A Review of the Literature: Learning Disabilities and Juvenile Delinquency Priscilla – Prevalence of Learning Disabilities in Young Offenders Rachel – Incarcerated Youth, Learning Disabilities and Recidivism Cyndi – Literacy Interventions in Youth Detention Centres July 23, 2010

Prevalence of Learning Disabilities in Young Offenders 1.) Definitional Issues: How can we really identify the actual proportion of students with disabilities that are juvenile delinquents when different studies use different definitions (Morris & Morris, 2006)? Future Recommendations for Definitional Issues: A standardized definition of the “disability” should be used across studies. Future Recommendations for Definitional Issues: A standardized definition of the “disability” should be used across studies.

Implications 2.) Methodological Problems: Although there have been a multiplicity of studies conducted in the United States regarding the prevalence rate of individuals with disabilities and delinquency; these estimates vary greatly due to a variety of factors (Morris & Morris, 2006).  Future Recommendations: A large scale epidemiological study is needed.

Implications 3.) Hypotheses regarding the link between LD & delinquency: Three hypotheses have been proposed regarding the link between learning disabilities and delinquency. These three hypothesis are: School Failure Hypothesis School Failure Hypothesis Susceptibility Hypothesis Susceptibility Hypothesis Differential Treatment Hypothesis Differential Treatment Hypothesis Future Research: In the future, we need to “partial-out those variables which contribute to youth becoming juvenile delinquents versus examining those protective and resiliency factors that contribute to youth not becoming juvenile delinquents.” (Morris & Morris, 2006). Future Research: In the future, we need to “partial-out those variables which contribute to youth becoming juvenile delinquents versus examining those protective and resiliency factors that contribute to youth not becoming juvenile delinquents.” (Morris & Morris, 2006).

Incarcerated youth, learning disabilities and recidivism Similarities and Common Trends The number of incarcerated youth with learning disabilities is higher than in their non-incarcerated peers The number of incarcerated youth with learning disabilities is higher than in their non-incarcerated peers Archwamety, T. & A. Katsiyannis (1997 & 1998) Grigorenko, G. (2006) Katsuyannis, A., Ryan, J., Zhang, D., & A. Spann (2008), Rucklidge, J., McLean, A. & P. Bateup (2009) Virginia Juvenile Justice Summit on Children and Youth with Disabilities: Executive Summary (2001)

Differing Trends Reading and math Reading comprehension Reading comprehension (Rucklidge, McLean & Bateup, 2009) Mathematics Mathematics (Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 1997 & 1998) (Grigorenko, 2006) Virginia Youth Detention Centers Virginia Youth Detention Centers (Virginia Juvenile Justice Summit on Children and Youth with Disabilities: Executive Summary, 2001)

Other Factors Female young offenders Female young offenders (Archwamety & Katsyannis, 1998) Factors that make youth less likely to Factors that make youth less likely tore-offend (Archwamety & Katsyannis, 1998)

Implications Interventions (Rucklidge, McLean & Bateup, 2009) Interventions (Rucklidge, McLean & Bateup, 2009) Family and Community Family and Community Reduce dropouts and increase programs to obtain GED (Archwamety & Katsyannis, 1998) Reduce dropouts and increase programs to obtain GED (Archwamety & Katsyannis, 1998) Further research is needed Further research is needed

Literacy Interventions in Youth Detention Centres High levels of transient youth in detention centres which effects the efficacy of the education program (Drakeford, 2002) High levels of transient youth in detention centres which effects the efficacy of the education program (Drakeford, 2002) Youth should be required to complete education programs while incarcerated but also as a part of their integration back into the community Youth should be required to complete education programs while incarcerated but also as a part of their integration back into the community

Implications While incarcerated, it is imperative for youth who have learning difficulties to have educational programs that are high-quality, intensive and on-going (Malmgrem and Leone, 2000) While incarcerated, it is imperative for youth who have learning difficulties to have educational programs that are high-quality, intensive and on-going (Malmgrem and Leone, 2000) Facilities would have to employ experienced teaching staff that would provide this type support for youth, as well as ensure that youth with learning disabilities have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Facilities would have to employ experienced teaching staff that would provide this type support for youth, as well as ensure that youth with learning disabilities have an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)

Implications Students who have learning difficulties are at- risk for becoming young offenders but may also have behavioural/social/emotional needs that should be addressed (Grigorenko, 2006) Students who have learning difficulties are at- risk for becoming young offenders but may also have behavioural/social/emotional needs that should be addressed (Grigorenko, 2006) This could be done through counselling, referrals to child and youth workers, linking their families with resources in their community This could be done through counselling, referrals to child and youth workers, linking their families with resources in their community

Implications It is apparent that most of these recommendations are not possible until some government and policy issues are changed at a community, provincial and national level. It is apparent that most of these recommendations are not possible until some government and policy issues are changed at a community, provincial and national level. A motivating factor for government may be that it is cost effective to provide education programs to youth with learning difficulties as it reduces recidivism, which, is more expensive (Simpson, Swanson & Kunkel, 1992) A motivating factor for government may be that it is cost effective to provide education programs to youth with learning difficulties as it reduces recidivism, which, is more expensive (Simpson, Swanson & Kunkel, 1992) Further research is needed Further research is needed