Helping Parents and Advocates Improve
Educational Results for Children with Disabilities
Helping Parents and Advocates Improve
Educational Results for Children with Disabilities
The National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice is a new collaborative research, training, technical assistance and dissemination program designed to identify and promote more effective responses to the needs of youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system or those who are at-risk for involvement with the juvenile justice system.
Partners in the project include PACER, the University of Maryland, the University of Kentucky, Arizona State University, and the American Institutes for Research.
Activities of the Center will include:
EDJJ is funded jointly by the US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs and the US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with additional funding from the US Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
For more information on the Center and its activities contact:
Ms. Lili Garfinkel, Associate Director
EDJJ: National Center on Education Disability and Juvenile Justice
at PACER Center
8161 Normandale Blvdouth
Minneapolis, MN 55437
Phone number (952) 838-9000
Email lgarfinkel@pacer.org.
By Hill Walker
Schools that offer comprehensive early intervention programs for antisocial youths and their families may save them from spending their lives in costly human warehouses.
Where school along the road for those who seem bound for prison? It's merely a way station for most. Juvenile criminal behavior has risen dramatically in the U.S. over the past three decades. Young people, who represent about 20 percent of the population, now account for over 40 percent of the reported crimes. Almost half of the youth charged with serious offenses are under 15, and 75 percent are boys.
Antisocial and aggressive behavior is also escalating in schools, where boys are responsible for 90 percent of such behavior. Schools move many antisocial adolescents from mainstream classrooms into school-based, specialized placements or home tutoring programs, or they suspend them. But by and large, such one-dimensional approaches to a multidimensional problem have proven ineffective in preventing the eventual criminal careers of these children.
The research evidence is strong that young boys who are extremely anti-social will probably be arrested during, adolescence (Loeber 1982, 1985). Gerald Patterson and his colleagues at the Oregon Social Learning Center have spent three decades studying the behavior patterns and family characteristics of such children. They discovered that the single best predictor of adolescent criminal behavior is a long established pattern of early school antisocial behavior. This is especially true if the antisocial behavior occurs in many different settings and involves several types of antisocial acts (Patterson and Bank 1986).
Patterson's group also observed another very important step that such boys take on the road to criminal behavior. During, the intermediate grades, antisocial students tend to develop peer groups with values that support delinquent antisocial acts. A member of such a deviant group has an almost 70 percent chance of experiencing a first felony arrest within two years.
Many of these students live in poverty-stricken, dysfunctional homes with parents who have limited parenting skills. These families often experience extreme stress, and this severely disrupts the parents' ability to monitor and discipline their children.
In 1984, Hill Walker joined Patterson and his colleagues in a longitudinal study of two groups of 5th grade antisocial boys. The study sought to determine (1) the possibility of predicting which of the antisocial boys would be arrested during adolescence and (2) the factors that led to their antisocial behavior.
The study initially identified 200 5th grade boys (from a school population of several thousand 5th grade boys) who appeared to be at elevated risk for, antisocial behavior. The study then focused on the 40 most serious cases and on a control group of 40 who were randomly selected from the remaining 160 5th grade boys.
Dramatic differences emerged between the two groups of at-risk boys over the next 7 years. For example, by the 7th grade, 21 of the 40 most antisocial boys had been arrested 68 times for criminal behavior, while only three boys in the control group had been arrested (and each only once). Further, the 5th grade behavior of the very antisocial group was highly predictive of their arrest status up to five years later-, and their general behavior pattern tended to get worse as they progressed through school (Walker et al. 1990).
This consistent pattern occurred in spite of the best efforts of their school and related social agencies to deal with the problems these students presented. The chronic nature of this behavior pattern is a strong indication of its resistance to attempts to improve it. Highly aggressive antisocial behavior is nearly as stable over a decade as I.Q., with correlations of approximately .60 (Quay and Wherry 1986).
Our longitudinal data suggest that three rather simple measures would have predicted the arrest record of nearly 80 percent of the boys in our study who have been arrested to date: (1) teacher ratings of social skills, (2) total negative playground behavior of the boy and his playmates, and (3) discipline contacts with the principal's office (as measured by written file records).
This study also found differences in the parenting skills of the parents of the two groups of boys. The parents of the very antisocial boys were ineffective and inconsistent in their discipline. ignoring an infraction on one occasion and harshly punishing it on another. They were not involved in their children's lives as playmate, mentor, role model, or advocate. They didn't encourage their children and didn't positively manage or interact with them. Finally, they didn't have the minimal problem-solving, and conflict-resolution skills that are essential to meet the challenges of their daily home and work lives.
These most antisocial students can look forward to bleak adolescent and adult lives. They'll probably experience substantial difficulty in adapting to school and vocational settings. They can expect more mental and physical illnesses and problems with social relationships than other people. Further, any children they have will have a high probability of continuing this pattern of antisocial behavior and criminality, since antisocial behavior tends to flow through generations like child abuse.
In coping with antisocial behavior, the school is caught in the middle of a difficult situation that demands far more of its energy, for relatively limited results, than the small number of antisocial students should suggest. Our society can't expect the school to solve this problem alone since it also affects all aspects of the antisocial student's home and community life. However, antisocial students are such a continuously unpleasant and disruptive force at school that educators are motivated to assume leadership in the search for a solution.
The situation isn't hopeless. The federally funded longitudinal study discussed above has recently expanded its focus to begin a long-term study of the effectiveness of an early and vigorous home/school intervention program for preventing antisocial behavior. The primary intervention lasts about a year; but follow-up interventions that are less intensive can continue for several years, until a student's problems are stabilized. This longitudinal study will eventually develop a complete package of specific assessment and remediation programs for each of its areas of intervention. And the resource section at the end of this article includes recommended existing, programs drawn from current sources that address this problem.
What is emerging in the field is the conviction that a successful comprehensive intervention program for antisocial school behavior should contain the following elements:
The most promising intervention programs are those that include a strong family intervention component and direct intervention procedures that are simultaneously applied to the student's school behavior. As we develop and field-test our own program, we expect to develop clear evidence that such a seemingly complex approach to antisocial behavior can succeed-and that it will actually be socially and financially cost-effective. Our society now spends the equivalent of a living wage for criminal to endure their adult years in human warehouses. A fraction of that cost spent on a massive early intervention program could move them toward much more productive adult lives.
Authors' note: This research was supported by a Prevention Intervention Research Centor (PIRC) grant from the National Institute of Mental Health to the regon Social Learning Center for its study on the prevention of conduct disorders in elementary-aged students (John Reid, Project Director).
Hill Walker is Associate Dean, Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation, and Robert Sylwester is Professor of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403.
Reprinted from Educational Leadership, September 1999.
Return to the topHill M. Walker
In the past decade, early childhood educators and primary grade level teachers have been shocked and, in some cases, overwhelmed by changes in the behavioral characteristics of young children entering school. More and more children are entering the schoolhouse door with the following characteristics:
Many preschoolers and young school-age children are now routinely displaying forms of unacceptable behavior in the school setting that would have been rare occurrences just a few years ago (e.g., assaulting teachers, physical aggression toward peers, inappropriate sexual behavior). We are seeing mature acts of deviance in younger and younger groups of our children and youth.
In some sections of the United States, it is not uncommon to see kindergartners wearing gang colors. Instances of young children physically attacking even younger children are being reported. Box 1 describes a recent event that occurred in an Oregon school that illustrates this unfortunate trend. Such shocking acts strain our ability to comprehend how such young children could commit them-but they are real and are increasingly a part of our social fabric.
These disturbing events are akin to "behavioral earthquakes" that seem to come out of nowhere, do incredible damage in a matter of seconds, and require long periods for recovery. What accounts for these changes in the behavior of so many of our children and youth? The answers are complex, not always clear, and often depend on the perspective of the commentator or expert. Clearly, our children reflect the risk factors to which they are exposed in their families, neighborhoods, and the larger society (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, OJJDP, 1995). The more risk factors one is exposed to and the longer one is exposed to them, the greater their negative effects. More and more of our children and youth are being exposed to powerful risk factors in their formative years.
Family-based risk factors include the following:
Neighborhood and community-based risk factors include the following:
Finally, our larger society seems to produce more and more "social toxins" that diminish our collective quality of life and have negative effects on our children and youth. The following are examples of these social toxins:
Children and youth take their cues from adults and model what they see adults do. In the past two decades, our society has provided poor models for its children and youth and has suffered a diminished capacity to safely raise and socialize our offspring.
The collective impact of these risk factors is producing generations of children and youth (a) who see violence as a viable means of solving problems, (b) who don't respect the rights of others, (c) who are not socially responsible, (d) who have not been taught basic manners and social conventions, and (e) who don't value human life as they should.
Box 1
The following, incident incurred in fall of 1996, on the Playground of a Salem, Oregon elementary school. Four, second-grade boys at tempted to suffocate a kindergarten girl by holding her down and covering her nose and mouth so she could not breath. This act was initiated by one of the boys who called himself a gang member and was angry because the girl, who had been his girlfriend, had recently broken up with him. The attempt failed only because one of the boys lost his nerve and stopped participating. The girl reported the incident to school officials, who launched an investigation.
Box 2
I was developing an intervention program for reducing aggressive behavior on the playground. The program called RECESS, was designed for bullies in grades K-3. A second-grade boy was referred for the program for whom behavioral reports were terrible. During a playground recess period, I was observing Ritchie to see if he were eligible for the RECESS program. While I was observing him, Ritchie proceeded to attack a kindergarten boy about two-thirds his size for no apparent reason. Ritchie knocked the boy down and was seriously choking him on the ground. The recess supervisor immediately broke it up and called the school principal and counselor.
While they were escorting him in to call his parents, I decided to ask Ritchie a question. I wanted was in his mind that prompted the attack. So I said to him, "Can you tell me why you were choking that little boy like that?"
He looked at me, in utter amazement, like I was out to lunch, and said, "Well, it was recess!"
Source: Walker, Colvin, and Ramsey (1995)
Box 3
Sarah was a fourth grade girl universally regarded as a holy terror. She was aggressive, manipulative, a natural leader, smart, charming, and a pain in the neck for both school staff and students. Sarah's elementary school was served by a school psychologist named Billie who also served two other elementary schools. Sarah was a regular customer of Billie's each time her schedule brought her to the schoool. Ane day, the vice-principal and counselor were waiting for Billie on the front steps to tell her the latest things Sarah had done on the playground. Billie called Sarah into a conference to hear her side of the story.
Billie: "Sarah, I hear you've been having trouble on the playground again."
Sarah just looked at her, not saying anything.
Trying to engage Sarah in a problem-solving process, Billie said, "Well, what do you think people will say about that?"
Sarah looked at Billie, thought a moment and said, "Well, Billie, some people might say you're not doing your job!"
Source: Personal communication, Duane Webb (1996)
Many children exposed to these factors develop antisocial, aggressive behavior patterns that they ring with them to school. This behavior proves to be a disaster for their school careers and for those who must deal with them. Such children often have atypical views about standards governing appropriate behavior and accepting responsibility for their actions. Boxes 2 and 3 present brief, true vignettes about two children, who seem to have such views.
Preschool and school settings are not well equipped or set up to deal with students like Ritchie and Sarah. They put enormous pressures on the management and instructional skills of teachers, and they instigate numerous conflicts with peers. By the intermediate grades, such children are almost always socially rejected by their teachers and peers.
Even when such children improve, the reputations they have now acquired prevent others from seeing and accepting the positive changes they have made (Hollinger, 1987). This lack of trust, in turn, has the effect of having the antisocial child conclude that positive change may be hopeless and not worth the effort.
Around Grade 4 or 5, these students begin gravitating to each other, primarily because they are rejected by everyone else (see Patterson et al., 1992). They bond into a deviant, disruptive peer group at this stage, which further distances them from normal social networks and activities. Further, they are often assigned to self-contained, alternative settings where they are labeled and sometimes stigmatized.
Many of these children, perhaps a majority, become chronic discipline problems in school; suffer erratic attendance; and, by middle school or early high school, start committing arrestable offenses (Walker, Colvin, & Ramsey, 1995). School dropout is a real possibility for them. A significant majority of crimes are committed by school dropouts (OJJDP, 1995).
There is hope for students like Ritchie and Sarah. But it requires an early and continuing investment by schools and families, principally teachers and parents. We have to emphasize prevention before, at, and following the point of school entry. The entry into preschool or school settings provides one of the first opportunities to access or get at the social-behavioral problems of students, some of whom will be severely at risk.
If we intervene effectively and consistently at this point and involve the three social agents (parents, teachers, peers) who have the greatest influence on the developing child, the chances are relatively good that we can divert them from a destructive path leading to a host of negative, developmental outcomes (Reid, 1993).
Kazdin (1987) argued persuasively that if we have not provided comprehensive early intervention by Grade 3 or 4, then we are unlikely to turn the child around. In such cases, he suggested that we treat the problem much like diabetes, which, at present, cannot be cured. That is, we should continue to provide appropriate social, behavioral, and academic supports; but we are unlikely to achieve anything approaching a cure. This doesn't mean we should ever give up on students like Ritchie and Sarah, but it is a realistic assessment of what we can and cannot expect from our efforts if we miss this developmental window of opportunity."
There are three types of prevention: primary, secondary, and tertiary (see Simeonsson, 1991). Interventions differ somewhat for achieving these three types of prevention.
Appendix A contains a description of a secondary prevention program, called First Step to Success, that is designed for remediating antisocial behavior patterns among at-risk kindergartners. First Step to Success has three components, or modules, that are used in concert with each other:
The overall goal of First Step is to help at-risk children get off to the best possible start in school and to divert them from an antisocial path in their subsequent school careers. Perhaps the most important feature of the program is the partnership it forges between parents and the school in achieving school success for the at-risk child.
The program was developed through a cooperative arrangement among the University of Oregon, the Eugene School District 4J, the Oregon Social Learning Center, and the Oregon Research Institute--and with the help of a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. First Step to Success requires 2-3 months for implementation.
Here is how it works: A First Step consultant (e.g., behavioral specialist, early childhood educator, counselor, school psychologist) initially sets up and operates the program, then turns the school portion over to the classroom teacher. The consultant also works with the parents an the home component of the program and visits the home for 1 hour each week to teach the homeBase skills. The child is followed up and monitored after the program is over to preserve achieved behavioral gains. The First Step consultant usually invests 45-60 hours over the course of the program.
Systematic evaluation of First Step indicates that it has a powerful effect on children's school adjustment and acceptance by teachers and peers (Walker, Kavanagh, Golly, Stiller, Severson, & Feil, in press). Parents, teachers, and kindergartners who have participated in the program have provided positive feedback about their experiences. First Step was featured in an October 1995 20/20 segment of ABC News on teaching emotional intelligence.
John Locke, the English philosopher, introduced the concept of the Tabula Rasa, or blank slate, regarding the newborn child. He saw the child as a blank slate that would be written on as the child developed. What the child became (and what was written on the slate) was a result of the experiences he or she had in growing up. Even if we only partially accept Locke's view, we must acknowledge that, as a society, we seem to be writing garbled and unclear messages on the slates of our children. Our handwriting #9; is often illegible, and the messages we impart are mixed and sometimes incoherent, leading to confusion and an impaired ability to interpret one's social environment.
We need to rededicate ourselves to putting children first and to regaining our ability as a society to raise and socialize them safely-and effectively. The national report cards we receive on the welfare of children are consistently poor and well below acceptable standards (Children First, 1996). Effective school and family partnerships are one of the best vehicles we have for changing this report card.
We are now beginning to reap the bitter harvest of our neglect and failure to nurture our children effectively (American Psychological Association, 1993). The hordes of antisocial and at-risk children entering school today are tomorrow's dropouts and delinquents. As Lisbeth Schorr (1988) has so eloquently argued, the ability to turn things around is still Within Our Reach.
American Psychological Association. (1993). Violence and Youth: Psychology's response. Washington, DC: Author.
Children First for Oregon. (1996). Report card on the status of children in Oregon. Portland: Children First for Oregon (Address: 921 SW Morrison, Suite 418, Portland OR 97205).
Hollinger. J. (1987). Social skills for behaviorally disordered children as preparation for mainstreaming: Theory, practice and new directions. Remedial and Special Education, 8(4), 17-27.
Hughes, J. & Hasbrouck, J. (1996). Television violence: Implications for violence prevention. School Psychology Review, 25(2). 134-151.
Kazdin, A. (1987). Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence. London: Sage.
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (1995) Guide for implementing a comprehensive strategy for serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Patterson, C. R., Reid, J., & Dishion, T (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Reid, J. (1993). Prevention of conduct disorder before and after school entry: Relating interventions to developmental findings. Development and Psychopathology, 5(1/2), 243-262.
Schorr, L. (1988). Within our reach, Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York: Doubleday.
Simeonsson, R. (1991). Primary, secondary. and tertiary prevention in early intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 15, 124-134.
Walker, H. M., Colvin, G. & Ramey, E. (1995). Antisocial behavior in school- Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Walker, H.M., Kavanagh, K., Golly, A., Stiller, B., Severson, H.H., & Feil, E.G. (in press). First Steps: An early intervention approach for preventing school antisocial behavior. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon, Eugene.
Hill M. Walker (CEC Oregon Federation), Co-Director, Institute on violence and Destructive Behavior, College of Education, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 (e-mail: Hill_walker@ccmail.uoregon.edu).
First Step to Success was developed through a 4-year grant (1992-1996) to the author from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
Copyright 1998 CEC
Reprinted from TEACHING Exceptional Children, March/April 1999, by the Council for Exceptional Children.
Return to the topPacer Center's Juvenile Justice Project was the first in the country to address the issues of mental health and learning needs among offenders. In 1994 PACER Center established a training project on youth with disabilities in the juvenile justice system. The primary goals were to provide information and advocacy to professionals and parents about the right to special education services for young offenders who have disabilities; the relationship between the presence of disabilities and involvement in criminal and delinquent behaviors; characteristics of disabilities commonly seen in young offenders; and promising collaborative approaches. A resource manual, training manual and overheads were developed in 1997, and are available through PACER.
The presence of a disability is one risk factor among many that may help explain youthful delinquent or criminal behavior. Other factors include experiencing abuse and neglect, family history of mental illness, family member(s) in the justice system, a history of school failure, the impact of racism, and substance abuse.
Historically, the juvenile justice system has been committed to ensuring both rehabilitation for youth and protecting public safety. Because the risk factors for criminal and delinquent behavior are complex and interrelated, achieving a balance is often a challenging and elusive goal. In addition, each of the factors can impact how a child understands and manages his or her disability.
It is estimated that more than half of the adolescents in correctional settings have one or more disabilities, including emotional, behavioral, learning and developmental disabilities. In some studies of youth in correctional facilities, the rate is as high as 75 percent. The figures are much higher for adolescents in the juvenile justice system than for those in the general population.
In addition to the youth in correctional settings identified with disabilities, there are many other youth who may be disabled but have never been identified as having a disability, have been misdiagnosed, or do not receive the special education services to which they are entitled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the federal special education law.
Most studies show that the rate of re-offending (recidivism) is high among young offenders. In large measure the response from policymakers, politicians, and the public to increase punishment has been inadequate for the needs of this population.
A comprehensive coordinated approach to meeting the needs of offenders with disabilities should include:
Youth with disabilities have many challenges. For youths involved in delinquent and criminal behaviors treatment options may be limited. It is important to determine the reasons for such behavior and develop appropriate interventions tailored to individual needs as well as life circumstances. Rehabilitation should remain the goal of the juvenile justice system so that no young person is lost.
Return to the topThe Building Blocks for Youth initiative released "Youth Crime/Adult/Time: Is Justice Served?" today in Houston, TX at the National Juvenile Defender Leadership Summit. This report follows "And Justice for Some," a comprehensive study that details that youth of color experience more severe treatment than their white peers at every stage of the juvenile justice process. "And Justice for Some" received widespread media coverage and has helped encourage advocacy efforts around the country seeking to address racial inequities in the juvenile justice system.
"Youth Crime/Adult Time: Is Justice Served?", prepared for the Building Blocks for Youth initiative by the Pretrial Services Resource Center, reveals disturbing aspects in the transfer of youth, especially minority youth, to the adult criminal court and raises serious questions about the fairness and appropriateness of prosecuting youth in adult court. Major findings of the study, which examined 18 of the largest urban jurisdictions in the country, are:
To obtain an executive summary, the full report, "Calls For Action", the press release, and fact sheets on transfer, visit the Building Blocks for Youth initiative's web site at: www.buildingblocksforyouth.org.
Recent Building Blocks for Youth initiative reports:
Building Blocks for Youth is an alliance of national and community-based children's advocates, researchers, and law enforcement professionals that seeks to protect minority youth in the justice system and promote rational and effective justice policies. The partners in this initiative are the Youth Law Center, American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center, Communication Works, Juvenile Law Center, Justice Policy Institute, Minorities in Law Enforcement, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and Pretrial Services Resource Center.
For the latest Building Blocks for Youth initiative reports, fact sheets, and materials, visit the Building Blocks for Youth initiative web site at: http://www.buildingblocksforyouth.org and subscribe to the initiative's on-line newsletter. To subscribe, send an email to: info.bby@erols.com.
Return to the topcopyright 1998
Edited by Joseph B. Tulman and Joyce A. McGee"
Produced by the University of the District of Columbia School of Law Juvenile Law Clinic
Sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative
All rights reserved.
The intended audience for this manual is defense attorneys who represent children in delinquency matters and in status offenses; the intended audience includes also disability rights attorneys and other public interest attorneys with an interest in representing children who are enmeshed in the delinquency system.
Children strive to be productive and to be accepted. Children who are marginalized and considered to be delinquent are, in large proportions, also children with education-related disabilities. Typically, children in the delinquency system "failed" in the education system before entering the delinquency system.
Adults responsible for delinquency systems and educational systems across the country have an opportunity to help make those marginalized, delinquent children productive and accepted.
The advocacy described in this manual revolves around the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), a federal law incorporated into state law in all fifty states and in the District of Columbia. (Other laws are relevant to the enforcement of educational rights for children with disabilities, notably -- in the federal law -- section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. With only a few exceptions, however, the authors'. have not addressed or presented those laws in this manual.) The IDEA protects children with education-related disabilities, affording them a right to a free, appropriate public education. This central right under the IDEA provides a path to productivity and to acceptance.
Advocates who read and use this manual can be catalysts or change agents who help move children from delinquency systems back into educational systems that, in turn, can lead those children to jobs and, when appropriate, to higher education. This manual is a "how-to" presentation for that effort. Moreover, the IDEA furnishes a financial incentive for advocates to use special education law on behalf of children in the delinquency system: the IDEA provides for attorneys' fees market rate for those who prevail in asserting special education rights.
Having prepared this manual under the auspices of the Annie E. Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), the authors focused particularly on case precedent from the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits -- circuits with JDAI sites. Lawyers who use this manual should search, whenever appropriate, for additional binding and persuasive authority.
Faculty and law students in the Juvenile Law Clinic of the D.C. School of Law have been using special education advocacy under the IDEA for the majority of the clinic's delinquency clients since 1990. This manual reflects the experience of those clinicians. The authors present case examples, strategies, and theories with the expectation that they will be useful to advocates throughout the country. At the same time, the authors acknowledge emphasizing some laws and practices peculiar to the District of Columbia, and they trust that this bias will not deter or distract the reader.
Copies are available for $15.00 each (includes Postage & Handling). Send payment (check or money order payable to D.C. S.L. Foundation) to Professor Joseph B. Tulman, University of the District of Columbia School of Law, 4200 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Building 38, Room 207, Washington, D.C. 20008.
Also available from the above address for $5.00 each: Symposium: The Unnecessary Detention of Children in the District of Columbia, produced by the District of Columbia Law Review, (with articles applicable to delinquency detention in any U.S. jurisdiction).
Return to the top
![[Home Page]](../images/fape.gif){kind=small}
![[Partners Page]](../images/partners.gif){kind=small}
![[IDEA / Laws Page]](../images/idea.gif){kind=small}
![[No Child Left Behind]](../images/nclb.gif){kind=small}
![[Calendar Page]](../images/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[Pulbications Page]](../images/pubs.gif){kind=small}
![[Search Page]](../images/search.gif){kind=small}