Abstract: Young offenders and their relationship with education 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, sentences 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 young 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-offending 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 there 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, had been subject to more serious disposals and were more likely to reoffend'. This seems to suggest that social, criminogenic and personal factors can all disrupt engagement with ETE. Wise is critical of educational policy noting that 'mandatory attendance policy at secondary level has little impact on learning...motivation 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 (Baker, 2005; Baker et al, 2003). Furthermore, little is known about the relationships between engagement with ETE and desistance from crime. Addressing the educational gaps The need to address educational gaps is informed by a number of discourses. First the 'social integration discourse' popularised in the 1990s by New Labour's policy responses to social inclusion. This was underpinned by the Welfare to Work programme which was preoccupied with enhancing labour market opportunities and reducing unemployment (ibid:125). …