency for chronic and repeated
offending (Grisso, 2008).
For many youth in secure care, the issues
associated with their mental health needs are
significantly complicated by the presence of a
co-occurring substance use disorder. It is
estimated that roughly 45% of delinquent
youth have substance use problems (Loeber,
Burke, & Lahey, 2002; McClelland, Elkington,
Teplin, & Abram, 2004). Frequently these
issues co-occur with mental illnesses such as
conduct disorder (McCord, Spatz-Widom, &
Crowell, 2001; Teplin et al., 2002), and some
researchers have theorized a connection be-
tween these factors (White & Gorman 2000;
Mears 2001). By many estimates, substance
abuse problems in secure care occur nearly
three times as often as in the general popula-
tion, and accounts of the regularity and
severity of drug use support these estimates
(Atkins et al., 1999; Shufelt & Cocozza, 2006;
Teplin et al., 2002). For example, McCellend
et al. (2004) reported substance use disorders
in half of a sample of detained juveniles, with
multiple substance use disorders occurring for
nearly 21% of youth.
The behavioral and mental health prob-
lems seen for youth in secure care settings also
may be related to traumatic experiences,
including histories of abuse and neglect or
exposure to violence. High rates of abuse and/
or neglect are common to youth who are
engaged with the juvenile justice system
(Evans, Alpers, Macari, & Mason, 1996).
Specifically, youth with histories of abuse are
six to seven times more likely to be arrested
than counterparts without such histories
(Brooks & Petit, 1997). Of those involved with
the juvenile justice system, rates of reported
physical abuse are between 50 and 70%
(Evans et al., 1996). Youth with E/BD in
particular are reported to have experienced


higher incidence of abuse and neglect. For
example, one national survey estimated nearly
38% of students with E/BD were physically or
sexually abused, 41% were neglected, and
over half had experienced emotional abuse
(Oseroff, Oseroff, Westling, & Gessner, 1999).
Youth who have either witnessed or been
victims to violence account for over 90% of
detained youth and 11% of these youth are
classified as having posttraumatic stress disor-
der (PTSD) (Abram et al., 2004; Teplin et al.,
2002). In a study of the health status of
youthful offenders, Shelton (2000) reported
that 16% had experienced serious bodily
injury (i.e., sustained gunshot or stab wound)
within the past year. Youth experience of
traumatic life events is associated with their
behavioral characteristics; in particular, youth
with PTSD are susceptible to responding to
threats in an aggressive and unpredictable
manner (Grisso, 2008).
Alarmingly, almost two-thirds of juvenile
detainment facilities hold youth who are
awaiting mental health and/or substance abuse
treatment (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2000).
In 33 states, youth with mental illness are
detained without any charges filed against
them (U.S. House of Representatives Commit-
tee on Government Reform, 2004). The
behavioral and mental health characteristics
of delinquent youth have created a scenario in
which juvenile corrections facilities have been
described as the "community's de facto
mental health center" (Grisso, 2008, p. 151).
For this and other reasons, it is increasingly
apparent that a need exists to attend to student
characteristics in order to effectively guide
practices for educating and treating confined
youth.


Student Characteristics and
Current Practices

In light of the complex academic, behav-
ioral, and mental health characteristics of
juvenile offenders in secure care, the develop-
ment of comprehensive and rehabilitative
programs is essential. Unfortunately, research-
ers and experts have voiced longstanding
concerns with the provision of the most basic
education, behavioral, and mental health
services for youth in secure care (Gagnon &
Richards, 2008). Educational services may be
negatively impacted by such problems as
physical space, insufficient funding, inade-
quate instructional time, frequent changes in


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


10 / November 2 010







the daily schedule, and behavior-related inter-
ruptions (Rozalski & Engle, 2005). Further,
approaches to youth behavior are often limited
to those that are punitive in nature (Barton &
Butts, 2008; Nelson et al., 2005), and segre-
gating youth may be used in lieu of provision
of appropriate mental health services (Leone,
1994). There is scant research on the imple-
mentation of research-based approaches in
these areas. However, it is clear that evidence-
based interventions can have a positive effect
on incarcerated youth, and it is important to
review available information in order to
consider future directions for research and
practice (Brunner, 1993; Greenwood, 2008;
Katsiyannis, Ryan, Zhang, & Spann, 2008;
Sidana, 2006).

Instruction

Research in the areas of mathematics and
reading instruction has rarely taken place in
secure care. Concerning mathematics, only
case study and teacher reports currently exist
on teachers' use of validated math instruction-
al approaches. No mathematics instructional
interventions have been published in secure
care settings. Regarding observed or reported
approaches, Coffey and Gemignani (1994)
reported the common use of worksheets for
drill and practice of math facts in juvenile
corrections math classes. In their analysis of
one facility, Maccini, Gagnon, Cutting, and
Leone (2006) noted that few teachers used
research-based instructional approaches
shown to be successful with students classified
as LD or E/BD (e.g., advance organizers, use of
technology and real-world problem solving
tasks, strategy instruction). Moreover, the
researchers reported that no teacher in the
study used other effective strategies, such as a
graduated instructional sequence (i.e., begin-
ning with concrete manipulatives, progressing
to pictures, then to drawings, and then numbers
and symbols), formal peer tutoring/collabora-
tion as a part of student groupings, or all of the
intended steps of explicit instruction. A recent
national study of special education mathematics
teachers working with students in secure care
demonstrated similar findings. The only empir-
ically validated instructional approach that
teachers reported using on a daily or weekly
basis was strategy instruction (Maccini, Strick-
land, Gagnon, & Malmgren, 2008).
Teacher reports of reading instruction in
secure care are slightly more positive. In a


recent national survey of reading teachers in
these settings (Wilkerson, Gagnon, & Mason,
2010), teachers reported using several re-
search-based and recommended strategies on
a daily or weekly basis including explicitly
teaching literacy-related skills (e.g., vocabu-
lary, text structure, summarization, study skills,
spelling). Other studies (Allen-DeBoer, Mal-
mgren, & Glass, 2006; Drakeford, 2002;
Houchins, Jolivette, Krezmien, & Baltodano,
2008; Malmgren & Leone, 2000; Simpson,
Swanson, & Kunkel, 1992) conducted in
secure care emphasize the value of explicit
instruction, and show positive results for the
procedure when used in isolation or combined
with other methods (e.g., peer tutoring).

Behavior and Mental Health
Interventions

Youth in secure care facilities must be
actively engaged in the learning process;
however, problematic youth behavior can be
a major obstacle that may lead to a restriction
of access to educational offerings. Unfortu-
nately, practitioner views regarding effective
behavior policies and practices in corrections
vary widely (Mears, Shollenberger, Willison,
Owens, & Butts, 2008), and an attitude of
punishment and control commonly dictate
approaches to youth behavior (Nelson et al.,
2005). In general, there is a lack of research on
effective behavioral practices and supports for
youth in secure care. The lack of research is
confounded by methodological effects and
inconsistencies in evaluative techniques
(Greenwood, 2008), which make comparisons
across facilities or programs difficult or impos-
sible. However, some evidence of effective
interventions does exist (see Greenwood &
Turner, 2009). Among the specific program
models that have shown promising results for
incarcerated youth are school-wide positive
behavioral interventions and supports (SWPBIS)
and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT).
Recently, the value of SWPBIS has been
recognized for improving treatment and out-
comes for incarcerated youth (Gagnon, Rock-
well, & Scott, 2008; Nelson, Scott, Gagnon,
Jolivette, & Sprague, 2008). SWPBIS is a
coordinated, proactive, and positive approach
that is in contrast to the reactionary approach-
es to student behavior common to juvenile
corrections (Read, Quinn, & Nelson, 2008),
and works to build the capacity of schools or
facilities for addressing the behavioral needs of


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


November 2010 / I







students through the systematic application of
increasingly intensive strategies and/or sup-
ports (see Nelson et al., 2008 for review).
SWPBIS is a promising approach to addressing
the needs of adjudicated youth in the juvenile
justice system, and is currently being used in
more than 286 alternative and juvenile cor-
rectional schools nationwide (Danielson,
Cobb, Sanchez, & Horner, 2007; National
Council on Disability, 2003). Although neces-
sary adjustments to meet the varied needs of
confined youth remain unclear, preliminary
results validate the use of SWPBIS in juvenile
correctional facilities (Sidana, 2006).
Treatments following principles of CBT
(e.g., Aggression Replacement Training, dia-
lectical behavior therapy, problem solving and
life skills instruction) also have demonstrated
effectiveness for improving outcomes and
reducing recidivism when implemented in
secure settings (Greenwood, 2008; Lipsey,
2009; Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, & Yee,
2002). CBT uses a skill-building approach to
teach adaptive reasoning and responding
during situations that provoke negative feelings
and reactionary behavior (Lipsey, Chapman, &
Landenberger, 2001), and may be used to
ameliorate and/or correct criminogenic pat-
terns of thinking and behavior (Landenberger
& Lipsey, 2005). Although the foci of CBT may
vary, typical components include instruction
on solving interpersonal problems, developing
personal responsibility, and honing life skills
and goals (Lipsey et al., 2001). Several
evaluation studies and meta-analyses support
the value of CBT-based programs for improv-
ing the behavioral and mental health outcomes
of juvenile offenders (Guerra & Slaby, 1990;
Landenberger & Lipsey, 2005; Latessa, 2006;
Lipsey, 2009; Pealer & Latessa, 2004; Rhode,
Jorgesen, Seely, & Mace, 2004).
Results of CBT have also shown promise for
reducing the symptoms associated with PTSD in
incarcerated juveniles (McMackin, Leisen, Sat-
tier, Krinsley, & Riggs, 2002; Ovaert, Cashel, &
Sewell, 2003). Analyses by Ovaert and col-
leagues suggested that treatment was most
beneficial for youth with trauma related to gang
and community violence. Similarly, the effects
of CBT for abused youth in secure care are
encouraging (Arnold et al., 2003).
A common feature of effective behavioral
and mental health interventions for youth in
secure care is a therapeutic orientation of
treatment (Greenwood & Turner, 2009). How-
ever, only about 15-30% of detained youth


meeting criteria for a mental disorder receive
treatment while in detention (Teplin et al.,
2006); youth served in commitment facilities
fare only slightly better (Kurtz, Thornes, &
Bailey, 1998). For these reasons, the aforemen-
tioned positive behavior approaches should be
considered in combination with other promising
practices, including individual and group coun-
seling (Guerra, Kim, & Boxer, 2008).


Future Directions for Research
and Practice

Interventions based on student character-
istics and needs are particularly critical, given
the unique population in secure care. Wagner,
Kutash, Duchnowski, Epstein, and Sumi (2005)
noted the importance of understanding youth
characteristics in order to develop and imple-
ment appropriate policies, programs, and
service systems. Similarly, for incarcerated
youth it has been suggested that interventions
should target both student characteristics, as
well as those characteristics that predict future
reoffense (Altschuler, Armstrong, & Macken-
zie, 1999). Despite these assertions, student
characteristics have rarely been considered in
the evaluation and selection of interventions,
beyond identification of student disability or
mental disorder (Chitsabesan et al., 2006;
Skowyra & Cocozza, 2006). Accordingly, in
the following sections we first consider some
limitations to providing effective and respon-
sive interventions in the secure context. We
then discuss the potential of one model, Rtl, for
guiding the selection and implementation of
academic, behavioral, and mental health
interventions with incarcerated youth.

Current Limitations to Research and
Practice

An unfortunate pattern in the research is
that many teachers in secure care settings do not
use research-based instructional and behavioral
approaches that are effective. Indeed, Green-
wood (2008, p. 205) declares that "only about 5
percent of the youth who could benefit from
these improved programs now have the oppor-
tunity to do so." The identification and imple-
mentation of research-based strategies that
address specific student characteristics is com-
plicated by both practical and research issues
(Howell & Lipsey, 2004; Greenwood & Turner,
2009). Concerning research, broad constructs
such as disability often are used to identify


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


12 / November 2010







effective approaches, rather than more specific
student characteristics. For example, in a review
of research on mathematics instructional inter-
ventions (Maccini, Mulcahy, & Wilson, 2007)
the primary approach to identifying the sample
was student classification as LD. However, what
is less understood is the effectiveness of
interventions on more specific mathematics
skills, or comorbid mathematics and reading
skill deficits that may affect success in such tasks
as mathematical problem solving. Green (2001)
asserts that a "leap of faith" is often necessary to
presume evidence of effectiveness for youth
with certain characteristics when interventions
are implemented with youth who are identified
broadly. Thus, it is necessary to recognize the
limitations of current research regarding links
between specific student skill deficits, academic
tasks, and intervention approaches.
Other difficulties arise when evaluating
the current state of understanding concerning
effective instructional, behavioral, and mental
health practices for youth in secure care.
Researchers have cited specific concerns with
the lack of rigor in research on incarcerated
youth (e.g., Lipsey & Cullen, 2007; Myers &
Farrell, 2008). For instance, the quality of
program implementation may be a significant
moderator of treatment outcomes for correc-
tional settings as personnel attempt to fit
programs to the secure context (Andrews &
Dowden, 2005). Often, institutional demands
in terms of staff qualifications, supervision,
information systems, and quality assurance
limit the capacity of institutions to adopt
programs as intended (Altschuler et al., 1999;
Greenwood, 2008; Guerra & Leaf, 2008). The
question that researchers must address is,
"How do we work within current institutional
demands in secure care?" and not, "Can we
work within current institutional demands in
secure care?" Leone and colleagues (2005)
advised researchers to expand the scope of
their investigations in secure care settings to
include intervention strategies that are
matched to youth needs, and determine how
to apply identified best practices in juvenile
corrections facilities.
Practical challenges and obstacles to
implementing evidence-based practices also
exist. For example, teacher training and
knowledge may affect teacher use of re-
search-based techniques regardless of student
characteristics. Researchers (Gagnon & Mac-
cini, 2007; Maccini & Gagnon, 2002; Maccini
& Gagnon, 2006) have reported that the


number of mathematics methods courses taken
by general and special education teachers is
significantly related to the number of research-
based instructional practices used by teachers.
Specific to juvenile corrections, many empir-
ically validated mathematics and reading
instructional approaches are infrequently or
never used in secure care due to a lack of
training (Maccini et al., 2008; Malmgren,
Gagnon, Melekoglu, & Cakiroglu, in press).
Interestingly, teachers also report that
certain strategies do not meet their students'
needs, despite the fact that these instructional
approaches have been proven effective.
Teachers in secure care reported rarely or
never using peer-mediated instruction, despite
research supporting its use with students with
learning and behavior problems (see Calhoon
& Fuchs, 2003; Xin, Jitendra, & Deatline-
Buchman, 2005). Malmgren et al. (in press)
also noted that teachers in secure care may not
consider the teaching of basic reading skills to
be within their purview as secondary educa-
tors. This restrictive approach to instruction
and student needs does not adequately take
into consideration that more than 30% of
youth in secure care reportedly read below a
basic level (Malmgren et al., 2009).

Future Directions

As noted throughout the previous discus-
sion, research clearly demonstrates that there
are effective instructional, behavioral, and
mental health strategies that can be applied
in secure care settings. However, interventions
may be ineffective or used infrequently for
many reasons, including failure to address
relevant contextual and training factors, insuf-
ficient treatment dosage or duration, or failure
to address the unique needs of individual
juveniles. Current limitations make clear the
need for a framework to guide the selection
and implementation of evidence-based ap-
proaches to instruction and behavior that are
at once responsive to characteristics of delin-
quent juveniles and to the secure context.
Specifically, Mulvey and Iselin (2008) suggest
that structured judgment is necessary pertain-
ing to (a) efficient and equitable screening at
intake, (b) decision making based on actuarial
and clinical information, and (c) implementa-
tion and use of data systems in order to make
effective choices regarding education and
treatment. These needs are made apparent by
the difficulties of obtaining prior student


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


November 2010 /13







records during youth movement through the
juvenile justice system (Leone & Cutting,
2004). The haste in which students are
transferred makes additional disability evalua-
tions unlikely to occur, resulting in many
disabled youths being unidentified (Morris &
Thompson, 2008). Short-term detention facil-
ities in particular must often rely on juvenile
self-reports of past educational and special
educational services (Robinson & Rapport,
1999). Some researchers (Shelly-Tremblay,
O'Brien, & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2007)
have suggested that widespread screening of
youth in juvenile corrections may be an
appropriate approach to developing interven-
tions based on student characteristics.
One model, Rtl, has received attention in
recent years for use with youth for whom
traditional identification and methods for select-
ing appropriate interventions have failed (Gresh-
am, 2007). In particular, Rtl has been suggested
as a framework for guiding data-based decisions
and for more adequately identifying student
characteristics that contribute to observed dis-
abilities such as E/BD and LD (Gresham, 2005;
Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005). As previously
documented, youth with these disabilities are
overrepresented in secure care settings. Based
on a public health perspective, Rtl emphasizes
the application of evidence-based interventions
in a progressively intensive manner. Although
Rtl is still in the beginning stages of implemen-
tation, it has been a focus of recent training in 41
states (of 44 surveyed; Hoover, Baca, Wexler-
Love, & Saenz, 2008).
An Rtl approach has yet to be applied
empirically in secure care settings, yet its
promise for helping facilities develop program
structures with necessary education and be-
havior supports, services, and interventions
has not gone unrecognized. Myers and Farrell
(2008) recently proposed that a "public health
prevention logic remains applicable within the
juvenile justice system and a hierarchy of
primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions
can be envisioned even within juvenile justice
residential facilities" (p. 1162). Indeed, the
initial promise shown by implementation of
SWPBIS, a similarly tiered system framed
within a preventive perspective, has cast much
hope that such positive, proactive approaches
will benefit youth within the secure care
context (Gagnon et al., 2008). Applying the
Rtl and SWPBIS logic, universal facility-wide
procedures for screening and intervention are
recommended that include academics, behav-


ior, and mental health. Targeted secondary
supports, such as intensified instruction, voca-
tional and prevocational training, and sub-
stance abuse programs may then be selected
for smaller groups of youth. Tertiary level
intervention is reserved for youth in secure
care with significant academic, mental health,
and behavioral needs.
As noted throughout our discussion, the
multifarious characteristics of youth in secure
care require collaborative efforts across disci-
plines. Gagnon and Richards (2008, p. 40)
emphasize that "collaborative efforts should
include discussion of policy and practice,
methods for implementation, and accountabil-
ity for program effectiveness." Moreover,
cross-system evaluation of program fidelity
and ongoing staff training will increase the
likelihood of consistent implementation
(Young, 2004). The improvements in screen-
ing, identification, universal, secondary, and
tertiary supports, if coordinated across educa-
tion, corrections, and mental health, have
potential for improving the services of youth
in secure care. It is clear that more research is
needed to determine the applicability of
frameworks that base education and treatment
decisions on existing student characteristics in
secure care contexts. However, the logic of
coordinated, responsive approaches such as
Rtl for facilitating appropriate education and
mental health services is undeniable. The
challenge remains to optimize the use of
existing best practices in light of the unique
characteristics of incarcerated youth, and to
collaborate in our efforts to rehabilitate and
remediate these youth.


REFERENCES
Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., Charles, D. R., Long-
worth, S. L., McClelland, G. M., & Dulcan, M.
K. (2004). Posttraumatic stress disorder and
trauma in youth in juvenile detention. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 61, 403410.
Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., McClelland, G. M., &
Dulcan, M. K. (2003). Comorbid psychiatric
disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Ar-
chives in General Psychiatry, 60, 1097-1108.
Algozzine, B., O'Shea, D. J., Crews, W. B., &
Stoddard, K. (1987). Analysis of mathematics
competence of learning disabled adolescents.
journal of Special Education, 21, 97-107.
Allen-DeBoer, R. A., Malmgren, K. W., & Glass, M.
(2006). Reading instruction for youth with
emotional and behavioral disorders: Providing
services in a juvenile correctional facility.
Behavioral Disorders, 32, 18-28.


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


14 / November 2010








Altschuler, D. M., Armstrong, T. L., & Mackenzie, D.
L. (1999). Reintegration, supervised release, and
intensive aftercare. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-
grams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquen-
cy Prevention.
Andrews, D. A., & Dowden, C. (2005). Managing
correctional treatment for reduced recidivism: A
meta-analytic review of programme integrity.
The British Psychological Society, 10, 173-87.
Archwamety, T., & Katsiyannis, A. (2000). Academic
remediation, parole violations, and recidivism
rates among delinquent youths. Remedial and
Special Education, 21, 161 170.
Arnold, E. M., Kirk, R. S., Roberts, A. C., Griffith, D.
P., Meadows, K., & Julian, J. (2003). Treatment
of incarcerated, sexually-abused adolescent
females: An outcome study. journal of Child
Sexual Abuse, 12(1), 123-39.
Atkins, D., Pumariega, A., Rogers, K., Montgomery,
L., Nybro, C., Jeffers, G., & Sease, F. (1999).
Mental health and incarcerated youth: Preva-
lence and nature of psychopathology. Journal of
Child and Family Studies, 8, 193-204.
Baltodano, H. M., Harris, P. J., & Rutherford, R. B.
(2005). Academic achievement in juvenile
corrections: Examining the impact of age,
ethnicity, and disability. Education and Treat-
ment of Children, 28, 361-379.
Barton, W. H., & Butts, J. A. (2008). Building on
strength: Positive youth development in juvenile
justice programs. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center
for Children at the University of Chicago.
Beebe, M. C., & Mueller, F. (1993). Categorical
offenses of juvenile delinquents and the rela-
tionship to achievement. Journal of Correctional
Education, 44, 193-198.
Brooks, T. R., & Petit, M. (1997). Early Intervention:
Crafting a Community Response to Child Abuse
and Violence. Washington, DC: Child Welfare
League of America.
Brunner, M. S. (1993). Reduced recidivism and
increased employment opportunity through re-
search-based reading instruction. Retrieved from
ERIC Reproduction Service (ED 361 646) website
http:/www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/
detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch
SearchValue 0=ED361646&ERICExtSearch
SearchType0-=no&accno=ED361 646
Bryant, D. P., Kim, S. A., Hartman, P., & Bryant, B.
(2006). Standards-based mathematics instruc-
tion and teaching middle school students with
mathematical disabilities. In K. R. Harris, S.
Graham (Series Eds.), M. Montague, & A. K.
Jitendra F.i i Teaching mathematics to middle
school students with learning difficulties. (Vol. 1,
pp. 7-28). New York: Guilford.
Calhoon, M. B., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). The effects of
peer-assisted learning strategies and curriculum-
based measurement on the mathematics perfor-
mance of secondary students with disabilities.
Remedial and Special Education, 24, 235-245.


Carr-George, C., Vannest, K. J., Wilson, V., & Davis,
J. L. (2009). The participation and performance
of students with emotional and behavioral
disorders in a state accountability assessment
in reading. Behavioral Disorders, 35, 66-78.
Cauffman, E. (2004). A statewide assessment of
mental health symptoms among juvenile offend-
ers in detention. journal of the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,
43, 430-439.
Chitsabesan, P., Kroll, L., Bailey, S., Kenning, C.,
Sneider, S., MacDonald, W., & Theodosiou, L.
(2006). Mental health needs of young offenders
in custody and in the community. British Journal
of Psychiatry, 188, 534-540.
Coalition for Juvenile Justice. (2000). Handle with
care: Serving the mental health needs of young
offenders. Coalition for juvenile justice 2000
Annual Report. The Sixteenth Annual Report to
the President, the Congress, and the Administrator
of the Office of juvenile justice and Delinquency
Prevention. Washington DC: Coalition for Juve-
nile Justice.
Cocozza, J. J., & Skowyra, K. R. (2000). Youth with
mental health disorders: Issues and emerging
responses. Juvenile justice journal, 7, 3-13.
Coffey, O. D., & 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.
The National Office for Social Responsibility.
Connor, D. F. (2002). Aggression and antisocial
behavior in children and adolescents: Research
and treatment. New York: Guilford.
Coulter, G. (2004). Using one-to-one tutoring and
proven reading strategies to improve reading
performance with adjudicated youth. Journal of
Correctional Education, 55, 321-333.
Danielson, L., Cobb, B., Sanchez, S., Lane, K., &
Horner, R. (2007). Evidence-based practices: A
technical assistance perspective. Presentation
given as part of the 2007 Office of Special
Education Projects Project Directors' Confer-
ence, Washington, DC.
Drakeford, W. (2002). The impact of an intensive
program to increase literacy skills of youth
confined to juvenile corrections. journal of
Correctional Education, 53, 139-144.
Evans, W., Alpers, E., Macari, D., & Mason, A.
(1996). Suicide ideation, attempts and abuse
among gang and nongang delinquents. Child
and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 13, 115
126.
Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of
incarcerated youth and correctional education
programs: A literature review. journal of Emo-
tional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 248-259.
Gagnon, J. C., Barber, B. R., Van Loan, C. L., &
Leone, P. E. (2009). Juvenile correctional
schools: Characteristics and approaches to
curriculum. Education and Treatment of Chil-
dren, 32, 673-696.


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


November 2010 /15








Gagnon, J. C., & Maccini, P. (2007). Teacher use of
empirically-validated and standards-based in-
structional approaches in secondary mathemat-
ics. Remedial & Special Education, 28, 43-56.
Gagnon, J. C., & Richards, C. (2008). Making the
right turn: A guide about youth involved in the
juvenile corrections system (pp. 1-61). Wash-
ington, DC: National Collaborative on Work-
force and Disability for Youth, Institute for
Educational Leadership.
Gagnon, J. C., Rockwell, S., & Scott, T. M. (2008).
Positive behavior supports in exclusionary
schools: A practical approach based on what
we know. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41(1),
1-20.
Gagnon, J. C., Wehby, J., Strong, A., & Falk, K. B.
(2006). Effective mathematics and reading in-
struction for secondary-age youths with emo-
tional and behavioral disorders. In L. M. Bullock,
R. A. Gable, & K. J. Melloy F.i , Sixth CCBD
mini-library series (pp. 1-57). Arlington, VA:
Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.
Green, L.W. (2001). From research to "best practices"
in other settings and populations. American
journal of Health Behavior, 25, 15-178.
Greenbaum, P. E., Dedrick, R. F., Friedman, R. M.,
Kutash, K., Brown, E. C., Lardieri, S. P., & Pugh,
A. M. (1996). National adolescent and child
treatment study (NACTS): Outcomes for children
with serious emotional and behavioral distur-
bance. journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 4, 130-146.
Greenwood, P. (2008). Prevention and intervention
programs for juvenile offenders. The Future of
Children, 18, 185-210.
Greenwood, P., & Turner, S. (2009). An overview of
prevention and intervention programs for juvenile
offenders. Victims & Offenders, 4, 365-374.
Gresham, F. M. (2005). Response to intervention: An
alternative means of identifying students as
emotionally disturbed. Education and Treatment
of Children, 28, 328-344.
Gresham, F. M. (2007). Response to intervention and
emotional and behavioral disorders: Best prac-
tices in assessment for intervention. Assessment
for Effective Intervention, 32, 214-222.
Grisso, T. (2008). Adolescent offenders with mental
disorders. The Future of Children, 18(2), 143-164.
Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Boxer, P. (2008). What
works: Best practices with juvenile offenders. In
R. D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra, & P. Boxer F[i 1
Treating the juvenile Offender (pp. 77-102).
New York: Guilford.
Guerra, N. G., & Leaf, C. (2008). Implementing
treatment programs in community and institu-
tional settings. In R. D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra &
P. Boxer F i , Treating the juvenile Offender
(pp. 103-112). New York: Guilford.
Guerra, N. G., & Slaby, R. G. (1990). Cognitive
mediators of aggression in adolescent offenders:
II. Intervention. Developmental Psychology, 26,
269-277.


Harris, P. J., Baltodano, H. M., Bal, A., Jolivette, K.,
& Mulcahy, C. (2009). Reading achievement of
incarcerated youth in three regions. journal of
Correctional Education, 60, 120-145.
Hjalmarsson, R. (2008). Criminal justice involve-
ment and high school completion. Journal of
Urban Economics, 63, 613-630.
Hoover, J. J., Baca, L., Wexler-Love, E., & Saenz, L.
(2008). National implementation of response to
intervention (RTI): Research summary. Retrieved
from University of Colorado-Boulder, Special
Education Leadership and Quality Teacher
Initiative, BUENO Center-School of Educa-
tion website ,!. . i, ,i ... . Portals/0/
National ImplementationofRTI-ResearchSummary.
pdf
Houchins, D. E., Jolivette, K., Krezmien, M. P., &
Baltodano, H. M. (2008). A multi-state study
examining the impact of explicit reading in-
struction with incarcerated students. Journal of
Correctional Education, 59, 65-85.
Howell, J. C., & Lipsey, M. W. (2004). A practical
approach to evaluating and improving juvenile
justice programs. Juvenile and Family Court
Journal, 55, 35-48.
Katsiyannis, A., & Archwamety, T. (1999). Academic
remediation/achievement and other factors re-
lated to recidivism rates among delinquent
youths. Behavioral Disorders, 24, 93-101.
Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J. B., Zhang, D., & Spann, A.
(2008). Juvenile delinquency and recidivism:
The impact of academic achievement. Reading
& Writing Quarterly, 24, 177-196.
Kazdin, A. (2000). Adolescent Development, Mental
Disorders, and Decision Making of Delinquent
Youths. In T. Grisso, & R. Schwartz F i i Youth
on trial: A developmental perspective on juve-
nile justice (pp. 33-65). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Krezmien, M. P., Mulcahy, C. A., & Leone, P. E.
(2008). Detained and committed youth: Exam-
ining differences in achievement, mental health
needs, and special education status. Education
and Treatment of Children, 31, 445-464.
Kurtz, Z., Thornes, R., & Bailey, S. (1998). Children
in the criminal justice and secure care systems:
How their mental health needs are met. Journal
of Adolescence, 21, 543-53.
Landenberger, N. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (2005).
Positive effects of cognitive-behavioral programs
for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associ-
ated with effective treatment. journal of Exper-
imental Criminology, 1, 451-476.
Lane, K. L., Barton-Arwood, S. M., Nelson, J. R., &
Wehby, J. (2008). Academic performance of
students with emotional and behavioral disor-
ders served in a self-contained setting. Journal of
Behavioral Education, 17, 43-62.
Lane, K. L., Carter, E. W., Pierson, M. R., & Glaeser,
B. C. (2006). Academic, social, and behavioral
characteristics of high school students with
emotional disturbances or learning disabilities.


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


16 / November 2010








journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
14, 108-117.
Latessa, E. (2006). Effectiveness of cognitive behavior-
al interventions for youthful offenders: Review of
the research. In B. Click F. i Cognitive behav-
ioral interventions with at-risk youth (pp. 1 17).
Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.
Lee, J., Grigg, W., & Dion, G. (2007). The Nation's
Report Card: Mathematics 2007 (NCES 2007-494).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics.
Leone, P. E. (1994). Education services for youth
with disabilities in a state-operated juvenile
correctional system: Case study and analysis.
journal of Special Education, 28, 43-58.
Leone, P. E., & Cutting, C. A. (2004). Appropriate
education, juvenile corrections, and No Child
Left Behind. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 260-265.
Leone, P. E., Krezmien, M., Mason, L., & Meisel, S.
M. (2005). Organizing and delivering empiri-
cally based literacy instruction to incarcerated
youth. Exceptionality, 13, 89-102.
Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that
characterize effective interventions with juve-
nile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Vic-
tims & Offenders, 4, 124-147.
Lipsey, M. W., Chapman, G. L., & Landenberger, N.
A. (2001). Cognitive-behavioral programs for
offenders. The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 578, 144-157.
Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The
effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A
review of systematic reviews. Annual Review of
Law and Social Science, 3, 279-320.
Loeber, R., Burke, J., & Lahey, B. (2002). What are
the antecedents to an antisocial personality
disorder? Criminal Behavior and Mental Health,
12, 24-36.
Lyon, G. R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning
disabilities: Contributions from scientists sup-
ported by the National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development. Journal of Child
Neurology, 10(Suppl. 1), S120-S126.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2002). Perceptions and
application of NCTM's standards by special and
general education teachers: Implications for
practice for secondary students with emotional
and learning disabilities. Exceptional Children,
68, 325-344.
Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2006). Nature and type
of mathematics instructional approaches by
special and general education teachers. Excep-
tional Children, 72, 217-234.
Maccini, P., Gagnon, J. C., Cutting, C., & Leone,
P. (2006). Mathematics instruction within a
juvenile correctional school for committed
youth. journal of Correctional Education, 57,
210-229.
Maccini, P., McNaughton, D. B., & Ruhl, K. (1999).
Algebra instruction for students with learning
disabilities: Implications from a research review.
Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 113-126.


Maccini, P., Mulcahy, C., & Wilson, M. G. (2007). A
follow-up of mathematics interventions for
secondary students with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22,
58-74.
Maccini, P., Strickland, T., Gagnon, J. C., &
Malmgren, K. W. (2008). Accessing the general
education math curriculum for secondary stu-
dents with high incidence disabilities. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 40(8), 1-32.
Malmgren, K. W., Gagnon, J. C., Melekoglu, M. A.,
& Cakiroglu, O. (2009). Reading instruction in
alternative settings: A survey of secondary
special educators in day treatment and residen-
tial schools (pp. 1-23). Unpublished manu-
script.
Malmgren, K., & Leone, P. (2000). Effects of an
auxiliary program on the reading skills of
juvenile delinquents. Education and Treatment
of Children, 28, 239-247.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2005).
Feasibility and consequences of response to
intervention: Examining the issues and scien-
tific evidence as a model for the identifica-
tion of individuals with learning difficulties.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 525
531.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E.
(2003). Reading comprehension instruction for
secondary students: Challenges for struggling
students and teachers. Learning Disability Quar-
terly, 26, 103-116.
McClelland, G. M., Elkington, K. S., Teplin, L. A., &
Abram, K. M. (2004). Multiple substance use
disorders in juvenile detainees. journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 43, 1215-1224.
McCord, J., Spatz-Widom, C., & Crowell, N. (2001).
Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice: Panel on
Juvenile Crime: Prevention, Treatment, and
Control. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
McMackin, R. A., Leisen, M. B., Sattler, L., Krinsley,
K., & Riggs, D. S. (2002). Preliminary develop-
ment of trauma-focused treatment groups for
incarcerated juvenile offenders. journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 6, 175
199.
Mears, D. P. (2001). Getting tough with juvenile
offenders: Explaining support for sanctioning
youths as adults. Criminal Justice Behavior, 28,
206-226.
Mears, D. P., Shollenberger, T. L., Willison, J. B.,
Owens, C. E., & Butts, J. A. (2008). Practitioner
views of priorities, policies, and practices in
juvenile justice. Crime & Delinquency. Online-
First, 0011128708324664v2. Retrieved from

Meltzer, L. J., Levine, M. D., Karniski, W., Palfrey, J.
S., & Clark, S. (1984). An analysis of the learning
styles of adolescent delinquents. journal of
Learning Disabilities, 17, 600-608.


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


November 2010 /17








Morris, R. J., & Thompson, K. C. (2008). Juvenile
delinquency and special education laws: Policy
implementation issues and directions for future
research. The journal of Correctional Education,
59, 173-189.
Mulvey, E. P., & Iselin, A. M. R. (2008). Improving
professional judgments of risk and amenability
in juvenile justice. Future of Children, 18(2),
35-57.
Myers, D. M., & Farrell, A. F. (2008). Reclaiming lost
opportunities: Applying public health models in
juvenile justice. Children and Youth Services
Review, 30, 1159-1177.
National Council on Disability. (2003). Addressing
the needs of youth with disabilities in the juvenile
justice system: The current status of evidence-
based research. Washington, D.C. Retrieved
from National Council on Disability website
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/pdf/
juvenile.pdf
National Mental Health Association. (2004). Mental
health treatment for youth in the juvenilejustice
system: A compendium of promising practices.
Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from National
Mental Health Association website https://www.
nttac.org/views/docs/jabg/mhcurriculum/mh mht.
pdf
Nelson, C. M., Leone, P. E., & Rutherford, R. B.
(2004). Youth delinquency: Prevention and
intervention. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn,
& S. R. Mathur F-i , Handbook of research in
emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 282
301). New York: Guilford.
Nelson, C. M., Scott, T. M., Gagnon, J. C., Jolivette, K.,
& Sprague, J. (2008). Positive behavior support in
the juvenile justice system. Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports Newsletter, 4(3), 1-9.
Retrieved from Office of Special Education
Programs Center on Positive Behavioral Interven-
tions and Supports website http://www.pbis.org/
pbisnewsletter/volume_4/issue3.aspx
Nelson, C. M., Sugai, G., & Smith, C. R. (2005).
Positive behavior support offered in juvenile
corrections. Counterpoint, 1(summer), 6-7.
Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., Lane, K., & Smith, B. W.
(2004). Academic achievement of K-12 students
with emotional and behavioral disorders. Ex-
ceptional Children, 71, 59-73.
Oseroff, A., Oseroff, C. E., Westling, D., & Gessner, L.
J. (1999). Teachers' beliefs about maltreatment of
students with emotional/behavioral disorders.
Behavioral Disorders, 24, 197-209.
Ovaert, L. B., Cashel, M. L., & Sewell, K. W. (2003).
Structured group therapy for posttraumatic stress
disorder in incarcerated male juveniles. Amer-
ican Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73, 294-301.
Pealer, J., & Latessa, E. (2004, December). Applying
the principles of effective interventions to
juvenile correctional programs. Corrections To-
day, 66, 26-29.
Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee,
D. S. (2002). The effects of behavioral/cognitive-


behavioral programs on recidivism. Crime &
Delinquency, 48, 476496.
Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. E., Osher,
D. M., & Poirier, J. M. (2005). Youth with
disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national
survey. Exceptional Children, 71, 339-345.
Read, N. W., Quinn, M. M., & Nelson, C. M. (2008).
Positive behavioral interventions and supports in
juvenile justice settings: What to expect and
how to succeed. Retrieved from National
Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for
the Education of Children and Youth who are
Neglected, Delinquent, or At-risk website http://
www.neglected-d. in l. I . .1 . .i
Reid, R., Gonzales, J. E., Nordness, P. D., Trout, A.,
& Epstein, M. H. (2004). A meta-analysis of the
academic status of students with emotional/
behavioral disturbance. journal of Special Edu-
cation, 38, 130-143.
Rhode, P., Jorgensen, J. S., Seely, J. R., & Mace, D. E.
(2004). Pilot Evaluation of the Coping Course: A
Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention to Enhance
Coping Skills in Incarcerated Youth. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 43, 669-676.
Robinson, T. R., & Rapport, M. J. K. (1999).
Providing special education in the juvenile
justice system. Remedial and Special Education,
20, 19-35.
Rozalski, M. E., & Engle, S. (2005). Literacy
education in correctional facilities: The "hope"
for technology. Reading & Writing Quarterly,
21, 301-305.
Shelly-Tremblay, J., O'Brien, N., & Langhinrichsen-
Rohling, J. (2007). Reading disability in adjudi-
cated youth: Prevalence rates, current models,
traditional and innovative treatments. Aggres-
sion and Violent Behavior, 12, 376-392.
Shelton, D. (2000). Health status of young offenders
and their families. journal of Nursing Scholar-
ship, 32, 173-178.
Shufelt, J., & Cocozza, J. (2006). Youth with mental
health disorders in the juvenile justice system:
Results from a multi-state prevalence study.
Retrieved from National Center for Mental Health
and Juvenile Justice website http://www.ncmhjj.
com/pdfs/publications/PrevalenceRPB.pdf
Sidana, A. (2006). PBIS in juvenile justice settings.
Retrieved from The National Evaluation and
Technical Assistance Center for the Education
of Children and Youth Who are Neglected,
Delinquent, or At-Risk website http://www.
neglecteddelinquent.org/nd/resources/spotlight/
spotlight200601 b.asp
Simpson, S. B., Swanson, J. M., & Kunkel, K. (1992).
The impact of an intensive multisensorial
reading program on a population of learning-
disabled delinquents. Annals of Dyslexia, 42,
54-66.
Skowyra, K., & Cocozza, J. J. (2006). A blueprint for
change: Improving the system response to youth
with mental health needs involved with the


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


18 / November 2010








juvenile justice system. Research and program
brief. Retrieved from National Center for Mental
Health and Juvenile Justice website http://www.
ncmhjj.com/Blueprint
Snowling, M. J., Adams, J. W., Bowyer-Crane, C., &
Tobin, V. (2000). Levels of literacy among
juvenile offenders: The incidence of specific
reading difficulties. Criminal Behavior and
Mental Health, 10, 229-241.
Steinberg, L. (2009). Adolescent development and
juvenile justice. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 5, 459-485.
Stizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E.,
Lyter, D. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2007). Charac-
teristics of schools, districts, teachers, principals,
and school libraries in the United States 2003
2004: School and staffing survey (NCES 2006-
313 Revised). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Wash-
ington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M.,
Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. A. (2002).
Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile deten-
tion. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59, 1133
1143.
Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M.,
Mericle, A. A., Dulcan, M. K., & Washburn, J. J.
(2006). Psychiatric disorders of youth in deten-
tion. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Trout, A. L., Nordness, P. D., Pierce, C. D., &
Epstein, M. H. (2003). Research on the academ-
ic status of children and youth with emotional
and behavioral disorders: A review of the
literature from 1961 2000. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 198-210.
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). 28th annual
report to congress on the implementation of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education
w ebsite ,II. I .. i . ., 1 . . ... . I ,,i/
osep/2006/parts-b-c/index.html
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Gov-
ernment Reform-Minority Staff Special Investi-
gation Division. (2004). Incarceration of youth
who are waiting for community mental health
services in the United States. Washington, DC:
United States House of Representatives Com-
mittee on Government Reform-Minority Staff
Special Investigation Division. Retrieved from


National Criminal Justice Reference Center
website http://www.ncjrs.gov/index.html
Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., Epstein,
M. H., & Sumi, W. C. (2005). The children and
youth we serve: A national picture of the
characteristics of students with emotional dis-
turbances receiving special education. Journal
of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 13,
79-96.
Wasserman, G. A., McReynolds, L. S., Ko, S. J., Katz,
L. M., & Carpenter, J. R. (2005). Gender
differences in psychiatric disorders at juvenile
probation intake. American Journal of Public
Health, 95, 131-137.
White, H. R., & Gorman, D. M. (2000). Dynamics of
the drug-crime relationship. Criminal Justice, 1,
151-218.
Wilkerson, K. L., Gagnon, J. C., & Mason, L. (2010).
Reading instruction in juvenile correctional
facilities for students with high incidence
disabilities. Unpublished manuscript.
Xin, Y. P., Jitendra, A. K., & Deatline-Buchman, A.
(2005). Effects of mathematical word problem-
solving instruction on middle school students
with learning problems. The Journal of Special
Education, 39, 181 192.
Young, D. (2004). First count to ten: Innovation and
implementation in juvenile reintegration pro-
grams. Federal Probation, 68, 70-77.
Zamora, D. (2005). Levels of academic achievement
and further delinquency among detained youth.
The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 2,
42-53.


AUTHORS' NOTE

Correspondence address: Joseph C. Gagnon,
Ph.D., University of Florida, Department of
Special Education, P.O. Box 117050, Gaines-
ville, FL 32611-7050 (352) 273-4262 Fax:
(352) 392-2655


MANUSCRIPT

Initial Acceptance 2/11/10
Final Acceptance 6/11/10


Behavioral Disorders, 36 (1), 7-19


November 2010 /19




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2011 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated May 24, 2011 - - mvs