HD16 - Education of Handicapped Jail Inmates

  • Published: 1990
  • Author: Virginia State Crime Commission
  • Enabling Authority: House Joint Resolution 283 (Regular Session, 1989)

Executive Summary:
The full Crime Commission met on October 17, 1989, and received the report of the subcommittee. After careful consideration, the findings and recommendations of the subcommittee were adopted by the Commission.

This study, authorized by HJR 283, sponsored by Delegate Warren G. Stambaugh, was undertaken to respond to a request from the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that Virginia develop a plan for education of its handicapped jail inmates. At the time of the request, only one other state (Massachusetts) had such a program in development and none had been implemented.

The study was, thus, undertaken with a dearth of background material, a clear objective, and an unclear path to completion complicated by the sheer number of jails (95) having vastly different available facilities.

The subcommittee met on four occasions to receive input and public testimony from the Department of Education, the Department of Correctional Education, the Department of Corrections, the Department for Rights of the Disabled, and many other interested parties. On each occasion the subcommittee received a report from the Commission staff on the status of its work. Many man-hours were spent by all concerned parties in development of the proposed program due to the very complex nature of the merger of correctional programs and philosophy with educational programs and philosophy.

After intensive review of the many issues involved, the subcommittee made the following findings:

• That P.L. 94-142 (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), as interpreted by Green v. Johnson and OCR, require the states to provide special education to handicapped jail inmates;

• That Virginia's plan, if implemented, would be the second such plan extant in the U.S.;

• That prediction of a reliable number of inmates expected to utilize special education services is extremely difficult because of limited available data; that best estimates suggest between 50 and 100 individuals in each category (state-responsible jail inmates and local jail inmates) would utilize such services;

• That the approximate annual cost per inmate would be $6,750;

• That, in almost all cases, Virginia's jails are not equipped with on-site facilities and resources to provide special education services;

• That, despite limitations on available resources, special education would be more effectively and efficiently provided locally, rather than centrally or regionally; and

• That, to avoid disproportionate burdens on local schools and jails, special education for jail inmates should be 100% state funded.

In accordance with the above findings the subcommittee made the following recommendations:

• An individual's handicapping condition, if any, could be ascertained during routine pre-sentence investigations conducted by probation and parole officers.

• Upon discovery of a handicap or an Individual Education Plan, the individual, if not then incarcerated, would be referred to the local school board for services, if desired by the individual.

• Upon his sentencing to incarceration, an inmate identified as handicapped would be notified by the jail administrator in writing of his right to receive special education and would execute a written request for, or waiver of, services.

• If a state-responsible felon, he would be assigned highest priority for transfer to Corrections for receipt of special education services, transfer subordinate only to those with significant health problems or those who present a threat to the safety or other inmates and staff.

• If a local inmate he would either (i) receive services on-site in accordance with a "local plan" developed by the local jail administrator and the local division school superintendent, or (ii) receive services in the local school system via "educational release." Such release would again require the consultation and agreement between the local jail administrator and the division school superintendent.

• All funding would be provided by the Commonwealth for implementation of either of the above local plans, responsibility for appropriate expenditure to reside with the Virginia Department of Education.

• This recommended procedure would require the Department of Education to be the agency responsible for coordinating and ensuring the efficient conduct of the proposed program and require the local educational agencies to implement the program in concert and close cooperation with the local jail administrators, require the Department of Correctional Education to provide the requisite technical assistance to the jails and educators, ensure the continuing cooperation among jail administrators in "swapping" inmates in those cases where service requirements are not matched by resources, and require jail administrators to implement the notification system.