Bridging the research-practice gap: What linked administrative data reveals about young people’s pathways into criminal justice involvement

How it came about

The roundtable grew directly out of a programme of research conducted by ADR UK-funded researchers [EC1] (past and present) who have used the linked MoJ-DfE dataset — a rich source of de-identified, population-level administrative data that allows researchers to understand children’s experiences across education and justice systems over time. 

Though we were working independently on different aspects of vulnerability, we all began to notice the same thing: the young people appearing in the data did not neatly fit into one category. 

Some were both care experienced and excluded from school. Some had unmet SEND needs while also living in poverty. Some were Black, Mixed heritage or Gypsy/Roma/Traveller children who were also looked after. Some had experienced ‘disruptions’ in their education, moving from mainstream schools to alternative provision settings, after being temporarily or permanently excluded from school. 

Their vulnerabilities did not exist discretely or in silos, but intersected, compounded, and often accumulated over time, placing these young people in positions where they were more likely to interact with the youth justice system.

Importantly, however, the systems designed to support these young people largely operate in silos. This can overlook their overlapping needs and strengths, miss opportunities for early intervention, and make it difficult to deliver coordinated, appropriate support across systems and services. As a result, too many young people are 'falling through the gaps'. We want to re-centre that urgency by highlighting the need for more joined-up services that improve both support and outcomes.

Research findings are often similarly fragmented — audiences aren't always aware of them, able to access them, or have time to trace the connections across studies. Through this collaboration, we set out to change that.

We created a readable, accessible two-page synthesis for practitioners, government actors, policymakers, advocacy groups and research organisations, to inform ongoing and future policy reforms. More than that, we wanted to build a collective voice for policy and practice change, align priorities across sectors, identify gaps in research and knowledge, and co-develop concrete action steps.

What the research tells us

Together, the findings from the eight studies paint a compelling portrait of the educational and social markers of vulnerability — SEND, care experience, exclusions, poverty, and more — and how strongly they correspond with an increased likelihood of youth justice contact and involvement. 

Care experience

• Care-experienced children are disproportionately likely to have youth justice involvement.
• Nearly all ethnic minority groups with care experience have higher youth justice involvement than White British peers
• Care experienced girls are eleven times more likely to receive a custodial sentence than girls with no welfare involvement
• Year 11 pupils with a designated special educational need were more likely to have a criminal caution or conviction if they'd also had a child welfare intervention

These patterns around care experience intersect and overlap with SEND:

SEND

• Many young people in the justice system have unidentified or unmet needs — ADHD, autism, acquired brain injury, specific learning difficulties, and more
• Early developmental delays combined with poverty create a 'double disadvantage' that raises their likelihood  of later justice contact
• System failure: These are consequences of unmet needs and marginalisation, not individual deficits — early identification and inclusive education can interrupt this pathway
• Special educational needs are among the strongest predictors of exclusion
• Excluded pupils with SEND are much more likely to have criminal justice system involvement than those with none identified 

They also intersect with exclusions, school disruption, and alternative provision placement:

Exclusions, disruptions, and alternative provision

• Multiple fixed-term exclusions markedly increase the likelihood of youth justice involvement
• Permanent exclusion along with temporary exclusions, particularly as these escalate, increase the likelihood of youth justice involvementSchool exclusions were a key predictor of offending with around a third of individuals excluded before their first justice contact
• Exclusion, gender and KS1 attainment were among the strongest predictors of offending trajectory, identifiable from school records before any justice contact
• Children who moved from mainstream school to alternative provision mid-year show a spike in offending rates, suggesting disruption itself is a risk factor
• Alternative provision settings disproportionately serve pupils with concentrated and overlapping vulnerabilities compared to mainstream schools. Pupils in alternative provision or Pupil Referral Units pupils are 11x more likely to be persistent absentees and 5x more likely to have an offence documented on the Police National Computer. They also have far higher rates of SEND, low attainment, care involvement and prior exclusion
• Exploratory findings using causal inference suggest attending alternative provision or a Pupil Referral Unit may be somewhat protective against offending compared to mainstream school, once other vulnerability factors are accounted for

And they shape offending and re-offending trajectories:

Educational attainment/performance, gender and offending/re-offending trajectories

• Declining educational performance relative to peers throughout school was associated with first offences in young adulthood, including for serious violence offences”
• : Excluded school pupils who did not achieve grades A-C or 9-5 in Maths and English were over twice as likely to be involved in the criminal justice system than those who did achieve these grades.
• Excluded males were over twice as likely be justice involved than excluded females.
• For female offenders, they have distinct re-offending trajectories, with their own patterns of onset, persistence and desistance
• Female offending has unique markers — later onset, fewer violent offences, and drivers like free school meal (FSM) eligibility — pointing to the need for gender-responsive interventions  
• Future reoffending: SEND, FSM, low Key Stage 1 attainment and exclusions prior to first offence were associated with reoffending into adulthoodupon release from prison

Gypsy/Roma/Traveller young people are disproportionately represented across youth justice, exclusions, and custodial outcomes. These disparities do not operate in isolation: they interact with the above vulnerabilities  to make poor outcomes even more likely.

Taken together, this body of evidence paints a clear picture: these are not a result of personal ‘failings’ on the part of individual young people. They are the consequences of unmet needs, lack of appropriate and timely intervention, fragmented service provision across sectors (education, care, health, SEND, justice), and systemic marginalisation.

Why now, why it matters, and next steps 

The timing felt important. The UK Government's Every Child Achieving and Thriving white paper, forthcoming SEND reforms, the previous government priorities around the Safer Streets Mission, and the adoption of a Child-First approach to youth justice all signal a moment of policy openness. We wanted to bring the evidence to the people working closest to these young people — and to hear from them about what the research means in practice, where the gaps are, and what needs to change.

Moving forward, we are re-working the synthesis based on the attendees’ feedback and finalising policy, research and intervention priorities. Next, we are planning several events to engage with relevant stakeholders in DfE, and will hold an All-Party Parliamentary Group event in autumn this year.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to ADR UK, UK Research and Innovation, Karen Powell, Lola Brookes and Shayda Kashef for support to deliver this event. Thank you to the attendees for dedicating time to engage with us and to my fellow research colleagues.