Shaw, D. (2021). "Deafness, the Individuals With Disabilities Act, and the juvenile delinquency system." In D. Guthmann, G. I. Lomas, D. Goff Paris, & G. A. Martin (Eds.), DEAF PEOPLE IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM (pp. 167-180). Gallaudet University Press. [ Ссылка ]
This video may not be repurposed or incorporated into other works in any way without the express written consent of the signer and the chapter author.
Transcript:
Daniel Shaw, J.D., is the author of this chapter, which focuses on the IDEA and the Juvenile Delinquency System. Mr. Shaw has spent years representing hundreds of children and families in special education, civil rights, and personal injury cases and has extensive experience litigating at the administrative level, district and state court, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a parent of a child with profound hearing loss, Mr. Shaw has sat on all sides of the table and his daughter has helped shape his passion for the law and the families he serves.
Mr. Shaw begins his chapter with a brief history of special education and the IDEA. He feels that the greatest catalyst toward educating children with special needs in public school came in a U.S. Supreme Court decision dealing with racial segregation in America’s public schools in Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 when they recognized that segregation had no place in public education. Mr. Shaw states that Brown also inspired individuals with disabilities, parents, teachers, and others to begin to advocate for the desegregation of children with special needs from public education. Mr. Shaw also discusses other important legislation that was essential in the development of IDEA. The author goes on to describe a brief history of the juvenile delinquency system and how it began with the presumption that children were worthy of rehabilitation and that society had an obligation to assist youth offenders in becoming productive members of society. He states that there are few juvenile detention facilities, if any, prepared to meet the needs of deaf youth. Mr. Shaw points out that it is important to remember that incarcerated deaf youth are still entitled to their IDEA services. He says that despite the IDEA, there has been little done to ensure incarcerated deaf youth get the services they are entitled to. Mr. Shaw continues in his chapter with a description of the IDEA related to the Delinquency System. He indicates that the greatest tool preventing deaf youth from being swallowed up by the delinquency system is the IDEA and that whether incarcerated or not, they continue to have a right to special education designed to meet their unique communicative needs.
Many delinquent youths may suffer from mental health issues and many juvenile delinquency facilities are not prepared to meet the needs of these youth. Mr. Shaw discusses why it is imperative that the IDEA rights of delinquent deaf youth be protected. These procedures mandate compliance with the IDEA as the juvenile court determines what to do with incarcerated special education students. Mr. Shaw points out that many states do not have specific legislation to create an interplay between the juvenile delinquency system and the IDEA and that for deaf youth, this is critical in meeting their unique needs and preventing recidivism.
Mr. Shaw feels that an unintended consequence of highly mobile deaf youth is that there is no specificity in the IDEA as to how incarcerated deaf youth are treated under IDEA and how those rights happen provided the complexities of being in a state delinquency system. Mr. Shaw uses California as an example and indicates that when deaf youth are incarcerated in that state, the responsible educational agency changes from the entity where the parent or guardian resides to the county office of education where the juvenile detention facility is located so a deaf student arrested for criminal conduct and incarcerated becomes the legal responsibility of an entirely new entity. Under California law, the county office of education where the juvenile detention facility is housed also becomes financially responsible for the student’s IDEA services. Mr. Shaw discusses how this creates a financial burden on these entities when dealing with the complexities of meeting the needs of deaf youth. For example, a deaf youth might require (besides specialized academic instruction using their preferred form of communication) cognitive behavioral therapy or some other form of mental health intervention. It is much costlier to provide such services to deaf youth because they require a clinician fluent in their form of communication who has experience serving that population.
[transcript continued in comments]
