Frequently,
disturbing headlines appear about teenagers. From the first half of 2014 alone,
some such headlines included: “NM officer fatally shoots armed teen,”
“12-year-old Wisconsin girls charged in stabbing,” “Slaying of 14-year-old by
another youth exposes entrenched Chicago violence,” “Two teens dead in Phoenix
murder-suicide” (PoliceOne, 2014). It is important to note: Crimes are
committed every day and some are committed by youth who are beyond the scope of
this discussion. The concern of this piece is the teenagers viewed, labeled, or
treated in the same fashion as their more violent peers.
“Less than
one-fifth of 1%” of teen offenders are arrested for violent crimes against
persons (murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and
aggravated assault) (OJJDP, 2011, para. 3). This leaves over 99% who are simply
troubled kids who made bad choices. The intention of this discussion is to
focus on young offenders who are most often disruptive or otherwise difficult in
the classroom, and who also are most often misunderstood.
There are myriad
ideas about “bad” kids held by even the most highly educated and compassionate
people. When participants in this discussion were asked for their beliefs about
students who get in trouble frequently or, especially, those who end up in
juvenile detention placements, common responses included, “They are violent,”
“They are all on drugs,” and “They don’t care, “ or as one respondent for this
study so bluntly put it, “Why waste our time?” This mindset may be an indicator
as to why so little progress has been made in the treatment of, or intervention
with, individuals who demonstrate undesirable behaviors, many of whom end up in
the juvenile justice system.
It is important to
recognize this is both an all students
issue and, perhaps especially, a special education issue. A dramatic
overrepresentation of youth with disabilities persists in the juvenile justice
system. Studies show as high as 70% of adjudicated youth in some states have
disabilities (Leone, Meisel, & Drakeford, 2002). This rate is compared with
11% of the general population for youth receiving special education services. Only
7% of youth in the general population have the disabling conditions most prominent
in juvenile justice facilities, which are learning disabilities, emotional
disturbances, and intellectual disabilities (Leone, Zaremba, Chapin, &
Iseli, 1995).
Offenders with
disabilities also frequently receive more punitive treatment as compared to
their non-disabled peers (Murray, 1976). As recently as April 2014, a
13-year-old girl with autism was arrested, spending 24 hours in custody, for
reacting to a school resource officer in a manner clearly explained in her Individualized
Educational Program (IEP). The officer explained she was arrested and detained
“for her own good” (Ferrer, 2014, para. 6).
For these reasons,
common beliefs about juvenile delinquents were investigated, clarifying which
of these beliefs are supported by research and which are not. Responses were
gathered from educated adults who work in the field of education and elsewhere.
The objective was to debunk myths of delinquency, giving practitioners a new
perspective of the “bad” kids with whom they work or encounter. Belief
statements were then investigated and determined to be either truth (based on consistent research) or myth (based on conflicting or absent research
and mixed messages). Shifting the beliefs so common among educated adults will
impact the experiences of these students with the possibility of interrupting a
trajectory toward delinquency for many at risk youth.
Why have this discussion in the first place?
It
began with telling family and friends about my own research interests (the
intersection of disability and juvenile justice) and my goals for advocating
for incarcerated youth. It was followed by my shock when people regularly
responded in a negative way – the most common reaction being, “Why?” I saw that
wonderful people had very mistaken ideas about kids in trouble and I sought to
address some of these “myths.”
Of the belief
statements gathered in this discussion, the third most frequently shared was
that juvenile delinquents probably have disabilities. As discussed previously,
research shows up to 70% of youth in the juvenile justice system have a disability
and, therefore, this belief statement is well founded.
Theories behind this
Three theories attempt
to elucidate why youth with disabilities demonstrate delinquent behavior: School
Failure Theory (Murray, 1976); Susceptibility Theory (Murray, 1976); and Differential
Treatment Theory (Keilitz, Zaremba, & Broder, 1979). The first two theories
posit youth with disabilities commit more delinquent acts than their
non-disabled peers. The School Failure Theory explains how a progressive effect
of academic challenges and experiences of failure lead to negative labeling by
adults and peers, thus leading to distancing from the academic experience of
school and navigating toward peers who tend to be negative influences. The Susceptibility
Theory explains the challenges of understanding social cues, impulsive decision-making,
and dupability that lead to students with disabilities so often being the ones left
to bear responsibility for unlawful actions committed in groups or encouraged
by peers.
The third,
Differential Treatment Theory, counters this over-existence of crime-committing
by claiming youth with disabilities demonstrate characteristics as a result of
their disability that are misunderstood as dangerous or risky and are,
therefore, treated more punitively than their non-disabled peers who may have
committed the same delinquent acts (Keilitz, Zaremba, & Broder, 1979). It
is also possible no delinquent act was even committed, but simply the fear of a
future act. For example, youth may be detained prior to adjudication for
subjective judgment calls made by police or social services officers of
“dangerousness” and/or “flight risk” behaviors that actually could be a
manifestation of their disability instead (Leone et al., 1995). This is demonstrated
in the previous example of the 13-year-old who was, in fact, detained for a known
and documented behavior that was a result of her disability (Ferrer, 2014).
What I wanted to know
These theories
show there is confusion and misunderstanding surrounding children who behave in
undesirable ways. The Differential Treatment Theory focuses on beliefs people
hold about juvenile delinquents, many of which can be incorrect. There are
myths surrounding delinquency that, if dispelled, would change the way in which
practitioners work with these students both before and after adjudication. Therefore,
this discussion seeks to answer:
1.
What are common beliefs about juvenile
delinquents?
2.
Which of these beliefs are supported by
empirical research and which are not?
How did I go about this?
The data discussed
in this blog come from multiple sources: interviews with and surveys of a
convenience sample of educated adults employed both in the education field and
elsewhere; Internet searches for media headlines about youth crime; and existing
literature about juvenile delinquency. Using various modalities, 124
individuals were polled and 30 responded. Participants provided five to ten
“things [they] believe about juvenile delinquents” as well as demographic
information including name, age, level of education, and occupation. The open-ended
request was intentionally vague for the sake of avoiding bias by suggesting reflection
over whether their beliefs were true or false. Participants were told this survey
was for research about the beliefs people have regarding delinquency. Confidentiality
was assured so respondents could share views they otherwise may not voice
publically.
Who participated?
Of the 30
respondents, fewer than half (fourteen) worked in education-related positions,
while the others were not professionally connected to education. Nineteen were
female and 11 were male. The average age of the respondents was 39.2 years. The
level of education completed ranged from high school (four) to doctorate (three),
with eight holding bachelors degrees and 15 holding masters degrees.
Myth or Truth?
The responses were
carefully categorized by themes and the categories were then investigated to
discover from research whether they had been determined to be true or false.
The statements supported by research are called “truths” for the sake of this discussion
and those not supported by research or surrounded by mixed messages are called
“myths.” While research is available to support those categories labeled as truth, the focus of this discussion is
on those labeled as myth and
explaining why they are not necessarily true. In order to debunk these myths, various
sources will be discussed throughout this blog to shine light on different perspectives
for each topic. Direct quotes from some respondents are also included
throughout.
What were the results?
In
the results, there were belief statements that were categorically true with no
ambiguity. There were also belief statements that were undetermined, meaning
they could not be justified as truth
or myth because of a lack of evidence
on the topic. Finally, there were nine belief statements that were either completely
false or could not be found to be true based on conflicting or absent research.
These belief statements are those discussed in subsequent posts, each labeled
as a myth. As explained in the
Differential Treatment Theory (Murray, 1976), these results bring awareness to
the types of beliefs people have about juvenile delinquents that may be
incorrect and may impact treatment.
Please follow me on this journey of
understanding the views that exist, where they come from, and whether or not
they are true. The most important point in all of this is we all still have a
lot to learn and things are seldom as clear-cut as we may believe.
P.S. All references can be found in the blog post called References.
