Email this page Print this page

Education Advocacy for Delinquent Juveniles with Disabilities Yields Human, Financial Benefits

By Laura Enteen

Experts call it ìthe fast track to prison -- the destructive cycle in which juveniles with disabilities grow frustrated in school, misbehave, and find themselves in court instead of class. But a two-year-old experiment designed to channel more of these young people back into education, rather than detention, has yielded some notable successes.

A team of three Long Island Advocacy Center (LIAC) experts working in the Suffolk County, NY Probation Department is providing education advocacy for juveniles. The team advocates for youth whose poor performance in school and misbehavior are tied to the schoolís failure to identify and address their special education needs. The advocate obtains an evaluation and appropriate services for the child. Children who get such support show improved school performance and better behavior.

Long Island Advocacy Center, Inc. is a private, not-for-profit agency that represents students and other individuals with disabilities when a governmental body denies their claims for support, services and other rights mandated by law. This paper focuses on parents and students whose rights are denied by the public school system.

LIAC's education advocacy program in Suffolk County is one of many across the country that provide preventative services designed to help children in the delinquency system avoid further trouble. What may be unprecedented, however, is that LIAC's education advocates are now part of that official team of people providing these services, joining probations officers, social workers, and mental health professionals in the delinquency system.

Disabled Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

Researchers agree that the prevalence of youth with emotional, learning, and other disabilities in the juvenile justice system far exceeds that in the general population. While only seven percent of all public school students in the United States have been identified as disabled, the estimated median of children with disabilities in the delinquency system is 33 percent (and in some states, as high as 78 percent).1

The fate of the incarcerated juvenile seems all but sealed once the jail doors close behind him; as many as 80 percent of the children who enter the juvenile justice system return to the system or end up in adult prison within three years, according to the New York State Commissioner of the Office of Children and Family Services.2

Although the research points to several factors that may contribute to juvenile delinquency, experts generally agree on the correlation between undiagnosed or untreated disabilities and delinquent behavior.3 Education advocacy before incarceration, however, can deliver the services that the child needs to improve school performance and get off the track to prison.

Advocacy was needed for Susan, a special education student who misbehaved at school. She was found guilty at a school hearing and was considered for a long-term suspension from school. That suspension would have led to a violation of her probation and she would have been a candidate for a court-ordered placement. Instead, the advocate scheduled and attended a meeting that the school must hold for special education students in order to decide if their misbehavior is connected to a disability. In Susan's case, the connection was found, court-ordered placement was avoided, and an appropriate change of school placement was provided.

Clearly, a disability that is not appropriately addressed at school is likely to cause academic failure.4 School failure causes frustration that often finds expression in truancy and maladaptive behavior. For example, LIAC worked with one school district to obtain appropriate educational services for a troubled youth. He had a severe stutter and couldn't read -- two issues identified since kindergarten but never properly addressed by the school. This resulted in the student being frustrated and embarrassed. At the age of 16, he still had a stutter and couldn't read. After working with LIAC, the Suffolk County Probation Department recommended, and the court ruled, that the youth be remanded to a non-secure facility inside the community and be made available for further testing at school.

Misbehavior frequently leads to court action and, unless the court sees improvement, will lead to detention or other outside placement. The "fast track to prison" is both destructive on a human scale and, at $11,000 a month, very costly. Improvement at school, on the other hand, greatly increases a juvenile's chance of avoiding this destructive path to prison.

It appears that LIAC's efforts are paying off. In the first 13 months of the program, court-ordered placements (referring only to residential placements outside the community) were reduced by 66 juveniles, or 11 percent of the total adjudicated (classified) as juvenile delinquents. During that period, 637 were adjudicated and 195 were placed, or 30 percent of the total. If they had been placed at the rate before the JD/LIAC program began, 261 juveniles, or 41 percent of the total would have been placed. Since the average cost per juvenile placed by the court is $11,000 a month, the reduction of 66 juveniles so placed netted a cost saving to the county of $9.4 million in the first 13 months of the program.

Increasingly, Family Court in Suffolk County is ordering cooperation with LIAC as a condition of probation, and judges have explicitly acknowledged the effectiveness of the service. After one year, the county provided additional funding to expand advocacy for more delinquent juveniles.

History and Goal of Education Advocacy in Family Court

In December 2006, Suffolk County sponsored several programs aimed at reducing court-ordered juvenile placements. At the time, LIAC had been providing advocacy in the juvenile probation department for 19 years for children charged with a P.I.N.S. complaint (Persons In Need of Supervision, specifically truancy or incorrigibility). The probation department recognized that the positive impact of advocacy on children's performance in school was significant, and provided new funding to launch the "Juvenile Delinquency/LIAC" program in Family Court. The new funding supported the "front end" or preventive approach to juvenile delinquency, and education advocacy was given a pivotal role in that approach.

The goal of most professionals in the juvenile justice system is to provide services to youth so they can remain at home, if feasible. Rehabilitation in the community is preferable to a court-ordered placement. The negative peer influence at a group home or a detention center combined with the trauma of being removed from home and family reduce youths' chances of rehabilitation. This is the reality of placement, whether the placement is a group home (the least restrictive) or a detention center (the most restrictive).

LIAC works toward keeping youth out of placement by providing the court with compelling evidence that adjustments in the child's education offer a good prognosis for remaining at home. The judge, then, is likely to order probation and cooperation with services instead of ordering placement

Here is a likely indicator of the program's success: the reduction by 66 placements at an estimated cost saving of $9.4 million over a 13-month period delivered measurable benefits on a financial as well as a human level. Suffolk County, in recognition of this success, increased the funding for additional staff after the first year. The program is entering its third year and the statistics continue to support the benefits of the service.

More difficult to measure is the number of juveniles whose maladaptive behavior, while not serious enough to justify placement, might have escalated to that point were it not for the education advocacy program run by LIAC.

The LIAC Staff

The presence of an education attorney in Family Court every day whose role is to report on the progress of education advocacy may be unprecedented. Because the education attorney is now part of a team of professionals who provide information to the judge that is relevant to his/her disposition of the case, the responsibility of the school in addressing the child's disability is given a high priority.

The LIAC team, housed at the Suffolk County Probation Department, includes:

a) an attorney who coordinates the program, screens JD's for school issues, and monitors the progress of each case.

b) an attorney in court every day to consult with the juvenile's parent(s), attorney, county attorney, social workers, psychologists and court personnel. She participates in hearings, initiates appeals, and reports to the judge on the child's progress as the result of changes in school.

c) an education advocate who consults with parent(s) and juvenile, reviews school records, consults with school staff, attends school meetings with the parent(s) and reports progress to the LIAC attorney.

Assessing the Needs of the Juvenile Delinquent

When a youngster under 16 years of age admits to, or is found guilty of, a JD offense, the youngster and family appear in Family Court and the juvenile is adjudicated a juvenile delinquent. During the next four to six weeks, a probation officer in Suffolk County conducts interviews with the family and researches the child's history at home and in the community. The child and parent(s) also see a LIAC staff member on the day of the first court appearance (arraignment) when the school history is taken and, if a school issue is part of the child's problem, an appropriate school intervention plan is mutually adopted. This research is done in order to support the recommendation that will be made to the court.

Typically, those youth have ìfallen between the cracksî for many years and swift action becomes a priority if LIAC is to show compelling results to the court. The LIAC staff helps the parent(s), if appropriate, with a request for a full psycho-educational evaluation followed by a Committee on Special Education (CSE) review to determine if the child has a disability and is therefore eligible for special services. Because probation officers (PO's) have worked closely with LIAC for many years, the juvenile's PO has become an important part of this process. Often a PO will attend a CSE review if the LIAC advocate is unavailable, consulting with the LIAC advocate beforehand to ensure the PO's effectiveness at the review. The availability of PO's to advocate for youth at school helps the team in meeting the court deadline for disposition.

Although special education classification and services claim much of LIAC attorneys' time, other school issues are addressed as well:

  • suspension
  • denial of admission
  • denial of home tutoring
  • denial of special programs
  • pressure on parent(s) to withdraw a request for an evaluation

LIAC Aims for a Good Working Relationship with Parent and School

The LIAC staff concentrates on establishing and maintaining good relations with school staff and is usually successful. School staffs have come to accept and, to a large extent, respect our role. They deal with disagreements professionally and often cordially. LIAC represents the student and parent(s) and, when the school and the parent(s) strongly disagree, the exchanges can be "spirited," but the LIAC attorney tries to avoid combativeness in order to remain constructive. When an issue that separates the parent and school remains unresolved, LIAC may represent the parent(s) at a hearing. If the parent(s) does not prevail at that level, the parent(s) and the LIAC attorney consider further appeals.

Parents of juveniles also present unique challenges for the LIAC staff. Often, they do not have the understanding, skill, or resources to confront the intimidating school bureaucracy effectively. The experience of the LIAC staff provides valuable support to parent(s) when changes are needed and the parent(s) is unable to be a strong advocate. The value of this service has become clear to parents as well as to court personnel.

Because the turnaround time to present a well-documented recommendation to the judge is relatively short, the LIAC staff must maintain frequent contact with the parent(s). Parent(s) typically need reminders to keep appointments for psychiatric evaluations, to sign and submit consent forms to school, and to appear at scheduled school meetings. Gentle prodding of school staff is equally important because distractions caused by other school issues often interfere with timely evaluations and meetings. As LIAC attorneys press for expeditious resolutions, consistent and tactful pressure on both parent and school has become part of the job.

The Impact of Education Advocacy

The reduction in placements by 66 juveniles at a cost saving of $9.4 million in a 13-month period suggests that education advocacy for juvenile delinquents delivers not only financial benefits to the county but human benefits as well.

By providing education advocacy to juvenile delinquents before disposition, services were accessed for many children who had not been previously diagnosed and/or treated for disabilities. Addressing those disabilities appropriately had a positive impact on school performance and, consequently, on the reduction in placements outside the community.

Increasingly, Family Court judges are ordering cooperation with LIAC as a condition of probation and openly acknowledge the effectiveness of the service. Additional funding was provided within one year to expand advocacy to more juveniles in the delinquency system.

Although professionals in the juvenile justice system widely recognize that preventive services are pivotal in detouring the juvenile's "fast track to prison," the appreciation of education advocacy as a part of those services may be less universal. The results point strongly to the need for education advocacy as a vital part of preventive services programs.

1. Morris, J., Thompson, Kristin, C., (2008) Juvenile Delinquency and Special Education Laws: Policy Implementation Issues and Directions for Future Research.

2. Commissioner Gladys Carrion, Esq. “Testimony to the New York State Legislature’s Joint Budget Committee, Feb. 5, 2008.

3. Brier Norman (1989) The Relationship between Learning Disability and Delinquency: A Review and Reappraisal. Journal of Learning Disabilities 22(9), 546-553.

4. Grande, Carolyn G. (1988) Delinquency: The Learning Disabled Student’s Reaction to Academic Failure? Adolescence 23(89)209-219


Laura Enteen is a staff attorney with Long Island Advocacy Center, Inc., a private, not-for-profit agency in New York dedicated to protecting the legal rights of students and other individuals with disabilities. This article was adapted from the original article published on the LIAC website: www.longislandadvocacycenter.org



  Email this page Print this page