In the United States, during the 2010–2011 school year, 13 % of all students enrolled in public schools between the ages of 3 and 21 received special education services (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013). When looking at the special education population by disability category, 36.7 % have a specific learning disability, 21.7 % have a speech or language impairment, 7 % are categorized as having an intellectual disability, 11.1 % have an other health impairment, and 6.1 % are afflicted with an emotional disturbance (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013). Of students exiting their enrollment in special education, only 62.7 % graduated with a high school diploma while 20.9 % dropped out of the special education program (Office of Special Education Programs, 2011). Statistics indicate the majority (about 70 %) of students served by special education programs are male (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).

It is generally known when examining the juvenile justice population that there is an over-representation of youth with disabilities. According to Burrell and Warboys (2000), one out of every three juveniles who enter a correctional facility receive special education services. However, once in a correctional facility, only 80 % of those identified as having a disability receive the appropriate services. The distribution of youth across disability categories in correctional facilities differs significantly compared to the general population. Specific learning disabilities are still the most prevalent, making up 45 % of the special education population in correctional facilities. As stated previously, 6.7 of the general special education population is composed of individuals with emotional disturbances. This is in strong contrast to the 42 % of the incarcerated juvenile population identified as having an emotional disturbance. Seven percent of cognitively disabled youth in juvenile facilities have intellectual disabilities, three percent have a speech or language impairment, and three percent have other disabilities. All of these disabilities can have implications in matters such as the services students receive, whether detention is appropriate, waiver into adult court, and youths’ ability to understand court proceedings and Miranda Rights.

A high rate of learning disabilities also have been identified in adult male prisons, which is not surprising when taking into account the fact the majority of learning disabilities are identified in males and there is an over-representation of cognitive disabilities among individuals in prisons. A study conducted in the United Kingdom, examining cognitive disabilities in the largest Western European prison, found 45.3 % of the prisoners had communication problems that could limit their understanding of courtroom procedures, making it extremely difficult to comprehend (Hayes, Shackell, Mottram, & Lancaster, 2007). Additionally, they discovered the mean for adaptive behavior and intellectual functioning as measured on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales Interview Edition (Balla, Cichetti, & Sparrow, 1984) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale—III, UK Version (Wechsler, 1999), respectively, fell below that of the general population. Simpson and Hogg (2001) found individuals with cognitive disabilities are more likely to commit a criminal offense when they fall within the borderline classification and when there is a history of offending and/or behavioral problems.

Psychiatric disorders are also widespread in the prison population. A systematic review of 62 surveys from 12 countries revealed 3.7 % of incarcerated males have a psychotic illness, 10 % suffer from major depression, and 65 % have a personality disorder with antisocial personality disorder being the most predominant (Fazel & Danesh, 2002). Fazel and Danesh (2002) also noted that prisoners are several times more likely to suffer from depression and psychosis than the general population, as well as 10 times more likely to have antisocial personality disorder.

Research studying the types of crimes committed by individuals with disabilities has been published with varying results (Hassan & Gordon, 2003; Simpson & Hogg, 2001). Specifically, Simpson and Hogg (2001) did a systematic review looking for patterns of offending among individuals with intellectual disabilities. Four important points were discovered. First, the authors determined that there is no convincing evidence that the prevalence of offending is higher among individuals with a cognitive disability. They did, however, find evidence that suggests the relative prevalence of sexual offending, criminal damage, and burglary are higher among people with borderline intelligence when compared to the general population. However, more serious offenses, such as murder and armed robbery, seem to be underrepresented in this population. Lastly, they discerned that criminal offending is rare among people with an IQ below 50.

Hassan and Gordon (2003) conducted a literature review to determine whether there was an association between crime and developmental disabilities. They determined that the results were inconclusive, with some researchers stating offenders with developmental disabilities commit property offenses more often than crimes against a person, while other researchers found the opposite pattern. The literature review did determine that individuals with developmental disabilities are overrepresented in the prison system. Hassan and Gordon (2003) attributed this discrepancy to the differential treatment developmentally disabled offenders receive. A more recent study investigating offenders with intellectual disabilities determined that this group was more likely to be delinquent at an earlier age compared to individuals without disabilities (Barron, Hassiotis, & Banes, 2004). Furthermore, they found violent offences and petty crimes to be the most frequent transgressions, although arson and sex crimes were also common. There also appears to be a higher likelihood for individuals who have received special education services to be repeat offenders (Barrett, Katsiyannis, & Zhang, 2010).

Criminal-like behaviors, such as aggression, violence, and deficits in emotional regulation, can occur as the result of sustaining a TBI (Baguley, Cooper, & Felmingham, 2006; Brower & Price, 2001). A longitudinal study conducted by Brooks, Campsie, Symington, Beattie, and McKinlay (1986) discovered that one-year post severe TBI, 7 % of their sample had become involved with the legal system. Furthermore, this legal involvement significantly increased by 5 years post-TBI, with 31 % reporting legal involvement. Although no causal relationship has been established, taken together, evidence of the increase in criminal-like behavior post-TBI, longitudinal evidence of legal involvement after TBI, and the high prevalence of TBI in the prison population compared to the general population, implies that individuals who have sustained a TBI have a greater likelihood of committing a crime. Additionally, not only are individuals with TBI more likely to commit crimes, but once in prison they have a higher rate of behavioral infractions (Shiroma, Pickelsimer et al., 2010). A longitudinal study discovered incarcerated men with TBI have a higher rate of all behavioral infractions compared to their non-TBI counterparts, whereas incarcerated women with TBI have a higher rate of violent behavioral infractions (Shiroma, Pickelsimer et al., 2010).

TBI is a result of or caused by influences that alter the structure or function of the brain that had been developing normally up to the onset of injury. Given that severe disabilities may develop later in life due to head trauma caused by automobile, bicycle, and boating accidents, falls, child abuse or assaults, it should be noted that a wide variety of conditions may exist that are classified by the type of injury (open vs. closed), by the degree of damage suffered to the brain, and by the location of the injury.

When an individual acquires an open head injury it may be due to the penetration of the skull due to bullet wounds, or forceful blows to the head with a hard or sharp object causing blunt force. Typically, open head injuries that are not considered fatal often result in the loss of behavioral or sensory functions that are controlled by a specific part of the brain. One example may be an insult to the Frontal lobe, which controls one’s emotions, reasoning, or problem solving abilities. Another area that could be affected is the Temporal lobe, which is responsible for hearing, speech, memory acquisition, or simply the categorization of objects.

It should be noted the most common type of head injury does not involve blunt force or trauma to the skull. A closed head injury occurs when the skull hits or is hit by an object with such force that the brain crashes against the inside of the cranium. The rapid movement and impact caused by the blunt force typically tears nerve fibers, or axons. Most major causes are due to automobile accidents, loss of balance while riding a bicycle, and accidents associated with playing contact sports. For incarcerated individuals, a large percentage of reported head injuries are gang-related, and some incidences of TBI are self-inflicted by the individual hitting his head against the door or wall of a prison cell.

The effects of TBI, though not always visible, more often or not appear minor or inconsequential, which can make a determination quite complex. Typically, mild brain injury will result in a concussion associated with a brief or momentary loss of consciousness anywhere from seconds to 30 min or more. It should be noted that repeated mild TBIs over a period of months or years can result in cumulative neurological and cognitive deficits. More severe causes of head trauma almost always result in a coma that may last for days, weeks, or even longer.

Effects and impairments caused by TBI fall into three major categories. One is physical/sensory concerns associated with vision and hearing impairments, seizures, and reduced motor performance. Cognitive impairments may be associated with short/long-term memory deficits affiliated with concentrating or simply the inability to plan, disorganization, and pacing while completing a task. The third area of concern is associated with social, behavioral, and emotional domains. Effects may include chronic agitation, irritability, or anxiety. Typical recovery is not only a long process, but unpredictable at best due to how side effects manifest themselves in daily living, work or social interactions.

TBI defined. The terms concussion and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) are often times used interchangeably to refer to one of the most common neurological conditions encountered in children (Karr, Areshenkoff, & Garcia-Barrera, 2014). There are many different definitions of mTBI, but it is generally agreed upon that mTBI occurs when an external force causes an alteration in brain function, or other evidence of brain pathology (p. 1637) (Menon, Schwab, Wright, & Maas, 2010). In their report to Congress, the Nation Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2003) recommended the use of the following conceptual definition of mild traumatic brain injury: mTBI is an injury to the head as a result of blunt trauma or acceleration or deceleration forces that result in one or more of the following conditions: 1a) transient confusion, disorientation, or impaired consciousness; 1b) dysfunction of memory around the time of injury; or 1c) loss of consciousness lasting less than 30 minutes; or 2) observed signs of neurological or neuropsychological dysfunction (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2003).

However, for a student to qualify for services under IDEA the following definition of impairment must be satisfied. Traumatic brain injury means an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force, resulting in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial impairment, or both, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. Traumatic brain injury applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in impairments in one or more areas, such as cognition; language; memory; attention; reasoning; abstract thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory, perceptual, and motor abilities; psychosocial behavior; physical functions; information processing; and speech. Traumatic brain injury does not apply to brain injuries that are congenital or degenerative, or to brain injuries induced by birth trauma (Assistance to State for the Education of Children with Disabilities, 2004). What these two definitions have in common is they both are referring to an acquired condition, not a condition present since birth. Additionally, they both require the brain injury to stem from an external force that leads to impairment. The main difference between the two definitions is the educational definition of TBI requires the neurocognitive dysfunction resulting from the injury to have a direct impact on the person’s academic performance.

Due to the federal handicapping code for TBI, which requires interventions based upon best practices, students must now not only have access to services, but they must make educational progress as well, as outlined in the reauthorization of IDEA, which has ultimately increased the educational assistance to this population of students. Students with special needs can qualify for special education services by having proper documentation of their injuries and establishing a relationship between the nature of their TBI and their areas of academic concern.

Teachers responsible for designing effective Individualized Education Plans (IEP), which contain appropriate goals, modifications, and accommodations, will need to educate themselves as to the common physical, cognitive, and social-emotional side effects associated with a diagnosis of TBI (Morrison, 2010). The same is true for prison staff members responsible for accurately identifying inmates with a history of TBI.

Many children with mild to moderate head injuries experience multiple cognitive impairments, including memory problems, lack of concentration and attention to detail, irritability and anxiety. More specific higher-order executive functions manifest as the inability to organize, plan, problem-solve or make sound judgments—skills that are critical for academic and occupational success. Individuals with TBI may appear distracted, become confused easily, and have difficulty concentrating and attending to detail. Schutz and McNamara (2011) reported most school professionals are operating under a number of important misconceptions about TBI, for example, the myth of complete recovery from a brain injury (p. 65). Hence, as early as 1995, pediatric neuro-rehabilitation specialists have encouraged educators to develop fully functional TBI intervention programs for students who were formerly served in the healthcare system (Blosser & DePompei, 2003; Walker, 1997).