THE NEEDS DEFICIT OF PRE-RELEASE JUVENILE OFFENDERS TO BE RE-INTEGRATED INTO THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM

Intan Nooraini Haji Zainol¹⁺ --- Azlinda Azman² --- Masarah Mohamad Yusof³ --- Farhana Kamarul Bahrin⁴ --- Maslina Mohammed Shaed⁵

^1,2,3,4,5School of Social Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia

Keywords:Juvenile offenders Needs deficit Re-Integration.

ARTICLE HISTORY: Received:3 May 2018. Revised:12 June 2018. Accepted:27 June 2018. Published:9 July 2018.

Contribution/ Originality:This paper documents the educational needs deficit of pre-release juvenile offenders that have a significant implications, particularly in Malaysia which can guide the MWFCD, DSW and other stakeholders in improving the academic programme and the re-integration support so that the juveniles can re-integrate into the educational system successfully.

1. INTRODUCTION

In Malaysia, a total of 1,279 of juvenile offenders were placed in correctional institutions under the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development (MWFCD) and Department of Social Welfare (DSW) in 2014 due to their status offenses and / or illegal behaviours such as crime and drug abuse (Department of Social Welfare, 2014 ). Although, the official statistics of released juvenile offenders have not been recorded and / or published openly in Malaysia, the government, particularly through the MWFCD and DSW will surely have to deal with the issues of re-integration of this population into the communities. It is believed that there are massive numbers of juvenile offenders in correctional institutions that need to be re-integrated into the educational system based on their developmental stage.

However, Abrams et al. (2008 ) found that many of the juvenile offenders struggle to successfully accomplish their development goals, particularly related to education after release from the juvenile system. Findings from previous studies have shown that only a small percentage from their sample of incarcerated juvenile offenders were enrolled in school after release from correctional facilities (Foley, 2001 ; Bullis and Yovanoff, 2002 ). For instance, Bullis and Yovanoff (2004 ) reported that only 12 percent from their sample of 759 formerly incarcerated youth completed a high school or a General Equivalency Diploma (GED) upon release into the community.

Juvenile offenders who are returning into communities from correctional institutions face uncertain futures as they attempt to re-integrate themselves into the mainstream educational systems due to numerous academic deficiencies or other challenges, including learning disabilities such as low skill levels in reading and writing, poor academic performance, inadequate education, resistance from the school system, disciplinary problems, school discipline policies such as zero tolerance resulted in suspension and expulsions; drop-out of school, incomplete or missing record and etc. (Foley, 2001 ; Bullis and Yovanoff, 2002 ; Altschuler and Brash, 2004 ; Mears and Travis, 2004 ; Agnew, 2005 ; Osgood et al., 2005 ; Snyder and Sickmund, 2006; Leone and Weinberg, 2010 ; Gonsoulin and Read, 2011 ) .

Previous studies indicate that juveniles’ unmet educational needs and their unsuccessful re-integration into the educational system often have a long-term negative impact on their lives which make them more vulnerable for further failures in securing employment which often resulting in economic and social hardship such as poverty, homelessness and recidivism into the juvenile and adult justice systems during their transition from adolescence to adulthood (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2001 ; Altschuler and Brash, 2004 ; Spencer and Jones-Walker, 2004 ; Agnew, 2005 ; Osgood et al., 2005 ; Snyder and Sickmund, 2006 ; Lapan et al., 2007 ; Simoes et al., 2008 ; Lee and Villagrana, 2015 )

Since education has profound implications on the juveniles’ future and determining the risk of their recidivism, therefore, it is imperative for the juvenile justice systems to improve the re-integration supports and educational programming in the institutions since the previous studies found that juvenile offenders received low quality education and lack of re-integration supports during their confinement and transition into the community (Yohalem and Pittman, 2001 ; Matvya et al., 2006 ; Mazzotti and Higgins, 2006 ; Nellis and Wayman, 2009 ; Blomberg et al., 2011 ) .

Due to the fact that the re-integration of juvenile offenders into the educational system is a critical issue, but not well researched in Malaysia which contributed to the absence of knowledge about the transition needs of returning juvenile offenders, this study aimed to fill the research gaps by examine the needs deficit of pre-release juvenile offenders from the educational perspectives that might complicate their chances for successful re-integration into the educational system after release so that appropriate interventions can be proposed to assist the juvenile offenders in meeting with their educational needs. 

1.1. Study Objective

By focusing on the pre-release juvenile offenders, specifically, this study aimed to examine their educational goals / plans in short and / or long-range, the prior risk factors, their deficiencies and anticipated challenges in meeting with their educational needs. This study also assesses the accessibility, quality and effectiveness of existing academic programme and the re-integration support provided to the juveniles during their institutional placement and transition into the communities. The findings of this study are then used to propose more appropriate and effective interventions in order to effectively fulfill the educational needs of this population, which further increase their chances to re-integrate into the educational system successfully.

2. METHODOLOGY

A qualitative study was conducted on pre-release juvenile offenders from two Probation Hostels (IA and IC) and one Approved School (IB) located in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. A purposive sampling was chosen and 17 respondents who were within three months from release and able to speak in Malay or English language participated in the study.  Data for the study were also gathered through in-depth interviews with eight informants, which are warden, deputy warden and probation officers from the three institutions.

The semi-structured in-depth interviews were employed to gain deeper insight from the respondents regarding the needs, challenges and issues they might face in re-integrating into the mainstream educational system after their release from correctional institutions into the communities. While the data from the informants can add depth and provide greater insight on the academic programme and re-integration support provided during their institutional placement and transition into the communities. The interviews took approximately 60-90 minutes to complete. All the data were analysed manually by researcher using content analysis.

Prior the interviews, the researcher gave informed consent forms and explained to the respondents about the voluntary nature of their participation and the opportunity to withdraw at any point within the study. All of the respondents who are willing to participate in this study signed and returned the form to the researcher. The researcher also emphasized on the confidentiality issue by ensuring the respondents that their personal information such as real names and their answers to the interview questions will be protected and kept confidential.

3. RESULTS

3.1. Short / Long-Range Educational Goals / Plans:

As displayed in Table 1, overall 52.94% (9/17) respondents in three institutions planned to re-enroll in secondary schools immediately after release from the institutions. While 47.06% (8/17) respondents reported an immediate plan to register and sit for the Malaysian Certificate of Education (MCE) as a private candidate after leaving the institutions. Only 23.53% (4/17) of the respondents reportedly wish to pursue higher education as their long-range goals. 

3.2. Challenges / Deficiencies:

Despite of their desire to achieve their educational goals as mentioned above, many respondents who have deficiencies perceived the possibility of facing tough challenges which make them doubt their ability in reaching their goals successfully.

History of disciplinary problems. As displayed in Table 1, a total of 76.47% (13/17) respondents in all three institutions who had been suspended and expelled from elementary or secondary school in the past because of their misbehavior such as truancy, bully and etc. reported feeling worried if District Education Office and / or school authorities refuse to accept their admission due to their disciplinary problems.

Lagging behind the academic syllabus. As Table 1 displays, overall, 82.35% (14/17) respondents from the three institutions who have been out of school for a certain time because of being dropped-out or expelled from school perceived the difficulties in the learning process. In fact, the challenges might be even harder for those who planned to sit for the MCE as a private candidate. The respondents believe they will struggle to catch up with the syllabus that they have missed.

Low academic abilities. Table 1 also indicated that 41.18% (7/17) of respondents in the three institutions believed their low academic abilities might challenge them in the learning process which will resulting in failure to gain a good result in public examination (either in school or as a private candidate for MCE) and further reduce their chance to successfully reaching their long-range goal to pursue higher education. 

Table-1. Educational Needs Deficit

4. DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Overall, the respondents of this study reported their intentions to re-enroll in secondary schools or register and sit for the MCE as a private candidate upon their release from the institutions. Some of them wish to pursue higher education as their long-range goals. Despite their expressed intentions, most of the respondents reportedly feeling uncertain and doubt their ability because of their deficiencies that might challenge them in reaching their educational goal.

The study found that majority of the respondents who have the history of suspension or expulsion during elementary or secondary school in the past due to their disciplinary problems, including truancy, bully and other discipline history, afraid if the authorities such as District Education Office and / or school reject their admission and thus resulting in the failure to be successfully re-enrolled in school after release. In fact, the institutional staff who have been interviewed admit that no initiative will be taken to register the juveniles who have been expelled from school prior their placement in the correctional institution because of the high probability of being rejected by the authorities. Seigle et al. (2014 ) and Sullivan (2004 ) confirmed the resistance of the school to accept the juveniles due to their previous disciplinary problems is one of the barriers for school re-entry.

Nellis and Wayman (2009 ) reported that some schools deny the re-enrollment of former juveniles because they are hard to be managed. The school system reluctant to accept the ex-juveniles because of the stigma that their disruptive behavior will return (Farkas et al., 2003 ). However, the study findings have also revealed that even if the respondents managed to get re-enrolled into the secondary school, other problems may arise due to their academic lacking. Based on their previous academic failure throughout their school years in the past, many respondents who have been lagging behind the academic syllabus and have low academic abilities believe that they might face major challenges that diminish their chance to successfully pursuing their educational aims either in short and / or long-range. The respondents who wish to re-engage in secondary schools upon release worried if the learning process will be too hard for them.

In fact, some of them expressed the possibility to quit their schooling if they find themselves overwhelmed with the academic challenges. While, those who planned to register and sit for the MCE as a private candidate believe they will face even greater challenges. The respondents perceived the struggle to catch up with the academic syllabus that they have missed. Hence, many respondents reportedly doubt their own ability to successfully reaching their long-range educational goal to pursue higher education since it relies on their academic attainment. This finding is consistent with the sample of Abrams and Fields (2008 ) as well as Fields and Abrams (2010 ) who are reported feeling worried because they anticipated that their academic weaknesses and learning problems would prevent them in reaching their educational goals to successfully complete their high school diploma or GED programme or pursue higher education upon re-entry. Siegel et al. (2006 ) reported that the frequent experiences of the academic failure decrease the students’ self-esteem because of the feeling of inadequacy and the fear of repeated failure. According to Needs Theory by Maslow, poor academic or learning difficulties hinder individuals from fulfilling their psychological needs of mastery, competence, achievement and confidence which resulting in lack of self-esteem and the feeling helplessness that prevent them from achieving self-actualization needs (Maslow, 1970; Zastrow and Kirst-Ashman, 2007 ).

The study somehow found that part of these deficiencies that might pose as challenges for respondents to be re-integrated into the educational system resulted from the inadequacy of current academic services provided in the correctional institutions in term of access, quality and implementation that failed to address these deficits while they are incarcerated. This is because most of the respondents reportedly did not engage in formal schooling outside the institution. The probation officers interviewed as informants said that the initiative to register the juveniles into school only made if they are still in school prior their placement in the institution, while there is no initiative to re-engage the juveniles who are no longer in school before entering the institutions. However, there are cases where the juveniles who are still in school prior their admission, unable to continue their schooling during their correctional placement because of the difficulties to register them in the middle of the academic session, which is obviously contradicted with the obligations of government to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) that recognizes the juvenile's right to access community schools outside the institution.

Even though some of the juveniles who are not enrolled in formal schooling, particularly those who are illiterate engaged in the “Kelas Intervensi Awal Membaca dan Menulis (KIA 2M)”, the study found that the basic instruction in reading and writing provided in the class could not adequately fulfill the learning needs of the juveniles. This is because some of the respondents who participated in the class reported that they still could not read and write. The study found that the instruction in “KIA 2M” class is taught by the probation officers who are unable to run the classes effectively due to their lacking in adequate training and heavy workloads. While some respondents who enrolled in formal school outside the institution reportedly facing struggle to catch up the academic curriculum and not provided with any extra classes in the institution. This finding is consistent with the Child Rights Coalition Malaysia (2012 ) which reported that the provision of education and re-integration support for children detained in DSW facilities are limited in term of availability, quality and structure, therefore need to be strengthened.

Chung et al. (2007 ) as well as Mazzotti and Higgins (2006 ) found that the academic programme in the juvenile justice system failed to adequately educate and prepare the juveniles for their successful return into the community school. While, Altschuler and Brash (2004 ) reported that the youth placed in the correctional facilities struggle to re-integrating into the mainstream educational system due to the failure of the institution to address their academic needs during incarceration and the lack of transitional support. In fact, Klehr (2009 ) found that the justice system itself might cause or exacerbate academic problems among the juveniles since they lose their valuable time that should be spent in school and the academic instruction they received in juvenile facilities is often of low quality, which make their returning to school difficult.

Given these inadequate learning and teaching support within the correctional institution that could not effectively meeting the educational needs of juvenile offenders, which will then affect their chances for successful re-integration into the mainstream educational system upon their release, it is highly suggested that the MWFCD and DSW to work very closely with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and other relevant stakeholders.

It is hoped that this collaborative effort between the juvenile justice system and the MOE can enhance the academic wellness and educational success of juvenile offenders, for example, through the support of academic cadre to provide instruction in “KIA 2M” class and tuition to the schooling juveniles as well as the MOE monitoring of academic curriculum inside the institutions, the provision of teaching and reading materials such as books and etc. Mincey et al. (2008 ) highlight that strong academic services provided to the juveniles during their incarceration are paramount to facilitate a successful re-integration into school.

Furthermore, the close collaboration, partnership and commitment from all of these stakeholders are imperative to ease the school placement procedures so that the juveniles could be quickly re-engage in mainstream schools, while in correctional institution as well as upon their release into the communities regardless of their background or status. Gonsoulin and Read (2011 ) also emphasized on the interagency collaboration to expeditiously re-enroll juvenile offenders into mainstream school settings. School-age juveniles have the right to attend school during their placement in the institution despite of have been disconnected from schools due to suspension or dropped-out. Initiative should be made to re-engage them in the school during their institutional placement. This effort is significant to fulfill our commitment to the National Child Policy and the CRC, which recognise the educational right of children in conflict with the law to access the community schools outside the institution as well as their development and re-integration to help them reach their potential. 

In addition to the close collaboration and partnership between the MWFCD, DSW and MOE to improve the access, quality and implementation of academic programme, the government should strengthen the re-integration supports in the Malaysian juvenile justice system through the co-ordinated efforts of the probation officers in order to facilitate the successful re-integration of the juveniles into the mainstream educational system upon their release from the institutions. Both probation officers in institutional setting and the district where the juvenile lives should work very closely and committed in developing written re-integration plans and provide the returning juveniles with structural support, for instance, assist them with the arrangement of their enrollment in school or other academic programme in the community to ensure a seamless transition from the institutional setting into the mainstream educational system. Mears and Travis (2004 ) also emphasize on the importance to link the returning / released juvenile offenders to immediate educational placements that foster smooth transition and improve their outcomes. The planned and timely transitioning of juveniles into appropriate educational programme upon release from a correctional facility increase the likelihood of successful re-integration (Leone and Weinberg, 2012 ).

5. CONCLUSION

This study found that the re-integration into the educational system seems to be challenging for most of the respondents due to their deficits either in academic and / or disciplinary issues which causing them to have low self-esteem and doubt their own ability to successfully reaching their educational goals after release. This findings somehow indicate that the current practice in juvenile correctional institutions unable to address the educational needs of the juveniles during their placement which might reduce their chances to successfully re-integrated into the school or other academic programme in the community. In fact, it is found that part of these deficiencies were exacerbated by the lack of re-integration supports and inadequate education in juvenile placement due to lack of resources of co-ordination which affects the access, quality and implementation of academic programme both within juvenile correctional facilities and in the community.

Therefore, it is imperative for the juvenile justice systems to give critical attention on the improvement the re-integration supports and educational practice in the institutions through the close collaboration and co-ordinated supports from the MWFCD, the DSW, MOE and probation officers in order to respond effectively to the educational needs of these juveniles, and further facilitate their educational success which will then enhance their future prospects, such as opportunity for a more stable job in the long run.This is because Gonsoulin and Read (2011 ) found that shared and co-ordinated responsibility across all agencies can increase the educational wellness and well-being of the ex-juvenile offenders. Stephens and Arnette (2000 ) mentioned that effective transitional strategies could increase the likelihood of reenrollment in school, graduation from high school, successful employment and independent living among the juveniles. Findings from previous studies reported that former juveniles who are reenrolled and performing well in schools are less likely to reoffend and more likely to success in college and careers and thus have better economic stability in the future (Nellis and Wayman, 2009 ; Seigle et al., 2014 ).

REFERENCES

Abrams, L.S. and D. Fields, 2008. Perceived needs, barriers, and social supports among the youth reentry population in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles: School of Public Affairs, UCLA Department of Social Welfare.

Abrams, L.S., S.K. Shannon and C. Sangalang, 2008. Transition services for incarcerated youth: A mixed methods evaluation study. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(5): 522-535. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Agnew, R., 2005. Juvenile delinquency: Causes and control. 2nd Edn., Los Angeles, CA: Roxsbury Publishing Company.

Altschuler, D.M. and R. Brash, 2004. Adolescent and teenage offenders confronting the challenges and opportunities of reentry. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(1): 72-87. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Blomberg, T.G., W.D. Bales, K. Mann, A.R. Piquero and R.A. Berk, 2011. Incarceration, education and transition from delinquency. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(4): 355-365. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Bullis, M. and P. Yovanoff, 2002. Those who do not return: Correlates of the work and school engagement of formerly incarcerated youth who remain in the community. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10(2): 66-79. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Bullis, M. and P. Yovanoff, 2004. The importance of getting started right: Further examination of the facility-to-community transition of formally incarcerated youth. Journal of Special Education, 38(2): 80-94. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Child Rights Coalition Malaysia, 2012. Status report on children’s rights in Malaysia. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/malaysia/Report_on_Childrens_Rights_.pdf.

Chung, H., C. Schubert and E. Mulvey, 2007. An empirical portrait of community reentry among serious juvenile offenders in two metropolitan cities. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(11): 1402-1426. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2001. Abandoned in the back row: New lessons in education and delinquency prevention. 2001 Annual Report. Washington, DC: Coalition for Juvenile Justice.

Department of Social Welfare, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.jkm.gov.my/jkm/index.php.

Farkas, S., J. Johnson and A. Duffett, 2003. Rolling up their sleeves. Superintendents and principals talk about what’ s needed to fix public schools. A Report from the Public Agenda for the Wallace Foundation.

Fields, D. and L.S. Abrams, 2010. Gender differences in the perceived needs and barriers of youth offenders preparing for community reentry. Child Youth Care Forum, 39(4): 253-269. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Foley, R.M., 2001. Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional educational programs: A literature review. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9(4): 248-259. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Gonsoulin, S. and N.W. Read, 2011. Improving educational outcomes for youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems through interagency communication and coordination. Washington, DC: National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for Children and Youth who are Neglected, Delinquent, or at-Risk (NDTAC).

Klehr, D.G., 2009. Addressing the unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind and zero tolerance: Better strategies for safe schools and successful students. Georgetown Journal on Poverty, Law, & Policy, 16(Symposium issue): 585–610. View at Google Scholar 

Lapan, R., M. Aoyagi and M. Kayson, 2007. Helping rural adolescents make successful postsecondary transitions: A longitudinal study. Professional School Counseling, 10(3): 266-272. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Lee, S. and M. Villagrana, 2015. Differences in risk and protective factors between crossover and non-crossover youth in juvenile justice. Children and Youth Services Review, 58(November Issue): 18- 27. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Leone, P. and L. Weinberg, 2010. Addressing the unmet needs of children and youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown Public Policy Institute.

Leone, P. and L. Weinberg, 2012. Addressing the unmet educational needs of children and youth in the juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown Public Policy Institute.

Maslow, A., 1970. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Matvya, J., N.A. Lever and R. Boyle, 2006. School reentry of juvenile offenders. Baltimore MD: Center for School Mental Health Analysis and Action, Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Mazzotti, V. and K. Higgins, 2006. Public schools and the juvenile justice system: Facilitating relationships. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(5): 295-301.View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Mears, D.P. and J. Travis, 2004. Youth development and reentry. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(1): 3-20. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Mincey, B., N. Maldonado, C.H. Lacey and S.D. Thompson, 2008. Perceptions of successful graduates of juvenile residential programs: Reflections and suggestions for success. Journal of Correctional Education, 59(1): 8-31.View at Google Scholar 

Nellis, A. and R.H. Wayman, 2009. Back on track: Supporting youth reentry from out-of -home placement to the community. Washington, D. C: Youth Reentry Task Force of the Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Coalition.

Osgood, D.W., E.M. Foster, C. Flanagan and G.R. Ruth, 2005. On your own without a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Seigle, E., N. Walsh and J. Weber, 2014. Core principles for reducing recidivism and improving other outcomes for incarcerated youth. New York: CSG Justice Center.

Siegel, L.J., B.C. Welsch and J.J. Senna, 2006. Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice and law. 9th Edn., Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, Inc.

Simoes, C., M.G. Matos and J.M. Batista-Foguet, 2008. Juvenile delinquency: Analysis of risk and protective factors using quantitative and qualitative methods. Cognition, Brain, Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12(4): 389-408. View at Google Scholar 

Snyder, H.N. and M. Sickmund, 2006. Juvenile offenders and victims: A national report. Washington, DC: : Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Spencer, M.B. and C. Jones-Walker, 2004. Interventions and services offered to former juvenile offenders reentering their communities: An analysis of program effectiveness. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(1): 88-97. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Stephens, R.D. and J.L. Arnette, 2000. From the courthouse to the schoolhouse: Making successful transitions. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Sullivan, M., 2004. Youth perspectives on the experience of reentry. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(1): 56-71. View at Google Scholar | View at Publisher

Yohalem, N. and K. Pittman, 2001. Power pathways: Framing options and opportunities for vulnerable youth. Discussion Paper of the Youth Transitions Funders Group. Takoma Park, MD: The Forum for Youth Investment, International Youth Foundation.

Zastrow, C. and K.K. Kirst-Ashman, 2007. Understanding human behavior and the social environment. 7th Edn., Belmont, CA: Brooks / Cole.