Working With Offenders
An evaluation of the literacy demands of general offending behaviour programmes
Anecdotal evidence from tutors delivering accredited programmes, including general offending behaviour programmes, has suggested that offenders with literacy problems may struggle with programmes and that some demanded a high level of literacy (Hollin et al., 2002).
Title: An evaluation of the literacy demands of general offending behaviour programmes
Authors: Karen Davies, June Lewis, Janet Byatt, Emily Purvis and Brian Cole
Series: Home Office Research Study 233
Number of pages: 4
Date published: May 2004
The key findings summarised here are from a study which aimed to provide evidence about the literacy demands of three accredited general offending behaviour programmes delivered in six probation areas: Think First, Enhanced Thinking Skills and Reasoning and Rehabilitation. The skill levels required for these programmes were assessed and compared with the literacy skills of the offenders required to attend them, to determine whether any mismatch exists.
Key Findings
Reading and writing:
the reading and writing demands of the programmes were high
there was a regular and consistent demand for reading skills at Level 1 (the level expected of a competent 11-year-old and Level 2 (GCSE A*– C))
there were fewer and lower demands for writing skills, usually at Entry 3 (the level expected of a competent 9-year-old) and Level 1
the reading and writing levels of the offenders in this study were low – 57% had skills below Level 1.
Speaking and listening:
the speaking and listening demands of the programmes were very high – at Level 2, and sometimes at Level 3 or beyond. This is at or beyond the level of GCSE A*– C
the speaking and listening levels of some offenders were low – 35% had skills which w e re probably below Level 1.
This evidence suggests that for many offenders, the literacy demands of the three programmes exceeded their literacy skills. There was also evidence that there were problems for some tutors in adjusting the delivery of the programmes to accommodate the high literacy needs of some offenders.
Conclusions and Recommendations
There was a mismatch between the literacy demands of the programmes and the skills levels of offenders. This was particularly significant in speaking and listening skills.
Recommendations include:
Tutors – they were the key to the successful delivery of the programmes and some were more able than others to accommodate the literacy needs of offenders. Tutors and caseworkers need training in literacy, including interpreting and understanding assessment information and how to modify their teaching to accommodate the needs of offenders with poor literacy.
Programme materials and manuals – these should be adapted to accommodate literacy needs. Changes should address vocabulary, language, cultural influences, suggested methodologies for conducting activities and support materials for tutors delivering the programmes.
Literacy support – there were examples of support working well in some probation areas, including the use of a literacy support worker within sessions, dedicated and linked literacy support outside sessions and peer support. In addition, literacy teaching prior to programme commencement could be considered although offenders with skills below Level 1 would require significant investment in terms of teaching to raise their levels quickly. This might cause significant delays in terms of referral to a programme.
Supporting offenders after commencement on a programme using a variety of approaches may be a more realistic alternative.
Assessment of offenders' skills – literacy assessment information covering reading, writing, speaking and listening should be available to programme tutors for all offenders.
Further research – a research study covering a longer period could measure the effects of low literacy levels amongst offenders attending general offending behaviour programmes, in terms of attrition rates and post-programme outcomes.
Download "An evaluation of the literacy demands of general offending behaviour programmes"
PDF 
43Kb
Last update: 26 May 2004