Working Across Agencies: Systemic Initiatives for Addressing Academic Needs of Transition Age Youth in the Juvenile Justice System Jacque Reese, JEdI State Coordinator Arkansas Department of Education Adam Hall, Project Manager Impact Education, Inc. Impact Education, Inc.

“Research and best practices initiatives are contributing to improved practices in juvenile justice. As we continue to learn more about the causes and correlations of delinquency, we are developing a better understanding of how programs and services can help youth. Education is one of these critical services and can assist a troubled youth to return to a law abiding lifestyle.” (Shay Bilchek, former administrator, OJJDP)

Detention Education vs. Corrections Education Different purpose Short lengths of stay vs. long term stay Short term stays are difficult to measure effectiveness No standard system of delivery Carol Cramer Brooks, 2003

Detention Education- General Beliefs Education is the cornerstone of institutional programs The public school design and instructional strategies are not compatible with the needs of the typical juvenile justice populations The public schools have generally abdicated their responsibility to fund and deliver effective education to youth who represent few redeeming qualities. Carol Crammer Brooks, 2003

Detention Education – The Problem Unregulated Lack of consensus regarding purpose Identity Crisis Inappropriate model Untrained and inappropriate staff Carol Crammer Brooks, 2003

Detention Education Goals Maximize learning and remedial opportunities for incarcerated youth Provide wrap-around, holistic services through collaborative programs Carol Crammer Brooks, 2003

Purpose of this Presentation To explain a brief history of JEdI as a model for interagency cooperation. To discuss how JEdI improves student ability and offers transition possibilities for delinquent students. To demonstrate how JEdI offers a tool for the remediation of Arkansas “at risk” students throughout multiple educational systems and settings.

Where have we been? Where are we? Where are we going?

JEdI is: Arkansas’ aggressive approach to providing a statewide quality educational program for its incarcerated and “At-Risk” youth.

JEdI consists of four parts: A web based tutorial program Staff development opportunities Reporting and data gathering Collaboration between agencies

Profiles of Arkansas Juvenile Detention Centers Have only been around within the last years Arkansas has 15 JDCs located in rural and urban areas Operated by Counties Under the direct supervision of County Judge, Sheriff, or Juvenile Judges (45)

TOTAL BEDS available for Juvenile Judges to Utilize 474

Laying the Foundation: The M.O.U State Director of Special Education drafted an agreement between LEAs, JDCs, and the DOE Called a meeting of agencies responsible for providing education to incarcerated youth Required agreement among agencies

PHASE I A web-based educational program was piloted at the Sebastian County Juvenile Detention Center five years ago.

JEdI Software Web based Basic Skills Software Diagnostic and Prescriptive Focuses on areas of weakness, and provides remediation Individualized Lesson Plans allow students to work at their own pace

What Does the JEdI Software Cover? Reading Math Writing Language Arts Science Algebra Information Skills Higher Order Thinking Skills Workforce Readiness Skills

JEdI Software Covers grades 3-12 Correlated to State and National Standards, Benchmarks and Norm Referenced Tests (including the GED 2002) Research Based

Phase II -Winter Training 2003 In February 2003, teachers in the JDCs throughout Arkansas were informed that they were part of a special project called JEdI. Each detention center was asked by the ADE to submit demographic information and academic reports for a research project.

JEdI Project Goals 1.To ensure FAPE in every JDC (Free and Appropriate Public Education) 2.To ensure that the Mathematics and Reading be given priority-as mandated by NCLB 3.To ensure that students in the JDC environment be physically tracked throughout their education 4.To ensure continuity of instruction as students pass into and out of JDC environments One unwritten goal was to compile data about our students so that better decisions could be made about future programs

Snapshot of JDC Students: 43% African American 52% White 4% Hispanic 0.5% Asian 0.5% Native American/Other 28% female 72% male GenderRace

FINS or Delinquents Between years of age 16%-24% are Special Education students Attend school 3-6 hours Monday – Friday May attend school 9.5 to 12 months a year Stay in the JDC an average of 11.6 days 37% are repeat offenders

Phase III- Regional JEdI Sites During , the JDCs were gradually upgraded to Regional sites

JEdI became a two-way street at Regional Sites Juveniles currently residing in detention centers can be placed on the JEdI programs and when released can continue on the program at school, home, libraries, etc. A limited number of “At Risk” and Special Education students from surrounding schools can be placed on the program before they ever come to a JDC -- free of cost to their school

Who participated in Phase III? “At Risk” and Special Ed Students from surrounding schools Juveniles and Educators at the JDC (Regional Site) School Personnel-Administrators, Counselors, SpEd Staff Technology Staff Judges and Probation Officers Parents/ Guardians Transition Programs

What Defines an “At Risk” Student? May spend much of their time in in-room suspension rooms May be sent to the principal’s office often May be in trouble with the law and may be on probation Are failing classes and have few credits Have difficulty in reading on level May have a history of truancy

How Phase III Worked Students in the JDC were placed on the JEdI program Regional information sessions were held with superintendents, principals, special education supervisors, counselors, juvenile judges, and probation officers at each site Schools were invited to participate in additional training held at individual schools when requested

Phase IV: Trainings and Expansion, Continued to train schools that contributed students to the regional sites on how to use our program to benefit their students Expanded JEdI into the school settings to address “At Risk” and Special Ed Populations, as well as those needing remediation.

Academic Outcomes (Feb 2003 – August 2004) Tutorial AreasPreTest Averages PostTest Averages Mathematics60%75% Reading56%75% Language Arts50%64%

Tutorial AreasPreTest Averages PostTest Averages Mathematics55%71% Reading53%73% Language Arts39%51% Special Ed Outcomes (Feb 2003 – August 2004)

JDF Academic Outcomes (August 2005 – December 31, 2005) Tutorial Areas Number of Tests PreTest Averages PostTest Averages Mathematics1,02865%75% Reading50971%80% Language Arts53162%71%

JEdI JDF Student Data (August 2005 – December 31, 2005) Number of Students Time Spent (hours) Academic Units Worked Pretests Lessons & Quizzes Posttests 1,5829,38550,8467,54340,3342,969

JEdI In The Schools Academic Outcomes (August 2005 – December 31, 2005) Tutorial Areas Number of Tests PreTest Averages PostTest Averages Mathematics8,27164%73% Reading2,11072%77% Language Arts4,70964%74%

JEdI In The Schools Student Data (August 2005 – December 31, 2005) Number of Students Time Spent (hours) Time Out of School (hours) Academic Units Worked Pretests Lessons & Quizzes Posttests 16,58258,5256,153344,35058,689266,83118,830

JDF Groups (August 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005) Math Scoring Group Number Pretests Percent of Total Number Posttests Percent of Total 70% - 100%44243%68867% 50% - 69%37336%21521% 0% - 49%21321%12512% Total1,028100%1,028100%

JDF Groups (August 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005) Reading Scoring Group Number Pretests Percent of Total Number Posttests Percent of Total 70% - 100%31161%42383% 50% - 69%12925%5310% 0% - 49%6914%336% Total509100%509100%

JDF Groups (August 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005) Language / Writing Scoring Group Number Pretests Percent of Total Number Posttests Percent of Total 70% - 100%24847%36068% 50% - 69%16030%10419% 0% - 49%12323%6713% Total531100%531100%

Agencies and Collaborating Groups Residential Treatment Facilities Juvenile Judges and their staff Individual Homes and Parents Neighborhood Schools (135) Alternative Education Settings GED programs and Community Colleges After Katrina and Rita, churches and motels Department of Youth Services

What JEdI has Accomplished Implemented a remediation program in every JDC Contributed to the wrap-around service by improving the educational portion of the holistic approach- with continuity Placed emphasis statewide on reading and math instead of trying to teach everything through traditional educational settings and methods Regulated educational programs by increasing reporting requirements and adding a fulltime project coordinator to assist JDCs statewide

Helped JDCs change their overall educational goals by emphasizing that JDCs are short term stay facilities and different from long term correctional facilities that can offer a wide range of courses necessary for students to earn HS credit Created a JEdI Website ( and trained staff to perform online reporting to the DOE. Through AJDA, the educators have formed their own group and provided training and the sharing of information Provided a standard and successful system of delivery of educational programs while each detention center maintained its uniqueness

For questions and requests for followup: Adam Hall Phone: Jacque Reese –State JEdI Coordinator Phone: Or

A Site to Visit to find out what is happening with JDC Education and short cut to the JEdI Program Softwarewww.arkjedi.com-