1. A Spotlight on Multi-tiered Interventions and Supports through an Advocacy and Policy Lens in Juvenile Facilities  Simon G. Gonsoulin, Principal Researcher, Project Director NDTAC  Matthew Cregor, Staff Attorney, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economics Justice  PBIS: Building Capacity & Partnerships to Enhance Educational Reform/2014 PBIS Leadership Forum/Rosemont, Illinois

2. Part I. Background  The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention regularly reports data on conditions and youth in juvenile facilities.  The Southern Education Foundation analyzed the OJJDP’s data and surveys to produce Just Learning, an invaluable report on the state of education in juvenile facilities in the U.S. and the South.  The charts below are from the Southern Education Foundation’s report: http://southerneducation.org/

3. How Many Youth Are in Juvenile Facilities? “The combination of a dismal economy, falling crime rates, lawsuits, and tireless advocacy led multiple communities to close entire facilities.” National Juvenile Justice Network Chart from Southern Education Foundation, Just Learning p. 10 (2014)

4. Why Are Youth Being Sent to Juvenile Facilities? 37% confined for an offense against a person 24% confined for a property offense 7% confined for a drug offense 32% were confined for public order offenses (disorderly conduct), technical violations (of juvenile probation order), and status offenses (e.g., curfew, truancy). Almost two-thirds of youth were confined for offenses that did not involve directly harming another person. Chart from Southern Education Foundation, Just Learning p. 9 (2014)

5. Who Are the Youth in the Juvenile Facilities?  40.6% African American  32.5% White  22.3% Hispanic  1.7% Native American  1.0% Asian  1.8% Other  30% of youth had diagnosed learning disabilities (yet only 22% were receiving special education) Chart from Southern Education Foundation, Just Learning p. 7 (2014)

6. What Weight Do They Carry? Chart from Southern Education Foundation, Just Learning p. 14 (2014)

7. What is the Quality of Education They Receive? Barriers:  Attendance prohibited as punishment  “Inadequate security staffing”  Lack of special educational services  Failure to diagnose special educational needs  Hodge-podge of service providers Chart from Southern Education Foundation, Just Learning p. 14 (2014)

8. Federal Lens  June 9 Jointly Issued Memo USDOE & DOJ  From: Attorney General Eric. H. Holder and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan  To: Chief State School Officers and State attorney’s General

9. June 9 Memo  Overarching points for youth who come into contact with our juvenile justice systems:  Youth obtain skills/competencies necessary for transition home/community  Academic and career supports and services  Disabled students must have access to high-quality educational services  Youth must make meaningful educational progress while confined

10. June 9 Memo  Overarching points for youth who come into contact with our juvenile justice systems: (cont.)  Individuals with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 obligate public agencies to provide educational services to eligible youth in confinement.

11. ED and DOJ Working Together to Influence State and Local Policy and Practices  Joint release of School Discipline Guidance Package  Released 2011-2012 Civil Rights Data Collection included school discipline data from long term secure facilities  Partnered with philanthropic community in release of the School Discipline Consensus Project

12. ED and DOJ Working Together to Influence State and Local Policy and Practices  Sponsored the 2013 National Academy of Sciences Report—Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach  Funded three model demonstration projects to improve reentry of youth with disabilities from JJ facilities

13. Overarching Characteristics for Providing High Quality Educational Services for Youth in Long -Term Secure Care Facilities  One: A safe, healthy facility-wide climate that prioritizes education, provides the conditions for learning, and encourages the necessary behavioral and social supports services that address the individual needs of all youth, including youth with disabilities and English learners.

14. Overarching Characteristics for Providing High Quality Educational Services for Youth in Long -Term Secure Care Facilities  Two: Necessary funding to support educational opportunities for all youth within long-term secure care facilities, including youth with disabilities and English learners, comparable to opportunities for peers who are not system-involved.

15. Overarching Characteristics for Providing High Quality Educational Services for Youth in Long -Term Secure Care Facilities  Three: Recruitment, employment, and retention of qualified educational staff with skills relevant to juvenile justice settings who can positively impact long-term student outcomes through demonstrated abilities to create and sustain effective teaching and learning environments.

16. Overarching Characteristics for Providing High Quality Educational Services for Youth in Long -Term Secure Care Facilities  Four: Rigorous and relevant curricula aligned with State academic and career/technical standards that utilize instructional methods, tools, materials and practices that promote college and career readiness.

17. Overarching Characteristics for Providing High Quality Educational Services for Youth in Long -Term Secure Care Facilities  Five: Formal processes and procedures— through statute, memoranda of understanding, and practice—that ensure successful, navigable transitions across multiple child-serving systems, and smooth reentry into communities.

18. Q & A

19. Contact Information  Simon G. Gonsoulin, Project Director – NDTAC  sgonsoulin@air.org sgonsoulin@air.org  Matthew Cregor, Staff Attorney - Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economics Justice  mcregor@lawyerscom.org mcregor@lawyerscom.org