Weiss Jon (GSO) Final 03-10-2016

School of Graduate Studies
Bemidji State University
1500 Birchmont Dr. NE, #48
Bemidji, MN 56601-2699
218-755-2027

Running Head: EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORAL i
THE EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS IN A
CORRECTIONAL SETTING
by
Jonathon P. Weiss
____________________
A Research Paper Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN SPECIAL EDUCATION
BEMIDJI STATE UNIVERSITY
Bemidji, Minnesota, USA
March 2016

Running Head: EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ii
STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR
Brief quotations from this research paper are allowable without special permission,
provided accurate acknowledgement of the source is indicated. Requests for permission
to use extended quotations or to reproduce the manuscript in whole or in part may be
granted by the Department of Professional Education or the Dean, College of Health
Sciences and Human Ecology when the proposed purpose is in the interest of scholarship.
In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
Signed: _________________________
__________________________________________________
APPROVAL BY RESEARCH PAPER ADVISOR
THIS RESEARCH PAPER HAS BEEN APPROVED ON THE DATE SHOWN
BELOW:
__________________________________________ _______________________
Dr. Rachele Schafer, Date
Committee Chair
Professor of Professional Education
__________________________________________ _______________________
Dean, College of Health Sciences and Date
Human Ecology

Running Head: EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORAL iii
THE EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS IN A
CORRECTIONAL SETTING
Jonathon P. Weiss
Improving our knowledge of emotional and behavior disabilities for both youth and adult
offenders while developing more effective services to achieve positive life outcomes. This
article explores if a positive correlation exists based on similarity of traits between
incarcerated juveniles and adults and whether emotional or behavioral risk factors,
observed and documented within the correctional education system are connected to
recidivism into incarcerated adulthood.
Keywords: ABE, adolescence, age-crime-curve, closed custody, correctional facility,
correctional education, custody classification, criminal behavior, DOC, delinquency,
emotional behavioral disorder (EBD), education, incarcerated, juvenile justice system, life-
course theory, recidivism, risk-factors, special education, and youthful offenders.
Approved by:
__________________________________________ _______________________
Committee Chair Date
__________________________________________
Committee Member
__________________________________________
Committee Member
__________________________________________
Graduate Faculty Representative

Running Head: EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORAL iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express sincere appreciation to my committee, Dr.
Rachele Schafer, Dr. Elizabeth Hagensen, and Ms. Miriam White for their constant
feedback and support. Without their suggestions, this study would not have been as
strong.
In addition, special thanks to my work colleagues for serving as my first readers and
editors, and especially my wife and children for their patience, and belief in me
throughout this process.

Running Head: EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORAL v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................viii
Chapter Page
1 Introduction
Background...................................................................................................... 6
Statement of the Problem............................................................................... 12
Research Questions........................................................................................ 14
Significance of the Research Problem and Study .......................................... 15
Limitations and Assumptions......................................................................... 16
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................ 18
Summary Statement........................................................................................ 26
2 Review of the Literature
Significance of EBD in Terms of Outcomes with Youth and Adult Offenders 27
Comparable Risk Factors Associated with Recidivism .................................. 30
Risk Factors for Delinquency ......................................................................... 30
Risk Factors for Adult Recidivism .................................................................. 34
Development and Life-Course Theories ......................................................... 35
Age-Crime Curve ............................................................................................ 36
Related Charts and Form................................................................................ 38
Summary Statement......................................................................................... 44
3 Methodology
Statement of Intent .......................................................................................... 45
Restatement of Research Questions................................................................ 45
Statement of Research Hypotheses ................................................................. 46
Participant Selection and Demographics ....................................................... 46
Instruments Used ............................................................................................ 47
Procedures ...................................................................................................... 47
4 Results
5 Discussion and Conclusion
References .........................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

Running Head: EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORAL vi
Appendix A. Risk Factors and At-Risk Assessment Grids .............................................. 84
Appendix B. Juvenile Correctional Facility Profiles and Statistics.................................. 87
Appendix C. Adult Correctional Facility Profiles and Statistics...................................... 88
Appendix D: 5 Level Custody Classification System....................................................... 89

Running Head: EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORAL vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Risk and Protective Factors by Domain ........................................................... 38
2. Lamberti’s Central Eight Risk Factors for Criminal Recidivism .................... 39
3. LSI-R / LS/CMI At-Risk Assessment Grid........................................................ 40
4. Youth Incarcerations Rate: United States vs. Other Nations .......................... 41
5. Group A......................................................................................................... 51
6. Group C .......................................................................................................... 65
7. Group F........................................................................................................... 55
8. Group M.......................................................................................................... 63
9. Group P........................................................................................................... 57
10. Group T........................................................................................................... 59
11. At-Risk Scores Arranged Per Group & Assessment ....................................... 67

Running Head: EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORAL
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Five Level Custody Classification System .......................................................... 7
2. General Characteristics: Demonstrated by Individual with EBD...................... 29
3. An example of an age-crime curve .................................................................... 42
4. Form 1: Juvenile Intake Survey (MCF-Red Wing) ........................................... 42
5. Form 2: Adult Intake Survey (MCF-Saint Cloud)............................................. 43
6. MN DOC Entire Facility Population by Age Percentage .................................. 50
7. Juvenile/STW/Total Population Comparison .................................................... 51
8. MN DOC Adult Facility Population by Age & Facility.................................... 52
9. MN DOC Juvenile & Adult Population Comparison by Age ........................... 52
10. Study Participants by Age and Group................................................................ 53
11. Group A At-Risk Comparison ........................................................................... 54
12. Group C At-Risk Comparison ........................................................................... 56
13. Group F At-Risk Comparison............................................................................ 58
14. Group F Special Education Service Areas......................................................... 58
15. Group M At-Risk Comparison........................................................................... 60
16. Group P At-Risk Comparison............................................................................ 62
17. Group T At-Risk Comparison............................................................................ 64
18. Total Group At-Risk Comparison...................................................................... 66
19. Adults with Documented Prior Juvenile Delinquency....................................... 66
20. Current Sentence type for Adult Populations .............................................. 67
21. Big Four Risk Factors by Group Comparison ................................................... 67

Running Head: EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORAL 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Please note, this study solely focused on male youthful offenders. It appears based
on the research available within the field of education; as well as, criminal justice, the
presence of Emotional Behavioral Disorders (EBD) appear to be increasing dramatically
in our classrooms around our nation. As Mader & Butrymowicz (2014) explain:
“Thousands of children continue to be caught up in the juvenile justice system each
year. At least one in three arrested has a disability, ranging from emotional
disability like bipolar, to learning disabilities like dyslexia, and some researchers
estimate the figure may be as high as seventy percent. Across the country, students
with emotional disabilities are three times more likely to be arrested before leaving
high school than the general population” (Mader & Butrymowicz, 2014, p. 1)
As a result, researchers and practitioners alike understand that the majority of youth
involved with the juvenile justice system struggle to make academic progress specifically
in the areas of reading, math, writing, social studies and science, so much so, that
“approximately, one-third of America’s incarcerated youth have identified disabilities”
(Mathur, & Schoenfeld, 2010, p. 20).
The term youth is best understood as a period of transition from the dependence of
childhood to adult independence between the ages of 16 and 19 years. Throughout this
study, young adults will be defined as those persons between the age of 18 and 21 years.
Compared with a prevalence rate of ten to twelve percent in the public schools, at least
thirty to sixty percent of incarcerated youth have disabilities and require special education
services (Read, N. W., 2014).

While disability does not cause delinquency and school failure; educational
disabilities, such as emotional behavioral disorders, significantly increase the risk factors
for involvement with the courts and for incarceration (Christle, Nelson & Jolivette, 2002).
Criminal behavioral risk factors such as antisocial attitudes, antisocial peers, antisocial
personality pattern and history of antisocial behavior exist in order to predict adult
offending, also known as the “Big Four” criminological factors; however, there is an
extensive body of literature about crime causation or offending through life. Yet a single
unifying risk factor between juvenile delinquency, and later adult offending has not been
identified. The culmination of several risk factors, such as individual, family, school and
community factors, often will increase a youth’s likelihood of reoffending (Shader, 2012).
When attempting to establish predictable indicators of persistent offending between
juvenile and adult offending one must begin by understanding patterns of behavior and
what factors led to such behavior. General risk factors are defined as individual or social
hazards that cause or increase the likelihood of having a negative or harmful outcome, such
as later adult offending (Fraser, Galinsky & Richman, 1999).
As a result, risk factors are those things that we know place us at increased
likelihood of harm while protective factors tell us about those factors that buffer the effects
of risk factors or decrease the likelihood of harm. In this study we explore harm in terms
of later adult offending and resiliency in terms of presentation of juvenile delinquency and
absence of later adult offending. Resiliency on the other hand, is defined as characteristics
that allows a person to make appropriate behavioral choices in the presence of multiple risk
factors (Finley, 1994).

Now, in terms of risk versus resilient behavior; according to Bernard (1995) in
Fostering Resilience in Children, “About half to two-thirds of children growing up in
families with mentally ill, alcoholic, abusive, or criminally involved parents or in poverty-
stricken families overcome the odds and turn a life trajectory of risk into one that manifests
resilience” (p. 2). That leaves one-third of the youth population vulnerable to at-risk
behavior. In addition, “an individual’s, a family’s, or a community’s ability to cope or
bounce back from significant adverse life situations or stresses in such a way that are not
only effective, but result in an increased ability to respond to future adversity” (Mangham,
McGrath, Reid, & Stewart, 1995, p. 8).
The intention of the study is to establish the fact that offending and incarceration
outcomes impact an incarcerated individual’s behavior. In addition, Mrazek and Haggerty
(1994) broadly defined risk factors as “Those characteristics, variables, or hazards that, if
present for a given individual, rather than someone selected from general population, will
develop a disorder” (p. 127). For the purpose of this study the focus will be on one of the
factors identified, Emotional Behavioral Disorders.
According to Dr. William Dikel (2014):
“Students identified with an emotional behavioral disability comprise eight percent
of the special education population, at a male-to-female ratio of 80:20. The
percentage of EBD students increases over the years, from approximately four
percent in the 6-7 year old group to thirteen percent in the 16-17 year old group.
The higher percentage in secondary school reflects, for some students, late
recognition of their significant emotional behavioral disability” (p. 218).

Thus, as with many disabilities, there is some level of ambiguity in the recognized
definition of Emotional Behavioral Disorders (EBD). An emotional behavioral disorder is
defined by Minnesota Statute 3525.1329 (2007) as establishing a pattern of one or more of
the following emotional or behavioral responses:
a. Withdrawal or anxiety, depression, problems with mood, or feelings of self-worth;
b. Disordered thought processes with unusual behavior patterns and atypical
communication styles; or
c. Aggression, hyperactivity, or impulsivity.
For clinical significance, the established pattern of emotional or behavioral responses
must unfavorably affect educational or developmental performance, including
intrapersonal, academic, vocational, or social skills; be significantly different from
appropriate age, cultural, or ethnic norms; and be more than temporary, expected responses
to stressful events in the environment. In addition, it is important to remember that EBD
can also co-exist with other disabling conditions. Adding to its complexity is that, “The
EBD category is the only special education category that is not based on a specific
disability” (Dikel, 2014, p. 216).
According to Dr. K.W. Malmgrem and Meisel (2002):
“Youth with Emotional Behavioral Disorders who are involved with multiple
service agencies experience multiple risk factors in childhood. These risk factors
include academic and behavioral problems, experience with abuse and neglect, high
rates of mobility, and parental incarceration. These characteristics have shown to
consistently associate with negative school and community outcomes that extend
into adulthood” (p.227).

Consequently, a young offender who receives service in the EBD category, along
with their academic performance, and at-risk behavior can serve as a predictor of future
delinquency and recidivism, for without academic skills, youth already in the juvenile
system face a list of social and economic difficulties upon release. They are also at an
elevated risk of long-term failure in academic or social situations (Mathur, S. R., &
Schoenfeld, 2010). Yet, how about a relationship between emotional or behavioral
disorders and later adult offending?
According to Pajer (1998), “The relationship between delinquent behavior among
boys and criminal behavior among men is an excellent example of what developmental
psychopathologists call homotypic continuity” (p.862)." Setting up a relationship between
a disorder at one point in time and the same symptoms in the same or a similar disorder at
a further point in time. Next, Soderstrom (2004) tested psychiatric factors for associations
with violent recidivism or relapse and lifetime history of aggression (LHA). Soderstrom’s
conclusions showed that Conduct Disorder (CD), Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD), and Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) were all associated with violent
recidivism, where the individuals would have to readmit themselves to their psychologist
or psychiatrist (p.271).
According to Babinski, Hartsough & Lambert (1999), “Establishing a connection
that once an individual is diagnosed with one or more of these behavioral disorders,
it is very likely then, that they will continue to have it for most of their lives.
Individuals who have both hyperactivity-impulsivity and conduct problems are the
adults who will have a higher percentage of arrests later in life” (p.347).

Consistent with behavioral research, Soderstrom (2004) found, “Personality models
associated with high LHA scores link antisocial personality disorders with the results
showing that the majority of emotional or behavioral disorders have a strong relationship
to aggression. In the end, between childhood and adult onset disorders, hyperactivity and
conduct disorder behavioral scores were highly correlated with crime and aggression”
(p.273). In addition Mary Wagner (1995) found that, “The primary reason for the poor
outcomes academically or socially was the fact that, in general, students in the EBD
category rarely receive adequate treatment for their underlying mental health disorders”
(p.95).
Background
This research is founded in observation and experience of the researcher.
Specifically, as an adult basic educator for incarcerated youth and adults at the Minnesota
Correctional Facility - Stillwater, this researcher observed similarity in both academic
performance and overall behavior between the two populations, juvenile and adult
incarcerated students. This left the researcher wondering if these indicators in youth could
be predictive for adult offending. Within this period of time, this researcher noticed
tendencies in the youthful offenders that may compare to emotional behavioral disorders
factors in the young adult offenders who have transitioned into this level 4 (see figure 1)
Adult Closed Custody, Minnesota Correctional Facility (MCF).

Figure 1. Five Level Custody Classification System
These young men come into an ABE classroom with few academic skills, many
behavior problems and possible substance abuse issues that serve as challenges within the
educational and social setting.
Within the context of the discussion then, research indicates that approximately,
100,000 individuals between the ages of 15 to 21 are currently incarcerated in the United
States (table 4). Thus, based on the need previously explained the intention is to determine
if a relationship exists based on behavior similarities between juvenile incarceration and
current adult incarcerated offenders. Based on peer observation, the trend cannot be solely
based on academic achievement. Therefore, what are the emotional or behavior risk-factors
that may have an impact on an incarcerated juvenile and increase the chance of later being
or not being imprisoned as an adult?
Many youth in society engage in risky behaviors. The nature of the risk depends on
behavior and the decision-making process. Yet, the usual list of risky behavior may include
cheating, vandalism, involvement in physical confrontations, or involvement in gang
related activities. Minor school or society based minor legal infractions, and rule-breaking
are the norm throughout adolescence. In comparison, according to Wright and Wright
(1994) the following potential at-risk predictors may help identify possible similarities
between juvenile and adult offenders incarcerated:

First, minor offenses normally do not lead to most serious crimes in adulthood.
There is a shift from property crimes to personal crimes seem to occur during the
age of adolescence. The age of consent is used as an indicator, as an adult is the
single best predictor for future criminal thinking or behavior as an adult. Lastly,
who are the chronic offenders (p. 4).
As a result, the purpose is to outline for the audience the need and how the need is
related to the discussion of those adolescents who do engage in high-risk serious and
violent criminal behaviors, thus meriting attention by the judicial system. Please keep in
mind that, although, the majority of the juveniles do not continue to engage in criminal
behavior into adulthood, some adolescents who continue to practice risky behavior remain
in this cycle into adulthood.
In addition, in order to better comprehend incarcerated behavior any educational
research such as this study, must consider an incarcerated individual’s at-risk behavior
decision-making throughout a lifetime. By utilizing the age-crime-curve, discussed by T.E.
Moffitt & A. Caspi (2001), found within the field of Criminal Justice, this research can
examine onset crime, persistence crime, and desistance crime, and whether there are any
measurable EBD similarity traits between the juvenile incarcerated and adult incarcerated
based on emotional and behavioral risk factors and age (p. 355). Such understanding and
knowledge would benefit correctional educators, caseworkers, probation officers and
policy makers, as well as, potential mainstream educators all of whom encounter deviant
youth at various points on their criminal trajectory.
Within the targeted audience, educators must be cognizant of the importance of a
trusting professional relationship to work effectively with behaviorally challenged

students. According to Dr. William Dikel, “It can be difficult to connect with students who
have externalizing behaviors and poor impulse control … the student may have difficulty
building trust with teachers as well” (2014, p. 126). As an educator then, our first
responsibility is to create a safe classroom environment that is predictable, firm, yet fair
and consistent. In addition, “A teacher’s attitude is crucial in creating an emotional
environment in the classroom in which students who have mental health or behavioral
disorders feel safe and secure” (Dikel, 2014, p. 126).
This study expands current research to examine more deeply the specific factors
which link adolescent deviance to adult criminality. Examination of factors such as
criminal behavioral, understanding the emotional behavioral risk-factors that influence
criminal offending, can aid professionals in understanding student offender needs and
developing interventions that may influence behavior and recidivism.
First, understanding the emotional behavioral predictors of criminal behavior and
conduct that are observed while a youth, yet still present as an adult may be beneficial in
preventing recidivism among adults with social or behavioral disorders. The Minnesota
study survey offers this example:
“Youth in correctional facilities report engaging in more illegal and anti-social
behavior than peers, including the commission of property crimes and interpersonal
violence. Risk-taking and impulsivity appear to be higher among the population of
youth in correctional facilities in most areas” (Minnesota Student Survey, 2010, p.
3).
We know that both youth and adult crime are on the decline since the early 2000’s (FBI,
2009), this may be related to decline in arrests. We should note, though, that the rate of

decline between youth and adult arrests is dramatically different. Youth arrests decreased
only one percent while adult arrest decreased by 20 percent during the same timeframe.
What does this mean to transition of youthful offenders into the adult criminal justice
system? This leaves us with the questions about risk factors present in youth that may be
predictive of later adult offending.
The second factor for consideration is understanding the emotional behavioral risk-
factors that influence recidivism. According to J. Steven Lamberti (2007), “A predominant
approach to understanding and preventing arrest and incarceration in the general population
includes the principles of risk, needs, and responsivity” (p. 774). This framework states
that individuals with criminal recidivism have many needs, but only certain needs are
associated with criminal behavior and therefore should be the target of prevention
strategies. Lamberti’s (2007) Eight Primary Risk Factors of Recidivism, represented on
table 2, and illustrates the predictors of future criminal behavior in adults.
Table 1. Lamberti’s Central Eight Risk Factors for Criminal Recidivism
Factor Risk Dynamic Need
History of
antisocial
behavior*
(non-criminogenic)
Early and continuing involvement
in a number and variety of
antisocial acts in a variety of
settings
Build noncriminal alternative
behavior in risky situations
Antisocial
personality
pattern*
Adventurous pleasure seeking,
weak self-control, restlessly
aggressive
Build problem-solving skills,
self-management skills, anger
management, and coping skills
Antisocial
cognition*
Attitudes, values, beliefs, and
rationalizations supportive of
crime; cognitive emotional states
of anger, resentment and
defiance; criminal versus
reformed identity; criminal versus
anti-criminal identity
Reduce antisocial cognition,
recognized risky thinking and
feeling, build up alternative less
risky thinking and feeling, adopt
a reform and/or anti-criminal
identity
Antisocial
attitudes*
Close association with criminal
others and relative isolation from
Reduce association with
criminal others, enhance

anti-criminal others; immediate
social support for crime
association with anti-criminal
others
Family and / or
martial
Two key elements are nurturance
and/or caring and monitoring
and/or supervision
Reduce conflict, build positive
relationships, enhance
monitoring and supervision
School and / or
work
Low levels of performance and
satisfactions in school and/or
work
Enhance performance, rewards,
and satisfactions
Leisure and / or
recreation
Low levels of involvement and
satisfaction in anti-criminal
leisure pursuits
Enhance involvement, rewards,
and satisfactions
Substance Abuse Abuse of alcohol or other drugs
Source: Lamberti (2007, p. 8)
Note. *Big Four Risk Factors: the most highly correlated with criminal behavior among all other factors.
The third and final factor includes understanding offender needs may influence
behavior and recidivism. According to the responsivity principle within the fields of
psychology and criminal justice, an individual’s likelihood of benefiting from a particular
intervention is determined by internal and external factors. Internal responsivity factors
refer to individual offender characteristics such as: motivation, personality characteristics,
cognitive and intellectual deficits, and demographic variables (Kennedy, 2015). External
responsivity factors are characteristics of treatment interventions or programs, such as
whether a program provides outreach (Kennedy, 2015). Some established risk factors for
criminal recidivism are static, such as criminal history. However, others can be modified
by interventions that target the needs listed on Table 2 (Lamberti, 2007). Note that the big
four criminogenic risk factors are history of antisocial behavior (non-criminogenic),
antisocial personality pattern, antisocial cognition, and antisocial attitudes are the most
highly correlated with criminal behavior among all other factors.
This study of shared emotional and behavioral risk-factors between incarcerated
juveniles and adults will contribute to the field by establishing a clearer understanding of
similar traits between juvenile incarcerated and adult incarcerated. Specifically, do juvenile

and adult offenders who re-offend share similar emotional or behavioral related risk
factors? In this research, the research question asks; does existing data on recidivism from
the field of corrections, and with the sub-fields of education and transitions (transitioning
back to the community) provide any additional measurable positive similarities,
relationships or patterns between the incarcerated?
Statement of the Problem
“The prevalence of youth with disabilities is three to five times greater in juvenile
corrections (this includes diversion programs, boot camps, challenge programs, traditional
probation and incarceration), than in public school populations” (Rutherford & Nelson,
1986, p. 27). As a result, when the special education system fails youth and they end up in
justice system, many stay for years or decades.
The majority of adults in American prisons have a disability, according to a 1997
Bureau of Justice Statistics survey. Although, data has not been updated, experts
attribute the high percentage of individuals with disabilities in the nation’s bloated
prison population - which has grown seven hundred percent since 1970 - in part to
deep problems in the education of children with special needs. (Mader &
Butrymowicz, 2014, p. 2).
As a result, it appears based on the research available within the field of education; as well
as, criminal justice, the presence of EBD appear to be increasing dramatically in our
classrooms around our nation. This indicates the prevalence of behavioral problems among
children and young adults are substantial. “For most youth, behavior problems are cited as
a reason for the initial referral for special education related services” (Malmgren & Meisel,
2002, p. 217). Many surveys indicate that the presence of emotional behavioral disorders

vary among youth, ranging between two and six percent in K-12 students. This percentage
translates into 1.3 to 3.8 million cases of emotional behavioral disorders among the school
and pre-college population (Carney, 2001). Within corrections, the numbers are even more
staggering.
In addition, research indicates that identifying and addressing the emotional and
behavioral needs of our nation’s youth within our juvenile justice system continues to be a
critical issue. As the nation’s behaviorally challenged adolescents’ cycle through the
juvenile justice system, their unmet emotional and behavioral needs intensify, compounded
by behavioral referrals while being incarcerated that further contribute to a future of
recidivism and criminal activity into adulthood.
According to Malmgren & Meisel (2002), “Prior to the formal special education
referral process, an estimated forty-eight percent of youth experience difficulties or delays
in multiple academic areas” (p. 217). Thus, identifying unmet needs may be beneficial to
reducing juvenile offending and/or recidivism and later adult offending. It is important to
note, disabling conditions do not cause criminal behavior, yet some behaviors associated
with the disability may be associated with the criminal behavior (Rutherford, & Nelson,
1986). Within our nation’s behaviorally challenged adolescents, according to Marthur and
Schoenfeld (2010), “Learning disabilities and emotional or behavioral disorders are about
equally represented between forty-five and forty-two percent” (p. 22). This study was
conducted on a similar population that could emulate that previously stated forty-two
percent of students that receive special education services. Thus, in order to bridge any
potential achievement and behavior gap, juvenile offenders face greater challenges
compared to their peers. It is a challenge that will follow them into adulthood.

Therefore, the motivation behind this study is to see if a relationship exists based
on shared traits between incarcerated juveniles and adults and whether emotional or
behavioral risk factors, observed and documented within the correctional education system
are connected to recidivism into incarcerated adulthood.
Research Questions
Although, the primary goal of this research is to explore measurable EBD similarity
traits between the juvenile incarcerated and adult incarcerated based on emotional and
behavioral risk factors, it is necessary to understand our current management of juvenile
offenders. It must also be understood why there are two separate justice systems. In terms
of historical perspective, a separate American juvenile justice system was established in
order prevent and respond to the unique needs of juvenile offenders by providing
coordinated prevention and intervention programs instead of isolation and confinement. As
well as, upholding public safety, maintaining offenders’ accountability, and providing
treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of juveniles and their families.
The primary impetus and largest difference between separate systems is that juveniles
“need help, not punishment,” (MCF-Stillwater, 2012, p. 9) while also sparing them the
long term consequences of criminal conviction by sealing records to stop the mistakes of
youth from haunting them. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP), “99% of Americas youth offenders eventually are being released,”
(MCF-Stillwater, 2012, p. 8). This explains why it is critical to identify any potential
measurable relationship between juvenile and adult incarceration, specifically were those
affected by recidivism also affected by emotional or behavioral related risk factors, given
that 99% of juveniles eventually are released, the need for prediction of recidivism is

paramount, because if accurate prediction of recidivism occur, deviant cycles and patterns
can be addressed before such juveniles are released. Thus, if knowledge of the patterns and
cycles that lead to recidivism allows for proactive responses and programming, it should
lead to the long-term improvement of effective programming for our incarcerated youth
would contribute to improved state fiscal efficiency.
The study will contribute an attempt to determine relative similarities between the
juvenile incarcerated and adult incarcerated based on emotional and behavioral risk factors,
and their rate of incarceration to the field. The research will begin by conducting a literature
review of the prevalence of EBD within the general population and also the prevalence in
the incarcerated population.
Significance of the Research Problem and Study
As previously discussed, only a small number of studies throughout the educational
and correctional fields have focused on similarity of traits between incarcerated juveniles
and adults and whether emotional or behavioral risk factors, observed and documented
within the correctional education system are connected to recidivism into incarcerated
adulthood; therefore, additional research is needed. While not all studies have shown value,
they have shown effective and ineffective risk factors. Continuing these inquiries and
identifying whether similarities between a juveniles’ emotional or behavioral risk factors
into adulthood is important in understanding and directing preventative programming. If
certain risk factors, behaviors, and/or disabilities are clearly identified, then early targeted
intervention efforts may decrease or help youth reaching adulthood from continuing the
cycle of recidivism. Decreasing youth recidivism (offending and incarceration) and

hopefully adult recidivism is effective public policy, saving fiscal resources, and improving
public safety.
Limitations and Assumptions
Although the study includes many variables, it was also limited in several ways.
First, the study was limited by time, as it was designed to span a brief time frame. Second,
the study was limited by the scope of the data. In addition to accounting for many variables,
it could not capture all of the variables that might impact a link between the emotional
behavior risk-factors that lead to recidivism such as ethnicity. While, ethnicity is often cited
as a risk factor for delinquency, ethnicity is not going to be utilized significantly within
this study since many other forms of research continue to demonstrate that when other
factors are taken into account and controlled (such as poverty, neighborhood disadvantage,
family structure, and exposure to gangs, violence, and crime), an individual’s ethnicity has
no significant effect on delinquency. The evidence suggests that the link between ethnicity
and violence is based largely on social rather than biological differences (Youth in
Minnesota Correctional Facilities Survey, 2010).
Rather, the study aimed to examine the similarities between the emotional behavior
risk-factors that lead to recidivism between the life span of juvenile and adult incarcerated
offenders. It should provide value to correctional educators, caseworkers, probation
officers and administrators, as well as, potential mainstream educators, showing them areas
that can be improved in understanding the effect of emotional behavioral disorders in a
correctional setting. Additionally, in terms of juvenile policy limitations, this study is
centered on increasing the need for more tracking and intentional study of how academic
and special education issues influence someone’s success throughout their life, specifically

how this plays out the incarcerated youth population transitioning into adulthood. In the
end, some of the primary focus and energy currently spent on housing juveniles throughout
should be utilized in recognizing that a select percentage of our nation’s youth may leave
the very juvenile justice system that was originally created to serve and protect them. As
adults, they reenter society as experts in criminal behavior and continually lack the social-
skills to be successful into adulthood.
Another limitation in terms of policy is the current special education policy at the
federal level. Pertaining to the aging out of special education services. An individual who
has services discontinued at their twenty-first birthday, which by state law, is followed by
the Minnesota DOC. Could there be a more appropriate way to bridge or achieve the
academic gap and handle services for those juvenile offenders who will face even greater
challenges compared to their peers? The policy should be reevaluated especially, when
disabilities are not addressed completely, and are part of a larger set of risk factors at work;
criminal behavior, incarceration, poverty, homelessness, interrupted academic experiences.
As a result, a chronic instability develops that can be observed in how it impacts within
incarcerated adults, most notably in the re-offending juvenile and adult populations.

Definition of Terms
Admissions: Includes new commitments to a state correctional facility and all release
returns (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010).
Adult: Any individual age 18 or older not classified as an Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile
(EJJ) or Certified Adult (CA).
Adult Basic Education (ABE): directed literacy instruction below the post-secondary
level to adults who have not received a high school diploma or equivalent award
or who are unable to speak, read, or write the English language, who have attained
16 years of age, who are required to be enrolled in secondary school under State
law and who lack sufficient mastery of basic educational skills to enable them to
function effectively in society; or for those who have a high school or GED
diploma, but who need developmental courses to prepare for post-secondary
education (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010).
Adjudicated: the judicial determination (judgment) that a youth is a delinquent-status
offender, or an adult offender (The National Center on Education, Disability &
Juvenile Justice, 2012).
Age-Crime Curve: refers to the assumption that crimes are most prevalent during mid to
late adolescence. That is, the incidence of crime increases with age until individuals
reach about 16 to 20. The incidence of crime then decreases with age in adulthood
(Moss, S. 2013).
Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD): is a type of chronic mental condition in which a
person's ways of thinking, perceiving situations and relating to others are
dysfunctional — and destructive. People with antisocial personality disorder
typically have no regard for right and wrong and often disregard the rights, wishes
and feelings of others and tend to antagonize, manipulate or treat others either
harshly or with callous indifference. They may often violate the law, landing in
frequent trouble, yet they show no guilt or remorse (Mayo, 2015a).
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): is a chronic condition that affects
millions of children and often persists into adulthood. ADHD includes a
combination of problems, such as difficulty sustaining attention, hyperactivity and
impulsive behavior (Mayo, 2015b).

Certified Adult (CA): A juvenile who was certified by the court to stand trial as an adult
and when incarcerated, they serve their sentence in an adult correctional facility
(Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010).
Correctional Education: is a fundamental component of rehabilitative programming
offered in juvenile justice confinement facilities, most American prisons, and many
jails and detention centers (Correctional Education, 2015).
Correctional Facility: A place designated by law for the keeping of persons held
in custody under process of law, or under lawful arrest, including state prisons,
county and local jails, and other facilities operated by the department of corrections
Custody level: is determined using the state assessments that groups offenders
according to the level of risk they represent to the public, the staff, other offenders
and the facility itself. The system uses five (5) distinct groups, described as custody
levels: maximum, close, medium, minimum, and community. Maximum: Refers to
offenders who are under a sentence of death. Close: Refers to offenders who must
be maintained within an armed perimeter or under direct, armed supervision when
outside of a secure perimeter. Medium: Refers to offenders eligible for placement
at a work camp with a secure perimeter, but who are not eligible for placement in
an outside work assignment without armed supervision. Minimum: Refers to
offenders eligible for outside work assignments, but not for placement at a
community residential facility. Community: Refers to offenders eligible for
placement at a community residential facility (Minnesota Department of
Corrections, 2010).
Custody Classification System (Minnesota’s 5 Levels): Minnesota correctional system
has a five-level classification structure ranging from level 1, which is minimum
custody, to level 5, which is maximum custody (see figure 1). Using the automated,
objective system, offenders are assigned a classification score within 30 to 45 days
of admission. This risk score determines to what custody level the inmate will be
assigned. This illustration shows the Minnesota Department of Corrections' five-
level custody classification system (the Shakopee facility for women has all custody

levels). The system is predicated on the availability of beds at a particular level
Figure 2. Five Level Custody Classification System
Committed: A court decision to place an adjudicated child in a juvenile justice program
or adult corrections system (The National Center on Education, Disability &
COMS: The State of Minnesota statewide computer based supervision system (Minnesota
Department of Corrections, 2010).
Conduct Disorder: “A psychiatric term describing externalizing, ‘act-out’ behaviors”
(Smith, 2011, p. 530).
Confinement: restraint within limits imprisonment any restraint of liberty seclusion
Delinquency: Acts or conduct in violation of criminal law. When the act is committed by
a juvenile, it may fall within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, or the courts may
adjudicate the individual as an adult in the adult court system (The National Center
on Education, Disability & Juvenile Justice, 2012).
Department of Corrections (DOC): the department of local government that is
responsible for managing the treatment of convicted offenders (Minnesota
Detention Center: Comparable to a jail in the adult system, a temporary, secure holding

facility for juvenile offenders (The National Center on Education, Disability &
Discharge: Release from a state correctional facility at expiration of sentence (Minnesota
DOC literacy mandate: all DOC offenders must have a verified GED or high school
diploma issued in the United States or a foreign equivalency diploma (Minnesota
Emotional Behavioral Disorder (EBD): An established pattern of one or more of the
following
emotional or behavioral responses:
d. Withdrawal or anxiety, depression, problems with mood, or feelings of self-worth;
e. Disordered thought processes with unusual behavior patterns and atypical
communication styles; or
f. Aggression, hyperactivity, or impulsivity.
The established pattern of emotional or behavioral responses must adversely affect
educational or developmental performance, including intrapersonal, academic,
vocational, or social skills; be significantly different from appropriate age, cultural,
or ethnic norms; and be more than temporary, expected responses to stressful events
in the environment. The emotional or behavioral responses must be consistently
exhibited in at least three different settings, two of which must be educational
settings, and one other setting in the home, child care, or community. The responses
must not be primarily the result of intellectual, sensory, or acute or chronic physical
health conditions (Minnesota Statutes 3525.1329, 2007).
Externalizing behaviors: Behaviors directed toward others.
Extended Jurisdiction Juvenile (EJJ): A juvenile 14 to 17 years old who receives both a
juvenile and adult sentence. If the juvenile violates the conditions of the juvenile
sentence, the adult sentence may be imposed (Minnesota Department of
Corrections, 2010).
General Educational Development (GED): also informally referred to as the General

Educational Diploma or General Equivalency Diploma, is a test made up of five
parts that measure an adult’s skills and knowledge, and awards a high school
credential (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010).
Intake: The process used for every youth or adult referred to court, jail or correctional
facility. Intake involves screening each youth to determine the appropriateness for
release or referral to a diversionary program or agency for nonofficial or non-
judicial handling. This screening also identifies the presence of medical,
psychiatric, psychological, substance abuse, and educational problems or other
conditions that may have caused the youth to come to the attention of law
enforcement or intake. Intake includes initial screening of a status offender to
determine the recommended action to be taken in the best interests of the youth, the
family, and the community (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010).
Internalizing behaviors: Behaviors directed inward (withdrawn, anxious, depressed).
Intensive community supervision: A period of incarceration in prison, intended to shock
the offender, followed by a highly restrictive community supervision plan. Program
elements can include house arrest, random drug testing, frequent face-to-face
contact with specially trained agents, mandatory work or school, curfews and
mandatory restitution to victims (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010).
Juvenile: An offender who was at least 12 but less than 18 years old at the time of
offense. However, juvenile jurisdiction continues until age 19 (Minnesota
Lifers: Adults/certified adults sentenced to serve a 30-year term of imprisonment with the
possibility of parole after that time (prior to 1989, this category includes offenders
sentenced to serve 17 years imprisonment with the possibility of parole after that
time). Also includes adults/certified adults sentenced to life imprisonment without
the possibility of parole (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010).
Life-course Persistent Offender: individuals who begin to behave antisocially early in
childhood and continue this behavior into adulthood. This theory is used with
respect to antisocial behavior instead of crime due to the differing definitions of
'crime' among cultures (Moffitt & Caspi, 2001).

Life Course perspective: is a somewhat new way of thinking about how an individual's life
is determined through the occurrence of certain life events (Benson, 2001).
The life course perspective can best be conceptualized as viewing life events in the
context of life stages, turning points, and pathways, all of which are embedded in
social institutions (Elder, 1985). Integral to the life course perspective are two main
concepts: trajectories and transitions. A trajectory is a pathway over the life course,
which involves long-term patterns of events, such as employment or family history.
A transition, in contrast, involves the short-term events, or turning points, that make
up specific life changes, such as marriage, divorce, or parenthood (Elder, 1985;
Thornberry, 1997). Transitions play a significant role in the direction of future
trajectories (Elder, 1985; Sampson & Laub, 1990); a person’s adaptation to a
particular transition can lead to modifications and redirections in subsequent
trajectories (Elder, 1985). Therefore, experiences in childhood affect events in
adolescence and adulthood, just as events in adolescence or adulthood can modify
future trajectories (Sampson & Laub, 1990). Given this, transitions or events at
various times in the life course can have a lasting impact on numerous outcomes
during the life course through the modification of one’s larger pathways or
trajectories (Thornberry, 1997).
LS/CMI: is a revision of the LSI-R with the addition of case management sections.
Section 1 of the LS/CMI combines the 54 LSI-R items to 43 LS/CMI items while
maintaining the item content (Andrews & Bonta, 2014).
LSI-R: is known as the Level of Service Inventory (See Table 3). It is utilized to ensure
the consistent use of a risk/needs assessment tool that addresses the individual
offenders risk, need, and responsivity factors toward re-offending and the steps
necessary to reduce that risk. Designed for ages 16 and older, and helps predict
parole outcomes, success in correctional settings, institutional misconduct, and
recidivism. The 54 items are based on legal requirements and included in relevant
factors needed for making decisions about risk. The assessment must be completed,
within 60 days, or at an offender’s earliest point of entry and must be documented
(Andrews & Bonta, 2014).
Mental Health: as defined by the Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health, “refers to

the successful performance of mental function, resulting in productive activities,
fulfilling relationships with other people, and the ability to adapt to change and
cope with adversity” (Satcher, 2000).
MnSTARR: is a recidivism risk assessment instrument that has been validated on
Minnesota’s prisoner population and that is utilized during the intake and release
planning process (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010).
Need: What areas in a person’s life should be targeted for intervention/supervision in order
to decrease their likelihood of future criminal behavior (Minnesota Department of
Corrections, 2010).
Person offenses: Includes the offenses of assault, homicide, kidnapping/false
Imprisonment, criminal sexual conduct, aggravated robbery and criminal vehicular
homicide (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010).
Property offenses: Includes the offenses of burglary, forgery and counterfeiting, arson
and negligent fires, property damage, stolen property, simple robbery, theft and
vehicle-related theft (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010).
Recidivism: The behavior of a repeat or habitual criminal. In addition, it’s seen as a
measurement of the rate at which offenders commit other crimes, either by arrest
or conviction baselines, after being released from incarceration (Repeat offense,
2014).
Resilience: a characteristic that allows a person to make appropriate behavioral choices in
the presence of multiple risk factors (Finley, 1994).
Responsivity: What personal strengths and/or specific individual factors might influence
the effectiveness of treatment services (Zackon, F., 2011).
Risk: How likely a person is to engage in criminal behaviors (Minnesota Department of
Corrections, 2010).
Risk-factors: any attribute, characteristic or exposure of an individual that increases the
likelihood of developing a disease or injury (Minnesota Department of Corrections,
2010).
Risk Principle: Is made of the following criteria: Matching the level of services to level of
risk, prioritizing supervision and treatment resources for higher risk clients, higher

risk clients need more intensive services, and low risk clients require little to no
intervention (Andrews, D., & Bonta, J., 2014).
Special Education: Any specifically designed instruction and related services to meet the
unique cognitive, academic, communicative, social and emotional, motor ability,
vocational, sensory, physical, or behavioral and functional needs of a pupil as
started in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) (Key Terms to Know in
Special Education, 2014).
Supervised release or parole: For adults/certified adults, supervised release is a process
of surveillance and supervision of an offender in the community after completing a
term of incarceration. The sentencing court indicates the period of supervised
release to be served when pronouncing the offender's sentence (Minnesota
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP): The national office
that was established in order to provide leadership, coordination, and resources to
prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency and victimization (Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2000).
Transitions: directed instruction and services for preparing offenders for life outside the
facility (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010).
Youth: is best understood as a period of transition from the dependence of childhood to
adulthood’s independence (Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2010).
Youth Offender: is defined as a person who is between the ages of 16 and 19 years of age
(16, 17, 18, and not yet 19) at the time they commit a crime. The term is designed
to give the young offender an opportunity to have a criminal conviction converted
to a non-criminal determination of youthful offender (Minnesota Department of
Corrections, 2010).

Summary Statement
This study demonstrates knowledge and thoughtful application in explaining an in-
depth analysis of key behavioral risk-factors that establish a positive correlation between
the life span of juvenile and adult incarcerated offenders lead to their recidivism. This was
accomplished by measuring data obtained by utilizing intake and exit data, and various
recidivism assessments utilized by the Minnesota Department of Corrections; the LSI-R
and LS/CMI assessments; as well as, the MnSTARR risk assessment system in juvenile
and adult correctional facilities.

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
Many studies pertaining to the correlation between the academic and behavioral
characteristics of incarcerated youth and risk factors exist, yet very little further research
relates to the possible behavior similarities between youth and adult offenders. As a result,
below is a preliminary review of relevant literature to the proposed study. Relevant
publications including books, legislation, documents, files, etc. have been continually
reviewed to provide both broad and more focused relevance to the proposed research.
However, throughout the review process other sources that contain relevant data was
obtained and utilized. This chapter provides a summary of the topics considered to be most
relevant to the research problem. It begins with a discussion of the significance of
Emotional Behavioral Disorders with youth and adult offenders; followed by, comparable
risk factors between both incarcerated youth and adult populations associated with
recidivism, and concluding with an analysis of the life-course perspective, the utilization
of the age-crime curve and its view on the development of crime.
Significance of EBD in Terms of Outcomes with Youth and Adult Offenders
To begin with, most students with EBD also have academic struggles.
While only about one percent of the total population in public schools is identified
as EBD, the actual prevalence estimate ranges from three to five percent. Within
this, approximately ten percent of students in juvenile corrections are EBD. Of all
the incarcerated youth with disabilities, more than forty-two percent have EBD
(Carney, 2001, p. 8).

Based on the forty-two percent of incarcerated youth in juvenile corrections that
receive EBD services it is important to have an overview of general characteristics
demonstrated by individuals who receive services for Emotional or Behavioral disorders.
The figure below outlines thirty-one different characteristics demonstrated by learners with
EBD. Such understanding can benefit the overall understanding of any comparable risk
factors associated between incarcerated youths and adults.

Figure 3. General Characteristics: Demonstrated by Individual with EBD
Wircenski, M., & Scott, J. (2003).

Comparable Risk Factors Associated with Recidivism
In order to begin, when contemplating similarities between juvenile and adult recidivism,
in terms of education, it is important to consider incarcerated individuals as adult learners, this
includes juveniles. “In spite of social and academic skill deficits, most individuals in detention and
correctional facilities exhibit learning characteristics of adults rather than children” (Carney, 2001,
p. 21). Simply, many individuals in correctional facilities exhibit adult learning characteristics
because of life experience. Children in the K-12 system are still experiencing life for the first time.
Adults and even some juveniles have their experiences to rely on. Thus, as adult learners,
incarcerated students need to be further involved in their learning process through drawing on their
own personal experiences. Now, that an individual is incarcerated, it does not matter whether he
is an adult learner or a juvenile, what matters are the factors that led him to the “school-to-prison
pipeline” (ACLU, 2008, p. 2).
In terms of recidivism, the school-to-prison pipeline refers to the policies and practices that
too often push our nation’s youth, especially our most at-risk adolescents, out of classrooms and
into the juvenile and criminal justice systems (Mader & Butrymowicz, 2014). Thus, what are the
comparable risk factors between incarcerated youth and adult offenders that have contributed to
the notion of a pipeline to prison model being established in our nation?
Risk Factors for Delinquency
“Researchers have concluded that there is no single factor attempting to understand the
causes of delinquency. The impact of several risk factors often increase a youth’s chance of
offending” (2003, p. 1) concluded by Dr. Michael Shader a Social Program Specialist in the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) Research Division. In Shader’s piece on
Risk Factors for Delinquency: An Overview, he concludes:

The prevention of delinquency is a complex problem with no simple solutions. Risk factor
analysis offers a way to determine which you're most likely to become delinquent, and such
an approach allows for prevention strategies to be tailored to the unique needs of youth and
communities. (2003, p. 8)
Based on the previous literature and for the purpose of this study, risk factors will be
organized under the following general categories since an exhausting review of all known factors
linked to delinquent behavior seems beyond the need of this study. The general categories are
Individual-level factors, Social factors, and Community factors. All factors can be viewed in
further detail in table 1 labeled Risk Factors and Protective Factors.
In relationship with the Individual-level domain and its risk factors, this category focuses
on prenatal physical complications, health problems (medical and physical) and the link to juvenile
delinquency. For this study, a very limited focus will be on the other sub-factors that include
antisocial behavior that can include antisocial attitudes, beliefs, dishonesty (only in males),
aggression (only in males) and substance abuse. Keep in mind, due to its complexity, the
individual-level domain is one domain category that needs years of further research especially in
the area of health and prenatal problems and the association with juvenile delinquency (Shader,
2003).
Within the category of social factors, the research indicated that this domain includes the
following factors: family, school and peer group influence throughout early onset (ages 6-11), and
late onset (ages 12-14). Within the factor of family structure, “family characteristics such as poor
parenting skills or lack of family involvement, family size, home discord, child maltreatment, and
antisocial parents are risk factors linked to juvenile delinquency” (Shader, 2013, p. 6). Shader also
points out that “the strongest predictors of later convictions for violent offenses include poor

supervision, parental conflict and parental aggression” (2013, p. 6). An additional challenge for
any at-risk adolescent experiencing difficulties in family structure or school factors is the
possibility that co-occurring disabilities (example: EBD and ADHD) within a student’s
emotional/behavioral disability are common, thus adding to the complexity of understanding a
youth’s challenges and struggles.
Such school factors that can affect delinquency are academic and social skill deficits,
school failure and greater school mobility. Take for example, “Youth with EBD and related
disabilities are three times more likely to be arrested before leaving school, when compared to all
other students” (Read, 2014, p. 1). Therefore, once arrested, the incarcerated adolescent is “Six
times more likely than youth in public schools to have an Emotional Behavioral Disorder” (Read,
2014, p. 1). Then once incarcerated, “Any incarcerated youth who has any unaddressed special
education needs are less likely to acquire skills that aid in successful transitioning back into the
community” (Read, 2014, p. 3). In terms of school and individual mobility, “Youth with EBD and
related disabilities are twice as likely to live in a correctional facility, halfway house, and drug
treatment center or experience homelessness after leaving school, when compared to students with
other disabilities” (Read, 2014, p. 1), thus making social adjustment and the establishment of
relationships considerably more difficult.
Many of the incarcerated youth in this country not only may have family difficulties, lack
of past school success that had led to school failure, but also social skill deficits that may include
antisocial behavior, poor social adjustment, and lack of positive long-term relationships with
parents and may be seeking acceptance, and thus may be vulnerable to peer influence (David-
Ferdon C, Simon TR, 2014). Several studies can establish a correlation between involvement in a
delinquent peer group and delinquent at-risk behavior. Shader points out:

That for youth ages 12-14, a key predictor for delinquent behavior is the presence of
antisocial peers... Factors such as peer delinquent behavior, allegiance to peers, time spent
with peers, and peer pressure have all been associated with antisocial behavior. (2003, p.
6)
Thus, peer influence, such as, association with a gang, is significant, and “such a relationship is
magnified when youth have little parental interaction” Shader, 2003, p. 6).
Lastly, the bigger picture of risk factors associated with delinquency are community
factors; school policies and an individual’s neighborhood. To begin with, in terms of school
policies, based on the findings within the field, “neither suspension nor expulsion appear to reduce
undesirable behavior and are linked to increased delinquent behavior” (Shader, 2003, p. 7).
Policies such as Zero Tolerance in Schools throughout its 25 year history have caused many
lingering questions. Since its beginning:
Students who received special education services are suspended or expelled at higher rates.
Annually, high school students with disabilities of any sort are nearly three times more
likely to receive an out-of-school suspension compared to high school students without
disabilities (twenty percent versus seven percent). Rates were highest among students with
learning and emotional behavioral disabilities. (Brown, 2013, p.60)
Thus, such research demonstrates the importance of staying in school. Additional years of
mandatory education does help to prevent youth from engaging in delinquency and crime.
“There is some evidence that a positive school climate not only lowers overall levels of violence
in school, but may also have some beneficial effect on the behavior of young people outside of
school, although the relationship is neither simple nor clear” (Brown, 2013, p. 61).

Complicating the youth’s behavior is the fact that the “EBD category of special education
contains the highest percentage of children and adolescents who have mental health disorders
within the community” (Dikel, 2014, p. 217). Outside of the classroom, research indicates that a
“powerful connection resides between living in an adverse environment and participating in
criminal acts” (Shader, 2003, p. 7). In addition, resulting sociological theories of deviant behavior
such as social disorganization, culture conflict, opportunity theory and classical strain theory also
hypothesize that “disorganized neighborhoods have weak social control networks; resulting from
isolation among residents and high residential mobility, allows criminal activity to go
unmonitored” (Shader, 2003, p. 7). In the end, however, there is some debate among experts,
“living in a neighborhood where there are high levels of poverty and crime increases the risk of
involvement in serious crime for all children growing up in such an environment” (Shader, 2003,
p. 7).
Risk Factors for Adult Recidivism
When considering the comparable risk factors between youth and adults associated with
recidivism it is vital to develop effective prevention strategies for those incarcerated. It is also
necessary to understand why offenders with emotional or behavioral disorders enter the criminal
justice system. Although the educational, mental health and criminal justice related literature
typically illustrates numerous causes such an illiteracy, poverty, socioeconomics, family genetics;
those rationales alone are not sufficient to explain why some juveniles enter the criminal justice
system and continue criminal behavior into adulthood whereas others do not. J. Steven Lamberti’s
(2007) research on the Central Eight Risk Factors for Criminal Recidivism clearly illustrates the

need for understanding and prevention of incarceration in the juvenile and adult populations by
comprehending the principles of risk, needs, and responsivity. Lamberti’s research states that
individuals with criminal recidivism have many needs, but only certain needs are associated with
criminal behavior; therefore, should be the target of prevention strategies.
Consequently, on the basis of extensive research, eight primary risk factors have been
established that are strongly predictive of future criminal behavior (Lamberti, 2007, p. 4). J. Steven
Lamberti’s (2007) eight primary risk factors are shown within table 2 of this study and are listed
with their associated risks and needs. When considering the comparable risk factors between
incarcerated youth and adults associated with recidivism there may be similar factors associated
with emotional behaviors risk factors in juvenile offenders and Lamberti’s Central Eight Risk
Factors for Criminal Recidivism in adults.
When attempting to comprehend the eight central risk factors for adult recidivism, research
indicates that criminal behavior is far more highly correlated with the “Big Four” risk factors;
antisocial attitudes, antisocial peers, antisocial personality pattern and history of antisocial
behavior. The other risk factors associated with criminal recidivism are family and marital factors,
lack of achievement in education and employment, lack of pro-social leisure activities, and
substance abuse (Lamberti, 2007).
Outside of the central eight risk factors associated with criminal recidivism are the non-
criminogenic needs. Although, these are perhaps legitimate need areas of offenders individually,
research has shown they have no significant correlation with criminal behavior. Such non-
criminogenic needs include: Self-esteem, Anxiety, Lack of parenting skills, Medical needs, and
victimization issues (Lamberti, 2007).
Development and Life-Course Theories

In previous and current research, many development and life theories have been established
in the goal of understanding human development across the lifespan of an individual and how it
affects criminology in an attempt to account for offender careers and their overall relationship with
age. Statistically, it is rare for an individual to refrain from crime during adolescence. Thus, in
terms of this study, the life-course perspective will be utilized and can best be conceptualized as
viewing life events in the context of life stages, turning points, and pathways, all of which are
embedded in social institutions (Elder, 1985). Based on current research and for the purpose of
this study, what becomes important then is differentiating between adolescent-limited offenders
(AL) and life-course persistent offenders (Moffitt, T. E., 1993). The primary focus is not
adolescent limited offenders, but the life-course persistent offenders and understanding the factors
associated with chronic offending from adolescence into adulthood.
In terms of utilizing the life-course theory associated with education and crime when:
“Youths are not committed to school, demonstrate low academic achievement, have poor
school attendance, demonstrate school disciplinary issues, and dropout of school
consistently, more are likely then to engage in delinquent behavior… Moreover the
correlation between academic difficulties and delinquency leads to offending more
frequently, committing more violent and serious offences and persist longer in their
delinquent behavior than juveniles who are academically on grade level” (Maguin, &
Loeber, 1996, p. 235).
In the end, “academic deficiencies often translate into limited life opportunities in later
adolescence and adulthood, which in turn, possibly promotes and perpetuates criminal behavior”
(Monk-Turner, 1989, p. 413).
Age-Crime Curve

Researchers and educators debate what causes young people to commit crimes. Although,
nationally the legal transition age from adolescence to adulthood is at the age 18, researchers
continue to question the differences between juveniles who persist in offending and those who do
not, and also look at early adult-onset offending. In terms of the age-crime curve, the prevalence
of offending tends to increase from late childhood, peaking in the teenage years (from 15 to 19)
and then declining in their early 20s (table 5). The curve for violent crimes tends to peak later than
that for property crimes. According to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the curve is higher
and wider for young males (especially minorities) growing up in the most disadvantaged
neighborhoods (2014). Based on my literature review, combining the utilization of the age-crime
curve and the life theories with predetermined behavioral risk-factors of incarcerated youth and
adults with EBD, resulted with similarities found between them.

Related Charts and Form
Table 2. Risk and Protective Factors by Domain
Risk Factor
Domain Early Onset (ages 6-11) Late Onset (ages 12-14) Protective Factor *
Individual
General offenses
Substance use
Being male
Aggression **
Hyperactivity
Problem (antisocial)
behavior
Exposure to television
violence
Medical, physical problems
Low IQ
Antisocial attitude, beliefs
Dishonesty **
General offenses
Restlessness
Difficulty concentrating **
Risk taking
Aggression **
Being male
Physical violence
Antisocial attitudes, beliefs
Crimes against persons
Problem (antisocial) behavior
Low IQ
Substance use
Intolerant attitude
toward deviance
High IQ
Being female
Positive social
orientation
Perceived sanctions for
transgressions
Social
Family
Low socioeconomic
status/poverty
Antisocial parents
Poor parent-child
relationship
Harsh, lax, or inconsistent
discipline
Broken home
Separation from parents
Other conditions
Abusive parents
Neglect
Poor parent-child relationship
Harsh or lax discipline
Poor monitoring, supervision
Low parental involvement
Antisocial parents
Broken home
Low socioeconomic
status/poverty
Abusive parents
Family conflict **
Warm, supportive
relationships with
parents or other adults
Parents’ positive
evaluation of peers
Parental monitoring
School
Poor attitude, performance Poor attitude, performance
Academic failure
Commitment to school
Recognition for
involvement in
conventional activities
Peer
Group
Weak social ties
Antisocial peers
Weak social ties
Antisocial, delinquent peers
Gang membership
Friends who engage in
conventional behavior
Community
Neighborhood crime, drugs
Neighborhood disorganization
*Age of onset not known ** Males only
Source: Adapted from Office of the Surgeon General, 2001 and Risk Factors for Delinquency: An Overview by
Michael Shader

Table 3. Lamberti’s Central Eight Risk Factors for Criminal Recidivism
Factor Risk Dynamic Need
History of
antisocial
behavior*
(non-
criminogenic)
Early and continuing
involvement in a number and
variety of antisocial acts in a
variety of settings
Build noncriminal alternative
behavior in risky situations
Antisocial
personality
pattern*
Adventurous pleasure seeking,
weak self-control, restlessly
aggressive
Build problem-solving skills,
self-management skills, anger
management, and coping
skills
Antisocial
cognition*
Attitudes, values, beliefs, and
rationalizations supportive of
crime; cognitive emotional
states of anger, resentment and
defiance; criminal versus
reformed identity; criminal
versus anti-criminal identity
Reduce antisocial cognition,
recognized risky thinking and
feeling, build up alternative
less risky thinking and
feeling, adopt a reform and/or
anti-criminal identity
Antisocial
attitudes*
Close association with
criminal others and relative
isolation from anti-criminal
others; immediate
social support for crime
Reduce association with
criminal others, enhance
association with anti-
criminal others
Family and / or
martial
Two key elements are
nurturance and/or caring and
monitoring and/or supervision
Reduce conflict, build
positive relationships,
enhance monitoring and
supervision
School and / or
work
Low levels of performance and
satisfactions in school and/or
work
Enhance performance,
rewards, and satisfactions
Leisure and / or
recreation
Low levels of involvement and
satisfaction in anti-criminal
leisure pursuits
Enhance involvement,
rewards, and satisfactions
Substance
Abuse
Abuse of alcohol or other
drugs
Source: Lamberti (2007, p. 8)
Note. *Big Four Risk Factors: the most highly correlated with criminal behavior among all other factors.

Table 4. LSI-R / LS/CMI At-Risk Assessment Grid
Risk
Level
Total
LSI-R
Score
Range
LSI-R
Domain
Areas
Number
of items
LSI-R Score Statistics
Low
Risk
0-17
Criminal
History
10
“42.2% of high risk adult offenders’
recidivate within 3 years.”
Mode
rate
Risk
18-23
Education /
Employment
10
“High-risk male offenders (43.6%)
recidivated within 3 years at higher rates
than did high-risk female offenders
(32.5%).”
High
Risk
24-53 Financial 2
“High-risk black offenders (48.5%)
recidivated within 3 years at higher rates
than did high-risk white offenders
(28.4%).”[1]
Family /
Marital
4
LSI-R: is known as the Level of Service
Inventory. It is utilized to ensure the
consistent use of a risk/needs assessment
tool that addresses the individual offenders
risk, need, and responsivity factors toward
re-offending and the steps necessary to
reduce that risk. The assessment must be
completed, within 60 days, or at an
offender’s earliest point of entry and must
be documented in COMS. This assessment
consists of 54 items and the total scores
range from 0 to 53.
Accommodati
on
3
Leisure /
Recreation
2
Companions 5
Alcohol /
Drug
Problems
9
Emotional /
Personal
5
Attitudes /
Orientation
4
Age Range: 16 years and older
Administration Type: Structured Interview
Source: [1] Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections and
Rehabilitation Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. (November 2012). LSI-R
to LS/CMI Conversion: Analysis of Impact on Business Practices. Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Note. In Chapter 4 of the study can be found Individual Student LSI-R or LS/CMI Scores per group. The groups are
Group M, Group T, Group A, Group P, Group C, and Group F. Such data can be utilized for transitioning back into
the community. (Hennepin County Department of Community Corrections, 2012)

Table 5. Youth Incarcerations Rate: United States vs. Other Nations
Source: (Mathur, & Schoenfeld, 2010)

Figure 4. An example of an age-crime curve
Source: (Loeber & Stallings, 2011)
* Note that the blue line represents the beginning of late-onset risk factors, red line represents a
division (age 18) between an individual being considered a juvenile or an adult, while the green
line represents the special education age of service cut-off.
Figure 5. Form 1: Juvenile Intake Survey (MCF-Red Wing)

Figure 6. Form 2: Adult Intake Survey (MCF-Saint Cloud)

Summary Statement
The literature within the fields of education and criminal justice presented several
characteristics to consider when designing a research project examining the behavioral risk factors
that contribute to the possible similarities between incarcerated juvenile and adult offenders.
As previously discussed, only a small number of studies throughout the educational and
correctional fields have focused on similarity of traits between incarcerated juveniles and adults
and whether emotional or behavioral risk factors, observed and documented within the correctional
education system are connected to recidivism into incarcerated adulthood; therefore, additional
research is needed. While not all studies have shown value, they have shown effective and
ineffective risk factors. Continuing these inquiries and identifying whether similarities between a
juveniles’ emotional or behavioral risk factors into adulthood is important in understanding and
directing preventative programming. If certain risk factors, behaviors, and/or disabilities are
clearly identified, then early intervention efforts may decrease or help youth reaching adulthood
from continuing the cycle of recidivism. Decreasing youth recidivism (offending and
incarceration) and hopefully adult recidivism is effective public policy, saving fiscal resources,
and improving public safety.

Chapter 3: Methodology
Statement of Intent
This project examined the similarities between the emotional behavior risk-factors that lead
to recidivism between the life span of juvenile and adult incarcerated offenders and how the
correlation is impacted by emotional behavioral disorders within a correctional setting. Several
types of data collection were used in this study including analyzing data from Minnesota
Department of Corrections (DOC), intake and exit subject’s surveys and interviews. This section
includes a description of the risk-factors included in the research, discusses the instrumentation
used, describes the variables studied, explains hypotheses included in the research, and provides a
brief overview of other findings.
The proposed topic addressed gaps in research identified in the literature review. This study
explored similarities between adult and juvenile offenders in terms of EBD. This study explored
these similarities in terms of life course criminology framework. Lambert’s central eight risk
factors were used to compare the central eight risk factors for criminal recidivism with factors
associated with the clinically defined traits included in the State of Minnesota definition of EBD.
Restatement of Research Questions
This study was designed to gain information about similarities between subjects’
behavioral risk factors among the lifespan of juvenile and adult incarcerated offenders and how
the relationship affects emotional behavioral disorders and recidivism within a correctional setting.
Note that there was minimal risk directly to subjects since no direct survey was conducted.
The study involved pre-existing and secondary data analysis. Data was obtained by utilizing intake
and exit data, the LSI-R and LS/CMI assessment; as well as, the MnSTARR risk assessment

system. All data collected was utilized in measuring behavioral referrals and other problem
behaviors in juvenile and adult correctional facilities.
When a juvenile or adult is incarcerated, an offender will go through the Minnesota DOC’s
intake procedures and certain recommendations will be made regarding the offenders’ education
needs. The intake facility, MCF-Red Wing (MCF-RW) for juvenile offenders and MCF-Saint
Cloud (MCF-SCL) for male adult offenders, collects demographic data, documents the nature of
the incarcerated offense; and performs risk and needs assessments. Data collection includes many
social-demographic variables, including family criminal history, substance use, educational
history, including whether an offender ever received special education services, etc.
Statement of Research Hypotheses
Many studies on the relationship between the academic and behavioral characteristics of
incarcerated youth and risk factors exist, yet very little further research relates to the possible
behavior similarities between youth and adult offenders. As a result, this project’s goal is aimed at
examining the similarities between the emotional behavior risk-factors that lead to recidivism
between the life span of juvenile and adult incarcerated offenders and how the correlation is
impacted by emotional behavioral disorders within a correctional setting.
Participant Selection and Demographics
Within the context of the study, both incarcerated juvenile and adult subject data was
collected from Minnesota Correctional Facility - Stillwater. Due to lack of time, approximately six
months,, and to control the scope of the study, data collected includes current incarcerated youth
sentenced to an adult correctional facility, ages 18-21 years old, who currently receive special
education services for EBD; in comparison, with a controlled population of adult offenders ranging
from ages 22 - 48 years old currently enrolled in classes at MCF-Stillwater.

Instruments Used
In terms of the data retrieved and material used for the context of the study, only public
data was retrieved through the use of the Minnesota Department of Corrections data procedures
taken from the DOC’s intake (form 1 and 2) process; as well as, utilizing department data derived
from the LSI-R or LS/CMI and MNSTARR at-risk assessments prior to the release of offenders
from state custody.
Procedures
The initial idea was to connect and utilize Lambert’s central eight risk factor and directly
compare the central eight risk factors for criminal recidivism with factors associated with the
clinically defined traits included in the State of Minnesota definition of EBD. In terms of data
collection, individual student LSI-R or LS/CMI scores are organized by group. The groups are
Group A, Group C, Group F, Group M, Group P, and Group T. In order to maintain individual
privacy, random identification numbers were assigned to each individual. Normally, such at-risk
data derived from the LSI-R or LS/CMI and MNSTARR is utilized for establishing programming
mandates and guidelines upon sentencing to corrections, in addition to, transitioning back into the
community. Yet in terms of the context of this study, individuals were broken into controlled
subgroups based on classification level and classes. The identity of the subject is hidden with coded
identification number. Within each subgroup, the following information was utilized and then
compared; an at-risk (LSI-R, LS/CMI, or MnSTARR) score, a literacy reading (TABE) score, if
they have a prior diploma (High School or GED), any past special education services, whether this
was the individual’s first time committed to corrections, any prior juvenile record, age, ethnicity,
and time remaining of committed sentence. Also within the grid the LSI-R or LS/CMI score is
represented in a breakdown of Lamberti’s Central Eight Risk Factors of Adult Recidivism.

Summary Statement
This study was designed to gain information about similarities between subjects’
behavioral risk factors among the lifespan of juvenile and adult incarcerated offenders and how
the correlation affects emotional behavioral disorders within a correctional setting, along with the
possibility of whether it leads to their recidivism. The study involved data retrieval. Data was
obtained by utilizing intake and exit data, the LSI-R and LS/CMI assessment; as well as, the
MnSTARR risk assessment system. All data collected will be utilized in measuring behavioral
referrals and other problem behaviors in juvenile and adult correctional facilities.

Chapter 4: Results
Summary Statement
Results come from the analysis of the data provided from various recidivism assessments
utilized by the Minnesota Department of Corrections; the LSI-R and LS/CMI assessments; as well
as, the MnSTARR risk assessment system in juvenile and adult correctional facilities, show
findings in the following areas; population statistics in relation with the Age-crime curve and
meaningful risk factors for delinquency and adult recidivism that are comparable to related EBD
risk factors.
The general numbers of an age-crime curve (figure 3) shows a climax of crime at or around
the age of 18. For this study, The Minnesota Department of Corrections population statistics report
for juvenile facility (Red Wing and Togo); as well as, all adult facility was broken into the
following age categories; 17 and under, 18 to 20, 21 to 25, 26 to 30, 31 to 40, 41 to 50, and over
50 per facility. Please note that the blue line represents the beginning of late-onset risk factors, red
line represents a division (age 18) between an individual being considered a juvenile or an adult,
while the green line represents the special education age of service cut-off. The results from these
groups is represented in Figures 6, 7, and 8. All data for this study is as of 3/31/2013.
Figure 3. An
example of an age- crime
curve
Source: (Loeber &
Stallings, 2011)

Early and late risk and protective factors (Table 1) are already in play at the beginning of
the age group 17 and under. As a result the age categories 18 to 20, 21 to 25, 26 to 30, 31 to 40,
41 to 50, and over 50 may be indirectly effected.
Figure 7. MN DOC Entire Facility Population by Age Percentage
At the time of this study, the Minnesota Department of Corrections entire facility
population was broken into the following percentage per group, shown above in figure 6; the 17
and under age category was smaller than 1 percent, the 18 to 20 age category was 3 percent, the
21 to 25 age category was 17 percent, the 26 to 30 age category was 19 percent, the 31 to 40 age
category was 30 percent, 41 to 50 age category was 20 percent and lastly the over 50 age category
comprised 12 percent of the total population. While a comparison breakdown of the juvenile
facilities, Stillwater facility, and total adult facility population by age is provided in figure 7.
The initial findings show that in 2013, prior to the red line in figure 7 there were 163 total
offenders at 17 years of age and under juvenile facilities, while there were 12 youthful offenders
out of 9,088 offenders in adult facilities. Please note that only youthful offenders who have been
0.0
3.0
17.0
19.0
30.0
20.0
12.0
17 & under 18-20 21-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 over 50

adjudicated as adults and charged with felony criminal offenses are housed in adult facilities. At
18 years of age, there are 297 young offenders, 34 of which reside at STW. From there the number
of offenders per age category rise dramatically. If an individual is simply going to look at
Stillwater’s population after the 18 to 20 age category the numbers rise from 34 to 231 in the 21
to 25 age category then a slight downward to 194 in the 26 to 30 age category. Please note that the
red line represents the special education age of service cut-off, while the black line represents any
individual currently residing in a Minnesota correctional facility who could have received services
in special education within the past 10 years. While in comparison an entire breakdown of all
juvenile and adult facility population by age and facility is provided in figure 8 and solely by age
in figure 9.
Figure 8.
Juvenile/STW/Total
Population
Comparison

Figure 9. MN DOC Adult Facility Population by Age & Facility
Figure 10. MN DOC Juvenile & Adult Population Comparison by Age

Thus, when beginning to extrapolate findings within this study, the prison and post-prison
risk factors began to be statistically analyzed in the Individual student LSI-R or LS/CMI result
groups. The groups are Group A, Group C, Group F, Group M, Group P, and Group T. Before we
jump into group at-risk statistics, figure 10 represents the 6 groups, as well as, the total group
broken into their age groups. The findings show that when the study groups are divided by number
of offenders per age category, the groups from range from largest being a tie between 21 to 25 and
41 to 50 with 26, followed by 31 to 40 with 20, 26 to 30 with 18, over 50 with 9 and the least being
18 to 20 with only 4 offenders.
Figure 11. Study Participants by Age and Group

Now, moving from the age of the offenders, the results from the study in terms of offender
LSI-R or LS/CMI Scores per group concluded many intriguing findings. To begin with, the Group
An initial findings found in figure 11 and table 5 concluded that the 21 ABE student offenders, 2
of 21 had documented prior juvenile records. All 21 have yet who have yet to earn a diploma, in
the AM class from MCF-Stillwater’s Maximum Closed Custody Security facility (Classification
Level 4). Based on the MnSTARR assessment 1 offender out of the 21 was determined to be at
very high risk for recidivism, while 1 was at high risk, 0 at medium risk, 1 at low risk and at the
time of study 18 had yet to be assessed with MnSTARR. In comparison, if determining risk based
on the LSI-R or LS/CMI assessment, of the same 21 offenders, 15 were at high risk, 5 at medium
risk, 1 at low risk. As a result 15 out of 21 or 71 percent are at least at high risk to come back to
prison at some point. Lastly, all but 1 member of group A at the time of study were in prison on a
new commit, yet 2 of the 21 were self-report English Language Learners (ELL or ESL) and also
graduates of the mental health service program.
Figure 12. Group A At-Risk Comparison
Very High High Medium Low N/A
MNSTARR 1 1 0 1 18
LSI-R 0 15 5 1 0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
#OFOFFENDERS

Running Head: EFFECT OF EMOTIONAL BEHAVIORL 55
Table 5. Group A

The Group C initial findings from figure 12 and table 6 concluded that the 5 ABE student
offenders, 1 of 5 had a documented prior juvenile record, all 5 had yet to earn a diploma, all 5 had
been receiving mental health services based on high need mental health priority mandate from
MCF-Stillwater’s Maximum Closed Custody Security facility (Classification Level 4). All 5
offenders included within this group had yet to be assessed with MnSTARR. In comparison, if
determining risk based on the LSI-R or LS/CMI assessment, of the same 5 offenders, all 5 were at
high risk. As a result 5 out of 5 or 100 percent are at least at high risk to come back to prison at
some point. Lastly, all but 1 member of group C at the time of study were in prison on a new
commit. 1 out 5 had self-report English Language Learners (ELL or ESL).
Figure 13. Group C At-Risk Comparison
MNSTARR 0 0 0 0 5
LSI-R 0 5 0 0 0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
#OFOFFENDRS

Table 6. Group C

The Group F initial findings from figures 13, 14 and table 7 concluded that the 15 ABE
student offenders, all had documented prior juvenile records, have yet to earn a diploma, and also
at the time of study had been receiving services in special education in the area of EBD from MCF-
Stillwater’s Maximum Closed Custody Security facility (Classification Level 4). 3 of the same 15
also had received dual services in SLD in addition to EBD. In addition, all 15 offenders included
within this group had yet to be assessed with MnSTARR. In comparison, if determining risk based
on the LSI-R or LS/CMI assessment, of the same 15 offenders, 12 were at high risk, 1 at medium
risk, 0 at low risk and 2 had not been assessed. As a result 12 out of 22 or 80 percent are at least
at high risk to come back to prison at some point. Here is an interesting fact that only is represented
in Group F, 9 of the 15 members are classified a different level than Stillwater’s classification level
4. 2 members were of medium status (classification level 3), and 7 members were classified super-
maximum status (classification level 5). Lastly, all but 12 members of group F at the time of study
were in prison on a new commit, yet 2 of the 15 were self-report English Language Learners (ELL
or ESL) and 1 offender was also a graduate of the mental health service program.
Figure 14. Group F At-Risk Comparison
Figure 15. Group F Special Education Service Areas
MNSTARR 0 0 0 0 15
LSI-R 0 12 1 0 2
0
10
20
#OFFENDERS
15
3 3
0
10
20
Service Area
#OF
OFFENDERS
EBD SLD Both

Table 7. Group F

Weiss Jon (GSO) Final 03-10-2016

Weiss Jon (GSO) Final 03-10-2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Weiss Jon (GSO) Final 03-10-2016

Similar to Weiss Jon (GSO) Final 03-10-2016 (20)

Weiss Jon (GSO) Final 03-10-2016