An Introduction to the Research: The Detention/Isolation to Prison Pipeline and How This Cycle Disproportionality Impacts Children from Underserved Communities
An article on the detention/isolation to prison pipeline and how this cycle disproportionality impacts children from underserved communities, written by GEC Intern and PhD Researcher, Swane Parchment (Kingston University).
What is the Detention/Isolation to Prison Pipeline?
What is the Pipeline?
The Detention/Isolation-to-Prison Pipeline is the institutional and systemic pathway where punitive practices and measures such as school detentions and isolation pushes children from certain communities out of education, and into the criminal justice system. For children, this is the youth justice system. The Detention/Isolation-to-Prison Pipeline highlights the particular punitive discipline structures in schools that lead to punitive measures, and creates this cycle as part of the broader School-to-Prison Pipeline.
The School-to-Prison Pipeline, some research referring this as a metaphor, is the overall school discipline, such as increased “zero tolerance” guidelines and/or police presence at school which drives children from underserved communities into the criminal justice system (Crawley & Hirschfield, 2018; Jeffers, 2024; Mowen & Brent, 2016; Simmons, 2017; Timpson, 2019; Welsh & Little, 2018).
In the United Kingdom (UK), this includes school exclusions, Alternative Provision (AP) and Pupil Referral Units (PRU), detention and internal isolation.
What does the Research Tell Us?
The Detention/Isolation-to-Prison Pipeline is an issue that is discussed in multiple countries, with research and concerns being raised in the UK, United States (US), the European Union (EU), Australia and Norway (Aursand & Rutkowski, 2021; Hemez, Brent & Mowen, 2019; Kent et al., 2023; Moody, 2016; Pirrie et al., 2011).
For instance, reports and research in the UK stating the number of fixed term and permanent school exclusions are rising since 2012/2013 (Kent et al., 2023; Timpson, 2019). From 2023/2024 to 2024/2025, the rate of suspensions has increased from 3.50 to 3.75, the number of suspensions increase from 295,559 to 312,562 and permanent exclusions increasing from 3,107 to 3,320 (Department of Education, 2026).
The Detention/Isolation-to-Prison Pipeline is one that is in fact a cycle.
The students perceived as “troublesome”, who are given and face punitive discipline in schools (such as detention and isolations) lead to suspensions (previously known as ‘fixed period exclusions’ in the UK). This then leads to permanent exclusions, and in turn, increases behaviour seen as “anti-social” that may have led to the initial detentions and isolations (Crawley & Hirschfield, 2018; Kent et al., 2023; Mowen & Brent, 2016; Welsh & Little, 2018).
The students who are permanently excluded from mainstream schools are then educated in ‘Alternative Provision’ (AP) settings in the UK, or referred to as ‘Alternative Education’ in the US and other countries.
Research has addressed how Pupil Referral Unit (PRU; a form of AP) and other school disciplines in educational settings mirror the prison complex, or holding units (Atkinson et al., 2004; Kent et al., 2023; Simmons, 2017). For example, punitive measures such as detention, isolation (where the student is placed in a segregated room where they are monitored) and heightened surveillance (such as policing uniforms/ bodies, then being put in isolation for the day - for not having a blazer or having an “inappropriate” hairstyle, students being searched or having police and metal detectors).
The Detention/Isolation-to-Prison Pipeline, or cycle, is one that is critical and harmful. The punitive discipline measures that are given by teachers and staff such as detentions and isolation repeatedly are at a higher risk of gang involvement, youth justice system involvement later on in life and criminal exploitation(Crawley & Hirschfield, 2018; Hemez, Brent & Mowen, 2019; Moody, 2016; Mowen & Brent, 2016; Kent et al., 2023; Pirrie et al., 2011; Simmons, 2017; Welsh & Little, 2018).
How Does Intersectionality Impact the Pipeline?
When delving into the Detention/Isolation-to-Prison Pipeline, intersectionality must be considered. At the GEC, in our Say What? Intersectionality animation we explain that intersectionality is recognising that multiple, overlapping identities such as race, gender, disability, neurodiversity, age and other factors, are interconnected and not just added together.
This is also clear in the research (Jeffers, 2024; Kent et al., 2023; Moody, 2016). This cycle – Detention/Isolation-to-Prison Pipeline – disproportionality impacts children from underserved communities, especially Black children and in particular Black boys (Department of Education, 2026; Jeffers, 2024; Moody, 2016; Simmons, 2017; Welsh & Little, 2018;). Research shows that Black boys, in particular Black Caribbean boys, are four times more likely than their white peers to be permanently excluded from school (Demie, 2019; Jeffers, 2024). Neurominority children, part of the underserved communities, are also disproportionately impacted by this cycle (Department of Education, 2026; Kent et al., 2023; Moody, 2016; Timpson, 2019).
The impact the Detention/Isolation-to-Prison Pipeline has on children from underserved communities is negative. Particularly in education such as poorer attendance, prolonged periods out of education and/or less education, lower attainment and broader achievement, dropping out of school (Crawley & Hirschfield, 2018; Hemez, Brent & Mowen, 2019; Pirrie et al., 2011; Welsh & Little, 2018). This also includes impacts on mental health, wellbeing and their quality of life (Kent et al., 2023; Welsh & Little, 2018; Hemez, Brent & Mowen, 2019; Pirrie et al., 2011).
The experiences of children in schools directly contribute to the issues and difficulties in adulthood (Hemez, Brent & Mowen, 2019; Kent et al., 2023; Mowen & Brent, 2016; Pirrie et al., 2011; Welsh & Little, 2018). For instance, children who are subjected to the Detention/Isolation-to-Prison Pipeline have an increased risk of incarceration, youth detainment and reoffending (Hemez, Brent & Mowen, 2019; Kent et al., 2023; Mowen & Brent, 2016; Pirrie et al., 2011; Simmons, 2017).
For example, in the “Understanding ethnic disparity in reoffending rates in the youth justice system” report on the Youth Justice Board (YJB) resource hub.
The YJB commissioned an independent research organisation, to conduct a research study into the drivers of ethnic disparity in reoffending rates in the youth justice system. The report focuses on the qualitative research strand, explores the overrepresentation of children from underserved communities in the youth justice systems. It also explores the contextual factors that may influence the ethnic disparity in reoffending rates, and helps us to better understand the perceptions and lived experience of children and practitioners.
The report explores four thematic drivers of ethnic disparity in offending rates for children.
The first was Marginalisation of individuals and communities. This thematic driver showed that almost all the children had been excluded from school before or as a direct result of their first offence. The children want educational courses to be part of their reparations so they can gain skills and achieve their aspirations. This thematic driver also highlighted background factors such as poverty and social class contribute to the system where children from underserved communities were overpoliced but under-protected.
The second thematic driver Individual, institutional, and systemic bias delves into the adultification - children are treated as adults which Black children are more likely to experience this bias, lack of safeguarding, implicit and explicit racism that children from underserved communities face and the different treatment they get to their White peers contributing to the feeling they have of ‘already been written off’. Moreover, examples were shared of children from underserved communities facing longer or harsher sentences than their White peers for the same offence.
The third thematic driver shows us building social capital (strong, trusting relationships) with students is necessary to deliver effective interventions. Research similarily has repetitively revealed that school discipline, such as detentions and isolation, in response to what may be seen as “misbehaviour”, impacts on education, mental health, wellbeing and quality of life is not effective (Hemez, Brent & Mowen, 2019; Pirrie et al., 2011; Welsh & Little, 2018).
We at the GEC believe it is crucial to promote a more positive approach to the student and learners by empowering them and focusing on their strengths. It is this that supports both inclusion (the system) and belonging (experience). The power of positive psychology in education is explored in the blog, Positive Psychology in Education, by another GEC intern. This is a guide on how to use positive psychology in schools to foster inclusion and ensure students and learners “flourish” in educational settings.
As well as this, alternative methods such as early intervention and targeted support is needed for the children most at risk to disrupt this cycle. This includes non-exclusionary alternatives such as meditation and mindfulness in place of detention, limiting the involvement of police in schools.
Also, to disrupt this cycle focusing on early intervention such as support for homes (parent and carers) encouraging educational engagement and reengagement (Crawley & Hirschfield, 2018; Hemez, Brent & Mowen, 2019; Kent et al., 2023; Pirrie et al., 2011).
The Youth Justice Board: Advice and Recommendations
For England and Wales, there is also the Youth Justice Board (YJB). Sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, the YJB oversees the youth justice system with their vision to prevent offending and create safer communities.
Some of their statutory functions include monitoring the youth justice system to understand how it is operating, support IT services for youth justice services, and identify/ share evidence-informed practice across the sector. The JYB also has resources for children and young adults, which includes the Youth Justice Resource Hub. This includes explanatory videos that explain important information about the youth justice system, and common outcomes for children and young adults in contact with the youth justice system.
For instance, the video “What is Diversion?” made in collaboration with the Centre For Justice Innovation Reality-art. This explains an alternative pathway to court for young people who are in contact in the criminal justice system. The video “Stop and Search: Know your rights” created by Youth Justice Legal Centre explains the child and young person’s rights, what they can expect if you are stopped by police, and what makes a search unlawful.
The Hub also has videos on the lived experience of children and young adults who come into contact with the youth justice system. Among the explanatory videos, there is a section that focuses on child and young adults friendly research in an understandable way such as infographics on how school life can be improved for LGBTQ+ young people. Another is “Understanding ethnic disparity in reoffending rates in the youth justice system”, a report from independent research on exploring why reoffending rates are higher among children from some underserved communities. This includes child and practitioner perspectives.
The Youth Justice Board has a Prevention and Diversion Assessment Tool, an assessment form developed by the YJB for Youth Justice Service to use to better understand the support children needs and to help practitioners meet them. The report of children’s experiences who were assessed using the tool found that the support from their practitioners to help them better understand themselves. Moreover, this tool positively impacted the children. For example, children’s participation in school improved and attended more regularly after practitioners spoke to school staff to help them understand how to support the children.
The “Understanding ethnic disparity in reoffending rates in the youth justice system” report includes recommendations to reduce reoffending. Some of the recommendations includes:
Exclude children from education only as a last resort
Prioritise funding for local services aimed at children
Offer online tutoring for excluded children
Extension of statutory intervention timelines
Increase diversity within the system
Embed youth justice practitioners in police custody suites
The Detention/Isolation to Prison Pipeline, My Lived Experience and the GEC
This Detention/Isolation-to-Prison Pipeline and the impact on children from underserved communities in school is something I had witnessed personally growing up. As a Black woman who had attended, at the time, a school with children predominately from underserved communities and was considered a “dangerous” school with teachers having walkie talkies, police would be at our school with mental detectors to scan for knives. From my own lived experience, I always advocated and voiced my concerns with the Black students being put in insolation or excluded more than our counterparts and which behaviours teachers and staff viewed as exclusionary behaviour that may have been racialised or potentially neurodiverse behaviour. However, these concerns, for me, felt unheard.
The work by the GEC means that there is representation for underserved communities in research and this is where the work towards intervention and support for children in education is championed.
Ways We Can Disrupt the Detention/Isolation-to-Prison Pipeline
Schools can disrupt the Detention/Isolation-to-Prison Pipeline by:
Schools can increase accountability, reframe the views of children from underserved communities across the students and learners, teachers, educators and staff in schools, to centre the voices of children from underserved communities who are most at risk to this pipeline.
Teachers, educators and staff must be supported through training and resources to reframe their thinking, the language towards children from underserved communities and work towards the inclusion, belonging and wellbeing of all children.
Schools can ensure children stay in education for longer. This can be done by having exclusion as a very last action and by keeping them engaged in schools and the curriculum.
Leaders could bring awareness to the issues and use communicative, collaborative efforts directly involving the children most at risk and their families. Something for leaders to think about - what ways could these families be supported to help ensure their children do not fall down this pipeline?
Leaders can encourage positive approaches to students through empowerment and their strengths to develop a positive relationship with educational settings
If you would like to discuss this or inclusion in your organisation, please get in touch here.
References:
Atkinson, M., Johnson, A., Wilkin, A., & Kinder, K. (2004). Good practice in the provision of full time education for excluded pupils.
Aursand, L., & Rutkowski, D. (2021). Exemption or Exclusion? A study of student exclusion in PISA in Norway. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 7(1), 16-29.
Brays School – Empowering Learners and Staff: Our Journey with the GEC https://brays.fet.ac/empowering-learners-and-staff-our-journey-with-the-global-equality-collective/
Crawley, Kayla, and Paul Hirschfield, 'Examining the School-to-Prison Pipeline Metaphor' (25 June 2018), in Henry N Pontell (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice (New York, NY, online edn, Oxford Academic, 31 Aug. 2016), https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.346,
Demie, F. (2019). The experience of Black Caribbean pupils in school exclusion in England. Educational Review, 73, 55 - 70.
Jeffers, R. (2024). Can practitioners disrupt the school‑to‑prison pipeline for boys of Caribbean heritage.
Kent, H., Kirby, A., Hogarth, L., Leckie, G., Cornish, R., & Williams, H. (2023). School to prison pipelines: associations between school exclusion, neurodisability and age of first conviction in male prisoners. Foresenci Science International: Mind and Law. 4, 100123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsiml.2023.100123
Moody, M. (2016). From Under-Diagnoses to Over-Representation: Black Children, ADHD, and the School-To-Prison Pipeline. Journal of African American Studies, 20(2), 152–163. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44508173
Mowen, T., & Brent, J. (2016). School Discipline as a Turning Point: The Cumulative Effect of Suspension on Arrest: The Cumulative Effect of Suspension on Arrest. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(5), 628-653.
Simmons L (2017). The prison school: Educational inequality and school discipline in the age of mass incarceration. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Timpson, E. (2019). Timpson review of school exclusion. Dandy Booksellers Limited.
Welsh, R., & Little, S. (2018). Caste and control in schools: a systematic review of the pathways, rates and correlates of exclusion due to school discipline. Children and Youth Services Review, 94, 315-339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.09.031
Youth Justice Board - children’s experiences of the prevention and diversion assessment tool. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6972516421a2f53a6a4fd4b4/Child_friendly_summary.pdf
Youth Justice Board: https://yjresourcehub.uk/yjb-research/
Youth Justice Board - Resources for children and young adults. https://yjresourcehub.uk/media-centre/
