NCJ Number
74851
Date Published
1976
Length
61 pages
Annotation
This document is an initial statement on the proposed service continuum for the mentally retarded juvenile offender (MRJO) of Harris County, Tex., it reviews four recent studies, defines the MRJO population, and describes a proposed service structure for rehabilitation service.
Abstract
The study's philosophical orientation evolves around the basic rights of all mentally retarded persons. Briefly, mentally retarded citizens are entitled to enjoy and to exercise the same rights as nonretarded citizens, to the limits of their ability to do so. The task force further delineates additional rights having specific importance in serving the mentally retarded juvenile offender. A section on the statement of need consists of a brief overview of relevant studies of the incidence of mentally retarded juveniles with criminal and/or antisocial behaviors. The wide discrepancies between these four studies dramatically emphasize the difficulty in assessing the incidence of MRJO. For example, whereas the Texas Department of Mental Health/Mental Retardation projected 4,880 MRJO's for Harris County, only 151 actual MRJO's were identified by the county welfare unit. The task force does agree with the Project Camino findings that Texas Youth Council facilities, State schools, and State hospitals are inappropriate settings for the therapeutic habilitation of the MRJO. Because intelligence quotient (I.Q.) tests are often not culture free and may be biased against blacks and Mexican-Americans, special care should be taken in the assessment and diagnosis of mental retardation for individuals within these groups. Over two-thirds of the MRJO sample were males, and two-thirds were between the ages of 14 and 17 years. Over 67 percent had IQ's above 60; 20 percent fell within the 50 to 59 percent range. Over 35 percent were a danger to themselves, 23 percent a danger to society, and over 27 percent a danger to both self and society. Although the greatest service need is in minimum-supervised residences, there is significant need for day programs and maximum-supervised residential care. Included in the section on the proposed service structure are service principles; clientele priorities and definitions; juvenile court and probation procedures; diagnosis and evalution; and treatment planning, outpatient and residential care standards and criteria. A review of funding sources and a summary of recommendations are appended. Five references are given, along with tables and footnotes.