Volume 2, Number 1 / February issue 2016
Gregory Baldridge
Underrepresentation of disadvantaged youth in gifted programs and overrepresentation in prisons

The United States of America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. The probability of an individual being incarcerated is a complex combination of factors, including socio-economic status, level of education, and ethnicity. Within prison populations, the percentage of individuals identified as gifted is higher than those identified within the general population. A lack of support for gifted individuals in their academic careers, both in the school system and in extracurricular opportunities, leads to a correlation in the higher number of gifted individuals in prison. When opportunities and supports are limited or non-existent, the potential for risk taking and incarceration is increased. Once an individual is incarcerated, there are a few programs to support general education needs; although, very few programs support the needs of gifted individuals. Using contemporary research on disadvantaged gifted students and gifted rates among prison populations, this paper provide an overview of these concerns and a call for s future investigations into the link between an increased rate of servicing gifted students’ needs and a possible reduced incarceration rate.
Keywords: Underrepresentation, overrepresentation, prisons

Cite this article:
Gregory Baldridge. Underrepresentation of disadvantaged youth in gifted programs and overrepresentation in prisons. Acta Scientiae et Intellectus, 2(1)2016, 57-69.


  1. Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2015). Can Universal Screening Increase the Representation of Low Income and Minority Students in Gifted Education? (Working Paper No. 21519). Retrieved from the National Bureau of Economic Research website: w21519
  2. Durose, M., Cooper, A., & Snyder, H. (2014). Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (NCJ 244205). Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics website: rprts05p0510.pdf
  3. Eisenman, R. (2001). Creativity, risk taking, sex differences, and birth order. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology: 189+. Retrieved from Gale Cengage Learning Literature Resource Center website:
  4. Gibbons, M., Pelchar, T., & Cochran, J. (2012) Gifted Students from Low-Education Backgrounds. Roeper Review, 34 (2), 114-122. doi: 10.1080/02783193.2012.660685
  5. Gogul, E.M., McCumsey, J., & Hewett, G. (1985). What Parent’s are saying. Gifted Child Today, 8 (6), 7-9. doi: 10.1177/107621758500 800603
  6. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
  7. Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Barmer, A., & Dunlop Velez, E. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). Retrieved from the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics website:
  8. Louis, B. & Lewis, M. (1992). Parental beliefs about giftedness in young children and their relation to actual ability levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36 (1), 27-31.
  9. Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T. (1998). Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations. Retrieved from Richard Lynn website:
  10. McCluskey, K., Baker, P., & McCluskey, A. (2005). Creative Problem Solving with Marginalized Populations: Reclaiming Lost Prizes through In-the-Trenches Interventions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49 (4), 330.
  11. Milkman, H., & Wanberg, K. (2012). Criminal Conduct and Substance Abuse Treatment for Adolescents: Pathways to Self-Discovery and Change: The Providers Guide, 2nd Edition. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.
  12. National Association for Gifted Children (2014). State of the States in Gifted Education. Retrieved from National Association for Gifted Children website:
  13. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
  14. Nisen, M. (2015, September). Tackling Inequality in Gifted-and-Talented Programs. The Atlantic. Retrieved from website:
  15. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Clarenbach, J. (2012). Unlocking Emergent Talent: Supporting High Achievement of Low-Income, High Ability Students. Retrieved from National Association for Gifted Children website:
  16. Pelaez, V. (2008). The Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New Form of Slavery? El Diario-La Prensa, New York and Global Research. Retrieved from the Centre for Research on Globalization website:
  17. Renzulli, J., & Park, S. (2000). Gifted Dropouts: The Who and the Why. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44 (4), 261-271.
  18. Rimm, S. (2003). Why Bright Kids Get Poor Grades and What You Can Do About It: A Six Step Program for Parents and Teachers, 3rd Edition. Scottsdale: Great Potential Press.
  19. Skala, L. (2014). Breaking Down Mass Incarceration in the 2010 Census: State-by-State Incarceration Rates by Race/Ethnicity. Retrieved from Prison Policy Initiative website: reports/rates.html
  20. Skuse, D. (1998). The Ecology of Post-Natal Growth. In Growth and Psychological Stress, section 9.4. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Growth and Development (pp. 341-342). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  21. Streznewski, M.K. (1999). Gifted Grown Ups: The Mixed Blessings of Extraordinary Potential. Hoboken: Wiley.
  22. U.S. Bureau of the Census (1977). Current Population Reports: Education Attainment in the United States: March 1977 and 1976 (U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Series P-20, No. 314). Retrieved from Bureau of the Census website:
  23. U.S. Department of Education and U.S Department of Justice (2014). Guiding Principles for Providing High-Quality Education in Juvenile Justice Secure Care Settings. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website: correctional-education/guiding-principles.pdf
  24. Walmsley, R. (2013). World Prison Population List (tenth edition). Retrieved from International Centre for Prison Studies website:
  25. Wolf Harlow, C. (2003). Education and Correctional Population (NCJ Publication No. 195670). Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics website: