Slide 1

2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Promoting Educational Success for At Risk Students with Disabilities: Reducing Delinquency and Preventing Juvenile Justice Referrals Presenters: Lili Garfinkel,Coordinator-Juvenile Justice Project-PACER Center John A. Inglish-Director Western Regional Resource Center Strand Presentation # 130 G Slide 2 Overview Objectives of this Session: Define the problem Gain understanding of its causes Identify best practices and new strategies for addressing the problem Ultimate Goal: Keep At Risk students with disabilities in school by providing them supports/services they need to be successful. Slide 3 Overview At Risk students with disabilities are more likely to: Exhibit behavior difficulties which Increase likelihood of suspension, expulsion, truancy, and, ultimately, referral to law enforcement which Increases likelihood of school drop-out Slide 4 Cost of Drop-out in the US A student who drops out earns about $260K less over a lifetime and pays about $60K less in taxes than a high school (HS) graduate $192 billion in combined income and tax revenue for each cohort of students who never completes HS Increasing the HS completion rate by 1 percent for males ages 20-60 would save up to $1.4 billion per year in reduced costs from crime HS dropouts have a life expectancy that is 9.2 years shorter than for HS graduates California Dropout Research Project Slide 5 Page 5 Mental Health or other Disability: An Easy Excuse? A disability does not excuse responsibility for delinquent or criminal behavior in school or in the community Many youthful offenders with disabilitiesdo not receive the supports and interventions they need to succeed in school Suspensions for behaviors that are part of their disability increase the risk for involvement in Juv. Justice (JJ) and DO NOT change behavior Slide 6 Parent/Professional Perspective Parents feel: Guilt, shame, anger, frustration Fault systems that dont respond to request for help Overwhelmed by constant punishment in place of teaching Overwhelmed by poverty, own mental health issues, lack of supports Professionals feel: Parents are defensive, blaming, and hostile Parents dont follow through Parents misread their efforts Slide 7 Trends in Juvenile Justice Increased criminalization of school based problematic behaviors related to the disability Corrections system has become the default mental health and special education services provider Schools are frustrated in dealing with complex mental health issues and concerned about which students pose real danger Teachers have inadequate training to manage behaviors of youth with serious mental health disorders and complicating family issues Inadequate representation of youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system Urban and rural representation each have unique challenges Jones and Garfinkel Slide 8 Disproportionality in Juvenile JJ Referrals: Disability Although researchers agree that it is difficult to conduct meta- analytic studies on the prevalence of disability in juvenile justice systems, one study indicated that the rate of disability in this population ranges from 42-60%. P. Perryman et al., Recidivism of Handicapped and Nonhandicapped Juvenile Offenders: An Exploratory Analysis (1989). Slide 9 Between 65-and 80% of delinquent population have one or more mental health diagnosis 30% of delinquents with aggressive behaviors also have PTSD Almost 75% of secondary students with ED have been suspended or expelled: a rate four times that of peers (Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, Epstein, & Sumi, 2005); Average of 2 years behind in school Many students who have cognitive disabilities also score poorly on measures of self-control, cooperation, and social skills ) 9 National Profile of Youth in Corrections Slide 10 Students with E.D. Studies also have shown that children with emotional disturbances are particularly at risk: They have the worst graduation rate of all students with disabilities. Nationally, only 35 percent graduate from high school, compared to 76 percent for all students. Seventy-three percent of those who drop out are arrested within five years. They are twice as likely as other students with disabilities to be living in a correctional facility, halfway house, drug treatment center or on the street after leaving school. They are almost twice as likely as students with other disabilities to become teenage mothers. They are more than three times as likely as other students to be arrested before leaving school. Southern Poverty Law Center Report-http:// www.splcenter.org/news/item.jsp?aid=282. Slide 11 Defining Our Terms School Pushout or School to Prison Pipeline (STPP) The ACLU defines School to Prison Pipeline (STPP) as: Policies & practices that push our nations schoolchildren, especially our most at-risk children, out of classrooms and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. This pipeline reflects the prioritization of incarceration over education. Slide 12 Factors in the Pipeline School to Prison Pipeline Zero Tolerance Disciplinary Policies Inadequate resources (e.g., counselors, special ed. Services, MH supports in schools Increased reliance on law enforcement for behavior management Disciplinary Alternative Schools Premature/Inappropriate referral to juvenile justice system Slide 13 What is Zero Tolerance? Historical Background Safe and Drug Free Schools & Communities Act in 1994, requiring states that accept federal money to expel for at least one year any student found in possession of a gun, regardless of the reason. 1999: Columbine & other incidents inflame public perception that schools are violent places in need of increased law enforcement and strict penalties. As a result Zero Tolerance, which was originally designed for major gun/drug offenses, becomes increasingly applied to less serious offenses (e.g., fighting, harassment, speech, dress codes.) Zero Tolerance is a one size fits all approach to school discipline. Studies have shown it IS NOT EFFECTIVE. Slide 14 Do not discriminate between dangerous and disrespectful behaviors Charges occur for nonviolent behaviors (swearing, disrespect) Disproportionately impact youth of color, youth with disabilities, and students with low test scores; Courts become the default provider of mental health services Do not reduce the number of incidents or change behavior Page 14 Zero Tolerance Policies in School Slide 15 ZT/STPP MANIFESTATIONS CASE STUDY 1 Billy is a 6 th grade student with severe autism. He is non-verbal. He attends school on a mainstream campus. Placement in self-contained class staffed with autism specialists due to behavioral and intensive support needs. Billy inappropriately touches one of the classroom assistants. Principal files charges. Principal calls mom and tells her student is suspended indefinitely, doesnt mention charges. Parents later contacted by police, and receive summons to juvenile court, charged with sexual battery. Slide 16 Efficacy of ZT: What do the Studies say? Harvard Civil Rights Project Zero Tolerance is unfair, is contrary to the developmental needs of children, denies children educational opportunities, and often results in the criminalization of children. American Bar Association 2001: Issued formal position paper denouncing overly broad applications of ZT policies. American Psychological Association Findings: None of the five key assumptions underlying ZT policies have any merit There is significant cause for concern around whether ZT policies may have a disproportionately harsh effect on students with disabilities. Slide 17 APA Recommendations re: Zero Tolerance Use Zero Tolerance only for the most serious disruptive behaviors (drugs and violence) Replace one-size-fits all discipline. Structure discipline to seriousness of infraction Require school resource\security officers to have training in adolescent development Slide 18 What Does Not Work with Juvenile Offenders Targeting low-risk offenders Deterrence alone without treatment Targeting non-criminogenic needs (i.e., anxiety, depression, self-esteem) Scared-straight approaches Insight-oriented, psychodynamic, non-directive, or client-centered therapies Lack of direct training procedures with an absence of modeling and role playing Page 18 Slide 19 A BETTER RESPONSE: BEST PRACTICE MODELS KEY TENETS It is critical that we distinguish between behavior that is dangerous and behavior that is disruptive or disrespectful Pushing kids out of school into the juvenile justice system for non-dangerous behavior makes the courts de facto mental health providers, something for which they are ill-equipped. Behavior that does not pose imminent harm to self/others is best dealt with using a tiered structure of behavior management, using positive behavior supports. Level of response should be geared to level of need. Slide 20 Key Tenets Family involvement is critical Family is the childs primary emotional, social, cultural, and spiritual resource. Families will act in the best interest of their child when they are provided with the necessary knowledge, skills, and supports. A system committed to family involvement ensures that there are authentic opportunities for families to partner in the design, implementation, and monitoring of their childs plan. Family Involvement in Pennsylvania's Juvenile Justice System-Models for Change Project-2009 Slide 21 PBIS- An alternative to Zero Tolerance PBIS - scientific, research and evidence- based discipline approach PBIS- school-wide systems of support PBIS- proactive strategies for defining, teaching, modeling and supporting appropriate student behaviors Slide 22 Tiered Behavior Management Primary Prevention- all students\entire school. Secondary Prevention- targeted group interventions Tertiary Prevention- intensive, targeted interventions for individual students Slide 23 PBIS-Prevention Model with Multi-tiered Support Primary Prevention- all students\entire school. Behavior expectations defined and taught; Reward system for appropriate behaviors; Continuum of consequences for problem behavior Secondary Prevention- targeted group interventions Focus-students at-risk of more serious problem behaviors; Behavioral contracts; conflict resolution training; self-management strategies Tertiary Prevention- intensive, targeted interventions for individual students; FBAs, BSPs, and wraparound services Slide 24 Does PBIS Work? Slide 25 Jefferson Parish Discipline Data- Year 1 (2006-07) SPED Students - Suspension Rates In-School Suspensions: 10% decrease Out-ofSchool Suspensions: 30% decrease Genl. Ed. Students - Suspension Rates In-School Suspensions: 18% decrease Out-ofSchool Suspensions: 25% decrease SPED Students-removals totaling >10 days 2005-06: 235 students 2006-07: 123 students42% decrease 2007-08 (1 st semester): 6 students Slide 26 Florida Middle Grades PBIS Study 29% decrease in office discipline referrals 93% of schools - decrease in discipline referrals AND more positive school climate >80% of schools increased students meeting high standards in reading\math by 4-6% > 70% of schools increased the learning gains of low performing students by average of 5% 54% of school increased school grade by at least one grade Slide 27 Other Promising Models & Practices Slide 28 Example 1: CLAYTON COUNTY, GA Problem: 600% increase in school-based arrests as a result of ZT Response: Leaders from juvenile court, police department, child/fam. services, and DAs office developed an interagency agreement known as the School Offense Protocol The Protocoldoes two things: Assigns a risk level to students in order to divert low-risk youth away from court. Creates a graded response system: Warning for non-dangerous, first offenders Discretion given to school law enforcement officers-may give up to 3 citations before student moved to next sanction level- which requires student/parents to attend a workshop sponsored by juvenile court. Slide 29 Example Two: Juvenile Mental Health Courts Utahs Coordination of Care Court C-3 Targets you with identified MH needs. Provides a tiered framework for intervention that balances positive behavior supports while still holding youth accountable for their actions. Caseworkers work with youth/families in setting goals across four domain areas: Compliance with court orders Compliance with treatment regime Evidence of school attendance/behavioral adjustment Slide 30 C-3 OUTCOMES In the first year pilot study group (30 youth): 64% no new criminal charges 10% increase in school attendance/gpa (aggregate) One graduated from high school, one obtained GED Slide 31 CoPs on School Behavioral Health The National Community of Practice on School Behavioral Health National organizations, State and local agencies, and technicalassistance providers came together in 2004 to address school behavioral health services. The National Community of Practice on Collaborative School Behavioral Health emerged from this meeting. Shared agenda across education, mental health and families. Twelve states, 23 national organizations, 6 technical assistance centers, and 10 practice groups work together in this Community. Slide 32 Definition of School Mental Health Slide 33 Health & Mental Health Factors Academic Outcomes Educational Behaviors Physical Health/illness Mental Health Mental Health Problems High-risk Behaviors (e.g. Substance use ) Developmental issues Social Competence/Self- esteem Family Strengths/ Issues Attendance Behavioral Competencies Behavioral Problems Educational Motivation Positive Attitudes Toward Schoolwork School Connectedness Graduation/Drop-out Grades Standardized Test Scores Teacher Retention ADAPTED FROM: Geierstanger, S. P., & Amaral, G. (2004). School-Based Health Centers and Academic Performance: What is the Intersection? April 2004 Meeting Proceedings. White Paper. Washington, D.C.: National Assembly on School-Based Health Care. Mental Health and Academic Outcomes SMH