Abstract
We describe and compare the demographic characteristics of incarcerated youth with and without disabilities. These data were gathered as part of a 5-year longitudinal study that examined the experiences of 531 incarcerated youth from Oregon’s juvenile justice system as they left the correctional system on parole and returned to the community. Data on the demographic characteristics of the sample were gathered from files and through interviews conducted while the sample was still in state custody. We compared the two groups on 22 selected variables. Statistical comparisons indicated that the two groups were similar on most variables. The final statistical model indicated that participants with disabilities were more likely to have flunked a grade while in school, been committed to the juvenile correctional system for a person-related crime, and to have been last adjudicated for a felony in an urban setting. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benz M., Lindstrom L., & Latta T. (1999). Improving collaboration between schools and vocational rehabilitation: The youth transition program model. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 13, 55–63.
Bullis M. (1994). Investigation of the institution-to-community transition of adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Funded grant proposal, Office of Special Education Programs, Field Initiated Research Studies.
Bullis M., & Fredericks H. D. (2002). Providing effective vocational/transition services to adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. Champaign-Urbana, IL: Research Press.
Bullis M., & Yovanoff P. (1997). Return to close custody: Analysis of the Oregon Youth Authority’s data set. Eugene, OR, Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior, University of Oregon.
Bullis M., Yovanoff P., & Havel E. (2004). The importance of getting started right: Further examination of the community engagement of formerly incarcerated youth. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 80–94.
Bullis M., Yovanoff P., Mueller G., & Havel E. (2002). Life on the “outs’’ —Examination of the facility-to-community transition of incarcerated adolescents. Exceptional Children, 69, 7–22.
Chandler M. (1973). Egocentricism and antisocial behavior: The assessment and training of social perspective skills. Developmental Psychology, 9, 326–332.
Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders. (1989). Position paper on the provision of service to children with conduct disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 15, 180–189.
Dryfoos J. (1990). Adolescents at risk. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elam S., Rose L., & Gallup A. (1994). The 26th Annual Phi Delta Kappan Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 26, 42–56.
Farrington D., & Loeber R. (2000). Some benefits of dichotomization in psychiatric and criminological research. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 10, 100–122.
Foley R. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional education programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 248–259.
Forness S., & Kavale K. (1993). The balkanization of special education: Proliferation of categories and subcategories for “new” disorders, In J. Marr G. Sugai, & G. Tindal (Eds.), The Oregon Conference monograph (pp. ix–xv). Eugene, OR: College of Education.
Henggler S. (1989). Delinquency in adolescence. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hobbs N. (1975). Issues in the classification of children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hollingshead A. (1975). Four factor index of social status. New Haven, CN: Yale University, Department of Sociology.
Hosmer D., & Lemeshow S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
Koop C. E., & Lundberg G. (1992). Violence in America: A public health emergency: Time to bite the bullet back. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267, 3075–3076.
D. L. MacKenzie, & E. Hebert (Eds.). (1996). Correctional boot camps: A tough intermediate sanction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Menhard S. (1990). Longitudinal research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Nelson C. M., Center D., Rutherford R. B., & Walker H. M. (1991). Serving troubled youth in a troubled society: A reply to Maag and Howell. Exceptional Children, 58, 77–79.
Rudas T. (1998). Odds ratios in the analysis of contingency tables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rutherford R., Bullis M., Wheeler Anderson C., & Griller H. (2002). Youth with special education disabilities in the correctional system: Prevalence rates and identification issues. College Park, MD: University of Maryland, The National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice.
Thompson B. (1999). Improving research clarity and usefulness with effect size indices as supplements to statistical significance tests. Exceptional Children, 65, 329–338.
Wagner M. (1991). Dropouts with disabilities: What do we know? What can we do? Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Walker S. (1994). Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Zimmerman J., Rich W., Keilitz I., & Broder P. (1981). Some observations on the link between learning disabilities and juvenile delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 9, 1–17.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bullis, M., Yovanoff, P. More Alike than Different? Comparison of Formerly Incarcerated Youth with and Without Disabilities. J Child Fam Stud 14, 127–139 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-005-1127-7
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-005-1127-7