Exploring how employment schemes for young offenders aid desistance from crime
| Author | Rebecca Jayne Oswald |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0264550519900234 |
| Published date | 01 March 2023 |
| Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Exploring how
employment schemes
for young offenders
aid desistance
from crime
Rebecca Jayne Oswald
Northumbria University, UK
Abstract
Criminological literature investigating the association between employment and
desistance presents largely mixed findings. This article uses the Skill Mill employment
scheme for young offenders as a case study to advance our understanding of how
participating in work programmes can influence youth reoffending. Participant
observations and semi-structured interviews were conducted with young attendees of
the scheme and their supervisors. The findings suggest that employment schemes that
offer remuneration, that influence how attendees are perceived by others, that
encourage friendships between individuals with a history of criminal justice involve-
ment and that employ supervisors who manage the dynamics of the work group and
support young people to change can aid desistance.
Keywords
desistance, employment, peers, youth justice
Introduction
Criminological literature investigating the association between employment and
desistance presents largely mixed findings (Giordano et al., 2002; Piquero et al.,
2002; Sampson and Laub, 1993; Savolainen, 2009; Wright and Cullen, 2004).
Corresponding Author:
Rebecca Jayne Oswald, Department of Social Sciences, Northumbria University, Lipman Building,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK.
Email: rebecca.oswald@northumbria.ac.uk
Probation Journal
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0264550519900234
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
2023, Vol. 70(1) 52–69
Despite this, ‘employment programmes’ providing work opportunities for offenders
are becoming more popular, both in prisons and in the community. For example, the
Skill Mill social enterprise is set to double its number of sites in the United Kingdom,
and consequently, hundreds of young people will be involved in the scheme (The
Skill Mill, 2019). This employment programme provides six months paid work for
youths who have been involved with the youth offending team (YOT). The purpose
of the Skill Mill is not to act as an alternative to conventional methods of justice, but
rather it is to give youths an opportunity to rebuild their lives and reduce their
chances of resuming offending. Indeed, the Skill Mill has been found to reduce
reoffending (Long et al., 2019). It is therefore important to gain a greater under-
standing of how such schemes aid desistance. This article uses the Skill Mill as a
case study to examine the rationale for employment programmes, the dynamics of
involvement and the potential benefits for the participants.
Employment and desistance
Numerous scholars assert that desistance constitutes a fluid process of abstaining
from crime over time, rather than a precise status after a circumscribed period of
non-offending (Fagan, 1989; Maruna, 2001; Maruna and Farrall, 2004;
Paternoster and Bushway, 2009). This reflects how offenders themselves describe
their desistance – as an ongoing struggle, with setbacks and relapses, rather than
an instantaneous transition from offender to non-offender (Halsey et al., 2017). This
study also considers desistance to be a process. Using this definition was vital when
interpreting the findings.
Scholarship indicates that employment is associated with reduced criminal
activities. Sampson and Laub (1993) describe how forming bonds with co-workers
generates certain benefits for the individual – known as social capital. Engagement
in criminal activity would likely lead to ostracism from co-workers and jeopardise
these. Thus, controlling criminal behaviours is necessary to preserve social capital.
Similarly, Ezell and Cohen (2005) and Farrall (2012) confirmed that employment
influenced offenders’ social capital, to encourage the avoidance of criminal acts.
Moreover, Wright and Cullen (2004) report that engaging in employment can
promote desistance because bonds with ‘prosocial’ co-workers disrupt previously
established delinquent peer networks. Indeed this link between employment and
desistance appears to exist, regardless of the seriousness of the prior offences
committed. For example, MacKenzie and De Li (2002) studied a sample of offen-
ders who received community sentences and found that those who engaged in
employment had lower rates of reoffending, while Savolainen (2009) also dis-
covered a relationship between employment and a reduction in the rate of new
convictions using a sample of high-risk offenders released from prison.
Can we conclude from the above studies that employment produces desistance?
It would appear not, as others have found that employment has no impact upon
desistance (e.g. Giordano et al., 2002; Graham and Bowling, 1995; Piquero
et al., 2002; Rand, 1987). In particular, employment ‘programmes’ for offenders
appear to produce inconsistent results in terms of desistance. Wilson et al. (2000)
53
Oswald
To continue reading
Request your trial