According to the Sentencing Project, the number of youth committed to juvenile facilities across the country has steadily declined since 1999. But a significant number of young people remain incarcerated, and while in custody, they are legally entitled to receive education services. A recent report from Bellwether Education Partners attempts to shed light on the juvenile justice education policies in all fifty states, as well as Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.
To get the lay of the land, researchers reviewed state statutes, codes and regulations, other relevant legal documents, and the websites of local and state agencies responsible for youth in custody. Their findings reveal “confoundingly complex and opaque” systems that make general analysis and state-to-state comparisons difficult. Overall, they conclude that juvenile justice education in the U.S. lacks robust and coherent policy in three key areas: governance, accountability, and finance.
Governance policies determine who is responsible for providing youth in custody with education services. They vary widely across the country, with at least sixteen distinct models in use. In many states, more than one agency is responsible for providing education services to incarcerated youth. For example, in twenty-eight states, the agency that educates youth in local detention centers may be different than the agency responsible at state-run facilities. Furthermore, some states allow custodial agencies to contract with LEAs, private providers, or charter schools to provide services. As a result, most states have a fragmented system where students can easily fall through the cracks.
Like governance, accountability also varies widely across states. In all but two states, SEAs are responsible for holding juvenile justice education programs accountable. Twenty-nine of those states include these programs in their accountability system for public schools, but that doesn’t necessarily mean being subject to school report cards or data dashboards. Three states have built separate accountability systems. States use a wide range of measures to evaluate performance, but very few have indicators for what students are expected to achieve while in state custody. Instead, approximately half use post-incarceration indicators, such as successfully securing employment or enrolling in a job training program, K–12 setting, or postsecondary program. Only nineteen states define what happens when programs underperform (including nine states that directly intervene in poorly performing programs), and an additional fifteen provide technical assistance to struggling programs (five of which also directly intervene). Oregon and Florida are the only states that directly stated their willingness to shut down or reassign consistent poor performers.
The researchers note that, although states’ approved ESSA plans were the most reliable source of information on accountability policies, what was in the plans sometimes conflicted with on-the-ground reports from those overseeing juvenile justice education. Furthermore, in a reflection of fragmented governance, programs are often required to submit data to multiple government agencies, and the agencies’ distinctive goals can be in conflict and weaken accountability incentives.
Finance policies determine how funding is allocated to the agencies responsible for education in juvenile justice facilities. Although many states receive some federal dollars, funding is primarily a state and local responsibility. It should come as no surprise, then, that policies vary widely. Many states—like California, Florida, and Hawaii—make use of their funding models for traditional public schools to determine per pupil funding in juvenile justice facilities. Others, like Alaska and West Virginia, allocate earmarked money to the state department of education or its equivalent. Four states have established special funds to educate youth in custody, while two others have established shared agreements to pay for educating students in state facilities.
The report concludes with six recommendations the authors believe will set states and their juvenile justice facilities on the right path. They include reducing governance fragmentation, perhaps by making one agency responsible for providing education services in all facilities; creating meaningful accountability systems; setting clear goals that focus on short-term academic growth and successful transitions back to the community; investing in innovative assessments and data collection tools, uniform student records databases, and strong data-sharing practices; publicly reporting data to improve transparency and support rigorous research; and ensuring that finance policy is dictated by governance and accountability, rather than the other way around. Implementing these recommendations will take a considerable amount of time, effort, and funding, but the students in juvenile justice facilities deserve nothing less.
Source: Paul Beach, Brian Robinson, Hailly T.N. Korman, and Linea Koehler, “Double Punished: Locked Out of Opportunity,” Bellwether Education Partners (June 2022).
