Mental, Emotional, and Behavioral Needs of Juvenile Justice Youth with Special Education Status

Background and Purpose: Research has shown that youth in the juvenile justice have higher levels of mental, emotional, and behavioral health problems than those in the general population. Some studies have shown that youth with a developmental disability qualifying for special education programs are three times more likely to come in contact with the juvenile justice system than their youth counterparts (Diaz et al., 2015). Furthermore, youth in juvenile justice settings are seven times more likely to require special education services than youth in the general population (Quinn et al., 2002). Few studies, however, have examined juvenile justice youth with special education diagnoses, who may have distinct needs different from other juvenile justice youth. This study examines the extent of special education needs among probation youth in the juvenile justice system as well as the comorbidity of risk factors such as school challenges, and mental and emotional health problems as compared to those without a qualifying special education diagnosis.

Methods: Data come from one court jurisdiction in a large county in Washington State including urban and rural areas. Washington Juvenile Court Assessment was used to assess empirically based risk and protective factors among 5,378 youth adjudicated to probation for a period of 3 months or greater from 2003 to 2013. The sample included 23.6% female; 59.8% White, 25.8% Black, 6.1% Latinx, 3.2% Native Americans, 3.1% Asian Americans, 1.6% Hawaiians, and 0.4% mixed or other race. The average age of youth were 15.5 (SD = 1.46). Multiple regression models assessed the difference between those with and without special education status across mental health problems, school problems (history of suspension or expulsion), impulse control, and problem-solving skills, controlling for demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, race, socioeconomic status) and Adverse Childhood Experiences (i.e., child maltreatment, domestic violence; ACEs).

Results: In the current sample, 39% (n = 1,962) of the youth had a special education status, with 55% of those qualifying for special education for two or more diagnoses. Findings suggested that probation youth with special education needs, compared to the rest of the probation youth, had significantly higher levels of mental health (B = .23, p < .001) and school (B = .16, p <.001) problems and significantly lower levels of impulse control (B = -.12, p <.001) and problem-solving skills (B = -.17, p <.001), controlling for demographics and ACEs. Across all outcomes, low socioeconomic status and ACEs had significantly negative impact (e.g., ACEs associated with higher levels of mental health problems; low socioeconomic status associated with higher levels of school problems.

Conclusion: Given the high prevalence of special education needs among probation youth, more studies need to examine the needs and strengths to inform practice and policy. According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq), youth with special education needs ought to receive a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Findings of this further calls for the need to assess and service juvenile justice youth with special education status.