Framing Education in Youth Justice in England and Wales: Some Outcomes for Young Offender Intervention
| Author | Dr Victoria Knight |
| Pages | 49-67 |
49
FRAMING EDUCATION AND LEARNING IN YOUTH
JUSTICE IN ENGLAND AND WALES: SOME OUTCOMES
FOR YOUNG OFFENDER INTERVENTION
Dr Victoria Knight, Senior Research Fellow, Community & Criminal Justice, De Montfort
University4
Abstract
It is ackno wledged that many young offenders disengage with education. The need to
reduce the numbers of young people that are Not in Education, Employment or Training
(NEET) has crept up the policy agenda for education and you th justice agencies in England
and Wales. This paper reflects on one alternative education initiative (AEI) that sough t to
re-engage young offenders with the learning ladder by equipping them with basic skills in
order to progress into mainstream education, training or employment (ETE). The
responses from the young people highlight outcomes and tensions ab out the role that
learning has in their lives and implications for social justice. The framing of education in
the youth justice context relates closely to key theoretical models including community
protection, pro-social modelling and compliance. By locating the young people’s
responses in these ways it is possible to identify important policy tensions and subsequent
implications for practice that arise from educational treatment.
Keywords
Young offenders; basic skills; alternative educational initiative; NEET; ASSET; compliance
4 I would like to thank Professor Dave Ward, Jean Hine, and Jessica Bamonte for their advice and
support. Also thanks to Leicestershire Youth Offending Service for supporting this project. My
gratitude is also extended to the patient anonymous reviewers.
British Journal of Community Justice
©2014 Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield
ISSN 1475-0279
Vol. 12(1):49-67
Knight
50
Young offenders and their relationship with educati on
Youth Offending Services (YOS) in England and Wales work with young people aged
between 10 and 17 years old. The aim of the YOS is to reduce reoffending and protect the
public. There is a YOS in each local authority and performance is overseen by the Youth
Justice Board (an executive non-departmental public body). The YOS supervises young
offenders, overseeing pre-court and court procedures, s entences and convictions and
assessments of young people’s needs. The YOS uses a national assessment tool (ASSET) to
assess the range of factors that can contribute to offending behaviour, including aspects
of yo ung people’s lifestyle and behaviour in need of support, including education . This
assessment informs the programme of work that should be undertaken with the young
person to address their needs and reduce the risk of re-o ffending or harm. Within this
approach education is framed as a mode of reform (Rose, 1999:178). Welfarism, including
compulsory education, is preoccupied with limiting and preventing the risks children,
young people and families are subjected to and as a consequence delivering a range of
interventions to remedy society’s ills has been always been a function of formal education
(Rose, 1999).
Evidence suggests that young people who commit crime often have poor basic skills
(literacy and numeracy) and are typically out of school, training or employment either
before or just after conviction (Farrington et al, 2006; Communities that Care, 2005). Thus,
criminal justice agencies work with a range of partners such as the Local Authority and the
Connexions Service to make educational provisions available to young offenders.
Watt et al (2004:141) assert that disengagement with education is a factor related to
recidivism. However Utting highlights that ‘researchers do not always agree’ that th ere is a
correlation here (1996:1). Thus, indicators and risks of offending cannot easily be
attributed to the cause of offending. For example, poor academic performance, truancy
and periods of exclusion do not mean a young person will commit crime. Conversely,
offending could disrupt education and consequently learning (Moffitt, 1993). The strength
of these kinds of associations remains largely contested. However, Ball and Connolly
suggest that it is important to directly address educational barriers to ensure criminal
careers are minimised (2000:2).The link between education and offending is however,
sufficient to inform national targets and the YJB’s policies.
The YJB (2006b) found that ‘45% of the young people [offenders]... had access to full-time
provision…and 28% had no provision at all’. Of those not engaging in full-time education,
training or employment (ETE) they found that these young people tended to be
‘older...female, had been in the care system, had literacy and numeracy difficulties, had
previous convictions, h ad been subject to more serious disposals and were more likely to
reoffend’. This seems to sug gest that social, criminogenic and personal factors can all
disrupt engagement with ETE. Wise is critical of edu cational policy noting that ‘mandatory
attendance policy at secondary level has little impact on learning...moti vation and ability
to learn have greater impacts on academic achievement’ (1994:2). Disengagement with
ETE is not uncommon amongst young offenders, yet the direct relationship between
disengagement, particularly with education , and offending continues to be contested
To continue reading
Request your trial