The links between young people being imprisoned, pupil background and school quality
We find that going to a lower-quality school, as rated by Ofsted, is one of the many factors linked with a higher likelihood of someone being imprisoned. The impact of school quality is comparably low. We also look at the issues of poverty and growing up in care and include the thoughts of people working with at-risk students.
Of the minority of young people imprisoned by the age of 24, most are known to police before the age of 16.
Only 1.1% of the 515,226 state school pupils in England we analysed went on to receive an immediate custodial sentence between the ages of 16 and 24.
These are people sentenced to time in a prison, young offender institution, or another secure setting with immediate effect.
This was the case for a higher proportion of pupils in lower-rated schools (1.4%), compared with those who went to good or outstanding schools (0.9%). This does not include pupil referral units (PRUs).
However, Ofsted ratings alone do not show the full picture. Pupils may be more likely to be imprisoned based on differences in income background, gender, ethnicity, and the location of the school and deprivation in the surrounding local area.
People with Special Educational Needs or children who were in care during secondary school are also more likely to receive an immediate custodial sentence by the time they were 24 years old.
Data records are limited in capturing the extent of these challenges. As part of this research, we also spoke to a headteacher in London and a youth worker in South Yorkshire, who told us about the many difficulties some young people are dealing with, including their family background.
Their background could involve a father being absent, a father being in prison, substance misuse issues at home, domestic violence.
Marcus Isman-Egal, youth worker, EPIC Learning
Analysis of the data confirmed that young people who were imprisoned were more likely to be from disadvantaged backgrounds and that the link between school quality and imprisonment is complex.
Lower-rated state schools generally have more students with characteristics that are themselves associated with higher rates of imprisonment.
Accounting for these differences in who attends schools, where the schools are, and the type and size of school explains most of the link between school ratings and imprisonment.
Nevertheless, controlling for all these factors, we find school rating has a small effect. Students at lower-rated schools have 11% higher odds of going on to be imprisoned compared with students at higher-rated schools. In practice, a very small number of people go on to receive an immediate custodial sentence, so this is a difference of about 1 in 1,000 students.
Lower-rated schools linked to higher likelihood of imprisonment
There are some backgrounds and circumstances connected with a higher likelihood of being imprisoned.
To determine whether there was a link between a pupil attending a higher or lower-rated school as assessed by Ofsted and getting an immediate custodial sentence, our analysis accounted for a wide range of factors.
Pupils in this study were born between September 1993 and August 1994, attended both primary and secondary school in England, and turned 23 or 24 years old by the end of 2017.
These half a million individuals have hugely different characteristics. Some are from poorer backgrounds, some used English as a second language or lived in an area that was more income deprived. We also know whether they had interacted with social services, what they achieved in their key skills tests in primary school, their ethnicity, gender, and whether they had Special Educational Needs.
Similarly, state schools of all ratings can vary. The data can show us the type of school and size of school, and the kinds of pupils who went to that school, for example, if there was a higher proportion of people in a school on free school meals, or who used English as a second language. We also accounted for how urban or rural the local area was around a school, because cities have higher rates of imprisonment.
Schools should be a paradise where it doesn’t matter what your background is, you can come and learn.
James Hadley, headteacher, CRiB
When we considered all of these factors, there was still a significant difference in outcomes. Pupils who went to satisfactory (now termed “requires improvement”) or inadequate schools were 11% more likely to receive an immediate custodial sentence.
This does not include people who get a suspended custodial term or a non-custodial sentence or caution from police.
Overall, the percentage of people who are imprisoned is very low, so the difference school quality makes for prison outcomes is also very small, relative to the whole population. Schools will be very different within rating categories, so this is not a link between individual schools and a pupil going to prison or another secure setting. The likelihood of imprisonment also varies for people depending on situation and characteristics. There is no “average” student, but we can pick some characteristics for a person to put in the model and show the school quality effect for them as a reference.
Our reference student is male, White British, and had average educational attainment. They have English as a first language, they do not have any Special Educational Needs and are not eligible for free school meals, they were not in care, they are born around the middle of the academic year, and they go to a mixed comprehensive, non-religious school in a rural village in the East Midlands. The school has average characteristics in terms of its size and the type of pupils who go there.
For this student, there is a 1.4% chance (nearly 14 people in every 1,000) that they will go on to be imprisoned if they go to an outstanding or good school. If they went to a satisfactory or inadequate school however, they would have a 1.5% (15 people in every 1,000) chance of imprisonment, even if everything else stayed the same.
In the following sections, we show how the likelihood of imprisonment is higher for people in disadvantaged situations and that some students are much less likely to attend a good or outstanding school.
Youth crime prevention programmes
To better illustrate what we cannot measure in data, we spoke to people working with pupils at risk of being excluded from school. Our previous research has shown that more than half (52.5%) of young adults who received immediate custodial sentences had been persistently absent during schooling.
In 2019, Haverstock School opened the Camden Reintegration Base (CRiB) in association with 11 other Camden secondary schools. This early intervention programme for students at risk of permanent exclusion takes in around 14 students three times a year for a seven-week programme.
Haverstock School executive headteacher James Hadley said that, in his experience, it helps that the pupils in need of support are taught within a school environment.
“They come to the CRiB in uniform, they have a behaviour policy, they sit at desks. We do have more flexibility over what we do but we don’t want to lower our standards or cheapen their entitlement. We have good facilities and that is a statement of how valuable this provision is. We also put some of our best teachers in to work with the students. This is a precious opportunity, and they need quality. Schools should be a paradise where it doesn’t matter what your background is, you can come and learn.
“The CRiB programme is time limited but it’s not just respite. It’s a big pause in their education and a lot of work goes in to make sure they're still learning while we start to tackle the underpinning reasons for their conduct and behaviour.”
EPIC Learning in Doncaster was set up in 2019 and works with groups of up to 10 young people aged 11 to 16 years over a 12-week period. Students are taught the core curriculum and also connected with local businesses. The EPIC team includes a lead teacher, speech and language therapists, a forensic psychologist, a project lead, delivery manager and others with expertise in substance misuse, pastoral support and counselling.
EPIC programme lead Marcus Isman-Egal said: “My team is compassionate, understands trauma and understands that there is more to a young person than their behaviours. For some of them, 100% attendance in a programme or achieving a certificate of learning is a massive thing.”
Most people imprisoned by age 24 first offended before the age of 16
Not all young people receive intervention support or are detoured away from becoming involved in crime. Of people sentenced immediately to imprisonment by 24 years old in our study, the majority had been convicted or cautioned for an offence before the age of 16.
Around 38,200 young people had been cautioned by police or given a criminal sentence before they were 16 years old. Most of these sentences were not immediate custodial sentences. Less than 300 young people were sent to prison or a secure institution at this age (sentencing guidelines are different for children and young people).
By the age of 24 years however, 3,115 (or 8.2%) of these young offenders had been handed an immediate custodial sentence. That means just over half (54.8%) of the 5,687 people who had been imprisoned by the age of 24 years first interacted with the criminal justice system while still of school age.
Organised crime groups are targeting more and more younger children into their criminal activities
Marcus Isman-Egal, EPIC Learning
Sentences may be short, and a young person may only be in prison or a young offenders’ institution for a day, but that does remain on their record.
James Hadley said: “We see a lot of children who are on the fringes of criminality, who may not have entered the justice system yet but are at risk of criminal child exploitation. Where we are, you've got the county lines and issues in the community with drugs and some children are more likely to be sucked in. In our experience, early intervention with children and their families increases the chances of success.”
He said that early intervention can work out more cheaply for society if it prevents the additional cost of a pupil moving into a PRU or potentially on to prison.
“Permanent exclusion is such a brutal experience for any young person and their family. They become disaffected with education and often with authority, and that contributes to a sense of them being unable to get success from their life.”
The first two years of the CRiB programme have been very successful, with the majority of the young people going back to their mainstream school successfully. School exclusions in the area have also fallen.
Nearly all (93%) of the young people who do end up in prison or another secure setting are male. EPIC’s Marcus Isman-Egal feels that having positive, male role models available to young people is crucial.
“Some of the young men don't have a male role model at home or the role model that they have in the community presents a negative face of masculinity and perhaps is involved in crime,” he said.
“Organised crime groups across the country really see young people as the foot soldiers, and they’re replaceable. They are targeting more and more younger children into their criminal activities. That is why there is a risk for the young people who feel out of the mainstream or excluded or different or not having the right support. They could see those groups looking out for them to recruit them as a family, as a way out.
“If we don’t break the cycle and if we don’t support the most vulnerable, at-risk young people away from what they may see as perhaps the glamour of the family that is in their community, on the streets and involved in things that provide money, security and friendship, these young people will ultimately be on that pathway into a life of crime. Ultimately, that could lead to prison or, in some cases, could result in death.”
Children in care or in need less likely to attend a good or outstanding school
Our findings show that children who were in care or flagged by authorities as “in need” during their secondary school years, and pupils who were eligible for free school meals in primary school were all less likely than others to attend a “good” or “outstanding” secondary school.
Students with recorded behavioural, emotional and social difficulties (BESD) or other Special Educational Needs (SEN) were also less likely to have gone to a higher-rated school.
Children with Special Educational Needs were less likely to go to a higher-rated school Article credit - ons.gov.uk
