INT J LANG COMMUN DISORD, JANUARY–FEBRUARY VOL. 50, NO. 1, 1–13

2015,

Discussion Improving communication outcomes for young offenders: a proposed response to intervention framework Pamela C. Snow†, Dixie D. Sanger‡, Laura M. Caire§, Patricia A. Eadie¶ and Teagan Dinslage‡ †School of Psychology & Psychiatry, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia ‡Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA §Parkville Youth Justice Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia ¶Audiology, Hearing and Speech Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

(Received August 2013; accepted May 2013) Abstract Background: Speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) are strongly overrepresented in young offender populations, and there is growing commitment internationally to ensuring access to speech–language therapy services for such young people. However there is currently no framework in which such interventions might be conceptualized, delivered and evaluated. This is significant given the role of language competence in the development of prosocial skills and also in the transition to literacy. Aims: To present Response to Intervention (RTI) as a framework in which SLCN of young offenders might be systematically addressed and evaluated within youth justice settings, led by speech–language therapists, in conjunction with other education and welfare team members. Methods & Procedures: Literature regarding prevalence rates of SLCN in young offenders is reviewed, together with the limited extant evidence on interventions for this group. The importance of applying evidence-based interventions is argued, and a framework for adapting RTI for SLCN in custodial settings is outlined. Main Contribution: A framework for adapting RTI to design, deliver and evaluate speech–language therapy interventions in youth custodial settings is presented. Conclusions: Speech–language therapy interventions for young offenders will be better addressed at policy, practice and research levels if a framework such as an RTI adaptation is employed. It is expected, however, that this model will evolve over time, as intervention evidence pertaining to the youth offender population emerges. Keywords: young offenders, speech, language and communication needs (SLCN), Response to Intervention.

What this paper adds? There is a strong body of international evidence linking language and behavioural difficulties in the developmental period and also concerning the speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) of young offenders. However, there is a dearth of evidence on language intervention approaches and their effectiveness with the young offender population. In this paper an adaptation of Response to Intervention (RTI) is described as a potential framework in which to conceptualize, design, deliver and evaluate interventions for the SLCN displayed by some 50% of young offenders. We also suggest the use of single-case methodology at RTI Tier 3 with this population. Adapting the RTI framework in youth justice settings may assist policy-makers and health and education bureaucrats in making difficult funding allocation decisions, as it provides a theoretical model in which to design and evaluate services.

Address correspondence to: Pamela C. Snow, School of Psychology & Psychiatry, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; e-mail: [email protected] International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders C 2014 Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists ISSN 1368-2822 print/ISSN 1460-6984 online  DOI: 10.1111/1460-6984.12117

2

Pamela C. Snow et al. Introduction

It is nearly 50 years since the first description of communication problems in high-risk adolescents and the deleterious impact they have on social interactions and learning (Cozad and Rousey 1966). Since that time, researchers around the globe have studied the expressive and receptive language skills of young offenders, with evidence from the United States (e.g. Blanton and Dagenais 2007, LaVigne and Rybroek 2010, 2013, Sanger et al. 2003, 2008, 2010a, 2010b, Traynelis-Yurek and Giacobbe 1998), Scandinavia (e.g. Mouridsen and Hauschild 2009, Munoz et al. 2008), the UK (Bryan 2004, Bryan et al. 2007), and Australia (Snow and Powell 2004, 2008, 2011a) consistently identifying young offenders as a population that is high-risk for clinically significant, yet unidentified language impairments. Prevalence estimates vary quite widely, e.g. Sanger et al. (2000) reported that some 19.65% of adolescent females residing in a correctional facility had communication problems and were potential candidates for language services, while Snow and Powell (2008, 2011a) have reported rates around 50%, and the UK data suggest rates around 60–70% (Bryan 2004, Bryan et al. 2007). While variations in these prevalence estimates no doubt reflect methodological differences between studies, it is clear that young offenders experience language deficits far more commonly than their peers in the general population, where estimates range between 5% (Larson and McKinley 1995), 3–7% (Norbury and Paul 2013) and 14% (McLeod and McKinnon 2007). It is also notable that language problems in the youth justice population span all aspects of expressive and receptive skills, including vocabulary, syntax, pragmatics and comprehension of figurative (non-literal) linguistic devices such as idiom and metaphor (Snow and Powell 2011a). High rates of speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) among young offenders, together with a high prevalence of learning disabilities (Putnins 1999), co-morbid mental health problems (Ryan and Redding 2004), low educational attainment (Snow and Powell 2008, 2011a), and histories of maltreatment (Snow and Powell 2011a) present complex challenges for staff planning programmes for this population. Such challenges need a unifying diagnostic and intervention framework, however there is currently minimal evidence about ‘what works’ with respect to the SLCN of this complex population. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to review current evidence pertaining to SLCN in youth offender populations and to propose an intervention framework that clinician-researchers might adopt in order to determine whether SLCN in this population are amenable to speech–language therapy (SLT) intervention, and if so, under what circumstances and to what extent. We review the evidence pertaining to SLCN in at-risk young

people (with a particular focus on young offenders) and propose a modified form of Response to Intervention (RTI) that may provide a framework in which SLT services can be conceptualized, delivered and evaluated. The use of single-case methodology is included at Tier 3 of the proposed framework. Language impairment and psychosocial risk There are some longitudinal studies on young people in whom language impairment is identified in early childhood (e.g. Brownlie et al. 2004, Conti-Ramsden and Botting 2008, Elbro et al. 2013, Johnson et al. 2010, St Clair et al. 2011), and these indicate that language impairments do not necessarily subside with time, and in fact manifest as complex psychosocial impairments (e.g. mental health problems, low literacy, reduced vocational engagement) later in life. It must be stressed, however, that evidence on language impairments in young offenders is derived almost exclusively from cross-sectional studies, meaning that causal inferences cannot be drawn about the strong links between two important variables: language deficits on the one hand, and youth offending on the other. In all likelihood, they are both outcomes of complex environmental and biological adversities that coalesce in ways that are both criminogenic and disadvantageous to the acquisition of core linguistic and related prosocial competencies. It is widely accepted that low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds are overrepresented in the lives of young people in both the care and justice systems (Snow and Powell 2011a, 2011b), and it is also known that being from low SES backgrounds poses a threat to the nature and degree of language exposure experienced in early childhood (Clegg 2006, Cross 2011, Hart and Risley 1995, Roy and Chiat 2013), supporting the argument that complex common underlying factors result in both outcomes. Involvement with youth justice services is often preceded by years of so-called ‘behaviour problems’, particularly externalizing disorders such as conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder, as per various editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (most recently DSM5) (American Psychiatric Association 2013). Evidence that high proportions of young people excluded from school because of externalizing behaviour problems actually have unidentified language impairments when specifically tested (Clegg et al. 2009, Ripley and Yuill 2005) echoes earlier research by Cohen et al. (1993) in Canada concerning high rates of unidentified language impairments in primary school-aged boys referred to a mental health service because of behaviour concerns. Ethnographic research also illustrates that some young offenders have struggled with listening, following directions, and understanding age-appropriate

Improving communication outcomes for young offenders using an RTI framework vocabulary throughout school (Sanger et al. 2000). For many of these young people, reading, writing, speaking, listening and thinking could have presented significant challenges to learning in the classroom from very early in their school experience, however behavioural issues understandably (but unfortunately) attract disproportionate adult attention (Cross 2011, Sanger et al. 2002, Snow and Powell 2008, 2011a, 2011b). Snowling et al. (2006) found that psychosocial outcomes in adolescence for children with early language impairments were less promising if SLCN persisted, and where low nonverbal IQ was present. Although these workers did not identify a role for social adversity (partly for sampling reasons), it remains to be seen whether adversity per se, or the experience of maltreatment and chaos that may accompany it, is significant as a risk for poor psychosocial outcomes. Language competence and school success Oral language skills underpin success in classroom tasks that involve listening, speaking, reading and writing, including following instructions, understanding and using vocabulary, comprehending text, expressing thoughts and ideas, sharing experiences, participating in class discussion, setting goals and problem-solving (Joffe 2006, Nippold 2007, Snow and Powell 2004, Starling et al. 2011). Oral language competence is also needed to effectively establish and maintain peer and teacher relationships, and supports the transition to literacy, a key factor in school engagement (Snow et al. 2013a), which in turn, is protective against offending (Snow and Powell 2011b). Oral language skills are critical for the development of written language and are important for many aspects of educational engagement and achievement (Dockrell et al. 2011). Oral language competence is also positively associated with prosocial behaviours such as social inferencing, emotion recognition, and negotiation skills (Armstrong 2011, Benner et al. 2002, Snow 2009, Snow and Powell 2011a, 2011b, Snow et al. 2012, Zadeh et al. 2007). Although evidence suggests that language difficulties may be more closely related to behaviour problems in the early years than in later years (Lindsay and Dockrell 2012), this assumes that significant psychosocial (criminogenic) risks are not present. Further, it must be remembered that many young offenders, although chronologically in their teens, are academically operating at a primary-school level (Putnins 1999). In addition to academic immaturity, young offenders display complex behavioural and emotional needs that often reflect early trauma exposure, and conspire to compromise engagement and motivation in educational settings (Snow and Powell 2011a). Surveys and interviews with young female offenders have revealed their frustrations with learning in school, understanding what words mean, listening, following

3

teachers’ instructions, and comprehending the language of texts (Sanger et al. 2010b). It is probable therefore, that many high-risk students find the classroom environment to be overly complex with respect to expressive and receptive verbal demands, and as a consequence struggle to learn. Language impairments are often not evident to others however, and have been noted to ‘masquerade’ as rudeness, disinterest, and low motivation (Snow and Powell 2011b). Misinterpretations like these by key adults such as teachers may result in lowered expectations and an underestimation of students’ academic potential. Without language-sensitive modifications within their curriculum, textbooks, and classroom instruction, high-risk young people are likely to experience problems learning in school, and to end their formal education prematurely (Snow and Powell 2008, 2011a, 2011b). Further, although it has been shown that many young offenders can state the basic rules and conventions governing conversational interactions, e.g. on how to be a good listener, take turns in conversations, initiate appropriate topics, and stay on topics without interrupting their conversational partner (Sanger et al. 2003), many do not actually display these behaviours consistently during conversational interactions. Because spontaneous interactions do not manifest their underlying knowledge, pragmatic language deficits are evident in everyday life. Although the underlying cause(s) of such difficulties are unclear, it is evident that some young offenders do not understand that their inappropriate spontaneous interactions can negatively impact social, academic, or vocational success in mainstream settings. Similarly, some young offenders lack adequate metalinguistic and metacognitive skills to accurately analyse, judge, monitor, and predict their social interactions, and to manage the linguistic aspects of reading, and writing (Sanger et al. 2008). Sanger et al. (2008) identified differences of opinion among 31 students in a correctional facility and five teachers on 35 survey items measuring listening, speaking, reading, writing, and thinking. On parallel questionnaires, students rated themselves more optimistically than their teachers’ ratings on 26 of 35 items. Additionally, statistically significant differences were found between the two groups on reading and writing subsections of surveys. Overall, findings suggest adolescents may struggle with self-appraisal and monitoring of both their spoken and written language. Language growth in adolescence While much emphasis is placed on the rapid and successful acquisition of language in the preschool years, research has also demonstrated significant language growth during the adolescent years (Nippold 2000, 2007, Starling et al. 2011). Increasing use of complex

4

Pamela C. Snow et al.

syntactic structures, topic-specific vocabulary, comprehension of figurative expressions, the development of metalinguistic skills and improvements in written expression (e.g. persuasive writing) are all observed during the adolescent years. Proficiency in reading allows the adolescent to access significant volumes of new linguistic and cognitive information, which in turn provides the base for improvements in decoding and reading comprehension skills. At the same time, recent research highlights the complex cognitive control mechanisms associated with executive function skills during this developmental period. Executive function integrates the adolescent’s self-regulatory abilities and language achievements, and facilitates abstract understanding related to increasing academic and social demands (Diamond 2013). Classroom discourse, curriculum demands and social expectations during the secondary years of schooling mean that growth in spoken and written language skills needs to continue throughout adolescence and into early adulthood.

Interventions for adolescents with language difficulties Longitudinal studies of the developmental pathways for children with language difficulties provide strong evidence for the persistence of difficulties throughout the school years and beyond (Conti-Ramsden et al. 2012, Young et al. 2002). Despite this, reviews of the language intervention literature (Cirrin and Gillam 2008) highlight the dearth of one-to-one intervention research on children over age 10. Without evidence of the effectiveness of interventions with adolescents, it is unlikely that more services will be provided for this group, perpetuating the ‘evidence vacuum’. In the absence of evidence for intensive and individual intervention with adolescents, others have focused on classroom-based oral and written language and the instructional language of teachers in secondary schools (e.g. Larson and McKinley 2003, Wallach 2008). Published evidence on the effectiveness of this approach is scarce, however Starling et al. (2012) evaluated an intervention approach that focused on modifying the oral and written instructional language of secondary school teachers. This was a whole-of-class approach, with teachers incorporating techniques taught during the intervention into their classroom practice. Both teachers’ language modifications and students’ listening comprehension and written expression skills showed significant improvement following the intervention and compared to controls. These results, considered alongside an increasing interest in RTI (see further below), suggest whole-of-class interventions hold promise for ado-

lescents with language difficulties and require further research attention. Language interventions for young offenders Speech–language therapy is recognized as an essential service in settings where there are high rates of SLCN, including secondary schools, child and adolescent mental health services, special education, and acquired brain injury rehabilitation centres (Law et al. 2013). Until recently, however, speech–language therapists (SLTs) have not been employed in forensic settings despite the high prevalence of SLCN in young offenders. Awareness is increasing of the need for speech–language therapy services within youth justice settings and service providers are recognizing the vital role SLTs can play in rehabilitation of young offenders (Bryan and Gregory 2013, Caire 2013). Many Youth Offender Teams in the UK routinely employ SLTs (Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists 2013), and the first full-time SLT has recently been employed at the Parkville Youth Justice Centre, in Melbourne, Australia. The high prevalence of SLCN in young offenders gives rise to important questions about how best to address their intervention needs when they are in contact with the youth justice system. Snow and Powell (2011b) have noted that academic interventions for young people in the justice system will be well-intentioned but lacking in efficacy unless they take account of the underlying linguistic deficits that need to be addressed if barriers to educational success are to be removed. These workers have also cautioned that counselling of young offenders via ‘talk therapies’ such as cognitive behaviour therapy may have reduced efficacy if verbal limitations are not understood and accommodated by staff. In spite of the observation some sixteen years ago that ‘it is paramount that treatment models for the emotionally/behaviourally disturbed youth include some type of language therapy’ (Traynelis-Yurek and Giacobbe 1998: 168), very little language intervention research has been conducted in youth justice settings. TraynelisYurek and Giacobbe showed that both self-awareness and actual language skills could be improved via promotion of a positive peer culture within the youth justice setting, though no follow-up was conducted to examine long-term gains. Gregory and Bryan (2011) studied a sample of 72 young offenders, identifying SLCN that might benefit from speech–language therapy intervention in 65% of those screened, with 20% scoring at the ‘severely delayed’ level on standardized assessment. For those young people identified with SLCN, intervention was jointly delivered by the SLT and youth justice team staff and involved development of a communication plan, provision of resources and strategies, and delivery of intervention that targeted specific areas of

Improving communication outcomes for young offenders using an RTI framework communication, such as vocabulary or narrative skills. Gregory and Bryan reported that 75% of the young people who were reassessed before release made improvements in all areas of communication targeted. An even higher percentage (85–88%) of those who were reassessed on standardized measures showed improved scores. However, findings from this study are difficult to replicate, because the frequency, format (e.g. individual versus group therapy) and intensity of intervention varied as a function of client need and staff capacity and was not formally documented. Also, the extent to which improvements on these formal measures translated into functional gains is unknown, as is the extent to which improvements were maintained once therapy was withdrawn. This dearth of intervention evidence pertaining to young offenders needs to be considered alongside the growing evidence-base for SLT interventions more generally (Law et al. 2012), particularly as these pertain to early childhood. Notwithstanding the difficulties inherent in intervening in youth offender settings, the principles for developing and evaluating SLT interventions outlined by Law et al. (2012) need to be applied to this population as a matter of priority. These authors’ ‘Ten criteria to help evaluate interventions’ are particularly noteworthy as a guide to researchers, clinicians, and policy-makers alike. A model of service delivery to meet the SLCN of young offenders has been described by Bryan and Gregory (n.d.), encompassing prevention of offending for high-risk students, provision of services in the youth justice system, and integration back into the community. Though staff in youth offending teams support the role of SLT in addressing youth offenders’ SLCN (Bryan and Gregory 2013), much additional research is needed. Specifically, it is not known how best to identify young people with undiagnosed SLCN in the youth justice setting, nor how best to allocate scarce SLT resources. Possible barriers to the design and implementation of rigorous speech–language therapy interventions in these settings include the complexity of the settings themselves, the fact that SLTs have not traditionally been employed in the youth justice sector, and a historic tendency to overlook the significant developmental risks faced by young offenders, in favour of a focus on criminogenic needs (Andrews and Bonta 2010) such as mental health and substance misuse. Though it is not surprising that very little published work provides a ‘roadmap’ by which the SLCN of young offenders completing custodial sentences might be addressed, the lack of such frameworks is concerning, because (a) research evidence clearly documents high rates of SLCN in this population and (b) a strategic focus on improving everyday communication skills may be a means by which educational engagement is increased

5

and recidivism is reduced (Snow and Powell 2011a). Unlike school settings, however, where student populations are stratified across developmental levels and are sufficiently stable over time for interventions to be evaluated, youth custodial settings house young people at varied chronological and developmental points, and their length of stay can vary from a few days to a period of years. This means that intervention models need to be tailored to the characteristics of the setting, whilst still maximizing rigour and internal validity. We propose, therefore, that in the first instance, two key approaches to the SLCN of young custodial offenders should be employed by clinician-researchers: the use of an adapted Response to Intervention (RTI) model and the application (particularly at Tier 3) of approaches with mid-range levels of intervention evidence, such as (1) quasi-experimental studies with matched groups receiving and not receiving the intervention in question and (2) experimental single subject designs which demonstrate effective change in individual students relative to a ‘control’ or untreated period (Law et al. 2012: 17).

Adapting RTI for addressing SLCN in youth justice settings RTI is a three-tiered US educational policy and implementation framework that seeks to ensure that mainstream school children are identified for and receive the universal and/or specialist services they require in order to achieve academically. In mainstream educational settings, the RTI framework is aimed at prevention and uses assessment and instruction to determine the most effective way to meet students’ learning needs (National Center on Response to Intervention [NCRTI], 2010). Essential components of RTI include culturally responsive and evidence-based screening, data-based decision making, progress monitoring and a multilevel prevention system (Justice 2006, NCRTI 2010). High-quality instruction is delivered through three levels of intervention, or tiers that vary in level of treatment intensity. Tier 1 (‘universal’) encompasses core instruction in the general education classroom that meets the needs of most students. Tier 2 (‘specialized’) involves intervention of moderate intensity with small groups of students, targeting difficulties experienced by the most at-risk students. Tier 3 (‘intensive’) includes individualized intervention for students who show minimal response to Tier 2 intervention, and can include a referral for special education evaluation (NCRTI 2010). Hence, as intensity of intervention increases, so too does the number of students targeted decrease. Multidisciplinary teams collaborate, plan and implement instructional and intervention services involving academic, social, and behavioural needs

6 that both general and special educators and relevant allied health professionals, such as SLTs can address. Most of the research on RTI relates to how educators can implement the model within mainstream school settings, predominantly at the primary level. In 2011, however, McDaniel et al. (2011) described an adaptation of RTI for use by professionals in youth justice facilities. Guidelines and considerations in using this multidisciplinary approach across a three-tier intervention programme were described to improve youth educational engagement and outcomes. McDaniel et al. argued that the implementation of RTI in youth justice settings needs to accommodate complex youth characteristics, multiple service providers, modifications for tier assignment, careful determination of appropriate academic goals, use of tailored assessment procedures, consideration of transition concerns, and particular barriers associated with youth justice settings (e.g. security protocols). They also note that although classrooms in youth justice settings share some features in common with mainstream settings, important differences exist, most notably the wide developmental and educational variation within and between learners, and the need for the RTI approach to exist on a 24-hour basis, rather than the ‘9 to 5’ conditions that apply in mainstream schools. These workers provide a helpful checklist encompassing academic, mental health, housing, security, transition and additional supports required. Though academic, social, and/or behavioural supports and intervention are included in McDaniel et al.’s RTI model, the specific role of SLCN was not considered. This omission warrants attention, given the strong links between language competence (skills such as phonological and phonemic awareness, vocabulary, syntactic knowledge, and narrative skills) and the successful acquisition of the reading (decoding and comprehension), and written language skills essential for academic success (Hogan et al. 2011, Nation 2005, Snowling 2005). Given the key links between expressive and receptive language skills and all aspects of school success academic and social (Starling et al. 2012, Snow and Powell 2011b), we argue that intervention models for this population of vulnerable learners must be built around the strong SLT research evidence concerning deficits in these verbal domains. Additionally, recent workers (Sulkowski et al. 2011) have advocated the use of an RTI framework to conceptualize health and mental health service delivery in schools, describing three tiers of interdisciplinary collaboration among health and education professionals to foster improved service delivery. It is timely therefore, to focus on RTI with respect to the SLCN of young offenders, and ways in which this framework could inform the design, delivery, and evaluation of speech–language therapy services in the youth justice context. RTI has

Pamela C. Snow et al. also been applied, but to a lesser extent, in mainstream secondary school settings, where the model has been generally well-received by SLTs (Snow et al. 2013b).

Adapting RTI for language interventions in the youth justice setting: core principles Similar to SLT programmes for adolescents in secondary school settings, four general principles (Sanger et al. 2002) should be considered when designing a language intervention programme for adolescents in a correctional facility. These include: (1) working with the students to determine the purpose of intervention and allowing the student some ownership of goals, (2) promoting shared responsibility between students and staff for addressing SLCN, (3) counselling and advising students of the consequences of their inappropriate communication, and (4) promoting active educational engagement, by ensuring that students experience success and feel ‘safe’ as learners in environments that accommodate and compensate for their language difficulties. Past experiences of academic failure and low self-efficacy for language-learning skills are likely to create reluctance, if not frank hostility on the part of a substantial proportion of young people in justice settings. For this reason, staff will need to foster gains and the experience of success, but on tasks that have strong face validity for the individual concerned. Core RTI elements should include universal communication skills screening, early intervention, with full access to a multi-tier model of service delivery, high quality instruction (informed by best available evidence on the psycholinguistic competencies that underpin academic success), progress monitoring, and use of interdisciplinary problem solving teams (Justice 2006, McDaniel et al. 2011). Additionally, it is important to consider the roles of interdisciplinary collaboration (e.g. between SLTs and educators and psychologists), and the importance of evidence-based instruction and evaluation. Figure 1 depicts a modified three-tiered RTI framework in the shape of concentric circles, rather than the traditional triangle, to reflect the reduced extent to which a ‘concentration of focus’ in service needs can be expected through the tiers. Instead, a ‘wraparound’ model is proposed, commencing with assumptions of significantly higher levels of language-literacy need than would be found in a mainstream classroom. This adapted framework will be used as a basis for the discussion that follows. We recognize, however, that in most jurisdictions, most of the recommendations made here are aspirational, given that SLTs are not yet routinely employed in youth justice settings. However this framework is intended to inform the understanding and

Improving communication outcomes for young offenders using an RTI framework

Tier 1

•Screening on intake •Diagnos c assessment of "flagged" young people, e.g. those with developmental neurodisabili es •Modifica ons to communica on environment •Teacher and jus ce staff professional development •Promo on of prosocial skills in all programs •Use of Classroom Observa on tools

Tier 2

•In add on to Tier 1: •Small group work targe ng learners with similar language / literacy n eeds •Adapt therapeu c and educa onal tools and tasks designed for younger but developmentally comparable learners

Tier 3

7

•In addi on to Tiers 1 and 2: •Focus on 1:1 interve n ons •Emphasis on direct instruc on •Use of single-case m ethodology to evaluate interven on efficacy

Figure 1. An adapted RTI framework for RTI settings.

workforce planning of policy-makers and senior clinicians with respect to the role of SLT services in youth justice settings. It should also be noted that the tiers of intervention are neither categorical nor mutually exclusive. Young people receiving services at Tiers 2 and 3 would obviously also be exposed to modifications made at Tier 1. This should be considered in the planning of intervention assessment studies. Tier 1 Interventions Given the high prevalence of SLCN in young offenders, Tier 1 in a youth custodial setting will operate from a lower base than Tier 1 in a mainstream classroom, and SLCN should be assumed in 50% of clients. This will require an explicit focus, led by the SLT, on core linguistic and literacy skills, by all members of the correctional team. At Tier 1, all young people entering custody should undergo communication screening by the SLT, as part of standard operating procedures or school enrolment (the latter if an education programme exists in the correctional facility that all young people are required to attend). Regardless of how or when it is done, initial screening of all young people should be followed by secondary screening of those identified as being at-risk. Also at Tier 1, all young people with an identified neurodisability (e.g. autism spectrum disor-

der) should undergo diagnostic SLT assessment, so that language and learning needs can be clearly identified and communicated with other team members. Apart from implications for identifying those young people who require Tier 2 or 3 SLT services, the identification of previously unrecognized language deficits will have important implications for other members of the youth justice team, for example counsellors, who will be seeking to engage the young person in a therapeutic alliance via a verbally mediated intervention such as cognitive behaviour therapy. Although some screening tools have been developed for the youth custodial setting (e.g. McNamara 2012), there is a pressing need for tools which are brief, psychometrically robust, and easy to administer and score (the latter may need to be done by a non-specialist, depending on staff resources). It is also desirable that some form of self-assessment of communication skills is employed, as described by Gregory and Bryan (2011), to invite self-reflection on communication strengths and difficulties, as an initial step in developing goals that have good face validity for the young person. Eligibility decisions regarding secondary screening should be based on aggregated results of standardized and informal measures. It is important for educators to understand the verbal demands inherent in any learning situation and to modify instructional tasks to accommodate pervasive

8 receptive and expressive language difficulties experienced by many learners in youth justice settings. This principle applies across the tiers and across the curriculum – it is not confined to subject areas that might traditionally be thought of as language-based. Mathematics, for example, can be a highly verbal subject area (Durkin et al. 2013), e.g. in the case of maths reasoning (vs. pure calculations), and modifications to the linguistic load of instructional approaches may result in better engagement and lowered anxiety on the part of students. A way of assisting teachers to understand the expressive and receptive verbal demands of their classrooms is to employ an observational instrument such as the Communication Supporting Classrooms Observation Tool (Dockrell et al. 2012). With its explicit focus on socalled ‘language-learning interactions’ in the classroom, this tool operationalizes many teaching micro-skills that promote expressive and receptive oral language skills. Although designed for use in mainstream early years classrooms, this tool has significant potential as a vehicle by which SLTs can assist teachers in youth justice settings to deconstruct teaching and learning interactions and optimize both their practice and student outcomes. A key element of Tier 1 intervention should be modifying the communication environment to reduce complexity and the risk of communication and/or educational failure. SLTs should provide professional development sessions to justice and welfare staff about the common SLCN in this population, their links with literacy and educational/vocational success and the likelihood that such deficits will ‘masquerade’ as behavioural phenomena such as rudeness, poor social skills, or disinterest. It is important to ensure that staff can identify and modify linguistically challenging verbal and written material, so that engagement and achievement are fostered. Given that offending behaviour, by definition, involves violation of social norms, knowledge of, and adherence to social norms with respect to communication should be promoted in youth justice settings. Therefore, it is appropriate to explicitly target pragmatics (social communication skills) at Tier 1, as part of the wider welfare and education framework, with activities incorporated across subject areas and classes. Teachers, in collaboration with the SLT, could select a particular social communication skill, such as eye contact, good listening or using appropriate volume, that could be presented at the start of the class and practised/reinforced throughout the remainder the day or for the rest of the week. Alternatively, a whole session could be devoted to developing social communication skills as part of a wellbeing programme, with each session focusing on a different social communication skill, with ample opportunity for practice and mastery (e.g. through role play), to help young people acquire new skills and trans-

Pamela C. Snow et al. fer these to different communication contexts. Similar approaches can be applied to oral language skills. For example, part of literacy classes could be allocated to teaching a particular verbal skill, such as narrative structure (telling stories etc.), before moving into writing narratives. Alternatively, a whole session could be used to teach and practise oral narratives across a number of contexts (e.g. oral presentation of a book review, providing instructions on how to do something, or retelling a personal experience). Curriculum targets specifically related to language include understanding and using narrative structure and different writing genres (e.g. procedural and persuasive writing, summarizing) as well as vocabulary development (e.g. selection of appropriate vocabulary that is functional and meaningful and strategies for teaching that consider the learning needs of young people with SLCN), verbal comprehension (e.g. ‘Visualizing and Verbalizing’ strategy as described by Bell 2007), and literacy skills including phonological awareness, decoding, fluency and reading comprehension. Topics targeting pragmatics could include asking appropriate questions, responding to questions, giving and receiving criticism and compliments, negotiating, resisting peer pressure, conversation skills, understanding and expressing emotions, listening skills, using appropriate speaking volume and proximity, social information processing, non-verbal communication such as facial expression and body language, self-awareness, communication skills required for teamwork, different communication styles (e.g. passive, aggressive, assertive), and code-switching (adapting language for particular purposes or people) (Caire 2013). Programme content relevant to wellbeing and welfare, into which SLTs can provide valuable input, includes sessions targeting emotional vocabulary, self-regulation, and coping skills e.g. identifying and labelling emotions, using self-talk, problem-solving, and dealing with ambiguous social cues; parenting groups that include sessions on child language development; forensic interview and court preparation; self-esteem; social influences and choice-making; affect management, problem-solving, and anger and conflict management (Caire 2013). Groups or classes can be run jointly by SLTs and teachers or youth justice/health and welfare staff, and curriculum or programme content can be developed in collaboration with the SLT (e.g. how to incorporate oral language and pragmatics goals into class content) and can be delivered with SLT supervision and mentoring (Caire 2013). Consistent with evidence of effectiveness in mainstream secondary settings (e.g. Kucan et al. 2007, Starling et al. 2012), provision of professional development (PD) to staff about language-learning difficulties should be a key part of Tier 1, in an effort to increase staff capacity and responsiveness to SLCN. SLTs are ideally

Improving communication outcomes for young offenders using an RTI framework positioned to provide such PD and to make explicit the links between oral language skills and literacy. Secondary consultation, ideally on an individual or small group basis, e.g. to teachers who work with the same student should also be provided. PD should focus on SLCN diagnoses, assessment profiles, links between SLCN and behavioural issues, and/or strategies that can be used to manage particular challenges in the classroom or group context (Caire 2013). It is common to have printed materials available to consumers about different aspects of the service, and youth justice should be no exception. Often this literature is targeted at young people e.g. describing different court orders, legal processes, what to expect during their time in custody, and information about prohibited items. As part of Tier 1 intervention, SLTs can monitor these materials and provide input into their development, to ensure the content, syntax, vocabulary and layout are appropriate to young people with SLCN (Caire 2013). SLTs also have a role to play in the development of behaviour support plans and risk management plans through identification of communication strategies that will assist in the management of challenging behaviour. For example, if a client’s behaviour escalates in contexts with high language demands (e.g. complex instructions), an SLT can advise on strategies to improve language comprehension and help prevent and/or deescalate problematic behaviour (Caire 2013). In addition to its contribution to the design and delivery of educational and therapeutic interventions in a youth custodial setting, the Tier 1 identification of young offenders with language impairments may also make a valuable contribution to overall risk assessment for interpersonal violence on intake. Snow and Powell (2011a) for example, reported poorer scores on a range of language measures in young offenders who had been convicted of more violent crimes. Tier 2 interventions At Tier 2, targeted groups of learners should be supported by an SLT and specialist teachers or youth justice/health and welfare workers in highly scaffolded small-group learning environments, to address SLCN that interfere with communication, education and offender treatment success. Examples of activities can include any of the aforementioned pragmatic conversational interaction-related and oral language tasks, but at Tier 2, with greater emphasis on individuals’ particular strengths and weaknesses. Here, SLTs and teachers must be cognisant of the fact that many young offenders can accurately state the rules of conversation, for example, but have difficulty applying these to their behaviour (Sanger et al. 2000, 2003). In other words, young of-

9

fenders can often ‘talk the talk’ but not ‘walk the walk’. Hence role plays and other activities that encourage and reinforce transference of skills to different contexts and situations must be incorporated into small group tasks. Tier 2 should also address vocabulary, and figurative and abstract language skills to improve everyday communication success and reading comprehension. These skills involve both decoding and comprehension of text, processes which must be carefully coupled (Hogan et al. 2011). Activities should also address students’ selfappraisal and monitoring of spoken and written language. Another Tier 2 intervention to consider is adaptation of a programme such as START-IN (Students Are Responding to INtervention; Montgomery and Moore n.d.). Sanger et al. (2010b) found that 41 young offenders reacted favourably to a demonstration of the 16 reading tasks (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension) involved in this reading programme. It must be noted, however, that programmes such as this were designed with younger learners in mind, so whilst their difficulty level will be appropriate to many adolescent offenders, their design and layout may be considered too child-like. Progress monitoring at Tier 2 should occur across behavioural, communication, and learning domains, using standardized measures, observational tools, and selfreport tools. The young person should be consulted at all stages about goals and tasks that have particular personal salience, so that there is a close alignment between skill acquisition and opportunities for generalization. Tier 3 interventions In mainstream settings, Tier 3 provides intensive, specialist and individualized SLT intervention to students who continue to struggle without sufficient progress after a pre-determined number of weeks at Tiers 1 and 2. However, it is expected that in youth justice settings, a significant number of students will need Tier 3 services at the outset, many of whom will have documented special education eligibility. Following both standardized and informal speech–language therapy assessment, curriculum-based assessment is warranted. Assessment measures need to include information and tasks that are both relevant and meaningful to the young people themselves. Clinicians must focus on the goal of transition to mainstream society, and achievement of economic independence, via marketable employment skills (McDaniel et al. 2011, Snow and Powell 2011a, 2011b). Careful consideration should be given to approaches to instruction, parent involvement if feasible, behaviour supports, and input from the interdisciplinary team. Recently, RTI activities were published to address oral and written language for the common core state

10 standards in the United States for struggling learners in grade 5 (Roth et al. 2013). They include multi-tiered resources for in-class instruction and small groups. Activities for reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language, as well as classroom modifications to support instruction and instructional strategies may be useful for young people who make limited progress in spite of time spent in Tier 2 interventions. They are designed to consider strengths, challenges, and disabilities, and reflect a variety of cultural backgrounds. Because young offenders typically function well below grade level in academic areas and display associated SLCN, such activities may be helpful. The resources outlined by Roth et al. could be adapted for older students needing additional oneto-one assistance to understand written texts, and to master different types of reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills. SLT services could complement offender rehabilitation programmes by providing direct language-based support to young people undergoing specific offencerelated treatments (e.g. anger management or sex offender programmes) and by developing the young person’s understanding of vocabulary and concepts relevant to vocational training programmes. At Tier 3, speech–language interventions should be derived from evidence-based principles, using systematic scientist-practitioner models of hypothesis formation and testing, as would occur in other clinical settings with complex clients. Unique aspects of the youth justice setting must be considered, e.g. via the checklist designed by McDaniel et al. (2011). Consistent with evidence pertaining to struggling learners at upper primary school levels (e.g. Slavin et al. 2011) and high school students with reading disabilities (Graham Day 2010), at Tier 3, there should also be a particular emphasis on direct instruction with respect to language and literacy, in order to assist struggling and disadvantaged learners to derive maximal educational benefit from their period of incarceration. Tier 3 interventions in particular, also provide an important opportunity to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of SLT interventions, using single-case methodologies, as outlined by workers such as Byiers et al. (2012). Notwithstanding the many challenges of delivering SLT services in youth justice settings, a strength is the reduced range of extraneous or unknown influences that may be brought to bear on a student’s progress. Multiplebaseline and changing criterion approaches are appropriate for behaviours and skills that can be changed gradually and for which reversal and withdrawal are not desirable. Such approaches can also enable exploration of dose–response relationships between therapy frequency/intensity and the achievement and maintenance of gains.

Pamela C. Snow et al. Conclusions Given the clear international evidence that at least one in two young offenders has a clinically significant, yet undiagnosed language impairment, the inclusion of SLTs as part of the educational/therapeutic team in youth justice settings needs to become the norm, rather than the exception. Language competence underpins two key developmental pathways (developing prosocial interpersonal skills and the transition to literacy), so it is critical that its importance is embedded in curriculum design and also in teacher professional development in correctional settings. It must be noted, however, that RTI is no panacea and has significant shortcomings, as outlined by Reynolds and Shaywitz (2009), e.g. a still inadequate research base around some of its assumptions, implementation fidelity, challenges in scaling-up from small studies to system-based approaches, and problems defining the adequacy or otherwise of progress. Reynolds and Shaywitz also commented on the lack of longitudinal research regarding RTI outcomes, and this is of particular importance for a population in whom outcomes such as re-offending need to be considered alongside more traditional markers such as educational gains. Despite the abundant research describing the SLCN of young offenders and their histories of academic struggle and disengagement, minimal attention has focused on language intervention. If SLT as a profession asserts a need for services to exist in youth justice settings, then it is beholden on us to propose models that can be adopted and trialled by policy makers and appropriately skilled practitioners. Initial evidence is required about which young offenders can benefit from SLT interventions and under what therapeutic circumstances and level of service intensity. Collecting such evidence is the next step in building evidence-based policy and service delivery models. Longitudinal tracking of offending, educational and vocational outcomes will also be important in the future, so that the role of SLT in assisting young people to access and benefit from ‘last chance’ services can be determined. An adaptation of RTI is described in this paper as a potential framework in which to conceptualize, design, deliver, and evaluate interventions for the SLCN many young offenders encounter. Notwithstanding resource constraints and current evidence gaps, we argue that SLT interventions in a youth justice setting lend themselves to adaptation into the RTI framework, particularly if rigorous single-case methodology is included at Tier 3. The use of a framework such as RTI may also be attractive to policy makers and health and education bureaucrats who need to make difficult funding allocation decisions, as it provides a testable theoretical model in which to design and evaluate services. As an

Improving communication outcomes for young offenders using an RTI framework intervention evidence base begins to emerge that is specific to the SLCN of young offenders, it is expected that the framework described here will be revised and refined. References AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, 2013, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edn (Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association). ANDREWS, D. A. and BONTA, J., 2010, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 5th edn (New Providence, NJ: Mathew Bender). ARMSTRONG, J., 2011, Serving children with emotional–behavioural and language disorders: a collaborative approach. ASHA Leader, 16(10), 1–7. BELL, N., 2007, Visualizing and Verbalizing (San Luis Obispo, CA: Gander). BENNER, G. J., NELSON, R. J. and EPSTEIN, M. H., 2002, The language skills of children with emotional and behavioural disorders: a review of the literature. Journal of Emotional and Behavioural Disorders, 10, 43–56. BLANTON, D. J. and DAGENAIS, P. A., 2007, Comparison of language skills of adjudicated and nonadjudicated adolescent males and females. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 309–314. BROWNLIE, E. B., BEITCHMAN, J. H., ESCOBAR, M., YOUNG, A., ATKINSON, L., JOHNSON, C., WILSON, B. and DOUGLAS, L., 2004, Early language impairment and young adult delinquent and aggressive behaviour. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 32(4), 453–467. BRYAN, K., 2004, Preliminary study of the prevalence of speech and language difficulties in young offenders. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 391–400. BRYAN, K., FREER, J. and FURLONG, C., 2007, Language and communication difficulties in juvenile offenders. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 42(5), 505–520. BRYAN, K. and GREGORY, J., 2013, Perceptions of staff on embedding speech and language therapy within a youth offending team. Child Language Teaching and Therapy. doi: 10.1177/0265659013482930. BRYAN, K. and GREGORY, J., n.d., Meeting the Speech–Language and Communication Needs of Vulnerable People. Models of Service Delivery for those at Risk of Offending and Re-Offending (London: Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists) (available at: http://www.rcslt.org/about/ campaigns/RCSLT_model_of_service_delivery_offending_ 2008.pdf) (accessed on 16 August 2013). BYIERS, B. J., REICHLE, J. and SYMONS, F. J., 2012, Single-subject experimental design for evidence-based practice. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 21, 397–414. CAIRE, L., 2013, Speech Pathology in Youth (Justice) Custodial Education Project Report (Melbourne, VIC: Speech Pathology Association of Australia). CIRRIN, F. M. and GILLAM, R. B., 2008, Language intervention practices for school-age children with spoken language disorders: a systematic review. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 39, S110–S137. CLEGG, J., 2006, Childhood speech and language difficulties and later life chances. In J. Clegg and J. Ginsborg (eds), Language and Social Disadvantage (Chichester: Wiley), pp. 59–73. CLEGG, J., STACKHOUSE, J., FINCH, K., MURPHY, C. and NICHOLLS, S., 2009, Language abilities of secondary age pupils at risk of school exclusion: a preliminary report. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 25(1), 123–139.

11

COHEN, N. J., DAVINE, M., HORODEZKY, N., LIPSETT, L. and ISAACSON, L., 1993, Unsuspected language impairment in psychiatrically disturbed children: prevalence and language and behavioural characteristics. Journal of the American Academy of Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 595–603. CONTI-RAMSDEN, G. and BOTTING, N., 2008, Emotional health in adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment (SLI). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(5), 516–525. CONTI-RAMSDEN, G., ST CLAIR, M. C., PICKLES, A. and DURKIN, K., 2012, Developmental trajectories of verbal and nonverbal skills in individuals with a history of SLI: from childhood to adolescence. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 55(6), 1716–1735. COZAD, R. and ROUSEY, C., 1966, Hearing and speech disorders among delinquent children. Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy, 12(3), 250–255. CROSS, M., 2011, Children with Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties and Communication Problems. There is Always a Reason, 2nd edn (London: Jessica Kingsley). DIAMOND, A., 2013, Executive functions. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural]. Annual Review in Psychology, 64, 135– 168. DOCKRELL, J. E., BAKOPOULOU, I., LAW, J., SPENCER, S. and LINDSAY, G., 2012, Communication Supporting Classroom Observation Tool. DFE-RR247-BCRP8 (London: Department of Education). DOCKRELL, J., LINDSAY, G. and PALIKARA, O., 2011, Explaining the academic achievement at school leaving for pupils with a history of language impairment: previous academic achievement and literacy skills. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 27(2), 223–237. DURKIN, K. H., MOK, P. L. and CONTI-RAMSDEN, G., 2013, Severity of specific language impairment predicts delayed development in number skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 581. ELBRO, C., DALBY, M. and MAARBJERG, S., 2013, Language-learning impairments: a 30-year follow-up of language-impaired children with and without psychiatric, neurological and cognitive difficulties. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 46(4), 437–448. GRAHAM DAY, K. J., 2010, Traditional instruction versus direct instruction: teaching content area vocabulary words to high school students with reading disabilities. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University. GREGORY, J. and BRYAN, K., 2011, Speech and language therapy intervention with a group of persistent and prolific young offenders in a non-custodial setting with previously undiagnosed speech, language and communication difficulties. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 46(2), 202–215. HART, B. and RISLEY, T., 1995, Meaningful Differences in Everyday Parenting and Intellectual Development in Young American Children (Baltimore, MD: Brookes). HOGAN, T., BRIDGES, M. S., JUSTICE, L. M. and CAIN, K., 2011, Increasing higher level language skills to improve reading comprehension. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(3), 1–19. Special Education and Communication Disorders Faculty Publications Paper No. 79 (available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/specedfacpub/79). JOFFE, V., 2006, Enhancing language and communication in language-impaired secondary school-age children. In J. Clegg and J. Ginsborg (eds), Language and Social Disadvantage. Theory into Practice (Chichester: Wiley), pp. 207–216. JOHNSON, C., BEITCHMAN, J. H. and BROWNLIE, E. B., 2010, Twenty-year follow-up of children with and without

12 speech–language impairments: family, educational, occupational, and quality of life outcomes. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 19, 51–65. JUSTICE, L. M., 2006, Evidence-based practice, Response to Intervention, and the prevention of reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 284–297. KUCAN, L., TRATHEN, W. R. and STRAITS, W. J., 2007, A professional development initiative for developing approaches to vocabulary instruction with secondary mathematics, art, science, and English teachers. Reading Research and Instruction, 46(2), 175–195. LARSON, V. and MCKINLEY, N., 1995, Language Disorders in Older Students: Preadolescents and Adolescents (Eau Claire, WI: Thinking). LARSON, V. and MCKINLEY, N., 2003, Service delivery options for secondary students with language disorders. Seminars in Speech and Language, 24(3), 181–197. LAVIGNE, M. and VAN RYBROEK, G., 2010, Breakdown in the Language Zone: The Prevalence of Language Impairments among Juvenile and Adult Offenders and Why It Matters (available at: http://works.bepress.com/michele_lavigne/2). LAVIGNE, M. and VAN RYBROEK, G., 2013, ‘He Got In My Face So I Shot Him’: How Defendants’ Language Impairments Impair Attorney–Client Relationships. CUNY Law Review University of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1228. LAW, J., LEE, W., ROULSTONE, S., WREN, Y., ZENG, B. and LINDSAY, G., 2012, ‘What Works’ Interventions for Children and Young People with Speech, Language and Communication Needs. Research Report (London: Department for Education). LAW, J., REILLY, S. and SNOW, P. C., 2013, Child speech, language and communication need re-examined in a public health context: a new direction for the speech and language therapy profession. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 48, 486–496. LINDSAY, G. and DOCKRELL, J., 2012, Longitudinal patterns of behavioral, emotional, and social difficulties and self-concepts in adolescents with a history of specific language impairment. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 445– 460. MCDANIEL, S., HELL, K. M., HOUCHINS, D. E. and DUCHAINE, E. L., 2011, A guide to implementing Response to Intervention in long-term residential juvenile justice schools. Journal of Correctional Education, 62(1), 51–68. MCLEOD, S. and MCKINNNON, D. H., 2007, Prevalence of communication disorders compared with other learning needs in 14,500 primary and secondary school students. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 42, 37–59. MCNAMARA, N., 2012, Speech and language therapy within a forensic support service. Journal of Learning Disabilities and Offending Behaviour, 3(2), 111–117. MONTGOMERY, J.K. and MOORE, B.J., n.d. START-IN: STudents Are Responding To INtervention A Response to Intervention (RtI) Program for reading (available at: http://www.superduperinc.com/products/view.aspx?pid= start22” \l ”.U6011UC8T8s). MOURIDSEN, S.E. and HAUSCHILD, K., 2009, A long-term study of offending in individuals diagnosed with a developmental language disorder as children. International Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology, 11, 171–179. MUNOZ, L. C., FRICK, P. J., KIMONIS, E. R. and AUCOIN, K. J., 2008, Verbal ability and delinquency: testing the moderating role of psychopathic traits. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 414–421. NATION, K., 2005, Connections between language and reading in children with poor reading comprehension. In H. W.

Pamela C. Snow et al. Catts and A. G. Kamhi (eds), Connections between Language and Reading Disabilities (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), pp. 41–54. NATIONAL CENTER ON RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (NCRTI), 2010 (available at: http://www.rti4success.org/) (accessed on 16 August 2013). NIPPOLD, M. A., 2000, Language development during the adolescent years: aspects of pragmatics, syntax, and semantics. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 15–28. NIPPOLD, M. A., 2007, Later Language Development. School-Age Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults, 3rd edn (Austin, TX: PRO-ED). NORBURY, C. F. and PAUL, R., 2013, Disorders of speech, language and communication. In A. Thapar, D. Pine, J. Leckman, S. Scott, M. Snowling and E. Taylor (eds), Rutter’s Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 6th edn (Oxford: Wiley). PUTNINS, A. L., 1999, Literacy, numeracy and non-verbal reasoning skills of South Australian young offenders. Australian Journal of Education, 43, 157–171. REYNOLDS, C. R. and SHAYWITZ, S. E., 2009, Response to Intervention: ready or not? Or, wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. Social Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130–145. RIPLEY, K. and YUILL, N., 2005, Patterns of language impairment and behaviour in boys excluded from school. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 37–50. ROTH, F. P., DIXON, D. A., PAUL, D. R. and BELLINI, P. L., 2013, RTI in Action: Oral and Written Language Activities for the Common Core State Standards (Rockville, MD: American Speech– Language–Hearing Association). ROY, P. and CHIAT, S., 2013, Teasing apart disadvantage from disorder. The case of poor language. In C.R. Marshall (ed.), Current Issues in Developmental Disorders (London: Psychology Press), pp. 125–150. ROYAL COLLEGE OF SPEECH & LANGUAGE THERAPISTS, 2013, Young Offenders and Criminal Justice (available at: http://www.rcslt. org/about/young_offenders_and_criminal_justice/intro) (accessed on 18 August 2013). RYAN, E. P. and REDDING, R. E., 2004, A review of mood disorders among juvenile offenders. Psychiatric Services, 55(12), 1397– 1407. SANGER, D., CRESWELL, J. W., DWORAK, J. and SCHULTZ, L., 2000, Cultural analysis of communication behaviors among juveniles in a correctional facility. Journal of Communication Disorders, 33, 31–57. SANGER, D. D., MOORE-BROWN, B. J., MONTGOMERY, J. K. and LARSON, V. L., 2002, Service delivery framework for adolescents with communication problems who are involved in violence. Journal of Communication Disorders, 35, 293– 303. SANGER, D. D., MOORE-BROWN, B. J., MONTGOMERY, J. K., REZAC, C. and KELLER, H., 2003, Female incarcerated adolescents with language problems talk about their own communication behaviors and learning. Journal of Communication Disorders, 36(6), 465–486. SANGER, D., RITZMAN, M., SCHAEFER, L. and BELAU, D., 2010b, Female juvenile delinquents’ reactions to a reading program. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 32(1), 26–37. SANGER, D. D., RITZMAN, M., STREMLAU, A. and SNOW, P., 2010a, Juvenile delinquent girls reflect on learning in schools and offer suggestions. Journal of Ethnographic and Qualitative Research, 5, 45–54. SANGER, D. D., SPILKER, A., SCHEFFLER, M., ZOBELL, A. and BELAU, D., 2008, A comparison between juvenile delinquents’ and teachers’ opinions on metalinguistic and metacognitive skills. Journal of Correctional Education, 59(2), 145–171.

Improving communication outcomes for young offenders using an RTI framework SLAVIN, R. E., LAKE, C., DAVIS, S. and MADDEN, N. A., 2011, Effective programs for struggling readers: a best-evidence synthesis. Educational Research Review, 6, 1–26. SNOW, P. C., 2009, Child maltreatment, mental health and oral language competence: inviting speech–language pathology to the prevention table. International Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 11(12), 95–103. SNOW, P.C., EADIE, P.A., CONNELL, J., ANDERSEN, B., MCCUSKER, H.J. and MUNRO, J.K., 2013a, Oral language supports early literacy: A pilot cluster randomized trial in disadvantaged schools. International Journal of Speech Language Pathology, doi:10.3109/17549507.2013.845691 SNOW, P. C. and POWELL, M. B., 2004, Developmental language disorders and adolescent risk: a public-health advocacy role for speech pathologists? International Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 6(4), 221–229. SNOW, P. C. and POWELL, M. B., 2008, Oral language competence, social skills, and high risk boys: what are juvenile offenders trying to tell us? Children and Society, 22, 16–28. SNOW, P. C. and POWELL, M. B., 2011a, Oral language competence in incarcerated young offenders: links with offending severity. International Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 13(6), 480–489. SNOW, P. C. and POWELL, M. B., 2011b, Youth (in)justice: oral language competence in early life and risk for engagement in antisocial behaviour in adolescence. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 435, 1–6. SNOW, P. C., POWELL, M. B. and SANGER, D. D., 2012, Oral language competence, young speakers and the law. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 496–506. SNOW, P. C., SANGER, D. D., CHILDERS, C., PANKONIN, C. and WRIGHT, S., 2013b. Response to Intervention in secondary settings: speech–language pathologists’ perspectives. International Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 15, 463– 470. SNOWLING, M., 2005, Literacy outcomes for children with oral language impairments: developmental interactions between language skills and learning to read. In H. W. Catts and A.

13

G. Kamhi (eds), Connections Between Language and Reading Disabilities (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), pp. 55–75. SNOWLING, M. J., BISHOP, D.V.M., STOTHARD, S.E., CHIPCHASE, B. and KAPLAN, K., 2006, Psychosocial outcomes at 15 years of children with a preschool history of speech-language impairment, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 759–765. ST CLAIR, M. C., PICKLES, A., DURKIN, K. and CONTI-RAMSDEN, G., 2011, A longitudinal study of behavioral, emotional and social difficulties in individuals with a history of specific language impairment (SLI). Journal of Communication Disorders, 44(2), 186–199. STARLING, J., MUNRO, N., TOGHER, L. and ARCIULI, J., 2011, Recognising language impairment in secondary school student populations. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16(2), 145–158. STARLING, J., MUNRO, N., TOGHER, L. and ARCIULI, J., 2012, Training secondary school teachers in instructional language modification techniques to support adolescents with language impairment: a randomized controlled trial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 474–495. SULKOWSKI, M. L., WINGFIELD, R. J., JONES, D. and COULTER, W. A., 2011, Response to Intervention and interdisciplinary collaboration: joining hands to support children’s healthy development. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(2), 118–133. TRAYNELIS-YUREK, E. and GIACOBBE, G. A., 1998, A communication rehabilitation regimen for incarcerated youth: positive peer culture. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 26(4), 157–167. WALLACH, G., 2008, Language Intervention for School-Age Students: Setting Goals for Academic Success (St Louis, MO: Mosby). YOUNG, A. R., BEITCHMAN, J. H., JOHNSON, C., DOUGLAS, L., ATKINSON, L. and ESCOBAR, M., 2002, Young adult academic outcomes in a longitudinal sample of early identified language impaired and control children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43(5), 635–645. ZADEH, Z. Y., IM-BOLTER, N. and COHEN, N. J., 2007, Social cognition and externalizing psychopathology: an investigation of the mediation role of language. Journal Abnormal Child Psychology, 35, 141–152.

Copyright of International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.