Barriers to School Reentry: Perceptions of School Reentry Among Detained and Committed Youth

Abstract

Juvenile justice-involved youth, despite their history of poor academic performance, have high educational aspirations for their post-release life. However, few expect to meet their educational aspirations. Barriers in the transition from the juvenile justice setting to the community contribute to the disconnect between youths’ educational aspirations and expectations. However, to date, few studies have included the perspectives of incarcerated youth in assessing barriers to educational attainment. This study addresses the gap in the literature using data from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement to examine self-reported barriers to meeting the educational aspiration of attending at least some college. Results indicate a lack of interest in school among juvenile justice-involved youth to be the most prevalent and significant barrier to higher educational expectations, despite self-reported high aspirations. We discuss policy implications to improve the reentry process and increase school attachment.

Keywords

juvenile justice school reentry barriers to educational attainment educational aspirations educational expectations

There are approximately 37,000 youth confined in juvenile justice residential detention and commitment programs in the United States on a given day (Hockenberry & Sladky, 2020). This population of youth often lack prosocial support systems, come from low-income communities, struggle with mental illnesses or substance use, and have histories of low academic achievement and engagement with school, which make their transition from facilities and reintegration to the community—back to school in particular—difficult (Garfinkel & Nelson, 2004; Hsia et al., 2004; Steele et al., 2016). Further compounding these issues is that the educational services provided in juvenile justice residential schools, both academic and vocational, tend to be of lesser quality than the services provided by community schools and school systems (Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2015; Macomber et al., 2010; Miller, 2019; Pesta & Blomberg, 2016; Rothman, 2002; Tannis, 2017). The individual challenges faced by youth and the institutional deficiencies often found in juvenile justice schools increase youths’ risk of academic failure and recidivism. For example, research has shown that youth struggle to reenroll and stay in school post-release and are at an increased risk of school failure and dropping out (Juvenile Justice Educational Enhancement Program, 2006, MacArthur Foundation, 2005; Wald & Losen, 2003). In 2015, the Council of State Governments Justice Center concluded that the most critical need in education in the United States likely exists among the incarcerated youth population.

Although there are numerous barriers—both at the institutional- and individual-levels—educational achievement during residential commitment or detention can be a critical element in delinquency prevention and pathways to desistence. Specifically, youths’ post-release outcomes can be improved if they receive a high-quality education while in residential detention and commitment programs (Blomberg et al., 2011). In addition, youth who experience academic gains while in a residential school are less likely to recidivate, are more likely to return to school, have an improved likelihood of employment, and exhibit positive behavioral outcomes (Blomberg et al., 2012).

The transition to and from juvenile justice settings is a complex and challenging process. Thus, making it important for not only high-quality education in the facilities but also quality and coordinated reentry planning and programming to ensure youth are informed and prepared for their release. While some of the factors that contribute to negative post-release educational success have been attributed to the poor educational services and reentry programming provided to students while they are in detention or commitment programs, less is known about the individual-level factors that may contribute to poor post-release educational outcomes. Specifically, research on the effects of juvenile residential detention and commitment rarely includes the perspective of the incarcerated juveniles, which could provide needed information on factors that contribute to their effective community and school reintegration (Kupchik & Snyder, 2009; Schubert et al, 2014). Using data from the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement, this study examines the self-reported barriers to meeting educational aspirations of attending at least some college among a sample of youth who were incarcerated in facilities across the United States. In the sections that follow, we describe the prior literature, and the study’s data, methods, and findings. We conclude with a discussion about the implications for policy and practice.

Prior Literature

Recent research on the barriers youth encounter when returning to school following release from a juvenile justice facility has been largely missing. Specifically, few studies have been published in the last 10 years that examine the school reentry process. In a recent systematic review of school reentry practices, Kubek et al. (2020) found 27 articles meeting initial selection criteria, yet only nine met the criteria for a full review. Of the nine articles included in the review, only three of them were published in the last 10 years. Notably, the articles reviewed by Kubek et al. (2020) were primarily based on descriptive case studies and self-reported perspectives of key stakeholders. The voices of students and families, those most directly impacted by detention or commitment and the school reentry process, were largely missing in the available studies. Further, because of the methodological limitations of these studies—namely, descriptive case studies involving small, nonrepresentative sample sizes—the recommendations and barriers may not generalize beyond the study samples to other populations, settings, or contexts.

Since the publication of Kubek et al. (2020) systematic review, only a handful of studies have attempted to address some of the limitations put forth. Namely, Sinclair et al. (2021) conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with transition specialists (n = 7) and young offenders (n = 8) who participated in a 4 years reentry project in the Pacific Northwest, examining what services best support youths' reentry into a school setting. Gardner et al. (2022) interviewed 90 students attempting to return to school after incarceration and 17 adults (parents, probation officers, school administrators, formerly incarcerated citizens) in Chicago, assessing their experiences with returning to school. Despite these recent developments to incorporate the voice of youth and their experiences with school reentry, recent studies still exhibit methodological limitations. Namely, the recent studies are still limited by their small, nonrepresentative samples and qualitative methods. In the following sections, we describe the literature on the importance of education for juvenile justice-involved youth and the barriers they face during school reentry. Notably, while much of the literature in this area is dated, the findings have generally remained consistent in the more recent literature.

Impacts of Education on Youths’ Post-Release Outcomes

Youth involved in the juvenile justice system often have lengthy histories of poor school performance, low attachment to school, low literacy levels, and high rates of intellectual, developmental, learning, and emotional disabilities¹ compared with youth who have not been involved in the juvenile justice system (Cavendish, 2014; Development Services Group, 2017; Pfannestiel, 1993; Wang et al., 2005). These challenges may be particularly impactful for youth who have been detained or committed in residential programs. However, academic achievement made by youth while in detention or commitment programs can have positive impacts on various aspects of their post-release success. For example, juvenile justice education programs can have positive outcomes on behavior, future education, and employment after release (Blomberg et al., 2011; 2012; Clark et al., 2011; Elliott, 1994; Foley, 2001; Jaggi et al., 2020; Jenson & Howard, 1998; Unruh et al., 2009).

Detained and committed youth, despite histories of school failure, disabilities, and underdeveloped academic skills, can make significant educational gains with proper and intensive instruction in a relatively short period of time (Blomberg et al., 2011, 2012; Drakeford, 2001; Lipsey & Wilson, 1998; Malmgren & Leone, 2000). In addition, providing opportunities and assistance for detained and committed youth to acquire educational skills is an effective approach to the prevention of delinquency and the reduction of recidivism. Ambrose & Lester (1988) found that committed juvenile justice-involved youth with a high school diploma or equivalent were significantly less likely to recidivate during the first year following release. In a recent study, Jaggi et al. (2020) found that school attachment during incarceration was associated with decreased delinquency 12 months post-release. In line with these findings, several other studies have found that school performance while incarcerated was associated with less recidivism, a higher likelihood of community school enrollment, and increased access to college or employment opportunities across sex and race/ethnicity (Blomberg et al., 2012; Cavendish, 2014; Steele et al., 2016).

Blomberg et al. (2011) assessed the potential links between educational achievement, post-release schooling, and re-arrest for a cohort of 4147 committed youth from 115 Florida juvenile justice institutions and followed them for 2 years post-release. The authors reported that when most youth entered a residential commitment program, they were far behind their peers in terms of grade level and test performance. However, the authors found that committed youth with higher levels of educational achievement while incarcerated were more likely to return to school after release. Further, those who attended school regularly post-release were less likely to be rearrested within 12 and 24 months. In addition, among the youth who were rearrested, those who attended school regularly following release were arrested for significantly less serious offenses.

Bullis et al. (2002) conducted a 5 years longitudinal study of committed juvenile delinquents in Oregon. The authors found that youth who were participating in school after their release were less likely to recidivate. However, less than one half of the youth were working or in school 6 months after release. The proportion dropped to less than one third at 12 months post-release. Thus, although participation in school affected recidivism, few juvenile delinquents became engaged in school following their release from commitment, and even fewer remained engaged in school over time.

Quality of Educational Services in Juvenile Justice Residential Programs

Despite the potential for education to serve as a protective factor, or a rehabilitative intervention and turning point away from delinquency, the quality of educational services for youth involved in the juvenile justice system remains underfunded and largely inadequate. In their study of juvenile justice commitment programs across several states, Westat (1991) found that education was generally accomplished by providing students with packets of materials and worksheets, which limited interactions between students and teachers. Similarly, in an evaluation of educational services for youth in the Polk County, Florida jail, Pesta (2014) found youth often were not receiving direct academic instruction. Rather, the educational materials provided to the youth largely consisted of packets, worksheets, and textbooks. Further, Westat (1991) found that transition services aimed at assisting youth with returning-to-school and post-release employment varied widely across institutions and were often non-existent. Similarly, the Research Triangle Institute (1999) conducted a study that consisted of multiple site visits to juvenile programs in nine states. The study found that the purposes of the educational programs within juvenile institutions varied widely across the sites. In addition, there was a consistent lack of community transition and reintegration services and post-release follow-up.

Given the unique and diverse educational needs of youth in juvenile justice facilities, it is important that teachers within these facilities are well-equipped to address youths’ complex needs. However, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) (2014) have noted that many juvenile justice facilities may have difficulty hiring and retaining qualified teachers. Specifically, preconceptions about working in secure facilities and the unique needs of the youth they serve may make recruitment difficult (Steele et al., 2016). Further, the lack of adequate professional development training specific to teaching in juvenile justice settings may reduce educator retention as staff struggle to adequately address the needs of youth in these facilities (DOE & DOJ, 2014). For example, in a review of Maryland’s Juvenile Services Education System (JSES), researchers found that while most teachers in the detention center and commitment program schools were appropriately certified and taught courses in their areas of specialization, some teachers felt their professional development was often too general and not specific to teaching in a juvenile justice environment (Blomberg et al., 2020). Further, in a systematic review of school reentry practices, Kubek et al. (2020) found school personnel often were not provided with adequate training to effectively support students returning from juvenile justice settings.

Barriers to Post-Release Education Continuation and Attainment

Although academic gains while detained or committed are important for post-release success, another critical aspect is ensuring youth have an effective community transition and reintegration process. In other words, it is oftentimes not enough for students to do well academically while in commitment, those gains must be maintained post-release. Therefore, an important line of research involves exploring which factors influence the successful transition and reintegration from a juvenile justice school to a community school. Research on community reintegration and school reentry has identified numerous difficulties and barriers that can prevent youth from successfully transitioning back to school after their release from a juvenile justice facility. Some barriers include lack of family, school, and social supports, lack of academic skills and being far behind in school, negative peer associations, substance use, a lack of consistency across varying school systems (e.g., credits earned, calendars), and even direct school resistance, exclusion, and stigma (Baltodano et al., 2005; Feierman et al., 2010; Gardner et al., 2022; Garwood, 2015; Kubek et al., 2020; Marshall et al., 2012; Mathur & Clark, 2014; Miller et al., 2019; O’Neill et al., 2017; Siennick & Staff, 2008; Sinclair et al., 2021; Unruh, 2005; Unruh & Bullis, 2005; Wallace, 2012). Students may also lack the appropriate required records and documents needed for reenrollment (e.g., birth certificate, residency verification, immunization records), which in some instances are not forwarded to the student’s community school from the juvenile justice system (Feierman et al., 2010; Marshall et al., 2012; O’Neill et al., 2017; Wallace, 2012). These barriers increase the likelihood that youth will drop out of school, decrease their likelihood of obtaining meaningful employment, and increase their likelihood of reentering the justice system (Wallace, 2012).

However, youths’ perceptions of the barriers that they believe to be standing in their way of achieving their educational goals remains largely unknown, with only a few studies seeking to explore self-reported barriers. In a recent study by Sinclair et al. (2021), interviews with young offenders (n = 8) identified substance use, poverty, and gang relations to be the most pervasive barriers to successful reentry. Further, youth also identified transportation problems, truancy, academic issues, and negative community influences as prevalent barriers. Garwood (2015) conducted interviews with 10 young adults who were incarcerated as juveniles and later earned either a high school diploma or GED. Through this exploratory study, the author identified several challenges that the young adults faced when reentering the community, which included the lack of a support system, challenges associated with the incarceration experience, and overcoming their own patterns and habits related to school and delinquency.

Mathur & Clark (2014) surveyed 17 incarcerated youth with special needs and 14 stakeholders and staff regarding transition services and barriers to community engagement and reentry. The stakeholders and staff perceived the largest barrier to successful reentry that youth faced was that they did not see themselves as able to succeed. The most commonly identified barriers according to the youth were their history of poor school attendance (including dropping out), significantly low academic performance, placement in foster care, a lack of anger management skills, and substance abuse. In a subsequent study Mathur et al. (2019) analyzed intake interviews with 38 incarcerated youth and conducted focus groups and interviews to explore the barriers to successful reentry among those with special needs. The youth identified poor academic performance as the most impactful barrier they faced during their reentry. Returning to the same environment and influences was also noted by the youth as being a significant barrier they perceived would impact their post-release success.

To expand upon the available literature and address the methodological limitations of the prior research—namely, small, nonrepresentative samples and descriptive, exploratory case studies—we utilize a nationally representative sample of youth incarcerated in facilities across the United States to examine the self-reported barriers to meeting the educational aspiration of attending at least some college. Specifically, the present study addresses the methodological limitations by using a large, national sample of youth, direct measures of barriers to educational attainment, and employing logistic regression to explore the strength of the identified barriers. In doing so, this study is guided by the following research questions:

Research Question 1. What are the post-release educational aspirations and expectations of juvenile justice-involved youth?

Research Question 2. What barriers do juvenile justice-involved youth face in achieving their educational aspirations?

Methods

Data

Data for the study come from the most recent wave of the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) 2003 (Sedlak, 2013). The SYRP is a national survey of youth between the ages of 10 and 20 in state and local facilities. The survey was last distributed in 2003 to 7073 youths from 205 eligible responsive facilities (see Sedlak, 2010 for sampling methodology) and includes information on youths’ demographics, backgrounds, offense histories, conditions of confinement, needs and services received in custody, nature and risk of victimization in residential placement, and future expectations. Relevant to the present study, the survey also includes educational questions covering youths’ aspirations and expectations for future educational attainment, barriers to educational attainment, and prior and current education services (Sedlak & Bruce, 2016; Sedlak & McPherson, 2010).

Analytic Sample

The analytic sample for this study includes youth who have indicated they do not expect to achieve their educational goals of attending at least some college. Specifically, the analytic sample was created by assigning a value of one to those who aspired to complete 8^th grade or less, grades 9–11, graduate from high school, or complete some college and whose expectations were lower than their aspirations. This initial coding scheme resulted in 462 youth meeting the selection criteria. The analytic sample is limited to this subset of youth due to the nature of the survey questions. Specifically, questions on why youth do not expect to achieve their educational aspirations were only provided to youth who indicated they aspired to complete some college or less, but only expected to graduate high school or less. Therefore, youth with higher educational aspirations and expectations were not included in the analysis.

Youth who had already graduated high school or earned their GED were not included in the sample (n = 5). Listwise deletion was used to remove cases that were missing on any of the variables used in the regression (n = 10). The resulting analytic sample includes 447 youth who have indicated they do not expect to achieve their educational aspirations of attending at least some college. Specifically, the analytic sample is comprised of youth who indicated they aspire to complete some high school (11^th grade or less), graduate high school, or complete some college, but only expect to graduate high school or complete some high school (11^th grade or less). This subset of youth was then asked a series of questions on why they do not expect to achieve their educational aspirations. Analytic sample descriptive statistics are provided in Table 1.²

Table 1.

Sample Descriptive Statistics.

Variable	Frequency	Percent
Age
12	3	0.67
13	15	3.36
14	51	11.41
15	86	19.24
16	130	29.08
17	119	26.62
18	28	6.26
19	12	2.68
20	3	0.67
Race/Ethnicity
White	107	23.94
Black	89	19.91
Hispanic	217	48.55
Other	34	7.61
Sex
Male	351	78.52
Female	96	21.48
Current offense
Murder, rape, kidnapping	20	4.47
Robbery or assault	141	31.54
Property offense	121	27.07
Drug or public order offense	68	15.21
Status offense, technical parole violation	97	21.70
Facility type
Detention unit	155	34.68
Correctional unit	153	34.23
Community-based unit	36	8.05
Camps	71	15.88
Residential treatment unit	32	7.16
Total Sample	447

Measures

Dependent Variable

The current study examines why youth expect to complete less schooling than they aspire to upon release. Specifically, this study is interested in understanding what factors are driving youth to have lower expectations for their educational outcomes. To do so, the study aims to predict why youth only expect to complete some high school instead of graduate high school. Completing some high school is defined as completing 11^th grade or less. As such, the dependent variable is a dichotomous measure of educational expectations, assigning a value of 1 (one) to youth who expect to complete some high school (11^th grade or less) and a value of 0 (zero) to youth who expect to graduate high school.

Independent Variables

The independent variables for the current study are barriers to educational attainment. The survey question measuring barriers to educational attainment asked the youth to identify if any of the following might prevent them from completing more school. The barriers included not being interested in school, financial problems, transportation problems, having to work full time, schoolwork is too difficult, cannot get into school, health reasons, family responsibilities, problems with drugs or the law, other, and none of the above. Each of these barriers were coded as a dichotomous variable (1 = Yes, 0 = No). Importantly, this list of barriers is reflective of those identified in the prior literature.

Control Variables

The present study controls for demographic variables, facility-level characteristics, school history variables, and offense variables. Demographic controls include age, sex and race and ethnicity. Age at the time of the survey is a continuous variable, ranging from 10 to 20; sex was coded dichotomously, with Male = 1 and Female = 0; and race/ethnicity was a nominal variable recoded dichotomously, with White serving as the reference group.

Facility-level variables include programming received while in the facility (special education, GED prep, GED testing, college coursework, job training, or none of the above); facility school enrollment; grade level; hours of schooling received in facility; whether youth has a learning disability; youths’ modal grade level (1 = below modal grade, 0 = above modal grade); and facility type (detention unit, correctional unit, community-based unit, camps, and residential treatment unit). Programming received and learning disability were coded dichotomously (1 = Yes, 0 = No). Facility school enrollment was reverse coded 1 = Not Enrolled, 0 = Enrolled. Hours of schooling and facility type were originally nominal variables that were recoded dichotomously (1 = Yes, 0 = No), with detention unit serving as the reference group for facility type and 6 hours or more of school serving as the reference group for hours of schooling. Grade level is a continuous variable, ranging from 1 (1^st grade) to 12 (12^th grade).

School history variables include school enrollment when taken into custody; whether the youth had dropped out of their prior school; and whether youth had been suspended, expelled, or repeated a grade in the year before entrance into the facility. School enrollment when taken into custody was reverse coded, where 1 = Not Enrolled and 0 = Enrolled. Dropped out, suspended, expelled, and repeated a grade were coded dichotomously, where 1 = Yes and 0 = No.

Offense variables include current offense type (murder/rape/kidnapping, assault/robbery, property offense, drug/public order offense, and status offense/technical parole violation); prior convictions (status offenses, drug offenses, person offenses, property offenses, and public order offenses); prior probation sentence; and prior custody sentence. Current offense was originally a nominal variable, recoded dichotomously with assault/robbery serving as the reference group. The remaining offense controls were coded dichotomously (1 = Yes, 0 = No).

Analytic Strategy

The analytic methods used in this study include descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression. Descriptive statistics were used to identify the educational aspirations and expectations of youth and to explore the most prevalent barriers to academic achievement. Binary logistic regression was used to predict educational expectations. Specifically, the logistic regression model predicts the odds of expecting to complete some high school compared to graduate high school. Included in the logistic regression model are the barriers, demographic controls, facility-level controls, school history controls, and offense controls.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Sample descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Youth included in the sample are primarily ages 15 to 17, male, and Hispanic. The most common offenses among the sample are robbery/assault and property offenses. In comparison to the non-analytic sample of surveyed youth (Supplemental Table 1; N = 6626), the age of our analytic sample closely resembles that of the non-analytic sample, with a slightly larger percentage of youth aged 16. Independent sample t-tests indicate the samples do not significantly differ in age. Compared to the non-analytic sample, the race/ethnicity of the analytic sample has a much larger Hispanic population (48.55% vs. 31.56%) and a smaller Black (19.91% vs. 29.23%) and White (23.94% vs. 27.83%) population. Independent sample t-tests indicate these differences are statistically significant. The sex of our analytic sample closely resembles that of the non-analytic sample, and there is no statistically significant difference. The offense distribution of our analytic sample closely resembles that of the non-analytic sample, except for murder, rape, and kidnapping offenses which are significantly lower in our analytic sample. Finally, comparisons of the facility type between the analytic sample and non-analytic sample find youth in the analytic sample are significantly more likely to be detained in detention units and camps and significantly less likely to be detained in correctional units or community units. While there are some significant differences between the analytic and non-analytic samples on the demographic variables, the differences are often small. Therefore, we trust that our analytic sample is nationally representative of the juvenile justice-involved youth population.

The educational aspirations and expectations of the analytic sample are presented in Table 2. Most youths aspired to complete some college (56.15%), with a smaller but still large number of youths aspiring to graduate high school (42.28%). Very few youths aspired to only complete some high school (11^th grade or less; 1.57%). Despite these high aspirations, most youths expected to only complete some high school (53.91%), with fewer expecting to graduate high school (46.09%). Lower expectations relative to aspirations can also be seen in the non-analytic sample (Supplemental Table 2). In the non-analytic sample, a large percentage of youths aspired to graduate from college (41.50%) or attend graduate, medical, or law school (24.74%). However, the expectation of achieving these education levels is much lower, with about a quarter of the non-analytic sample only expecting to graduate from high school and about one third expecting to graduate from college.

Table 2.

Educational Aspirations and Expectations.

Education Level	Aspirations	Expectations
Some high school	7 (1.57%)	241 (53.91%)
Graduate high school	189 (42.28%)	206 (46.09%)
Some college	251 (56.15%)

Total sample	447	447

Table 3 presents the barriers identified by youth to meeting their educational aspirations. The most common barrier to not completing more schooling among youth was a lack of interest, with 47.87% of youth reporting they had no interest in school. Schoolwork being too difficult and having problems with drugs or the law were also prevalent barriers. Less common barriers included having to work full time, financial problems, family responsibilities, inability to get into school, transportation problems, and health problems.

Table 3.

Barriers to Educational Attainment.

Identified Barriers	Percent reporting “yes”, %
Not interested in school	47.87
Schoolwork is too difficult	33.33
Problem with drugs or the law	29.75
Must work full time	20.81
Financial problems	14.09
Family responsibilities	14.09
Can’t get into school	12.75
Transportation problems	9.62
Health problems	1.57
Other	13.87
None of the above	9.84

Multivariate Analyses

The results for the binary logistic regression predicting the likelihood of expecting to complete some high school are presented in Table 4. Among the barriers to educational attainment, having no interest in school, having to work full time, and having none of the presented barriers significantly predicted the odds of expecting to complete some high school. Specifically, controlling for all other factors, the odds of expecting to complete some high school were 101.2% greater for youth with no interest in school. The odds of expecting to complete some high school were 47.6% lower for youth who have to work full time than those who do not. Additionally, youth with none of the presented barriers had a lower likelihood of expecting to complete some high school, being 62.0% less likely to expect to complete some high school than youth with barriers. In other words, youth who had an interest in school, had to work full time, and faced no barriers had significantly higher odds of expecting to complete more schooling (e.g., graduate high school) than youth who did not have an interest in school, did not have to work full time, and faced barriers.

Table 4.

Logistic Regression Results for Expecting to Complete Some High School.

Variable	OR	SE	95% CI		p
Variable	OR	SE	LL	UL	p
Barriers
No interest	2.012	0.497	1.239	3.265	0.005**
Financial problems	0.998	0.343	0.509	1.957	0.996
Transportation problems	0.770	0.311	0.349	1.667	0.516
Work full time	0.524	0.160	0.287	0.954	0.035*
Schoolwork too difficult	1.318	0.332	0.804	2.161	0.273
Can’t get in	1.151	0.404	0.579	2.290	0.689
Health problems	1.113	1.046	0.176	7.019	0.910
Family responsibilities	0.623	0.214	0.318	1.222	0.169
Drugs or law issues	1.097	0.292	0.651	1.847	0.728
Other	1.435	0.490	0.734	2.803	0.291
None of the above	0.380	0.167	0.161	0.898	0.028*
Demographic controls
Age	1.091	0.160	0.818	1.454	0.554
Sex	0.841	0.250	0.469	1.506	0.560
Black^a	1.107	0.403	0.543	2.259	0.779
Hispanic^a	1.058	0.314	0.592	1.892	0.850
Other race^a	0.994	0.476	0.388	2.542	0.989
Facility-level controls
Special education	0.741	0.359	0.287	1.913	0.535
GED prep	0.428	0.199	0.172	1.062	0.067^†
GED test	0.833	0.412	0.316	2.196	0.711
College coursework	0.691	1.318	0.016	29.063	0.846
Job training	0.682	0307	0.282	1.648	0.395
None of above programming	0.484	0.236	0.186	1.257	0.136
Learning disability	1.579	0.432	0.923	2.670	0.095^†
Facility enrollment	0.032	0.055	0.001	0.899	0.043*
Facility grade level	0.748	0.117	0.551	1.016	0.063^†
Modal grade	1.450	0.451	0.788	2.666	0.232
Less than 2 hours of school^b	0.473	0.209	0.199	1.123	0.090^†
3 hours of school^b	0.694	0.261	0.332	1.450	0.331
4 hours of school^b	0.566	0.198	0.285	1.123	0.103
5 hours of school^b	1.069	0.333	0.580	1.969	0.831
Correctional unit^c	1.069	0.331	0.583	1.962	0.829
Community-based unit^c	0.913	0.408	0.381	2.191	0.839
Camps facility^c	0.761	0.271	0.379	1.528	0.443
Residential treatment unit^c	0.537	0.267	0.203	1.421	0.211
School history controls
Prior enrollment	2.470	1.153	0.989	6.167	0.053^†
Dropped out	0.884	0.471	0.311	2.510	0.817
Repeated grade	1.294	0.351	0.761	2.203	0.342
Suspended	1.043	0.272	0.626	1.737	0.873
Expelled	1.074	0.292	0.630	1.831	0.793
Offense controls
Murder/Rape/Kidnapping^d	0.496	0.323	0.139	1.777	0.282
Property^d	1.381	0.434	0.746	2.555	0.304
Drug/Public order^d	1.277	0.469	0.621	2.624	0.506
Status/Technical parole violation^d	1.382	0.477	0.703	2.718	0.348
Prior status conviction	0.765	0.197	0.461	1.268	0.298
Prior drug conviction	1.652	0.431	0.990	2.756	0.054^†
Prior person offense conviction	1.147	0.293	0.696	1.892	0.590
Prior property conviction	1.332	0.325	0.826	2.147	0.239
Prior public order conviction	1.141	0.276	0.711	1.833	0.584
Prior probation sentence	0.622	0.241	0.291	1.328	0.220
Prior custody sentence	0.944	0.243	0.570	1.562	0.821
Constant	5.408	8.821	0.221	132.273	0.301

Note: ^†p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01. Number of observations = 447.

Pseudo R² = 0.1611.

^aReference group for race is White.

^bReference group for school hours is 6+ hours.

^cReference group for program type is Detention Unit.

^dReference group for current offense is Assault/Robbery.

The likelihood ratio test indicates that the addition of the control variables significantly improves the fit of the model, LR chi2(39) = 62.01, p < .01. There were no significant differences in the outcome by age, sex, or race/ethnicity. The offense controls also had no significant effect on the outcome. Among the facility-level controls, youth who were not enrolled in school while in the facility were significantly less likely to expect to complete some high school than youth who were enrolled. Specifically, the odds of expecting to complete some high school were 96.8% lower for youth who were not enrolled in school while in the facility. Notably, however, none of the other facility-level variables or school history variables reached significance.

In sum, the results show that youth who had no interest in school had significantly greater odds of expecting to complete some high school. In other words, youth who did express an interest in school were more likely to expect to achieve higher educational attainment, namely, graduate high school, than youth without an interest in school. This finding is consistent with the prior literature, highlighting the importance of school attachment for successful reentry outcomes (Jaggi et al., 2020; Bullis et al., 2002). Additionally, youth who had to work full time, had no barriers to educational attainment, and were not enrolled in school while in the facility had significantly lower odds of expecting to complete some high school. The significant effects of these variables are unique to the present study and have not been identified in the prior research, therefore, the mechanisms underlying these relationships are unclear. It is possible that youth who have to work full time may have higher expectations for their educational attainment because many jobs require employees to have completed at least a high school degree. The negative effect of not being enrolled in school while in the facility might be a factor of short detention stays, where the youth are not detained long enough to be enrolled in the facility school. Future research should aim to explore these mechanisms.

Notably, despite their significance in prior research, the variables indicating poor academic performance—i.e., having a learning disability, being behind the modal grade level, having repeated a grade, been expelled/suspended, and not being enrolled in school prior to incarceration—were not significant predictors of lower educational expectations in the current study. Further, the type of educational programming and amount of schooling received also did not significantly predict lower educational expectations. It is possible that the identified barriers are more important in predicting educational attainment, however, future research should explore this in more detail.

Discussion

The public educational system and the juvenile justice system, arguably more than many other public institutions, have the potential to shape—for better or worse—the life trajectories of youth. However, these two systems have traditionally functioned with very separate goals—the juvenile justice system focused on delinquency reduction and rehabilitation and the school system focused on academic achievement (Wallace, 2012). In addition, current communication and coordination between these institutions is limited and not well suited to provide the needed support for students who encounter both systems (Kubek et al., 2020; Mazzotti & Higgins, 2006; Wallace, 2012). Although the public education and juvenile justice systems operate in independent silos, they significantly influence each other and by not recognizing areas of overlap or commonality “…neither system is fully able to recognize the goals of crime reduction and educational attainment” (Wallace, 2012, 161). The failure of students’ realizing their independent goals and the lack of coordination and attention to the two systems’ overlapping missions has had lasting negative consequences on the lives of countless youth who have been involved in both institutions. Further, it has been found that many schools in the community institutionally and systemically reject students reentering from the juvenile justice system (Kubek et al., 2020; Feierman et al., 2010; Skiba & Peterson, 2000). For students outside community school systems who are detained in the juvenile justice system, finding a way back in can be extremely challenging due to both institutional- and individual-level factors (Leone et al., 2003).

Research on the quality of education in juvenile justice facilities has repeatedly found that it is substandard to that provided by the public school system and youth face many barriers when reentering the community and reenrolling in public schools. Although numerous juvenile justice reentry guidelines and practices have been proposed (Coffey & Gemignani, 1994; Gagnon & Richards, 2008), most lack evidence to support their efficacy. Further, due to the lack of training and dissemination structures, juvenile justice evidence-based reentry programs and practices are not well developed and do not address the multifaceted individual- (e.g., poor attendance, low performance) and structural-level (e.g., no credit transfer, inconsistent calendars) barriers that youth face (Leone et al., 2002).

This study has contributed to the literature by exploring and documenting the difficulties and challenges incarcerated youth face when transitioning from juvenile justice facilities, reentering the community, and returning to school. Consistent with Siennick & Staff (2008), we found that youth had, in general, high educational aspirations. (Siennick & Staff, 2008, 628) concluded that delinquent youth did not reach their educational aspirations because they failed to make “concrete investments toward achieving their goals.” In our study, we found that many youth had no real expectation to actually reach their aspirations due to a number of barriers. Specifically, we found that despite having high aspirations, youth who have no interest in school had greater odds of having lower educational expectations. Additionally, youth who had to work full time, had no barriers to educational attainment, and were not enrolled in school while in the facility, had greater odds of having higher educational expectations. In sum, notably, most of the youth in residential facilities had high educational aspirations, namely, to graduate from college or attend graduate, medical, or law school. However, for many of these youth, the expectation of achieving their educational aspirations was low.

This study has further contributed to the literature by relying on more direct measures of barriers to educational attainment and more sophisticated analyses than many studies available in the prior literature. Namely, much of the prior literature has identified various measures of poor academic performance and social supports as contributing to poor educational outcomes. However, few of these studies have measured factors that would directly impede the academic achievement of youth. Further, in addition to descriptively exploring barriers to educational attainment, the present study utilized logistic regression to examine the direction and magnitude of these barriers while controlling for other factors that may be predictive of lower educational expectations.

Limitations

A limitation of our study that is important to acknowledge is that the data were collected in 2003. Despite the age of the data, the SYRP is the only large national survey that asks detained and committed youth about their educational experiences, history, aspirations, expectations, and, importantly, barriers. However, there is no reason to expect that the sample of youth included in the last wave of the SYRP would be significantly different from the current population of confined youth. Aside from a decline in the number of juveniles in residential facilities, the demographics of the population and the odds of confinement for youth referred to the juvenile court have not changed (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2019).

Another limitation of our study is that the sample size is limited due to which youth were asked the set of questions about their barriers to educational attainment while completing the survey. Specifically, only youth with educational expectations of graduating high school or less were asked why they could not meet their aspirations of completing some college or less. Given the high educational aspirations of the full population of surveyed youth—namely, to graduate from college or attend graduate/medical/law school—there may be important differences in the barriers to educational attainment for these youth compared with those with lower aspirations of completing some college or less. Future research should aim to study barriers to educational attainment among this population of youth with higher aspirations. Additionally, the survey did not explore why the identified barriers prevented youth from achieving their educational aspirations. Given the large effect of having no interest in school, it is important for future research to identify why youth are not interested in school so that policies and programs can be developed to increase school attachment.

Finally, another limitation of the present study is that it did not explore some of the important barriers identified in the prior literature. Namely, the present study was not able to explore many of the school-level barriers such as direct school resistance, poor school climate, and poor communication between the juvenile justice system and community schools (Kubek et al., 2020). Further, some individual-level factors, such as support systems and peer relationships, also were not included. Finally, despite prior literature indicating sex differences in educational attainment (Blomberg et al., 2012), the present study did not explore sex-specific differences in barriers to educational attainment³. Future research should aim to incorporate these other important measures and further explore any sex-specific differences.

Policy Implications

The study’s limitations notwithstanding, the findings support the need for additional research and policy attention to the educational experiences of detained and committed youth. Historically, juvenile justice-involved youth have been characterized as a forgotten or neglected population, especially concerning their education trajectories. An example of this is the fact that the SYRP is the only nation-wide survey of detained and committed youth that asks specific questions about their educational aspirations and expectations and the last wave was conducted in 2003. To better understand the reentry process, educational trajectories, and likelihood of recidivism among youth, additional surveys, data, and attention are warranted.

In addition, the study points to a need for more comprehensive reentry programs that begin during detention or commitment and extend well beyond youths’ return to the community. Importantly, these reentry programs should begin immediately upon the youths’ entry into the facility, involve input from the youth and their families, and prioritize the continuity of youths’ academic career (DOE & DOJ, 2014; JustChildren, 2004; Mathur et al., 2021). For example, the programs should focus on identifying the goals and practical and self-reported barriers to youth achieving their goals. Once the barriers have been identified, reentry staff or specialists can use the time while youth are in the facility to address the barriers and increase students’ ability and interest in learning. Further, reentry programs should support interagency and community collaboration to ensure a smooth transition from the facility into the community and to provide continuity of care (DOE & DOJ, 2014). For example, reentry planning should include collaboration between teachers, facility administrators, security staff, other relevant in-school providers, the youths and their family, the community school, and other community partners and treatment providers (DOE & DOJ, 2014; Mathur et al., 2021). Interagency and community collaboration will facilitate the timely transfer of records, enrollment in the community school, and access to appropriate community treatment.

Additionally, given the most prevalent and significant barrier to higher educational expectations is a lack of interest in school, it is important that the programming youth receive while they are detained in juvenile justice facilities increases their school attachment and engagement. Youth who experience higher school attachment while incarcerated have greater school attendance and reduced delinquency 12 months post-release (Jaggi et al., 2020; Jaggi & Kliewer, 2020). Prior research has found positive teacher-student relationships (TSRs) to be integral in increasing school attachment (Scales et al., 2020; Reed & Wexler, 2014; Roorda et al., 2011). In a study on TSRs among juvenile offenders, Reed & Wexler (2014) found juvenile offenders demonstrated more academic resilience and desire to pursue education when their teachers were supportive and caring. Specifically, the juvenile offenders felt their teachers were supportive and caring when they helped them with their work, spent time with them addressing skills they had difficulties with, and encouraged them to keep working even when their motivation was low. Non-justice-involved youth reported similar characteristics of high-quality TSRs, namely, exemplary teachers demonstrated high expectations and helped students learn from their mistakes, supported students no matter how far behind they fell, and responded to their needs (Scales et al., 2020). Importantly, students who experienced an increase in high-quality TSRs exhibited increased academic motivation, engagement, and performance by year-end (Scales et al., 2020). To improve TSRs, juvenile justice agencies and facilities should provide professional development opportunities for education staff focused on teaching in the juvenile justice system and working with youth with complex educational needs (DOE & DOJ, 2014).

Conclusion

Despite having high educational aspirations, research has long documented that youth involved in the juvenile justice system complete less education than do their peers who have not been involved in the juvenile justice system (Mensch & Kandel, 1998; Robbins, 1966; Siennick & Staff, 2008; Tanner et al., 1999; Wang, et al., 2005). These educational deficits can contribute significantly to an increased likelihood of recidivism (Bernberg & Krohn, 2003; Jaggi et al., 2020) and poor long-term employment trajectories (Monk-Turner, 1989; Pedersen et al., 2020). Thus, identifying the reasons why juvenile justice-involved youth have worse educational outcomes than their non juvenile justice-involved peers and strategies for improving those outcomes remain important areas of needed research.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Barriers to School Reentry: Perceptions of School Reentry Among Detained and Committed Youth

Supplemental Material for Barriers to School Reentry: Perceptions of School Reentry Among Detained and Committed Youth by Kaylee Noorman and Julie Brancale in Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kaylee Noorman

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author biographies

Kaylee Noorman is a doctoral student in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. Her research interests include juvenile justice education, translational criminology, and racial and ethnic disparities in criminal justice practices.

Julie Brancale is an assistant professor in the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University. Her research interests include identifying and evaluating methods to incorporate research more effectively into criminal and juvenile justice policy and practice. Additionally, she studies financial exploitation and victimization of older adults and the role of education and school factors on delinquency.

References

Ambrose

D. M.

Lester

(1988). Recidivism in juvenile offenders: Effects of education and length of stay. Psychological Reports, 63(3), 778. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.63.3.778

Annie, E. Casey Foundation . (2019). Youth Incarceration in the United States. Annie E. Casey Foundation. https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-youthIncarcerationinfographic-2021.pdf

Baltodano

Platt

Roberts

(2005). Transition from secure care to the community:Significant issues for youth in detention. The Journal of Correctional Education, 56(4), 372–388.

Bernburg

J. G.

Krohn

M. D.

(2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41(4), 1287–1318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb01020.x

Blomberg

T. G.

Pesta

G. B.

Brancale

Blomberg

Collier

(2020). The Juvenile Justice Education Partnership, Phase 1 Report: Discovery. Submitted to the Maryland State Department of Education, Juvenile Services Education System.

Blomberg

T. G.

Bales

W. D.

Piquero

A. R.

(2012). Is educational achievement a turningpoint for incarcerated delinquents across race and sex? Journal of Youth in Adolescence, 41(2), 202–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9680-4

Blomberg

T. G.

Bales

W. D.

Mann

Piquero

A. R.

Berk

R. A.

(2011). Incarceration, education and transition from delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(4), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.04.003

Bullis

Yovanoff

Mueller

Havel

(2002). Life on the “outs”: Examination of the facility-to-community transition of incarcerated adolescents. Exceptional Children, 69(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290206900101

Cavendish

(2014). Academic attainment during commitment and post-release education- related outcomes of juvenile justice-involved youth with and without disabilities. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Disorders, 22(1), 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426612470516

10.

Clark

H. G.

Mathur

S. R.

Helding

(2011). Transition services for juvenile detainees with disabilities: Findings on recidivism. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(4), 511–529. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2011.0040

11.

Coffey

O.D.

Gemignani

M.G.

(1994). Effective practices in juvenile correctional education: A study of the literature and research, 1980-1992. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

12.

Council of State Governments Justice Center . (2015). Locked out: Improving educational and vocational outcomes for incarcerated youth. The Council of State Governments Justice Center.

13.

Development Services Group, Inc. (2017). Youths with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. https://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Intellectual-Developmental-Disabilities.pdf

14.

Drakeford

(2001). The impact of an intensive program to increase the literacy skills of youth confined in juvenile corrections. Journal of Correctional Education, 53(4), 139–144.

15.

Elliott

(1994). Serious violent offenders: Onset, developmental course, and termination. The American Society of Criminology 1993 Presidential Address. Criminology, 32(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1994.tb01144.x.

16.

Feierman

Levick

Mody

(2010). The school-to-prison pipeline…and back:Obstacles and remedies for the reenrollment of adjudicated youth. New York Law School Review, 54(4), 1115–1129.

17.

Foley

R. M.

(2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional education programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 248–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342660100900405

18.

Gagnon

J. C.

Richards

(2008). Making the right turn: A guide about youth involved in the juvenile corrections system. National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth, Institute for Educational Leadership.

19.

Gardner

Klonsky

Clemens

Gallardo

Harris

Rosario

Suarez

Torres

Torre

M. E.

(2022). Back in on the outside: Racialized exclusion at Chicago’s school/prison nexus and the promise of student voice. Urban Education, 0(0), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859211068465

20.

Garfinkel

L. F.

Neson

(2004). Promoting better interaction between juvenile court, schools, and parents. Reclaiming Children and Youth: The Journal of Strength-based Interventions, 13(1), 26–28.

21.

Garwood

P. S.

(2015). Young adults’ perceptions of high school graduation success and long- term juvenile incarceration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Walden University.

22.

Hockenberry

Sladky

(2020). Juvenile residential facility census 2018: Selected findings. In Juvenile Justice Statistics National Report Series Bulletin. US Department of Justice.

23.

Hsia

Bridges

G. S.

McHale

(2004) Disproportionate Minority Confinement 2002 Update. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

24.

Jaggi

Kliewer

(2020). Reentry of incarcerated juveniles: Correctional education as a turning point across juvenile and adult facilities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(11), 1348–1370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820934139

25.

Jaggi

Kliewer

Serpell

(2020). Schooling while incarcerated as a turning point for serious juvenile and young adult offenders. Journal of Adolescence, 78(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.11.002

26.

Jenson

J. M.

Howard

M. O.

(1998). Youth crime, public policy, and practice in the juvenile justice system recent trends and needed reforms. Social Work, 43(4), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/43.4.324

27.

JustChildren, Legal Aid Justice Center . (2004). A summary of best practices in school reentry for incarcerated youth returning home. Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Education.

28.

Juvenile Justice Educational Enhancement Program . (2006). 2005 Annual Report to the Florida. Department of Education. Florida State University.

29.

Kubek

J. B.

Tindall-Biggins

Reed

Carr

L. E.

Fenning

P. A.

(2020). A systematic literature review of school reentry practices among youth impacted by juvenile justice. Children and Youth Services Review, 110, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104773

30.

Kupchik

Snyder

R. B.

(2009). The impact of juvenile inmates’ perceptions and facility characteristics on victimization in juvenile correctional facilities. The Prison Journal, 89(3), 265–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885509339505

31.

Leone

P. E.

Christle

C. A.

Nelson

C. M.

Skiba

Frey

Jolivette

(2003). School failure, race, and disability: Promoting positive outcomes, decreasing vulnerability for involvement with the juvenile delinquency system. EDJJ: The National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice, 1–47. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED471210.pdf

32.

Leone

P. E.

Quinn

M. M.

Osher

D. M.

(2002). Collaboration in the juvenile justice systemand youth serving agencies: Improving prevention, providing more efficient services, and reducing recidivism for youth with disabilities. Monograph series on education, disability and juvenile justice. Special Education Programs (ED/OSERS); Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; Office of Vocational and Adult Education (ED), Office of Correctional Education.

33.

Lipsey

M. W.

Wilson

D. B.

(1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesis of research. In Loeber

Farrington

D. P.

(Eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Sage Publications.

34.

MacArthur Foundation . (2005). Juvenile Justice: New Models for Reform. A newsletter from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. (Vol. 3, pp. 2–23), MacArthur Foundation.

35.

Macomber

Skiba

Blackmon

Esposito

Hart

Mambrino

Richie

Grigorenko

(2010). Education in juvenile detention facilities in the state of connecticut: A glance at the system. The Journal of Correctional Education, 61(3), 223–261.

36.

Malmgren

Leone

P. E.

(2000). Effects of a short-term auxiliary reading program on the reading skills of incarcerated youth. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(3), 239–247.

37.

Marshall

Powell

Pierce

Nolan

Fehringer

(2012). Youth and administrator perspectives on transition in Kentucky’s state agency schools. Child Welfare, 91(2), 95–116.

38.

Mathur

S. R.

Clark

H. G.

(2014). Community engagement for reentry success of youth from juvenile justice: Challenges and opportunities. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(4), 713–734. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2014.0034

39.

Mathur

S. R.

Clark

H. G.

Gau

J. M.

(2021). A cross-comparison study of reentry intervention and support for engagement: Findings on youth with disabilities. Behavioral Disorders, 46(3), 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742919886842

40.

Mathur

S. R.

Clark

H. G.

Hartzell

R. I.

LaCroix

McTier

T. S.

(2019). What youth withspecial needs in juvenile justice say about reentry: Listening to their voice. Youth & Society, 52(8), 1501–1522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118x19826423

41.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Higgins

(2006). Public schools and the juvenile justice system: facilitating relationships. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(5), 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512060410050701

42.

Mensch

Kandel

D. B.

(1988). Dropping out of high school and drug involvement. Sociology of Education, 61(2), 95–113. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112267

43.

Miller

(2019). Navigating barriers to special education in a juvenile detention center. Journal of Correctional Education, 70(2), 2–30.

44.

Miller

Therrien

Romin

(2019). Reducing recidivism: Transition and reentrypractices for detained and adjudicated youth with disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 42(3), 409–438. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2019.0019

45.

Monk-Turner

(1989). Effects of high school delinquency on educational attainment and adult occupational status. Sociological Perspectives, 32(3), 413–418. https://doi.org/10.2307/1389126

46.

O’Neill

S. C.

Strnadová

Cumming

T. M.

(2017). Systems barriers to community re-entry for incarcerated youths: A review. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.05.025.

47.

Pedersen

Hart

R. K.

Moffitt

T. E.

von Soest

(2020). Delinquency abstainers in adolescence and educational and labor market outcomes in midlife: A population-based 25 year longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 56(11), 2167–2176. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001117

48.

Pesta

(2014). An evaluation of the educational services for youth in the Polk County jail.County, School District and Southern Poverty Law Center.

49.

Pesta

Blomberg

(2016). Juvenile justice education. In Blomberg

T. G.

Brancale

J. M.

Beaver

K. M.

Bales

W. D.

(Eds.), Advancing Criminology & Criminal Justice Policy (pp. 337–350). Routledge.

50.

Pfannenstiel

J. C.

(1993). Teaching techniques determine students’ success or failure. Corrections Today, 55(1), 70–73.

51.

Reed

D. K.

Wexler

(2014). “Our teachers…don’t give us no help, no nothin’: Juvenile offenders’ perceptions of academic support. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 31(3), 188–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571x.2014.943568

52.

Research Triangle Institute . (1999). Study of Local Agency Activities Under the Title I, Part D, Program. U.S. Department of Education.

53.

Robbins

L. N.

(1966). Deviant Children Grow Up. Williams & Wilkins.

54.

Roorda

D. L.

Koomen

H. M. Y.

Spilt

J. L.

Oort

F. J.

(2011). The influence of affectiveteacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793

55.

Rothman

D. J.

(2002). Conscience and Convenience. Aldine De Gruyter.

56.

Scales

P. C.

Pekel

Sethi

Chamberlain

Van Boekel

(2020). Academic yearchanges in student-teacher developmental relationships and their linkage to middle and high school students’ motivation: A mixed methods study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 40(4), 499–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431619858414

57.

Schubert

C. A.

Mulvey

E. P.

Loughran

T. A.

Losoya

S. H.

(2014). Perceptions ofinstitutional experience and community outcomes for serious adolescent offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811426710

58.

Sedlak

(2013). Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) 2003 [United States]. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34304.v1

59.

Sedlak

A. J.

Bruce

(2016). Survey of Youth in Residential Placement: Youth’s Characteristics and Backgrounds. SYRP Report. Westat.

60.

Sedlak

A. J.

McPherson

(2010). Survey of Youth in Residential Placement: Youth’s Needs and Services. SYRP Report. Westat.

61.

Sedlak

A. J.

(2010). Introduction to the Survey of Youth in Residential Placement. U.S. Department of Justice

62.

Siennick

S.E.

Staff

(2008). Explaining the educational deficits of delinquent youths. Criminology, 46(3), 609–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00118.x

63.

Sinclair

Unruh

Kelly

(2021). Relationships matter: The role transition specialists play in youth’s reentry from the juvenile justice system. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 44(1), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143420948838

64.

Skiba

R. J.

Peterson

R. L.

(2000). School discipline at a crossroads: From zero tolerance to early response. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290006600305

65.

Steele

J. L.

Bozick

Davis

L. M.

(2016). Education for incarcerated juveniles: A meta-analysis. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 21(2), 65–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824669.2015.1133308

66.

Tanner

Davies

O’Grady

(1999). Whatever happened to yesterday’s rebels? Longitudinal effects of youth delinquency on education and employment. Social Problems, 46(2), 250–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/3097255

67.

Tannis

L. N.

(2017). The intersection of education and incarceration. Harvard Educational Review, 87(1), 74–80. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.1.74

68.

United States Department of Education & United States Department of Justice . (2014). Guiding principles for providing high-quality education in juvenile justice secure care settings. Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/correctional-education/guiding-principles.pdf

69.

Unruh

Gau

Waintrup

(2009). An exploration of factors reducing recidivism rates of formerly incarcerated youth with disabilities participating in a re-entry intervention. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 18(3), 284–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-008-9228-8

70.

Unruh

(2005). Using primary and secondary stakeholders to define facility-to-community transition needs of adjudicated youth with disabilities. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(4), 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2005.07.005

71.

Unruh

Bullis

(2005). Facility-to-community transition needs for adjudicated youth with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 28(2), 67–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/08857288050280020401

72.

Wald

Losen

D. J.

(2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. New Directions for Youth Development, 99, 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.51

73.

Wallace

(2012). Juvenile justice and education: Identifying leverage points and recommending reform for reentry in Washington, D.C. Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law & Policy, 19(1), 159–180.

74.

Wang

Blomberg

T. G.

S. D.

(2005). Comparison of the educational deficiencies of delinquent and nondelinquent students. Evaluation Review, 29(4), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841x05275389

75.

Westat, Inc. (1991). Unlocking learning: Chapter 1 in Correctional Facilities. Final Report. Department of Education.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB