Transition from Secure Care to the Community: Significant ...sefu6/Tranistion Baltodano... ·...

The Journal of Correctional-Education 56(4) • December 2005

Transition from Secure Care to theCommunity: Significant Issues for Youth

in Detention

Heather M. Baltodano, Derrick Platt,& Christopher W. Roberts

AbstractAdjudicated youth face tentative futures upon release from secure care settings. Theirfate is often dependent upon the existence of quality aftercare programs emphasizingeffective, integrated transition services to help them reintegrate successfully. The goal indeveloping transition plans for youth exiting detention is to reduce the likelihood ofrecidivism and to foster success in the community. In the current study, 120 youth in anurban county detention facility were surveyed regarding their perceptions of thetransition process, the effectiveness of transition services, and characteristics ofprograms that they felt were beneficial. The findings of this study do not showsigntficant relationships between the number of times previously detained and theyouth's gender, special education status, or difficulty returning to school. However,youth who anticipated returning home or living with relatives had a significantly lowermean number of times detained than those who anticipated less stable post detentionplacements.

"Transition from Secure Care to the Community:Significant Issues for Youth in DetentionOf the 2.8 million youth arrested each year, around 90,000 are incarcerated inpublic and private detention and correctional institutions throughout the UnitedStates (Morrison & Epps, 2002). In 2002, 10,214 juveniles in Arizona werebrought to detention, resulting in 9,850 (96.4%) of them being detained. Themajority, 60%, were detained on outstanding warrants, held for otherjurisdictions or agencies, or for violating the terms of their probation (i.e.,missing school, failing to test for drug use, or testing positive for drugs) (n =

372

The Journal of Correctional Education 56(4) * December 2005Baltodano, Platt 8 Roberts Transition from Secure Care to the Community

5,878). The remaining 40% (n = 3,972) were detained for delinquent or

incorrigible acts (MCDB, 2002).

Juvenile Justice and Disability

Many factors are associated with juvenile delinquency and incarceration.

Disability is one such factor. On average, delinquent youth score lower on

academic measures than do nondelinquents, and empirical evidence suggests

that low academic achievement, alcohol use and abuse, early pregnancy,

violence, and delinquency are all highly interrelated (Archwarnety &

Katsiyannis, 2000). Youth with disabilities tend to demonstrate poor social

skills, reduced impulse control, poor judgment, and inadequate coping

mechanisms (Rutherford, Quinn, Leone, Garfinkel, & Nelson, 2001). As a result,

these students frequently display significant academic and behavioral problems

that leave them more susceptible to dropping out of school and ending up in

the juvenile or criminal justice system. Archwarnety and Katsiyannis (2000)

indicated that students who dropped out of school were three and a half times

more likely to be arrested than those who graduated from high school. Further,

research suggests a disproportionate number of youth with disabilities were

involved with the justice system to one extent or another (Archwarnety a

Katsiyannis, 2000). Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, and Poirier (in press), in a

national survey of juvenile correctional facilities, found that 34.4% of youth in

secure care were identified as disabled.

Outcomes for Adjudicated YouthAdjudicated youth face tentative and often disheartening futures upon release

from secure care facilities. The communities to which they are returning are

often marked by significant family dysfunction, poverty, limited employment

opportunities, poor school adjustment, and negative peer relationships. Their

future is often dependent upon the existence of aftercare programs that

emphasize effective, integrated, and individualized treatment services to help

them reintegrate successfully. Unfortunately, effective and sustained aftercare

programs are often a rarity in the juvenile justice system (Briscoe & Doyle,

1996).

TransitionIt has been postulated that intense programmatic intervention while a youth is

incarcerated and during transition to the community can support positive

outcomes in the areas of family and peer relations, education, and

373

The Journal of Correctional Education 56(4) • December 2005

Transition from Secure Care to the Community Baltodano, Platt 8 Roberts

employment, as well as reduced substance abuse, mental health problems, and

recidivism (Altschuler, 1998).

Transition and DisabilityJust as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997 provides

for a free and appropriate public education for students identified as having a

disability, it also affords these students the right to appropriate transition

services. The law provides that every child in special education should have a

statement of transition service needs included within their Individualized

Education Program (IEP) by age 14. By age 16, the IEP should outline specific

transition goals and services, and indicate the specific interagency

responsibilities or linkages necessary to prepare a student for transition to adult

life. IDEA 1997 defines transition as,

a coordinated set of activities for a student with a disability that: (1) is

designed within an outcome-oriented process, that promotes movement

from school to post school activities including postsecondary education,

vocational training, integrated employment (including supported

employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent

living, or community participation [IDEA Regulations, 1997, 20 U.S.C.1401

(30) § 300.291.

Realizing that this definition was insufficient when applied to youth with

disabilities in secure-care settings, Griller-Clark (in press) defined transition as:

a coordinated set of activities for a juvenile offender, designed within an

outcome-oriented process, which promotes movement from the community

to a correctional program setting, and from a correctional program setting

to post-incarceration activities including public or alternative education,

vocational training, integrated employment (including supported

employment), continuing education, adult services, independent living, or

community participation.

Despite the existence of the transition provision in IDEA, research on post-

school employment outcomes has consistently demonstrated that individuals

with disabilities continue to have difficulty returning to school and locating and

maintaining adequate employment (Bullis & Cheney, 1999; Casper, 1995;

Johnson, Bruininks, & Thurlow, 1987; Rojewski, 1992). Further, students with

374

The Journal of Correctional Education 56(4) • December 2005Baltodano, Platt & Roberts Transition from Secure Care to the Community

disabilities are approximately two and a half times more likely to dropout than

their nondisabled peers (Casper, 1995). Both a lack of service availability andinadequate service planning result in a lack of transition success among

incarcerated students with disabilities (Johnson et al., 1987).

Transition in Juvenile Justice

Delinquent and adjudicated youth are often less successful in school, work, andpersonal relationships than are their non-delinquent peers (Archwamety aKatsiyannis, 2000). Webb and Maddox (1986) found that only 210% of youthreleased from correctional institutions were in school five months after release,

while Haberman and Quinn (1986) found that only 1.6% of adjudicated youthin their study returned to school and graduated after being released from acorrectional setting. In addition, while research has shown that inmates whoreceive either vocational/technical training or a GED while incarcerated have

the highest rates of employment after release, a significant, negative correlationexists between level of education and recidivism where the lower the level ofeducation is related to higher levels of recidivism (Harer, 1994). These youthwill eventually return to their communities, and appropriate transition servicescan be powerful intervening variables in preventing recidivism (Rutherford,

Bullis, Wheeler-Anderson, & Griller-Clark, 2002).Numerous explanations are given for inadequate transition services. Many

correctional and community agencies struggle with how to implement the IDEAtransition requirements (Halloran & Simon, 1995), while others do not have theresources or the personnel to provide adequate services. Furthermore, theagencies responsible for correctional education often differ across states, thusclear guidelines and responsibilities for transition are often difficult to determine(Rutherford, Nelson, & Wolford, 1986). Generally, no single agency accepts

responsibility for providing transition records or services (Griller, 1996).

RecidivismOne of the major goals in developing transition plans for youth exiting

detention is to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Poor academic achievementand school failure is associated with both delinquency and recidivism(Archwarnety & Katsiyannis, 2000). Factors such as continuing alcohol anddrug use, affiliation with delinquent peers, and school failure and dropout areviewed as dynamic risk factors that predict recidivism (Benda, Corwin, a

Toombs, 2001).

375

The Journal of Correctional Education 56(4) • December 2005Transition from Secure Care to the Community Baltodano, Platt & Roberts

Transition and recidivism research evaluates the efficacy of interventions(Anderson, Anderson & Schumacker, 1988; Black et al., 1996; Coffey &Gemignani, 1994), and predictors of recidivism (Harer, 1994; O'Neil, 1990).

There is limited research examining the efficacy of transition services and thetransition process from the youth's perspective. In obtaining the youth's

perspective of the services that are provided, we measure the social validity ofthose efforts. Regardless of the extent of the services provided, if those efforts

are not perceived as effective by the youth for which they are designed, it isunlikely that they will result in the desired outcomes. Additionally, youth in

detention provide a unique insight into the barriers with which they are

presented upon returning to their family, school, and community.We were interested in the youth's perspective on transition, transition services,

barriers to successful transition, and programs they felt would be beneficial in

increasing their likelihood for success. As such, we conducted a survey with the

juvenile detainees of a large urban county detention facility in Arizona.

Methods

SettingThe juvenile detention facility serves juveniles between the ages of 8 and 17

residing within the county. The facility was built in 1991 and has a capacity of128, but on the day that the data were collected there were 150 juveniles in

detention. With regard to personnel within the facility, there are approximately100 detention staff and 15 probation officers, in addition to counselors, medical

staff, and psychologists. The educational needs of the detained juveniles areprovided by the county regional school district within the facility, that include

approximately ten teachers and four other school personnel.

The average length of confinement, which has remained relatively stable

over the years, is approximately 14 days. However, it is important to considerthat judges can give an order of release within the first 48 hours of detainment.

Considering that roughly 50% of the juveniles that enter detention are releasedwithin the first 48 hours, the 14-day average stay is not necessarilyrepresentative of the population (MCDB, 2002). The juveniles that stay beyond

the first two days are typically detained for 30-45 days as that is the legislative

mandate on the time the judges have to hold a hearing for a detained juvenile.

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument for this study consisted of closed and open endedquestions designed to be completed by the currently detained youth. The

376


individual items were structured using simple and straightforward language. The

survey questions were designed to obtain information on the youth'sdemographic characteristics and education. The dependent measure of

recidivism was measured and defined in this analysis as the number of times

previously detained. In addition, the youth were presented with questions

regarding their prior experience making the transition back to school and the

community, the programs with which they have been involved, beneficialprogram characteristics, and services that they perceived as beneficial for their

future transition.

Participant Selection

The researchers distributed the surveys to the youth in detention on a Sundaymorning, so as to not interfere with their school day and to ensure that we

would not be interrupting ongoing programming and activities scheduled for

the youth. The facility consists of eight individual units where the youth areseparated by age and gender. We went to each of the units to introduce

ourselves and explain that we were interested in their experiences in detention,as well as identifying ways that youth in detention might transition more

successfully.

We then explained that we had a short survey and we would like for them

to participate. We indicated, however, that their participation was strictlyvoluntary and they would receive no consequences or benefits from the stafffor their participation. We distributed the surveys, and reiterated that their

responses were confidential. We reminded the youth not to include any

identifying information on the surveys, including their name.

Results

Participant Characteristics

Of the 150 youth detained on the day that we conducted the survey, 120

completed the survey, resulting in an 80% response rate. The subsequentdiscussion will describe the sample of the population that responded.

Age, Gender, and Ethnicity. The ages of the youth ranged from 12 to 17

(M=15.6, SD=1.19; see Table 1). Thirty-nine percent of the youth were Hispanic,

34% were Caucasian, 10% were African American, 9% self-identified as other,and the remaining 8% were Native American. The majority (83%) of the youthsampled were male.

377


Table 1. Participant Demographics

Variable (N= 120) Frequency (n) Percentage (%)

Age (M=15.59, SD=1.19)

12 1 0.8

13 5 4.1

14 14 11.6

15 34 28.1

16 30 24.8

17 33 27.3

Ethnicity

Hispanic 45 37.2

Caucasian 40 33.1

African-American 12 9.9

Other 11 9.1

Native American 9 7.4

Gender

Male 100 83.3

Female 20 16.5

Knowledge of Special EducationWe also intended to identify those detained youth who received special

education services by their responses to two questions: 1) Have you ever been

in Special Education classes? and 2) Have you ever had an Individualized

Education Plan? We included these two questions not only to identify students

in special education, but also to tap into how knowledgeable the students were

regarding special education and special education requirements. Thirty-four

percent (n = 40) of the youth indicated that they had received special education

services in the public schools, 62% (n = 73) reported that they had not, and 4%

(n =5) did not know (see Table 2). However, 37.5% (n =15) of those students

that said they had received special education services also reported that they

did not have an IEP and 12.5% (n =5) indicated they were unsure.

TransitionVarious aspects of transition were evaluated from the youth's perspective forthe current analysis. A measure of recidivism, barriers to successful transition,

378

The Journal of Correctional Education 56(4) • December 2005Baltodano, Platt 8 Roberts Transition from Secure Care to the Community

Table 2. Frequency and Percentage of Special Education Youthin the Detention Facility Surveyed

Have you had an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)?

Yes (n) No (n) Unsure (n)Have you received Special Ed Services? (%) (%) (%)

Yes 20 15 550.0 37.5 12.5

No 6 62 58.2 84.9 6.8

Unsure 1 2 220.0 40.0 40.0

and beneficial programmatic components were discussed. In addition, themeasure of recidivism, barriers to successful transition, and beneficial

programmatic components were examined further in order to establish if

significant bivariate relationships and patterns existed based on various

demographic variables. Based on previous literature findings and significantbivariate analyses, a model was developed to predict which youth had been

detained previously.

Anticipated Placement. One of the items included on the survey askedthe youth where they thought they will be going upon their release from

detention. Fifty-two percent (n = 59) indicated that they will return home upontheir release (see Table 3). However, 19% (n = 22) of the youth reported they

did not know where they will go when they are released. Additionally, 16%anticipated various placements (i.e. a group home), 7% anticipated transition to

the state juvenile correctional facility, 5% indicated the 'other' category, and

approximately 10% indicated that they. will live with relatives other than theirparents when they are released.

Recidivism. In the current study, recidivism is measured by the number of

times the youth had been detained. The responses ranged from zero to 17 (M

= 3.24, SD = 2.85). It is noteworthy, that although the individuals were

currently being detained, 5% (n = 6) indicated that they had never beendetained (see Table 3). Upon further examination, approximately 75% of thesample reported being detained four times or less. We asked the participantswho had been detained before if they experienced difficulty returning to school

379


Table 3. Transition Variables

Variable Frequency (n) Percentage (%)

Anticipated Placement (n = 115)

Home 59 51.3Placement 18 15.7Department of Corrections 8 7.0

Relatives 1 0.9

Unsure 23 20.0

Other 6 5.2

Experience Difficulty Returning to School (n = 90)

Yes 38 42.2

No 52 57.8

limes Detained (n - 111)

01

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

6

25

31

13

9

7

6

6

2

2

1

1

0

10

0

0

1

5.4

22.5

11.7

11.7

8.1

6.3

5.4

5.4

1.8

1.8

0.9

0.9

0.0

0.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.9

380

The Journal of Correctional Education 56(4) • December 2005Baltodano, Platt 8 Roberts Transition from Secure Care to the Community

upon their previous release(s). Forty-two percent (n = 52) of the youth indicatedthat they had experienced difficulty making the transition to school.

There were no significant differences in the mean number of timesdetained by gender, self-identification of special education, or those

experiencing difficulty returning to school. The factor of where the youth willreturn upon release was recoded from six categories into a dichotomousvariable. The "home" and "relatives" categories were combined as they aremeasures of family and the "do not know", "other", and "Department of

Corrections" categories were combined. Significant differences resulted in themean number of times detained between the two groups t (105) = - 4.023, p <.001. The individuals who indicated that they would be returning home or tolive with relatives had a mean number of times detained that was half that of

those who foresaw less stable placement prospects (M =2.28, SD = 1.99; M =

4.36, SD = 3.27).Difficulty transitioning to school. Those youth who indicated

encountering difficulties making the transition back into school were asked toexplain what difficulties they had experienced. Their responses were recodedinto six broad categories. Thirty-one individuals responded to the question,with ten youth indicating that the school reported that they had missed toomuch work for them to feasibly make up. An additional seven reported that

their school would not accept them back. Six reported that school was toostructured, and four indicated that their drug use hindered their transition backto school. The remaining four indicated that they either had troubleobtaining/transferring credits or that they had been dropped from the roll.

Youth recommendations. We also asked the youth to identify resourcesfrom a list that they thought would help them more successfully transition backto the community. Of the seven that were listed, 78% (n =94) of the youthresponded that school would or could be beneficial in their transition (see Table

4). The next most common response was employment, which was indicated by65% (n = 78). Counseling and drug programming were the next most frequentservices identified, at 30% and 29% respectively.

A subsequent item asked the respondents to list one quality that was mosthelpful from a program in which they had been involved. The open-codedresponses were then recoded into 6 categories: drug treatment, peer support,

counseling, the structure/guidelines, personal development, and how they weretreated. The most common program characteristics indicated were counseling,

which was reported by 13 respondents, followed by drug treatment (n = 7), andpeer support (n = 5). Personal development and the way that they were

381


treated in the program received four responses each, and finally the structure ofthe program elicited two responses.

Predicting Recidivism

A multiple regression analysis was conducted to identify significant predictors ofrecidivism as measured by number of times detained. Four separate regression

analyses were conducted; one for each set of predictors. In the first model weincluded the demographic variables that we intended to control for in the

subsequent models: age, gender, and four dummy coded ethnicity variables for

which we identified Caucasian as the reference group. The model wassignificant in predicting number of times detained accounting for 20% of thevariance, R2 = .44, adjusted R2 = .12, F (6, 64) = 2.582, p = .026 (See Table 5).

In examining the standardized beta coefficient values, age was identified as a

significant predictor of the number of times previously detained controlling for

gender and ethnicity.

The second model included the two special education predictors.

However, this model was conducted to evaluate whether the special education

measures contributed significantly to the amount of the variance in recidivismaccounted for beyond the demographic set, and resulted in an R2 change =

.004, F (8, 62) = 1.929, p = .071. Age was once again the only significantpredictor in the model. The second model was not statistically significant.

The third model included the two measures of school support. The first was

Table 4. Programming Identified by Detained Youth as Beneficial

for Transition

The following would help me transition back to the community: Frequency (n) Percentage (%)*

School 94 78.3Employment 78 65,0Drug program 35 29.2Alcohol Program 9 7.5Mentoring Program 13 10.8

Housing 23 19.2

Counseling 36 30.0

*Respondents were instructed to choose all that applied. As such, the percentage is a reflection of the

percentage of the sample that indicated a resource would be beneficial in their transition.

382


Table 5. Summary of Regression Analysis Predicting Number of

Times Detained

Variable (n =71) B SEB t

Model 1

Intercept

AgeMale

African American

Hispanic

Caucasian

Native American

-6.912

0.733

-0.774

-1.144

-0.329

1.517

-0.884

-6.588

0.710-0.748-1,228

-0.376

1.436

-0.923

-0.269

0.200

Model 2

Intercept

Age

Male

African American

Hispanic

Caucasian

Native American

Special Education Student

Established IEP

Model 3

Intercept -7.158

Age 0.737

Male -0.224

African American -0.858

Hispanic -0.530

Caucasian 1.588

Native American -1.585

Special Education Student -0.027

Established IEP 0.241

School would help transition 0.176

Did not experience difficulty returning to school -1.068

5.195

0.313 0.277*

0.855 -0.1070.957 -1.48

0.761 -0.055

1.070 0.172

1.625 -0.064

5.331

0.320 0.268*

0.873 -0.103

1.000 -0.159

0.784 -0.063

1.094 0,162

1.656 -0.066

0.834 -0.046

0.886 0.031

5.391

0.320 0.279*

0.945 -0,031

1.040 -0.111

0.793 -0.089

1.108 0.180

1.721 -0,114

0.854 -0.005

0.886 0.037

0.816 0.026

0.761 -0.191

Table 5 continues next page

383

The Journal of Correctional Education 56(4) • December 2005Transition from Secure Care to the Community Baltodano, Platt 8 Roberts

Table 5. Summary of Regression,Analysis Predicting Number ofTimes Detained (continued)

Variable (n =71) B SE B t

Model 4

Intercept -9.458 5.508

Age 0.840 0.320 0.318*

Male -0.295 0.908 -0.041

African American -0.732 1.057 -0.095

Hispanic -0.348 0.771 -0.058

Caucasian 2.182 1.120 0.247

Native American -1.639 1.713 -0.118

Special Education Student -0.324 0.854 -0.055

Established IEP -0.022 0.894 -0.003

School would help transition 0.008 0.801 0.001Did not experience difficulty returning to school -0.764 0.755 -0.137

Will transition to a placement 1.608 0.912 0.229

Will transition to Adobe 2.475 1.463 0.204

Unsure where will transition to 1.930 0.814 0.288*

Will transition to "other" -0.449 1.471 -0.037

Note. R2 = .195 for Model 1; R2 = .004 for Model 2, p = .026; R2

= .027 for Model 3, p - .026;R2 = .337 for Model 4, p = .031.*p <.05

that the individual did not meet with resistance from school upon previous

releases from detention, and the second was the perception that successfully

reentering school would help their transition. The third model was not

statistically significant, R2 change = .027, F (10, 60) = 1.756, p = .089. The

addition of the two variables in this model accounted only for an additional 3%of the variance in the model above and beyond the variables from Model 1

and Model 2.In the final model, four dummy coded variables representing the

anticipated placement measure were included, identifying home as the

reference group. The model was significant in predicting number of times

detained which accounted for 34% of the variance, R2 change = .11, F (14, 56)

= 2.035, p = .031. This model accounted for an additional 11 % of the variance

in number of times detained than the previous models. The standardized beta

384

The Journal of Correctional Education 56(4) • December 2005Baltodano, Platt E Roberts Transition from Secure Care to the Community

coefficients also indicate that not knowing where they will return after they arereleased is predicted to result in an increase in number of times detained by

.288 controlling for all other variables.

DiscussionThe intent of this exploration was to identify detained youth's perceptions ofand recommendations for transition to the community. The results of this studyindicate that the majority of the youth did not experience difficulty transitioningback to school. However, of those that experienced difficulty, the majority

indicated that they had missed too much work to make up. If we expect that

students who are frequently lagging academically to return to schoolsuccessfully we need to address the reality that they will be met with a great

deal of academic work that they are often unprepared to address. In addition,these students are often not knowledgeable about their educational needs andappropriate educational placements. As the data demonstrate, there wereinconsistencies within the measures of special education, indicating that either

the students were not fully aware of their special education status or whetherthey had an IEP. In trying to understand what transition is to these detained

youth, it is interesting that some did not know that they were currentlydetained or whether they had ever been in special education. When youth donot understand transition, transition is often superficial and ultimatelyunsuccessful. Communication is a critical part of making transition a success.

It is important to reiterate that the findings of this study do not indicate asignificant difference in the number of times detained by gender, specialeducation status, or experiencing difficulty returning to school. However, youthwho anticipated returning home or living with relatives had a significantly lower

mean number of prior detentions than those with less stable placementoptions. Expanding this information, the regression model indicated that those

individuals who reported that they did not know where they would return upon

their release showed a significantly higher predicted mean number of timespreviously detained. This indicates the importance of establishing stableplacements as part of a transition plan prior to release.

Many juvenile justice professionals agree that correctional facilities must

expand their efforts to provide intensive programs in mentoring, substance

abuse counseling, academic remediation, vocational training, and social and lifeskills training, in order to increase positive outcomes for adjudicated youth andin turn reduce recidivism However, given the unique characteristics of this

population, it is likely that these programs may not be enough. For this reason,

385


Transition from Secure Care to the Community Baltodano, Platt & Roberts

it is imperative that secure care facilities, public schools, families, and others

charged with assisting youth transition to the community include the youth in

developing their individualized transition plans and include them at all stages of

the transition process. By doing so, youth are more likely to be successful upon

their return to home, school, employment, and the community.

ReferencesAltschuler, D. M. (1998). Reintegrating juvenile offenders into the community: OJJDP's

intensive community-based aftercare demonstration program. In NIJ Research inProgress Preview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice

Programs.

Anderson, S. L., Anderson, D. B., 8 Schumacker, R. E. (1988). Correctional education, a way tostay out: Monitoring and evaluating the services for correctional inmates. Murphysboro, IL:

Illinois Council on Vocational Education.

Anderson, D. B., Schumacker, R. E., 8 Anderson, S. L. (1991). Release characteristics and

parole success. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 17, 133-145.

Archwamety, 1., & Katsiyannis, A. (2000). Academic remediation, parole violations, andrecidivism rates among delinquent youths. Remedial and Special Education, 21, 161-170.

Benda, B. B., Corwyn, R. F., & Toombs, N. J. (2001). Recidivism among adolescent seriousoffenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 588-613.

Black, T. H., Brush, M. M., Grow, T. S., Hawes, J. H., Henry, D. S., 8 Hinkle, R. W. Jr. (1996).

Natural Bridge Transition Program follow-up study. Journal of Correctional Education,47, 4-12.

Briscoe, R. V., B Doyle, J. P. (1996). Aftercare services in juvenile justice: Approaches forproviding services for high-risk youth. Preventing School Failure, 40, 73-76.

Bullis, M., 8 Cheney, D. (1999). Vocational and transition interventions for adolescents and

young adults with emotional or behavioral disorders. Focus on Exceptional Children,31(7), 1-24.

Casper, M. W. (1995). Transition educators: Instrumental personnel in fulfilling the promiseof ADA. The Journalfor Vocational Special Needs Education, 17, 112-115.

Coffey, O. D., 8 Gemignani, M. G. (1994). Effective practices in juvenile correctional education: Astudy of the literature and research, 1980-1992. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, The National Office for Social Responsibility.

Easy access to FBI arrest statistics: 1994-2001. (1999). Retrieved April 25, 2004 fromhttp://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ezapop/asp/specific.asp?rdoYear=998specificState=4&s

peci

Easy access to FBI arrest statistics: 1994-2001. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2004 fromhttp://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/ezaucr/asp/ucr_display.asp?Select State=48Select_County=8OrdoData=3c8rdoYear=97

Griller, H. M. (1996). The effectiveness of a model transition program for juvenile offenders.Unpublished master's thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe.

386

The Journal of Correctional Education 56(4) - December 2005

Baltodano, Platt 8 Roberts 11ransition from Secure Care to the Community

Griller, H. M., Rutherford, R. B. Mathur, S. R., 8 Anderson, C. W. (1997). A model transitionprogram for juvenile offenders. Paper presented at the 52nd InternationalCorrectional Education Association Conference, Houston, TX.

Griller-Clark, H. (in press). Transition services for youth with disabilities in the juvenilejustice system. In S. R. Mathur (Ed.). EDJJ professional development series. College Park,MD: National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice.

Haberman, M., 8 Quinn, L. (1986). The high school re-entry myth: A follow-up study ofjuveniles released from two correctional high schools in Wisconsin. Journal ofCorrectional Education, 37, 114-117

Halloran, W. D., & Simon, M. Y. (1995). The transition services requirement: A federal

perspective on issues, implications, and challenges. The Journalfor Vocational SpecialNeeds Education, 17, 94-97.

Harer, M. D. (1994). Recidivism among federal prison releasees in 1987: A preliminary report.Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (1990). Public Law 101 -476, 104 STAT 1142.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17. Title20, U.S.C. 1412; 300 Stat. 121-122.

Johnson, D. R., Bruininks, R. H., & Thurlow, M. L. (1987). Meeting the challenge of transitionservice planning through improved interagency cooperation. Exceptional Children, 53,

522-530.

Lewis, K. S., Schwartz, G. M., E lanacone, R. N. (1988). Service coordination betweencorrectional and public school systems for handicapped juvenile offenders.Exceptional Children, 55, 66-70.

Maricopa County Data Book (MCDB). (2002). Maricopa County Juvenile Probation Department,Superior Court of Arizona: Comparison Data 1998 to 2002.

Morrison, H. R., a Epps, B. D. (2002). Warehousing or rehabilitation? Public schooling in the

juvenile justice system. Journal of Negro Education, 71, 218-232.

O'Neil, M. (1990). Correctional higher education: Reduced recidivism? Journal of Correctional

Education, 41, 28-31.

Osher, D., Rouse, J., Quinn, M. M., Kendziora, K., & Woodruff, D. (2002). Addressing invisiblebarriers: Improving outcomes for youth with disabilities in the juvenilejustice system.Washington, DC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutesfor Research.

Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. E., Osher D, 8 Poirier, J. M. (in press). Youth withdisabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children.

Rojewski, J. W. (1992). Key components of model transition services for students withlearning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 135-150.

Rutherford, R. B., Bullis, M., Wheeler-Anderson, C., & Griller-Clark, H. (2002). Youth withdisabilities in the corrections system: Prevalence rates and identification issues. WashingtonDC: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research.

387


Transition from Secure Care to the Community Baltodano, Platt & Roberts

Rutherford, R. B., Nelson, C. M., & Wolford, B. 1. (1986). Special education programming in.juvenile corrections. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 27-33.

Rutherford, R. B., Quinn, M. M., Leone, P. E., Garfinkel, L., 8 Nelson, C. M. (2002).Education, disability, andjuvenilejustice: Recommended practices. Arlington, VA: Councilfor Children with Behavioral Disorders.

Turnbull, R., 8 Cilley, M. (1999). Explanations and implications of the 1997Amendments toIDEA. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Webb, S., 8 Maddox, M. E. (1986). The juvenile corrections interagency transition model:

Moving students from institutions into community schools. Remedial and Special

Education, 7, 56-61.

Biographical Sketches

HEATHER M. BALTODANO is a doctoral student in Special Education at Arizona StateUniversity, a fellow in the dual university faculty preparation program for youth with

emotional and behavioral disorders, and a research assistant for the National Center forEducation, Disability, and Juvenile Justice.

Please address all correspondence regarding this article to Heather M. Baltodano,Arizona State University, The National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice,

PO Box 871911, Tempe, AZ 85287-1911, Office: (480) 727-7106, FAX: (480) 965-1863,[email protected].

DERRICK PLATT is a Juvenile Probation Officer, faculty associate at Arizona State

University, and is working on an Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Special Education. He is also aresearch assistant for the National Center on Education, Disability and Juvenile Justice

(EDJJ).

CHRIS ROBERTS is a nationally certified school psychologist with an Ed.S. degree in

school psychology from Radford, University. He is currently self-employed and offersspecial education and related services to local school districts and juvenile corrections inthe state of AZ.

388

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Transition from Secure Care to the Community:Significant Issues for Youth in Detention

SOURCE: J Correct Educ 56 no4 D 2005WN: 0533507259010

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this articleand itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2006 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.

Transition from Secure Care to the Community: Significant ...sefu6/Tranistion Baltodano... ·...

Documents

Transcript of Transition from Secure Care to the Community: Significant ...sefu6/Tranistion Baltodano... ·...