ED 037 854

TITLE

INSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATENOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS S

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT MULE.

EC O0 239

File-Y:35.83 0; A Plan for the Youthful MentallyRetarded OffenderoSouth Carolina State Dept o of Mental Retardation,ColumbiaoRehabilitation Services Administration (HEW),Washington, D0C06952p.

EDRS Price MF-$025 HC-$2.70Delinquency Prevention, *Delinquent Rehabilitation,*Delinquents, Evaluation, *Exceptional ChildServices, Identification, Inservice Education,Interagency Coordination, Juvenile Courts, *MentallyHandicapped, Police, Program Improvement, *ProgramPlanning, Rehabilitation Centers, RehabilitationPrograms, Special Services, State Programs, TestingSouth Carolina

ABSTRACTThe problem of the youthful. mentally retarded

offender was studied and a plan devised to meet it Recommendationscalled for special units for retarded offenders, placement asretardates rather than delinquents, periodic evaluation of theindividual's rehabilitation program, and coordination of followupservices. Further recommendations concerned development of a statesystem of detention-evaluation centers and of programs to identifyand evaluate handicaps in offenders and to utilize local resources incare and treatment. A statewide system of juvenile courts was alsoproposed along with the following preventive measures; inschooltesting and special placement, inservice training for professionals,interagency coordination, juvenile police divisions or officers, andagency-police cooperation. (JD)

on Schools

Probation Records

Police Records

Parole Records

durt Record.

Correctional Schools

INA DEPARTMENT Of MENTAL ROTARDAtte.2,,,

C Itiva 29201ti

OrsCO1`44,

,;.' FILEN:35083:0

Plan ForThe Youthful Mentally Retarded Offender

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE Of EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

DR. WALTER G. FRIES S. DONALD LaBELLE, ACSWDeputy Commissioner Project Coordinator

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OFMENTAL RETARDATION

1001 MAIN STREETCOLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29201

ROY L. SUKIIISM. Camila latt of Medd lituditlat

WALT= CL PAL 11111.Dottv Commtislow

MCI Of TIII D rUIY COMAI10101411

RAM OP ROUTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OP MENTAL RETARDATIONt001 MAIN MOW

COLUMMA, SOUTH CAROLINA 29201

The Honorable Robert B. McNairGovernor of South CarolinaState HouseColu mbia, South Carolina

Dear Governor McNair:

141/14A1. riTARDATI011 COMMISSIONNom O. Delft 0/141M101

744. floAtaa, Woe CistretweiMa Mlle IL tom SmarttVinoi Masa Iwo 14Al2.lAlohard HAWA. 11. At* IwoMort IL Lovvom

March 3, 1969

We have the honor to submit to you a report of the Department of MentalRetardation entitled, File Y:35-83:0, the South Carolina report on youthfulmentally retarded offe:FM.s.

As you know, this report has been in the making for several months andis the result of the deliberations of over sixty, professional people frcmstate and community agencies concerned with the problems of youthful mentallyretarded offenders. This group has giiren much time and thought to the develop-ment of this study.

It is clear that there is a growing concern within our state and nationfor juveniles who become or may become delinquent. This is equally true forthe mentally retarded. It is our convictions that the recommendations carriedin this report will afford a chance to serve those who find themselves inFile Y:35-83:0.

We trust that you will find this document helpful in securing continualand additional support for the treating, preventing, and rehabilitating ofyouthful offenders. We welcome reactions and suggestions from you.

Sincerely,

ames B. Berry, M.D., Chairmanouth Carolina Commission onMental Retardation

ii

SOUTH CAROLINA COMMISSION ONMENTAL RETARDATION

DR, JAMES B. BERRY, JR., ChairmanMR. RICHARD L, BAKER

MU, ROBERT H. LOVVORN

DR, VINCE MOSELEYMRS. HALLIE B. PERRY

MR. R. L. PLAXICOMR. R. B. ROBINSON

DR. ROY B. SUBER, Commissioner

This study was supported in part by a Mental RetardationPlanning Grant awarded by the Division of Mental Re-tardation Rehabilitation Services Administration, SocialRehabilitation Services, Department of Health, Education,and Welfare.

PREFACE

This study was earnestly done by capable, well-informed, in-terested people.

Although geared directly to the retarded offender, it of neces-sity ranged widely over the Juvenile System in this state. Itspotlights the problem of the mentally retarded offender andoutlines a structure for the protection of the public as well as thisnarrow category of public offenders.

The breadth of the study shows areas which must be changedif this state is to havc in reality what is expressed by the rhetoricof the Juvenile System. Let us hope that this study shall reachpractical application.

CHARLES NI. GIBSONCha4.:Man, Study Group I

JUDGE J. MoNARY SPIGNERChairman, Study Group II

117744 eZet,ie)S. DONALD LaBELLE, A,CSW

Project Coordinator

iv

FOREWORD

The problem of how to deal with the Youthful Mentally Re-tarded Offender has become one of great concern to many stateagencies and families within the state of South Carolina. As moreand more facilities are developed within the state for retardedindividuals, it has become most obvious that South Carolina doesnot have at present an adequate program or facilities to deal withthis type of individual. Therefore, it was felt that a start shouldbe made toward accessing what programs and facilities we nowhave for these individuals, how they could be coordinated and usedto the fullest and what other additional facilities and programswould be needed at the moment and in the future.

This publication represents a summary of the situation inSouth Carolina and offers many recommendations as to how abeginning might be made in the state to cope with the problem.Certainly it is not a panacea nor is it a positive solution to thewhole problem. However, it does reveal the thought, study, andhard work of many professional and knowledgeable people frommany agencies throughout the state who contributed their timeto produce this final report. It is our feeling that the report is anexcellent beginning.

Roy B. Suber, M.D.STATE COMMISSIONER OF MENTALRETARDATION

leoLoP.)

CON TENTSPAGE

Summary of Recommendations Made by the Study Groups viii

Introduction xi

Summary of Project Grant 1

Procedure 2

A Look at the Need for Special Units for Youthful MentallyRetarded Offenders 5

A Look at Care and Follow-Up 8

A Look at the Need for Detention-Evaluation Centers 10

A Look at the Court and its Procedure 14

A Look at Prevention 16

APPENDIXES

I. South Carolina Department of Corrections Research Statistics 20

II. Statistics on JuvenilesColumbia Police Department 1967 21

South Carolina Code of Law No. 55-57.2 22

IV. Development Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded 23V. Family Courts of South Carolina and Presiding Judges 24

VI. State Map Showing Existing Services as Indicated and PriorityAreas for Future Detention Centers 25

VII. Possible Testing and Evaluation Facilities 26VIII. Excerpts from Court Records 28

IX. Procedures in Handling Petitions to the Juvenile Courts 29X. Suggestions for Consideration by

a. General Assembly 31b. State, County, City, and Private Agencies 31c. Higher Education 32e. Community 32

XL Summary of Special Report on Procedures for Youthful MentallyRetarded Offenders in Three States 33

YOUTHFUL RETARDED OFFENDERS PROJECTComposition Study Group I 36Composition Study Group II 37Composition Study Group III 38Special Consultants 39

Acknowledgments 40

vi

RECOMMENDATIONS IN SUMMARY OF THE STATEPLAN FOR THE CARE AND TREATMENT OF

THE YOUTHFUL RETARDED OFFENDER

The following pages contain recommendations in summaryform, and the summary outline of the Youthful Retarded Of-fenders Project. The recommendations which have been made bythe study groups do not follow a priority structure, but arepresented in category form in those areas in which the studygroups placed emphasis. The page number following each recom-mendation refers to where further explanation concerning thedevelopment of the recommendation can be found.

vii

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BYTHE STUDY GROUPS

Recommendation Number Page

A LOOK AT THE NEED FOR SPECIAL UNITS FORYOUTHFUL MENTALLY RETARDED OFFENDERS

1. That under the administration of the Department of 5Mental Retardation, special units for the care of theyouthful retarded offender be established on the groundsof the Residential Centers for the retarded.

The above recommendation should be implemented with cog-nizance given to the following recommendations: 2, 3, 4.

A LOOK AT CARE AND FOLLOW-UP

That in the event a youthful mentally retarded offender 8is placed in a specialized unit for the retarded offender,the individual is placed in that unit as a retardate andnot as a delinquent, so that in essence, any juvenilerecord would be eliminated.That in the special unit, periodic evaluations be done 9with the youthful retarded offender in order to ascertainthe growth and development of the individual's rehabili-tation program.

4. That the Department of Mental Retardation shall provide 9staff and develop a coordinated system of utilizing everyavailable service, including the Department of VocationalRehabilitation, the Department of Public Welfare, StateBoard of Health, 0E0 Programs, and other social agen-cies which might be utilized to follow the youngster andhis family for a minimum of at least one year afterdischarge.

A LOOK AT THE NEED FOR DETENTION --EVALUATION CENTERS

5. That under the administration of the Juvenile Court 11System, a state-wide system of regional youth detentionand evaluation centers for the juvenile public offender bedeveloped and financed through the State of South Caro-lina.

viii

Numb er Page

6. That within the regional detention and evaluation centers, 12youthful offenders be given tests and/or interviews as ascreening device for the purpose of identifying those of-fenders who may be incapacitated by mental retardation,mental illness, physical handicaps, etc. That as identifi-cation is made, extensive evaluation be done, and thisevaluation information be made available to the courtprior to the disposition of the case.That it is most desirable to place a child back into his 13community, and that the court in its disposition of thecase, utilize local resources as part of its care and treat-ment of the offender, such as placement of the individualin a special education class, sheltered workshop, voca-tional rehabilitation, foster homes, or half-way houses.

A LOOK AT THE COURT AND ITS PROCEDURE

That a state-wide system of juvenile courts be developed 14and financed through the State of South Carolina, and solocated that evechild will have equal rights of law andappear before ajuvenile judge with all services that areavailable to the juvenile courts.

A LOOK AT PREVENTION

That greater emphasis be placed on informing the teach- 16ers on the questions of retardation, and encouraging theschool authorities to develop the necessary testing pro-gram from the time the child has contact with the schooluntil such time as he leaves school.

10. It is further recommended that when an individual is 16identified as being a potential retardate, that special pro-grams and classes be available within the school setting,and if not available, special education programs be devel-oped to aid this child with his or her problems.

H. That the Department of Mental Retardation develop a 17state-wide educational program so constructed and de-signed that it will enable various professional disciplinesto participate in in-service training programs in order tobetter understand and work with retardates with whomthey may come in contact.

12. That state agencies and all other agencies, both public 17and private, having a responsibility to the retarded, pooltheir resources, in an effort to prevent duplication, for

ix

Number Page

the purpr, 3e of developing those special programs deemednecessari to serve the retarded.

13. That special juvenile departments or divisions of law 18enforcement agencies such as the Police and Sheriff'sDepartments be organized in metropolitan areas with theappropriately trained personnel. Where this is not pos-sible, specially trained juvenile officers be employed inthese areas.

14. That a liaison between the behavior serving agencies and 18that of the Police Academy and all law enforcement per-sonnel be developed for the purpose of creating an on-going, in-service training program.

Although recommendations five through fourteen do not relatedirectly to the treatment and care of the youthful mentally re-tarded offender, they are concerns to be considered in the overallprogram by various agencies and units of government in the state.Since services to the mentally retarded are not completely renderedby a single agency, the study groups found it impossible to adherespecifically to the youthful mentally retarded offender, and there-fore found it necessary to examine related areas.

Hence, the complete success of a plan such as this will dependgreatly on the implementation of the latter recommendations orcomparable recommendations in overall state planning which be-comes the jurisdiction of the Governor's Office and the GeneralAssembly.

INTRODUCTION

The youthful mentally retarded offender presents a problemof great complexity. Those working with this type offender arefaced with the overlapping of two major human conditions in-telligence and behavior and they raise the question of what isbeing treated: behavior conditions, intelligence competency, orboth?

The study to develop a state plan for the care, treatment, andthe rendering of services to the youthful retardates who are, orshow potential of being public offenders came about through therecommendations of the Governor's Interagency Council onMental Retardation Planning, a council that was the forerunnerof the now new Commission on Mental Retardation. Dr. WalterFries, then the Executive Director of the Council, and now DeputyCommissioner of Mental Retardation for the State of South Caro-lina, developed the study outline and carried out its presentationand acceptance under Federal funding through the Social Reha-bilitation Services of the Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, Grant No. MRP-43-B67. The study called for not onlythe development of a state plan for the care of the youthfulretarded offender, but a secondary objective of collecting data inthe areas which could be useful to other involved agencies. (Seesummary outline)

el

xi

SUMMARY OF PROJECT GRANT

The primary objective of this grant was to develop a state planfor the care, treatment, and rendering of services to youthfulretardates who are or show potential of being public offenders.The needs, conditions, and circumstances which made the achieve-ment of such a plan significant can readily be shown.

First, there were no facilities at the three residential centersin South Carolina specifically designated for youthful retardedoffenders. These persons were housed by various agencies in thestate; i.e., State Hospital, county work gangs, or in the retardationcenters among the other enrollees. Because the law preventedthese youths from being assigned to the state industrial schools,the courts were forced to place them as described above.

Secondly, as a result of the lack of concerted efforts to bringtogether diverse opinions along with accurate objective data con-cerning the problem, there was no unanimity as to the best pro-cedures to follow in the state related to this problem area. Thecourts as well as the various state agencies involved needed toagree upon a workable solution that would benefit the individual,his family, and society.

Resulting from then recent criminal court actions involvingoffenders who were retarded, and from efforts of the South Caro-lina Association for Retarded Children, public awareness of theneed for action had been brought to a sharp focus. Before thistime concern had not matured to the point of recognizing the needfor such a plan. Therefore, it seemed a most advantageous time todevelop an acceptable plan to meet the needs in this area.

1

PROCEDURE

Examining the problem areas confronting the youthful re-tarded offender brings quick realization, along with insight andunderstanding, that treatment, preventive measures, legal consid-erations, and after-care involvement becomes several factors thathave to be examined in approaching the establishment of a stateplan for the care and treatment of this type individual. In theinitial development of the project, two basic procedures took placesimultaneously: (1) the initial gathering of facts situations,actions, circumstances and their meanings, along with the de-termination of the range of disposition possible for the youthfulretarded offender, and (2) the establishment of an unbiased groupof men and women who could act as a force to study and recom-mend proper procedure for the development of a state plan.

A group of sixty professional men and women from throughoutthe State of South Carolina were selected from the recommenda-tions of the Governor's Interagency Council and other profes-sionals whose experiences and background would lend theirknowledge to the study group. These sixty men and womenrepresented cross sections of various professions, including judges,law enforcement officers, social workers, educators, etc., and weredivided into two study groups, each with its own chairman.

In preparation for the meetings of the study groups, who metindependently, a review of the literature and the gathering of va-rious facts and information were secured by the Project Coordi-nator. Special research was conducted in order to determine thenumber of inmates 21 years of age and under who are presentlyhoused in our correctional institutions, and of that number, howmany have been tested and found to have an I.Q. of below 85 (seeappendix I). Statistics were gathered as to the nature and type ofoffenses committed by youthful offenders in the city of Columbia(see appendix II), and also the number of cases that are handledthrough the Juvenile Courts. Special tours to the CorrectionalSchools and the facilities for the retarded were made, along withinterviews with the superintendents of these facilities, judges, andprobation and parole officers, in order to determine from themtheir experiences in dealing with the youthful retarded offender.

Actual studies of court records demonstrated that social historyand background information on the offender did not, for the most

2

part, point out whether or not retardation was a known factor. Areview of the state laws pointed out that here was a need for ex-araination of the laws regarding the jurisdiction of the courts asit relates to the retarded offender. Present laws are not specificon this point.

The two study groups moved in their own independent direc-tions, and it should be pointed out that not only did the structureof the two groups give diversified opinions and movements, but italso allowed for a cross check of two groups examining the sameproblem and comparing their individual findings. A third andseparate study group met to correlate the findings and recom-mendations of the two groups, and from this third group, therefinements of the final recommendations and state plan emerged.

The two groups were given a variety of information thatenabled them to understand the broad scope of the juvenile prob-lem that they were looking at. Specialists were called in to discussthe areas of corrections, probation, parole, and police and courtprocedure as a means of aiding the study groups in directing theirfindings.

Special trips to correctional and retardation institutions, alongwith the observation of special education classes for the retarded,were made. Sub-groups made up of members of both study groupstook trips to Atlanta and Augusta, Georgia for the purpose of ex-amining this sister state's detention programs and facilities whichare called Youth Development Centers.

The study groups, during the course of these meetings, recog-nized that in order to develop recommendations concerning theyouthful retarded offender, they had to take an over-all look atthe whole question of juvenile delinquency to appraise and separ-ate directed changes as they would affect the youthful men-tally retarded offender. Therefore, the recommendations thathave been made in this report will not only relate to the youthfulretarded offender, but to the whole continuum of the juveniledelinquency problem.

Five basic areas of concern emerged from the discussions ofthe two study groups: (1) arrest procedure and incarceration,(2) identification, evaluation, and court procedure, (3) court dis-position of offenders, (4) after-care or follow-up, and (5) educa-tion and preventive measures.

As the study grew towards its conclusion, it was felt that asa testing technique for the project, the presentation of the pre-liminary findings to an outside group of professionals would be ofvalue to the project by having reactions to the report as to thepositive or negative aspects of the recommendations in serving theyouthful retarded offenders. With this in mind, a Region FourConference that was sanctioned by the Social Rehabilitative Ser-vices of HEW was held in mid-November of 1968 in Columbia,South Carolina, to which participants were invited from Florida,Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina,to hear the Preliminary Report,

This was a unique approach, for through this work-type con-ference it was found that the plan had the opportunity to beaired and discussed in workshops, and then absorb the reactionsand comments of the participants as part of the final ProjectReport. (Copies of the procedure of the Work Conference areavailable under separate cover through the South Carolina De-partment of Mental Retardation.)

4

A LOOK AT THE NEED FOR SPECIAL UNITSFOR YOUTHFUL MENTALLY RETARDED OFFENDERS

A primary concern facing the judicial system has been of whatto do with the retarded youthful offender who comes before thecourts. In this behalf, the study groups made the followingrecommendation:

I. That under the administration of the Department ofMental Retardation, special units for the care of theyouthful retarded offender be established on thegrounds of the Residential Centers for the retarded.

The reasoning behind this recommendation is that the courtson many occasions must carry out the dispensation of commitmentof a youngster to a correctional school, and the study groups havefound that the four correctional schools of South Carolina arefaced with an overwhelming task of housing the number of of-fenders who have been sent to them, It must be pointed out thatSouth Carolina Code of Law No. 55-57.2 provides that no personshall be committed to an institution under the control of the StateBoard of Industrial Schools who is epileptic, mentally ill, or men-tally defective (see appendix 111).

Because of the present structure of commitment by the variouscourts, and the lack of knowledge as to the mental ability of theoffenders, it was found that youthful offenders who are retardedand in some cases mentally ill, were being sent to the correctionalschools. It was only after the individual had been placed withinthe correctional schools and had been given preliminary tests thatthe knowledge of his or her mental disability became known.

If the courts had been knowledgeable of the mental retardationof an offender prior to final disposition of the case, and with theavailability of special units for the youthful retarded offender onthe grounds of retardation centers, services geared to the welfare,training, and protection of the retarded offender could, have takenplace. In many cases, it was found that the court did have knowl-edge of retardation of an offender, and became frustrated withtheir inability to find proper care and service for this type child ;the retarded offender was returned to the community on proba-tion.

Early diagnosis and identification for the courts is a r LlSt,

5

and justification for a diagnostic program was revealed in a surveymade by the South Carolina Department of Corrections for thisreport, where it was found that In a population of 374 inmates(age 17-21) 73 had an I.Q, of 70-84, and 29 below 70. It may besurmised that approximately the same ratio would exist in thepopulation in the age below 17 that comes before the courts. Ofcourse, it is recognized that I.Q. is not the single factor for deter-mining mental capacity ; many other factors must be taken intoconsideration in making a final determination of retardation.

There was no question in the minds of the members of thestudy groups that units designated for the care and treatment ofthe youthful mentally retarded offender should be established bythe Department of Mental Retardation. These special units shouldbe on the grounds of existing or future centers for the mentallyretarded. Exact designation should be the responsibility of theDepartment of Mental Retardation and should be made in compli-ance with overall state mental retardation planning as well asplanning in related areas.

These special units should be staffed with security personneland specialists who are knowledgeable of the needs of the retarded.For a youthful offender to be assigned to these units, he will havebeen evaluated as being retarded, and in the judgment of thecourt, should be confined. The court shall refer the youth to theDepartment of Mental Retardation. Thereafter, complete care,treatment, corltrOl, and disposition, including release of the child,shall bethe' sole responsibility of the Mental Retardation Center.

Slrice this would be a new specialized service, it may be possibleo receive staffing aid on a matching basis for a period of 51

months through P. L. 90-170.

With reference to the correctional schools, and considering thelimited funds and the shortage of staff, the State Board ofJuvenile Corrections has done an outstanding job in trying tocreate a rehabilitation program of educational and vocational en-deavors; however, it is strongly felt by the study groups that asan aid to the courts, and of primary concern to the correctionalschools, some form of controlled in-take procedure must take placein order to eliminate the crowding conditions that are constantlyconfronting these institutions.

It is not feasible for the administrators of the correctional

sa

6

ve

schools to be able to adequately work with the large numbers,which are constantly being replenished, without consideration forthe value that the youngster is to receive. It was the feeling ofthe study groups that through proper in-take procedure, adequatefunding, trained staff, and the development of a waiting list, amuch improved program could be developed for those youngsterswho are committed to the correctional schools.

It was strongly felt and supported by the study groups that areception and evaluation center should be established by theSouth Carolina State Board of Juvenile Corrections. This centershould be comprehensive and multi-disciplined and should includesuch services as psychological, sociological, vocational, educational,and medical evaluations. This would allow the schools to fullyunderstand the child in order that an individual treatment plancould be developed. It was also suggested that in certain cases,the Family Court could utilize this facility to obtain necessary in-formation to assist them in adjudicating problem cases.

Recommendation 1 should be implemented with cognizancegiven to the following recommendations: 2, 3, 4.

7

A LOOK AT CARE AND FOLLOW-UP

Recognizing that the retarded offender presents some uniqueproblems for the court, community, and agencies serving theindividual and his family, it was felt that the youthful retardedoffender in the basic adjudication procedure should be lookedupon as any "normal" youthful offender and, therefore, should re-ceive all the benefits of the court's services and that of the com-munity in working towards a solution to the problems confrontinghim. However, in order to assure to the person in question andthe family that civil liberties are protected during this youthfulperiod of time, with special reference to the youth's future adultcivil liberties as it may relate to adult employment and militaryservice, it is the recommendation of the study groups :

2. That in the event a youthful mentally retarded of-fender is placed in a specialized unit for the retardedoffender, the individual is placed in that unit as a re-tardate and not as a delinquent, so that in essence, anyjuvenile record would be eliminated.

Not only will the rights of the individual be protected, butthe general attitude of professional staff working with the indi-vidual in a retardation setting is directed along the lines of work-ing with a person who is retarded and not delinquent. If wewere to add a stereotyped labeling of juvenile delinquent, it couldraise question and cause confusion as to what is being treated,retardation or delinquency.

Staff, in working with retardates, must be free to work withthe individual in an open atmosphere and not be confined withina vacuum sustained by delinquency problems. It is perfectlyunderstood that within such specialized units, adequate securitypersonnel will be available whose main concern is the protection ofthe individual because of his or her past delinquency behavior.

In establishing a treatment program for the retardate, it isrecognized that this, for the most pa-t, is not a short-term situa-tion, but one that will require a lengthy involvement in contrastto the placement of a youth in the correctional schools where heor she can find that the commitment averages a nine-month period.In dealing with the youthful retarded offender, and with thenature of services to be rendered, the length of confinement can

8

be from that of a short-term evaluation stay to that of an exten-sive, planned training program.

Therefore, in order to protect the welfare of the child who maybe placed in a specialized unit for the retarded offender, andunderstanding the nature of the retardate who may become anoffender, the study groups recommend:

3. That in the special unit, periodic evaluations be donewith the youthful retarded offender in order to ascer-tain the growth and development of the individual'srehabilitation program.

It is not enough to simply accept the possibility of placementof a youth in a specialized unit for the retarded offender and pro-vide a highly structured treatment program without there beingsome plans for follow-up and care after discharge. The presentstructure of the Department of Mental Retardation does not lenditself to a follow-up program ; therefore, the study groups recom-mend:

4. That the Department of Mental Retardation shall pro-vide staff and develop a coordinated 'stem of utiliz-ing every available service, including tile Departmentof Vocational Rehabilitation, the Department of PublicWelfare, State Board of Health, 0E0 Programs, andother social agencies which might be utilized to followthe youngster and his family for a minimum of atleast one year after discharge.

A LOOK AT THE NEED FOR DETENTIONEVALUATION CENTERS

Recognizing that the retarded offender is faced with numerableproblems of personal adjustment, family concern, behavior situa-tions, and in many cases is a product of environmental and culturaldeprivations, it is a prime factor that not only must the individualbe worked with, but the family as a whole must be workedwith in order to prepare directed changes to receive the youthback into his community after discharge. It is felt that thisWork with the family must go on simultaneously with that of test-ing the individual. Society would be guilty of gross injustice to theyouth in question if his or her return would be to the same patternof living that existed prior to placement in a treatment program(see appendix IV).

As was pointed out earlier in this report, in order for the studygroups to examine the whole question of developing services forthe youthful retarded offender, it became necessary for them tolook at the whole continuing juvenile problem, and during thecourse of examining the problems, recommendations have emergedthat not only pertain specifically to the youthful retarded offender,but also to the general conditions that all youthful offenders findthemselves in, including the retardate who has become an offender.

The following are areas of concern that the study groups haveexamined for action. One of the deterents of crime that society hasestablished is the jail ; their kind and number are various. Fromthe one-cell all-purpose facility to the modern electronically con-trolled structure, each serves the purpose of housing those whohave rejected the law and flaunted the social standards of decency,and it goes without saying that for the most part, local jails arefar from adequate in the housing of youth.

Too few facilities have been constructed with the juvenile inmind, yet our crime rate, with reference to this age group, is in-creasing every year. State laws differ as to the length of stay forjuveniles who are to be housed in the City and County jails. Manyof these facilities have separate quarters or wings for the juvenileoffender, and still others have no special accommodations. Thesame procedure of incarceration usually applies to the juvenileoffender as it does to the adult, and the psychological barriers arevery apparent to the young offender, waiting endlessly in the

10

presence of barred windows, room or cell. Privileges are few dur-ing the early incarceration, and in some cases tears and armietyare present, along with fear of the unknown and a mixture ofvaried language and noises from the drunk tank down the hall,or that adult cell block just around the corner.

In the majority of cases the jail facilities do not lend them-selves to adequate staff who can be directly concerned with theyouthful offender. There was no doubt in the minds of the studygroup members that the prime concern of immediate provisionsmust be made to provide adequate facilities constructed andstaffed to be conducive to the detention, care, and beginningtreatment of the youthful offender. Therefore, the study groupsmake the following recommendation:

5. That under the administration of the Juvenile CourtSystem, a state-wide system of regional youth deten-tion and evaluation centers for the juvenile publicoffender be developed and financed through the Stateof South Carolina. These detention and evaluationcenters should not be confused with reception andevaluation centers which were referred to earlier inthis report on page 7.

With the development of state-wide regional detention-evalua-tion centers, it would be imperative that these centers are so lo-cated throughout the state that they would be accessible to everycounty, so that the placement of a youthful offender within themwould present no difficulty for law enforcement officers.

It is suggested that consideration be given to a system thatwould be accessible within a 50-mile radius of various cities in thestate and so located as to be accessible to the present FamilyCourts (see appendix V). It is the feeling of the study groups thatsuch centers be established in our major metropolitan areas as abeginning point, and then develop other facilities in less populatedareas. First consideration should be given to the Columbia, Green-ville, Florence, and Aiken areas. Charleston is the only city in thestate that presently has a County Detention Center, and considera-tion should be given to the involvement of this center as part ofthe state system (see appendix VI). A State Detention Center thatcan be used as an example is found in Augusta, Georgia, and iscalled a Regional Youth Development Center. Charleston CountyDetention Center is another fine example. It is imperative that theState of South Carolina start to move ahead to provide the kind

11

of Regional Detention-Evaluation Centers that are so desperatelyneeded for the youthful offender.

It must be emphasized that these detention centers have beencalled in this report detention and evaluation centers, with thelatter being an important part of the service that can be renderedto the youthful offenders, The study groups felt that the impor-tant task of being able to start to help the youthful offendertowards corrective understanding and treatment must be handledby adequately trained personnel who are equipped to understandthe behavior pattern of the juvenile and are able to cope with theattitudes and fears juveniles possess.

These trained staff should not only include security per-sonnel, but house parents, social workers, psychologists, medicalstaff and educators who are trained to work with the exceptionalchild in this kind of setting, With adequate facilities and trainedstaff, a beginning process of identification as to the problem areaof the youthful offender can start to emerge. One of the basicproblems facing the courts as well as others dealing with theyouthful offender is the inability to identify that offender whomay be retarded or presents other problems of social behavior orphysical limitations, It is felt that at the time of detention, andin a facility directed towards the youthful offender, this importantbeginning process of identification of the youthful offender shouldtake place, and therefore the study groups recommend:

6. That within the regional detention and evaluationcenter, youthful offenders be given tests and/or inter-views as a screening device for the purpose of identi-fying those offenders who may be incapacitated bymental retardation, mental illness, physical handicaps,etc. That as identification is made, extensive evalua-tion be done, and this evaluation information be madeavailable to the court prior to the disposition of thecase.

The identification of the special problem child prior to appear-ance in court is of great importance in aiding the courts in deter-mining proper directions it may want to take in adjudicating theyouth in question. The evaluation that will take place followingthis initial screening program should include psychological, medi-cal, and social data, and should be carried out within the detention-evaluation center. However, the study groups realized that thismay not always be feasible, and, therefore, local resources that are

12

available should provide this necessary evaluation (see appendixVII). This extensive evaluation program prior to the offender'sappearance in court could suggest possible treatment and/or rec-ommendations to the court for their dispensation of the case. Thisevaluation could demonstrate which youthful offenders should re-ceive special training and services in the unit for the youthfulretarded offender and which could be best served in our presentcorrectional programs or in the community as a whole. Regardlessof what the evaluation shows, it recognized that the courts havethe final determination of what services are to the advantage ofthe youth in question, and it is the strong feeling of the studygroups that no individual should be placed in a unit for the retard-ed offender or in a state correctional school except as a last resort.Therefore, they recommend:

7. That it is most desirable to place a child back into hiscommunity, and that the court in its disposition ofthe case, utilize local resources as part of its care andtreatment of the offender, such as placement of theindividual in a special education class, sheltered work-shop, vocational rehabilitation, foster homes, or half-way houses.

13

A LOOK AT THE COURT AND ITS PROCEDURE

The State of South Carolina has developed a Uniform JuvenileAct which allows the counties to establish their own juvenile court.At the present time, there are 16 juvenile courts in the State ofSouth Carolina (see appendixes V and VI). Recognizing that thecost of operating such courts is an expensive undertaking, we findthat many communities have resisted the development of a muchneeded juvenile program ; therefore, we find that juvenile offendersare being tried in a variety of courts, each with its own separaterules of conduct, and for the most part, functioning under an adultstructure. It is a known fact that many juveniles are sentencedthrough the probate court, magistrate court, circuit court, andrecorders court, without due consideration to proper investigationand legal consideration for the juvenile. Those youngsters whoare appearing in courts other than the juvenile court, could to allintents and purposes, find that they now maintain a criminal rec-ord which points out the fact that they are guilty of a given of-fense, and therefore could, by the nature of the courts they aretried in, lose certain citizens' rights in their adult years. The ju-venile court system is so structured to prevent the child fromfacing this possibility. Therefore, the study groups recommend:

8. That a state-wide system of juvenile courts be de-veloped and financed through the State of SouthCarolina, and so located that every child will haveequal rights of law and appear before a juvenile judgewith all services that are available to the juvenilecourts.

It is through the concentrated effort of juvenile courts, in con-junction with detention-evaluation centers, that we will be able toidentify special problem children and aid them in their needs tobecome productive citizens (see appendix VIII for examples of casehistories).

In speaking of the courts, it is found that our juvenile courtsystem, since the turn of the century, has emerged as the princi-pal adjudicative agency for processing youthful offenders. Thecourts were designed to reduce the stigma associated with criminaltrials and were directed to rehabilitating the child rather thanpurely punishing him. As the court evolved, it moved more andmore in the direction of a social service agency and withdrew the

14

emphasis upon the judicial character of the court proceedings tooue of an informal structure.

The juvenile court operations and procedures have been sub-jected to many criticisms in recent years. The question of theGault Decision that was handed down by the Supreme Court inMay 1967 may change the whole complexity of the juvenile courtsystem. This decision basically calls for the equal rights of thejuvenile to have legal representation and follow similar proceduresthat are available to the adult. It is not possible to even speculateas to the extent to which the Supreme Court is prepared to go inaccording to juveniles the procedural safeguards available to adultsin criminal proceedings. All that is clear is that the sweeping, in-tangible concept of due process has been officially introduced toour juvenile courts.

Within the courts, we find the case load of the juvenile proba-tion officers is often so high as to make it meaningless to talk interms of individual counseling and supervision. The probationcounselor is faced with the task of receiving and reviewing thepetitions on a given offender, and if the child is jailed, make thenecessary arrangements for his or her release. Interviews withthe parents and the child take place, at which time the rights ofthe child are explained, pointing out that legal representationshould be provided by the family, and if not, that the courts canprovide this service.

The probation officers gather the social history, check with theschool and other social agencies that may have had contact withthe child and his family. He may refer the child to a mental healthagency or other agency before trial, and if necessary, place thechild in a home other than his own if investigation points out thenecessity of this. He will make home visits, interview members ofthe community, and see witnesses and interested parties in orderto develop a case history that will be to the advantage of the childand the courts. This case work approach is a lengthy, time-consum-ing one, and is so structured to protect the rights of the child andto motivate him in the direction of positive thinking, hopefullyeliminating him from the possibility of commitment to a correc-tional school, or a later life of adult crime (see appendix IX).

15

r

A LOOK AT PREVENTION

The schools become the frontline guard in the area of pre-vention. We know our schools are faced with the monumentaltask of educating our children, and in their drive to move ahead,We may find that the size of the classes, time limitations, and thelack of knowledge concerning retardation can prevent schoolauthorities from identifying the retarded child in the schoolsetting. By closer coordination of services between state, county,and city agencies, along with the training of teachers as to thefunctions of these agencies in offering services to children andtheir families, it is likely that greater community action woulddevelop. Educating teachers and school authorities in the areas ofretardation, and developing early testing of all children in theschool system throughout the state on an on-going basis, wouldenable school authorities to identify at a very early time, thoseyoungsters who demonstrate the possibility of retardation or otherhandicapping situations.

In the December, 1967 Report on Special Education, by theState Department of Education, it was pointed out that approxi-mately 8,610 children who have been classified as educable andtrainable retardates are now in some 589 special education classesthroughout the State of South Carolina. Each year special educa-tion classes are being developed ; however, it is estimated thatapproximately 75,000 individuals within the State of South Caro-lina are mentally retarded ; therefore, it becomes imperative thatgreater emphasis be given for special education classroom space,and trained teachers, along with ancillary professionals to meetthis growing need. The immediate needs call for some 3,800 specialeducation teachers, 2,900 teachers' aids, and an additional 1,200specialists to handle the present expected classes in the next coupleof years. Therefore the study groups recommend:

9. That greater emphasis be placed on informing theteachers on the question of retardation, and encourag-ing the school authorities to develop the necessarytesting program from the time the child has contactwith the school until such time as he leaves school.

10. It is further recommended that when an individual isidentified as being a potential retardate, that specialprograms and classes be available within the schoolsetting, and if not available, special education pro-

16

grams be developed to aid this child with his or herproblems.

It is the feeling of those working in the field of retardationthat the community as a whole, and professionals in particular, in-cluding doctors, lawyers judges, etc., are ill-equipped in theirknowledge of retardation to adequately work with the retarded;greater knowledge of retardation and of social agencies' servicesbecomes a professional must. Therefore, the study groups recom-mend:

11. That the Department of Mental Retardation develop astate-wide educational program so constructed and de-signed that it will enable various professional disci-plines to participate in in-service training programsin order to better understand and work with retar-dates with whom they may come in contact.

In examining the various services that are available by theagencies on a state and local level, such as the Departments ofMental Retardation, Education, Vocational Rehabilitation, Welfare,and the State Board of Health, it became apparent that considera-tion should be given for these agencies to coordinate their servicesto aid the families with whom they may come in contact. It is therecommendation of the study groups :

12. That state agencies and all other agencies both publicand private, having a responsibility to the retarded,pool their resources, in an effort to prevent duplica-tion, for the purpose of developing those special pro-grams deemed necessary to serve the retarded.

Pertaining to arrest procedures and incarceration, since thepolice officer is the first point of contact between the juvenileand the legal authorities, it is therefore imperative that the be-havior of the police officer, his knowledge of youthful behavior, andhis ability to understand the special problems such as retardationand emotional instability be a decisive factor in the handling of adelinquent. The national statistics are alarming, to say the least,when you recognize that juvenile crime covers a total cost of fourbillion dollars annually; that out of every nine children, one willbe referred to the juvenile court before his 18th birthday; thathalf of all serious crimes are committed by persons under 18 yearsof age; that most arrests are of persons 15 and 16 years of age;that for every 10 arrests for auto theft, eight are committed byjuveniles; that for every 10 arrests for robbery and larceny, seven

17

are committed by juveniles; and that for every ten arrests forburglary, five are committed by juveniles.

In the city of Columbia, South Carolina, during the year 1967,there were 874 juvenile arrests, with 1,009 charged offenses. TheSheriff's Office of Richland County also reports over 800 arrestsof juveniles during this same year. The majority of the crimescommitted by the juveniles were housebreaking, larceny, burglary,auto theft, petty larceny, and disorderly conduct, representingalmost sixty percent (60%) of all offenses.

The police have a greater range of discretion in dealing withjuveniles than they do in their relationships with adults. The policemay dispense with the case in the field, dismiss the case with awarning, release the child to the parents, refer the child to thecourt's jurisdiction, or refer the child to other services or agencies.Of the 874 arrests in the city of Columbia, 292 were warned andreleased to parents, 547 were referred to the juvenile court on pe-tition, and 32 were referred to other agencies (see appendix II).

There are a number of factors that influence the police'sdiscretion in taking action or dropping charges, such as the natureof the offense, the youth as a whole with reference to his age,associations, attitude, prior police record, family situations andattitudes. External community pressure, public awareness, internalpolice department attitudes and the status of the complaint of thecomplaintant or victim, are all factors that confront the policeofficers. It would be safe to say that the relevancy of factorsother than delinquent conduct provides a key to the police officer'sdisposition. Recognizing that youth crime is one of the greatestproblems of law enforcement, the study groups have made thefollowing recommendations:

13. That special juvenile departments or Divisions of lawenforcement agencies such as the Police and Sheriff'sDepartments be organized in metropolitan areas withthe appropriately trained personnel. Where this is notpossible, specially trained juvenile officers be em-ployed in these areas.

14. That a liaison between the behavior serving agenciesand that of the Police Academy and all law enforce-ment personnel be developed for the purpose of creat-ing an ongoing, in-service training program.

Special programs of this nature will enable the police officer

18

to better understand the over-all juvenile problem with specialreference to mental retardation and emotional problems of thejuvenile.

Knowing that legislative changes will be a necessary procedurein the implementation of this report, subsequent legislative recom-mendations can serve as a guide for the establishment of some ofthe recommendations (see appendix X).

There is no question that justice would be blind if it did notinquire into the significance of retardation as a "circumstance,"and impotent if it had no dispositional variants suited to the dif-ferences it finds.

19

APPENDIX I

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSRESEARCH STATISTICS

South Carolina Department of Corrections Statistics of 21Years of Age and Under for 1968:

I. Number of Inmates 21 Years of Age and Under (Avail-able Records) : 374

II. Number of Inmates with I.Q. of 84 to 70: 73

III. Number of Inmates with I.Q. of 70 to 50: 26

IV. Number of Inmates with I.Q. of 50 and Below: 3

V. Number of Felonies: 470

VI. Number of Felonies Per Inmate in this Age Group: 1.25Felonies Per Inmate

TYPES OF FELONIES COMMITTED

Assault and Battery with Intentto RavishAssault with a deadly weapon.Assault and Battery of a high andaggravated nature.Robbery (Armed and Attempted).Storebreaking.Housebreaking.Larceny (Grand and Petty).Murder.Safecracking.Unlawful Weapon.Manslaughter (Voluntary andInvoluntary).Breaking and Entering.Highway Robbery.Accessory After Fact of Murder.Rape (Statutory also).Forgery.Vagrancy.Escape.

20

Malicious Mischief.Using Auto Without Consent.Peeping Tom.Sending Obscene Messages overthe Telephone.Burglary.Malicious Injury to PersonalProperty.Violating Check Law.Illegal Entry.Auto Breaking.Receiving Stolen Goods.Parole Violation.Unlawful Flight.Conspiracy.Re-entryTrespassing.Juvenile Delinquency.Violation of Probation.Aiding Escape of Prisoner.Resisting Officer.Non-Support.Indecent Exposure.

APPENDIX II

STATISTICS ON JUVENILESCOLUMBIA POLICEDEPARTMENT 1967

Juvenile Offenses Charged in 1967Housebreaking and Larceny and Loafing, Loitering and

Burglary 207 Vagrancy 57Larceny of Auto or Motor Unlawful Weapons (knife 3)

Bike 91 (pistols 10) 13Disorderly Conduct and Resisting Arrest 3

Simple Assault 115 Immoral Conduct 3Petit Larceny 108 ForgeryLarceny From Auto 20 Escape 7Riding in Stolen Automobiles.. 3 Larceny From the Mails 2Shoplifting 51 Gaming 6Vandalism and Destruction Discharging Firearms in City 8

of Property 49 Attempt Arson (1) Arson (1) .. 2Incorrigibles 41 Receiving Stolen GoodsNeglected Child 1 Assault and Battery withRun Away From Home 96 Intent to Kill 3Investigation and Released .... 39 Peeping Tom (1) False FireHold for Other Authorities .... 23 Alarm (1) 2Grand Larceny and Robbery ... 10 Attempted Larceny of Auto (1)Attempt Housebreaking 8 Purse Snatching (1) 2Drunk 6 Larceny From Vending

Machines 8Auto Breaking and Larceny 10Violation of Liquor Law (1)

Contempt (1) Shooting intoDwelling (1) 3

TOTAL OFFENSES 1,009

V4

Warned and Released to Parents 292Warned and Released After

Restitution 0Referred to Juvenile Court on

Petition 547Referred to Welfare Agency 2Referred to Other Police Agency 31Referred to Adult or Criminal

Court 2

TOTAL ARRESTS 874

White Males 277White Females 78Negro Males 453Negro Females 66

21

APPENDIX III

SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAW NO. 5547.2

5547.2, Code of Laws South Carolina (1962) 1968 Cum. Supp.provides as follows:

SECTION 1. No person shall be committed to an institution underthe control of the Board of State Industrial Schools who is epi-leptic, mentally ill or mentally defective. The court when com-mitting such persons shall furnish a statement of such facts ascan be ascertained concerning his personal and family history.If it shall develop, after a person.is committed to an institution,that he is epileptic, mentally ill, mentally defective or paralytiche may be transferred by the board to such other State institutionas in its judgment is best qualified to care for him in accordancewith the laws of this State. But no transfer to any State mentalhealth facility shall be made without the approval of the SouthCarolina Mental Health Commission.

22

APPENDIX IVDEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE

MENTALLY RETARDEDThe following is a guide that may help you in understanding

the various degrees of mental retardation. This guide was estab .lished by the United States Departraent of Reath, Education, andWelfare in 1968.qi 1449.0

1

g4i

Oro 449

'24

S ..sA

IN

1-4-14Q'

a 0 t .,43a

az 0.4.o044,

cn-vi

cr

00a 6 4kez A:1 t-

APPENDIX V

FAMILY COURTS OF SOUTH CAROLINA ANDPRES IDING JUDGES

Hon, Howard K. WilliamsonThe Family CourtAiken, South Carolina20801

Hon. C. B. PearceThe Family CourtCharleston, South Carolina29402

Hon. S. Eugene HaleyThe Family CourtAnderson, South Carolina29621

Hon. James A. K. RoperThe Family CourtGreenville, South Carolina29601

Hon. J. Perrin ,AndersonThe Family CourtGreenwood, South Carolina29646

Ron. Paul F. HaiglerThe Family CourtOrangeburg, South Carolina29115

Hon. L. E. PurdyThe Family CourtSumter, South Carolina29150

Hon. Jack D. SimrillThe Family CourtRock Hill, South Carolina29730

24

Hon. J. D. MontgomeryThe Family CourtCamden, South Carolina29020

Hon. J. McNary SpignerThe Family CourtColumbia, South Carolina29201

Hon. C. Kenneth GrimsleyThe Family CourtFlorence, South Carolina29501

Hon, Robert E. GrayThe Family CourtLaurens, South Carolina29860

Hon. Roddy L. BellThe Family CourtLancaster, South Carolina29720

Hon. Mims P. HallThe Family CourtLexington, South Carolina29072

Hon. Paul S. McChesney, Jr.The Family CourtSpartanburg, South Carolina29801

Hon. Edward H. NinesteinThe Family CourtWalhalla, South Carolina29691

N.

v.

^t.

PIC

KE

NS

OC

ON

EE

: / AN

DE

R

CC

ourt

TT

estin

gM

Men

tal H

ealth

Cen

ter

RR

etar

datio

n In

stitu

tion

5 C

orre

ctio

nal S

choo

lR

egio

nal H

ealth

Are

a0

Prio

rity

Are

as F

orD

eten

tion

Cen

ters

1/4,

CH

ER

OK

E-

k-. U

NIO

N

C R

CT

M,L

AL

LIt

c. '1

15\

z-C

-'"'-N

Ew

aER

Rt-

\A515E-V

ILL

E A

RE

EN

WO

Otif

LIC

T

CO

RM

ICA

_S

ALu

0A

1

- ) C

i LA

NC

AS

TE

R

C

I N

EIM

AN

CH

EST

ER

Sta

te M

ap S

how

ing

Exi

stin

gS

ervi

ces

as In

thca

ted

and

Prio

rity

Are

as fo

r F

utur

eD

ate

a0

oC

(EO

CE

RE

LD

EnI

NFI

EL

D

LE

X8N

GT

ON

ndi

LEE

RiC

HLA

NO

IC

MC

mT S

UM

TE

R

)C

ALH

OU

N`y

CLA

RE

ND

ON

r-3\

x._.

c.A

/aG

EB

UR

G

HO

RN

Y

BA

RN

WE

LLi

&m

em

ALL

EN

DA

LE

Proj

ect o

n M

enta

lly R

etar

ded

Off

ende

rsSO

UT

H C

AR

OL

INA

DE

PA

.NT

OF

ME

NT

AL

RE

TA

RD

AT

ION

Roo

m 2

06, 1

001

Mai

n St

reet

Co

; a, S

outh

Car

olin

a 29

201

APPENDIX VIIPOSSIBLE TESTING AND

CHARLESTON AREAMarine Corps Air Station Grade

SchoolsLaurel Bay, S. C. 29902Coastal Empire Mental Health CenterP. 0. Box 610Beaufort, S. C. 29902S. C. Retarded Children's Habilitation

CenterMoseley Diagnostic CenterVocational Rehabilitation Dept.41 Bee StreetCharleston, S. C.Charleston County Mental Health

Clinic275 Calhoun StreetCharleston, S. C.

FLORENCE AREAEvaluation and Guidance Center400 W. Evans Street orP. 0. Box 1028Florence, S. C.Counseling Center114 South Kuker AvenueFlorence, S. C. 29501Pee Dee Mental Health CenterRoute 2, Box 375-AFlorence, S. C. 29501

DARLINGTON AREADarlington Area SchoolsBox 494Darlington, S. C. 29523

RICHLAND AREAReception & Evaluation CenterS. C. Department of Corrections1431 Lincoln StreetP. 0. Box 766Columbia, S. C. 29202Richland-Lexington Mental Health

Center1845 Assembly StreetColumbia, S. C. 29201

26

EVALUATION FACILITIESS. C. Society for Crippled Children

and Adults, Inc.1517 Laurel StreetColumbia, S. C. 29201Crippled Children's DivisionState Board of HealthMarion Sims Office BuildingBull Street ExtensionColumbia, S. C.S. C. Vocational Rehabilitation

Evaluation CenterWest Columbia, S. C.Child Evaluation ClinicMaternal and Child Health DivisionState Board of Health1410 Blanding StreetColumbia, S. C. 29201

AIKEN AREAAiken County Mental Health Center104 Florence Street, S. W.Aiken, S. C. 29801

SPARTANBURG AREASpartanburg Area Mental Health

ClinicSpartanburg, S. C.Spartanburg Speech and Hearing

Clinic130 West Hampton AvenueSpartanburg, S. C.S. C. School for the Deaf and the

BlindSpartanburg, S. C. 29302Spartanburg School for Handicapped

Children189 N. Forest StreetSpartanburg, S. C.

BENNETTSVILLE AREATri-County Mental Health AreaThe Whitener Building114 S. Marlboro StreetBennettsville, S. C.

GREENWOOD AREA

Beckman Center for Mental HealthServices

Corner Phoenix and AlexanderStreets

P. 0. Box 925Greenwood, S. C.

Cerebral Palsy of Greenwood CountyEdward ArmsGreenwood, S. C. 29646

Rehabilitation Workshop ofGreenwood, Inc.

203 Maxwell AvenueGreenwood, S. C. 29646

GREENVILLE AREA

Greenville Area Mental HealthCenter

600 County Office BuildingGreenville, S. C. 29601

YORK AREA

Vocational Training Workshop, Inc.216 E. Main StreetRock Hill, S. C.

Rock H ill Day Care Center1048 Oakland AvenueRock Hill, S. C.

York-Chester-Lancaster MentalHealth Center

103 Sedgewood DriveP. 0. Box 2933Cherry Road StationRock Hill, S. C. 29732

SUMTER AREA

Sumter-Clarendon-Kershaw MentalHealth Center

19 E. Calhoun StreetBox 1486Sumter, S. C. 29151

27

ANDERSON AREA

Anderson-Oconee-Pickens MentalHealth Center

1601 N. Main Street orP. O. Box 707Anderson, S. C. 29622

HOBBY AREA

Georgetown-Horry-WilliamsburgMental Health Clinic

706 Laurel Street orP. 0. Box 764Conway, S. C. 29526

COLLEGES

Columbia College Guidance CenterColumbia, S. C.

University of S. C. Guidance CenterColumbia, South Carolina

Presbyterian College Guidance CenterClinton, S. C.

Furman University Guidance CenterGreenville, S. C.

Winthrop CollegeRock Hill, S. C.

S. C. State CollegeOrangeburg, S. C.

ADDITIONS

Civitan Community RehabilitationFacility, Inc.

209 Liberty StreetSpartanburg, S. C.S_. C. Vocational Rehabilitation

AgencyWhitten Village Rehabilitation

FacilityClinton, S. C.

S. C. Department of VocationalRehabilitation

400 Wade Hampton State OfficeBldg.

Columbia, S. C.

APPENDIX VIIIEXCERPTS FROM COURT RECORDS

CASE 1Child in question is a 18-year-old white male who had had threeprevious petitions for petty larceny and housebreaking. By previ-ous order, the child was sent to live with an uncle in a nearby citywhom the court felt could be a positive influence on him. The homefrom which the child comes is characterized by neglect and igno-rance for the care of the children. This child at the present timeis in the 7th grade in Jr. High School ; however, according to schoolrecords, it was indicated that he was socially promoted.. In orderfor the court to properly determine the best treatment for him,additional information is necessary concerning his functioningabilities.

CASE 2The child in question is a 14 -year -old Negro male who seems toget along in his home setting and with his three brothers. Heseems to have no respect for his mother, but relates well to hisstepfather. He demonstrates, from the reports, that he is havingproblems in school. His teachers are unable to handle him and aregoing to request that he be taken out of their classes. He does nothave any friends in the classes or neighborhood. He is easily leadand could get in with the wrong crowd. His previous petitions ofstealing lawn mowers leads us to believe that additional evaluationshould be done to determine mental capabilities.CASE 3Child in question is a 15-year-old white female, who has appearedin court on two occasions as an incorrigible. She has a history ofsexual involvement, and is suspected to have been involved withmarijuana. Although she is 15 years of age, her school recordsindicate that she is functioning at a fourth grade level. The courtis in need of additional evaluation information in order to makefinal determination in handling this case.

The reaction of the judges regarding these three cases wasone in which they felt that all three children were retarded; how-ever, there was no definite indication of this, and they had soughtthe aid of local resources in the community to aid the court inidentifying the mental condition of the children. In all three cases,it was felt that under ordinary circumstances the children shouldpossibly be sent to the correctional schools. However, it was theopinion of the court that if the children are retarded this wouldbe of no value to them, and the court becomes frustrated withouthaving the opportunity of full diagnostic services or screeningtests to determine the mental capabilities of the children. Thecourt further stated that if these children are evaluated as beingretarded, there is no facility for the care and treatment of theretarded delinquent.

28

",

APPENDIX IX

PROCEDURES IN HANDLING PETITIONS TO THEJUVENILE COURTS

PETITIONS

Lew Enforcement Mendes

Chief Probation Officer

Probation Counselors

Dismissed

Hearing

.111110-

29

MM.

I I 1

Probation PlacementI Commitment

DPW, Foster Homes, Children's Homes

APPENDIX IXCon't

PROCEDURES IN HANDLING PETITIONS

1. Source of Referrals.a. Law enforcement.h. Parents.c. Schools.d. Others (Injured parties).

2. Disposition of petitions (Summons).a. Received petitions with previous records, if any.

b. If child is in jail makes necessary arrangements for release. (Note:Probation officer on call for the week makes visit to jails each morn-ing and talks to the children and arranges for release.)

c. Sets up initial interview with parents and child.1. Explains why the child is in court and the probation Counselor's

role.2. Explains the rights of the child and the right to be represented by

an attorney, private or court appointed.3. Checks with the school.4. If felt the child needs help and upon the approval of the parent,

the child may be referred to the Mental Health agencies or othersocial agencies before trial.

5. Help obtain legal assistance if required or needed.6. If placement other than the home is indicated, will investigate and

make recommendations at hearing.7. Visit home before hearing, if possible.8. Have case scheduled for hearing.9. See that all witnesses and interested parties are notified of hearing

date.

4. After hearing Actions.a. If child needs placement, make the arrangements.b. If placed on probation, work with child in the following areas:

I. If referred to Mental Health, Vocational Rehabilitation or otheragencies, see that child and parents, if required, keep appointments.

2. Make periodic visits to home.3. If child has school problems work closely with schools.4. Be available to child and parents when needed.

5. Main purpose of probation is getting involved in the life of the childRehabilitation.

30

APPENDIX X

SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY

GENERAL ASSEMBLY1. Creation of a state-supported family court system.2. Elimination of juvenile jurisdiction by magistrates, recorders, andprobate judges, or

a. Magistrates, recorders, and probate judges should have no authorityto commit youthful offenders to correctional schools or chain gangswithout review by the Family Court.

8. All juvenile cases other than traffic should be adjudicated by FamilyCourts only.

4. Development of a state-wide system of regional detention centers underthe administration of the Family Courts.a. Thus eliminating placement of juvenile offenders in local jailfacilities.b. Within the detention center, beginning screening and diagnosis ofthe juvenile offender as to the individual's capacities.

5. Examination of the total juvenile laws of South Carolina with specialreference to the laws dealing with the juvenile offender.6. Provide funds for the creation and administration of a reception andevaluation center for youthful offenders under the administration ofthe Board of Juvenile Corrections.

a. Develop proper controlled in-take procedures at the four correc-tional schools, thus eliminating over-crowded conditions.7. Encourage our law enforcement departments throughout the state tocreate special juvenile departments and staff, or have available onstaff specially trained juvenile officers.8. Appropriate additional funds for the creation of more special educationclasses in the public schools.

STATE, COUNTY, CITY, AND PRIVATE AGENCIES1. Coordinate services and develop inter-agency communications on alllevels.

2. Develop services of utilizing inter-agency staff on a consultation basisand actual services basis.

8. Develop clear definitions that are uniform for all agencies who areserving youth as to what is a "child," what is an "adolescent," or ingeneral, what is a "juvenile."4. Develop public relations techniques in order for the public to be awareof the various services available to the community.

31

APPENDIX X Con't

SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY

5. Law enforcement department to carry out an educational program asto the role of the police officer with special reference to reaching theelementary and secondary school age child.

6. In the public schools, development of mandatory on-going programsand continued use of such results for determining the child's capacityto function in the public school setting. This testing should take placeat least every two years.a. From such on-going programs, early detection of special problems

could be forthcoming and treated.

HIGHER EDUCATION

1. Develop additional faculty members to expand special education de-partments.a. If no special education department exists, every effort should be

to develop one.

2. Recruitment for the special education department's students to becometrained teachers to enter into this important area of need, i.e., man-power needs, and publication.

3. Develop further special education classes and seminars as an aid toteachers already in the field.

4. Develop training programs in the field of law enforcement that couldeventually develop into a four-year degree program.

COMMUNITY

1. Encourage local School Boards to develop special education classes intheir schools.

2. Become more aware of the role of the Family Court in serving the localcommunity.

3. Encourage the involvement of local law enforcement officers to be-come actively involved in community affairs.

4. Encourage local legislators to be aware of special problems with refer-ence to mental retardation and delinquency, and for them to appro-priate the necessary funds to create additional services.

5. To be aware of the local resources available within their communityfor family and youth, and where services are not available, to takethe necessary steps to encourage their development.

32

APPENDIX XI

SUMMARY OF SPECIAL REPORT ONPROCEDURES FOR YOUTHFUL MENTALLYRETARDED OFFENDERS IN THREE STATES*

To aid in the development of services to the retarded offenderin South Carolina, the practices of three states (Texas, Washing-ton, and Ohio) were examined. The goal was to ascertain theirprocedures and concerns in establishing treatment programs forthese youths that have been committed to their state correctionalinstitutions.

All three states have similar laws to that of South Carolina, inthat no individual who is mentally defective should be sent to statecorrectional schools.

As was pointed out in this report and as one of the recom-mendations suggests, in order for the judge to be able to determineif an offender is retarded, it would be necessary to have pre-hearing testing and evaluations. This procedure is not done in anyof the three states. The Directors and Superintendents of thecorrectional schools visited expressed the feeling that this pro-cedure would be of immense value. All youthful offenders whetherretarded or not are committed to these states' youth authoritiesfor placement in their reception-evaluation centers. It is in thesecenters, after extensive testing and consideration of the offense,that treatment determination is made and the youth is assigned toone of the correctional schools. The schools are so designed to meetthe different age and special treatment needs of the individual aswell as the nature of the offense. Thus, if a youthful offender isretarded and in need of special education, he is assigned to a cor-rectional school having such a program.

In the State of Texas, the referral to the reception-evaluationcenter becomes a firm commitment for placement in a correctionalschool regardless of his mental capacity, with the exception ofmental illness. If it is found that a youngster is mentally ill, he is

*This report by Mr. Donald LaBelle was made possible througha special task force study group under the South Carolina Gov-ernor's Committee on Criminal Administration and JuvenileDelinquency.

33

APPENDIX XI Con'tSUMMARY OF SPECIAL REPORTtransferred to a facility designed specifically for this purpose,However, a youth who is mentally retarded is incorporated intothe institutional setting and placed in a correctional school wherespecific treatment programs and the educational structure is di-reeted towards the retarded offenders. Thus, for the purpose ofagency responsibility, the offense factor rather than the handicapbecomes the determiner.

In the State of Washington, a similar procedure takes placewith the exception that if in the judgment of the social servicestaff of the school where the retarded offender is placed, theretarded student demonstrates a level of retardation that theschools' staff feels they cannot handle properly, the staff will referthe individual to an interagency staff committee. This committeeis composed of representatives from retardation and correctionsWho review the case and make final recommendations as to whichinstitution is best able to serve the youth. If it is the judgment ofboth staffs that the individual is best served through the retarda-Con institutions, then he will be transferred to such a facility. Ifit is felt that the continued service in the correctional school isto his advantage, then suggested treatment programs will be re-viewed and the child will remain in the correctional institution. Inthe event that a center for the mentally retarded feels that ayoungster who has been placed in their institution has become abehavior problem to the extent that they feel he needs securitycare, then they may in turn request an interagency staff con-ference to request a transfer to the correctional schools. Hereagain, in the State of Washington, every effort is made to createa program and develop treatment in keeping with the mental levelof the individual that is sent to the correctional schools.

The State of Ohio's in-take procedure is similar to that of thetwo previously mentioned states with the exception that, followingthe period of stay in the reception-evaluation center, which is sixweeks, compared to eight weeks in Washington and two weeks inTexas, the recommendation of the center is sent to a special Clas-sification Division who then makes the determination as to whatsteps should be taken in the placement of a youngster. It is at thistime that the Classification Division could make a recommendationto the State Agency for mental retardation for placement of a

34

retarded offender in one of their institutions, but long waiting listsusually preclude the recommendation.

Long waiting lists for service at institutions for retardates inall three states have made the need apparent that specialized pro-grams are a necessary part of the correctional school in order toaccommodate retarded offenders. In each case special educationteachers are employed to teach in the correctional schools thatreceive mentally retarded offenders. Where the nature of the of-fense is such as to allow it, community resources are used asplacement for retarded offenders rather than maintaining themwithin institutions. This is accomplished by parole officers who areinvolved from the very beginning of the adjudication proceduresand who recommend this type of placement after reception andevaluation has shown that the offender is mentally retarded.

The correctional authorities in all three states agreed thatevaluation at the time a youthful offender is placed in a detentioncenter awaiting adjudication would be to the advantage of both thecorrectional schools and the courts. This procedure would greatlyaid the courts in determining the disposition of youthful retardedoffenders; i.e., whether to send them to state correctional institu-tions, to community resources, or to request mental retardationcenters to accept them.

35

YOUTHFUL RETARDED OFFENDERS PROJWE'

Composition Study Group I

Gibson, Charles, Chairman, . AttorneyArmstrong, Robert , *State Department of EducationAshe, Mabel B. ...... , ,Superintendent, Riverside School

for Girls

CharlestonColumbia

ColumbiaColumbia

Domestic & Family dourt ColumbiaColumbia

Columbia

WalterboroColumbia

Belt, Lonnie ..... ...Council on AlcoholismBostic, John Chief Probation Officer

Cannon, Clarence Columbia Police Department .

teflon. Planning ProgramSupervisor, Staff Developing and

Training, DPW

Chandler, Charles .........Coordinator, Vocational ehabili-

Cone, Ferebe

Poskoollo Carl Department of Mental HealthDusenbury, Joe Administrative Assistant, S. C.

Dept. of Voc. Rehab,Edwards Johnette ... , ....Trident Forum for Handicapped .Fields, Richard ..Gaskins, Sara Field Supervisor

Columbia. Charleston

. .... ..Attorney Charleston

Spartanburg I5PWGrant, Walter Henry St. Johns MissionGordon, Kay Black , ....State Department of Education

Director, Legal Services AgencyCoordinator, HIP, PinelanPast President, S. C. Association

for Retarded Children

Harter, EdwardHoover, LarryHuff, Charles (Mrs.)

Insalaco, Carl ....... Department of Psychology, USC.. ..... Director, Urban League

Karesh, Janice L. ....Loprie, IsadoreMcCall, Ruth

SpartanburgC larlesto n

.ColumbiaColumbiaColumbia

Rock Hill. ColumbiaColumbia

. Trident Forum for 1. andicapped CharlestonMember, House of Representatives ColumbiaSocial Worker, State Board of

Health ColumbiaSupt., John G. Richards School

for Boys ColumbiaPublic Defenders Office ColumbiaAssistant Research Director

Department of Corrections ColumbiaPineland State Training School ColumbiaSupt., Pineland State Training

School ColumbiaDirector, State Juvenile Board of

Corrections Columbia.. The Family Court Rock Hill

Ph.D. ColumbiaSenator Florence

Johnson, Daisy .. . .

McCuen, Richard

McIntosh, JohnMorgan, David

Page, DelaineRondeau, Edward A.

Shivers, Jack

Simrill, Jack D. (JudgeSnyder, EloiseZeigler, Eugene N.

36

84

YOUTHFUL RETARDED OFFENDERS PRWECT

Composition Study Group II

Spigner, J. Mc Nary,Chairman $.1114,1,10 $$$

Brockington, Bare J. ..Carpenter, Helen . , ....

..

Carver, Richard E. ..

. Judge, Domestic & Family Court ,, Senator. Child Welfare Consultant, York

County DPW. Senior Case Work Supervisor,

Greenville County DPW ...... .uaployment Counselor,

ouch Opportunit CenterSuperintendent, S. School

for GirlsSupervisor, Division of Special

EducationSupervisor of Education,

Department of CorrectionsCoordinator, HIP, PinelandPsychologist, PinelandWorkshop & Facilities Officer,

S. C. De )t. of Voc. Rehab.Pineland tate Training' SchoolPineland State Training SchoolSu erintendent, S. C. School

or BoysReverend, Buncombe Methodist

ChurchSocial Worker, Richland School

DistrictAssistant Attorney GeneralExecutive Director, Associated

Social AgenciesMember, House of RepresentativesCase Work Supervisor, Greenwood

County DPW'Superintendent, Pineland State

Training School

Clay, Mary

Compton, George O.

Corder, Owen

Dubose, Harvey

Dye, KennethGreen, William B., IIIGrogam, George. B.

Berman, LillianHowell, TornHuckabee, Norman M.

Hunter, James E. ... ...Hurley, Alice

Halford, RaymondMcLendon, Walser

Medlock, TravisMoss, Elizabeth

Rondeau, Edward A.

Rosenblume, ArthurSandick, Bernard A.

Schleimer, EdwardSimmons, William HenrySpivey, W. Bryant

Thompson, B. L.

Southerlin, Deborah

Watts, Henry

Westrope, MarthaWilliams, Jack

State Board of JuvenileCorrections

Charleston Mental Health ClinicJudgeChaplain, Pineland State

Training SchoolOffice of Vocational

RehabilitationChief, Child Welfare Services,

DPWArea Supervisor, Office of

Voc. Rehab. ........." ........ ColumbiaDr., Psychologist GreenvillePublic Defenders Office Columbia

. ColumbiaColumbia,

York

Greenville

.Columbia

Columbia

Columbia

ColumbiaColumbiaColumbia

Columbia. Columbia. Columbia

Florence

Greenville

ColumbiaColumbia

Columbia. Columbia

Greenwood

ColumbiaCharleston

Columbia...Charleston

Charleston

Columbia

Charleston

Columbia

37

Y.

YOUTHFUL RETARDED OFFENDERS PROJECT

Composition Study Group III

Mr. Robert Armstrong

Mr. John Bostic

Lt. Clarence Cannon

Mr. Joe Dusenbury

Mr. Charles Gibson

Mrs. Kay Black Gordon

Mrs. Lillian Herman

Mrs. Alice Hurley

Mr. James Loma)

Mr. Travis Medlock

38

Miss Ruth McCall

Mr. David Morgan

Dr. Edward A. Rondeau

Mr. Jack Shivers

Judge Jack D. Simrill

Dr. Eloise Snyder

Judge J. MacNary Spigner

Mrs. Virginia Stewart

Dr. Martha Weatrope

YOUTHFUL RETARDED OFFENDERS PROJECTSpecial Consultants.. Superintendent, Riverside School

for Girls ColumbiaAshe, Mabel B,

Banks, Therell

Beckman, Sterling

Blanchard, Gordon

Bostic, John

Brangon, AdahCannon, Clarence, Lt.Cauthern, William, CaptCicienia, Ebert P.

Compton, George O.

Copeland, Redick

Corry, Claude B.

Davey, Charles

Fries, Walter G.

Golden, KennethHope, James K.

Huckabee, Norman M.

Hudson, Robert

Kent, Gordon

Lanford, John S. Jr.,Judge

Leeke, William

Lococo, James

McCuen, Richard

Moore, Edward

Moyer, CliffordMyers, WebsterPowell, FrankRondeau, Edward A.Seigler, R. E.

Shivers, Jack

Simrill, Jack, JudgeSpigner, J. McNary, Judge.Stewart, Virginia

Su erinterident, Re onal YouthAugusta, Ga.

tmentColumbia

entAugusta, Ga.

Columbianeland Columbiant Columbiant Columbialitation

Bevelopment Center.. . . . . Personnel Director, Depaz

of Corrections. 4... .. Director, Youth Developm

CenterChief Probation Officer,

Family CourtDirector of Education, PiColumbia Police Departme

.. Columbia Police DepartmeSuperintendent, S. C. Habi

CenterSuperintendent, S. C. Scho

GirlsSecretary, Department of

RetardationState Department Family

Children's ServicesChief Probation Officer,

Family CourtDeputy Commissioner? De

of Mental RetardationState Planning and GrantDirector, Juvenile Placeme

BureauSuperintendent, S. C. Scho

oysCoBordinator, Andrew Jack

SchoolDirector, Vocational

Rehabilitation, Pineland

Tillman, Curtis V., Judge

ol for

Mental

and

Charleston

Columbia

Columbia

Atlanta, Ga.

Charlestonpartment

nt

ol for

son

Fulton County Juvenile CDirector, Department of

CorrectionsHEW Consultant, Plannin

and GrantsSuperintendent, John G. R

chool for BoysAssistant Supervisor, hive

Placement BureauDirector, S. C. Police AcaProfessor of Law, USCSheriff, Richland CountySuperintendent, PinelandWarden, Reception & Eva

CenterDirector, Juvenile Board

CorrectionsYork County Family Coui

. Richland County FamilyCoordinator, Residential S

Department of MentalRetardation

..DeKalb County Juvenile

ColumbiaColumbia

Columbia

Florence

Columbia

Columbia

ourt Atlanta, Ga.

Columbia

Columbiaichards

Columbianile

Columbiademy .... Columbia.......

ColumbiaColumbia

luation

ofColumbia

ColumbiaYork

Court Columbiaervices

STAFFS. Donald LaBelle, ACSW

Project Coordinator39

ColumbiaCourt . . . Atlanta, Ga.

Lovera RobertsonProject Secretary

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Cover design by John Wolff

40

. .1,011* 14