Education is one of the key areas of concern for dually-involved youth, with school attendance, school bonding and school performance for juveniles having a protective effect against later delinquent behaviour (Cook & Hirschfield, 2008). School bonding is recognized as a complex phenomenon encompassing behavioral, affective, and cognitive elements that are activated through interactions and within educational settings. This attachment varies based on a student's relationship with education as a whole, the rules and values upheld by the school, and the individuals and peers that constitute the school community ( Silva et al., 2016).

In our presentation the research questions are the following:

• What is the relationship between school bonding and re-offending among juvenile offenders?
• How do sociodemographic characteristics influence the school attachment of juvenile offenders?
• How do extra-curricular activities influence the school bonding and possible re-offending of juvenile offenders ?
• What is the relationship between family and social relationships and educational success among juvenile offenders?

In examining the protective effects of education, we should highlight the Theory of cumulative disadvantage as promoted by Sampson and Laub (1997), in addition to Hirschi's (1969) bonding theory. Hirschi (1969) sees crime as a consequence of weak social bonds, which are reflected in weak bonding to others and low participation in conventional social life. From this perspective, the role of the school, which is, according to Hirschi (1969, p. 110), a "highly conventional" institution, is particularly pronounced, and thus attachment to school is a barrier to deviance. Sampson and Laub's (1997) theory of cumulative disadvantage integrates theories of social control and labelling. According to social control theory, a weak bonding to school intensifies problematic attitudes such as truancy and early school leaving (Kirk & Sampson, 2013). Labelling theory suggests that once an individual is officially designated as 'delinquent', their treatment within educational institutions shifts significantly, particularly if they have a criminal record. This leads to various processes of detachment that increase the likelihood of further deviance, including the potential for dropping out of school (Kirk & Sampson, 2013).

Bonding theory and the Theory of cumulative disadvantage suggest that children with strong attachment to their schools are less likely to commit crimes and deviate from social norms, so it is important to focus on strengthening school bonding. Weak connections to school encourage deviant behavior among students, necessitating disciplinary actions within the institution. This cycle results in increased disengagement from school and a decline in student performance. Such conditions can ultimately contribute to dropout rates, adversely affecting young individuals who are deprived of the advantages that education provides (Feijó & Assis, 2004).

Prior studies have indicated a correlation between measures of school bonding and measurable academic success, as well as the behaviors of young individuals.

While appropriate school bonding can indeed lead to increased social control, simply staying in school does not reduce reoffending; it also requires continued school performance. Thus, interventions to improve academic performance can contribute to reducing recidivism, and in addition to the school climate, appropriate relationships with teachers are key to this. 

An important element in developing a bonding to school is a positive relationship with teachers, which can be particularly important for young people in custody who have few positive social support providers in their lives due to separation from their families. Research in this area shows that relationships with teachers strongly influence student outcomes concerning academic performance, behaviour and persistence (Cernkovich & Giordano, 1992).

This systematic literature review was created based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. EBSCO Discovery Service Search Engine (using 85 databases during searching) was used for systematic search. The keywords we used for searching were “juvenile offenders” or „juvenile justice” or „adolescent offenders” or „juvenile criminals” or „juvenile delinquents” AND “school attachment” or “school engagement” or “school bonding” or “academic engagement”. Beside the search engine, snowball search was applied, checking the reference list of papers found by the search engine. Also, the top 30 journals indexed in Web of Science were screened. The searches were performed in August 2024. Unscreened articles were listed in Zotero (V6.0.22, Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, George Mason University, Washington DC). Overall, 361 records were detected. After double filtering, 21 record was excluded. After title and abstract screening, 310 records were excluded. Therefore, 30 papers were sent for full-text screening, which led to the involvement of 10 papers in the qualitative synthesis. The following inclusion criteria were set, following the PICOS format (P: Population, I: Interventions, C: Comparisons, O: Outcomes, S: Study designs): ● population: juvenile offenders/criminals ● intervention: original empirical research published in a peer-reviewed journal; ● comparison: examined the phenomenon of school engagement in various contexts (sociodemographic background, nation, psychological characteristics or non-offenders as a control group); ● outcomes: school engagement and commitment; ● study design: interview, survey. Papers must also be written in English and in the disciplines of psychology, social sciences, humanities, and educational sciences. Review papers, commentaries, letters to the editor, conference papers, books, book chapters, dissertations, or newspaper articles were excluded. A multistage screening process was conducted to identify studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The literature was searched independently by the authors, who reviewed the titles and abstracts of each study. Subsequently, all identified records had their titles and abstracts screened. Those studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria underwent a thorough full-text review. The detailed analysis, quality assessment, and data extraction of the selected studies were managed by the authors. In instances of uncertainty, the authors engaged in discussions to reach a decision. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was utilized to assess the risk of bias and the quality of the studies, specifically for qualitative studies and cross-sectional studies. Each paper was reviewed using the relevant tool on a 4-point scale (yes/no/unclear/not applicable)

The research reviewed confirmed our hypothesis that increasing school bonding and engagement can support the reintegration of juvenile offenders into society, particularly through extracurricular activities and mentoring. At the same time, we cannot ignore the study of social influences, because family dynamics, peer relationships have a strong influence on school bonding and on the likelihood of delinquency (Longshore et al., 2005). This systematic review has provided a comprehensive analysis of the sociodemographic characteristics influencing school bonding among juvenile offenders. The findings highlight the critical role that sociodemographic background such as socioeconomic status, parental education, gender, and ethnicity (Jäggi, et al., 2020). A key take-home message of this review is the importance of school bonding as a protective factor against delinquency. Life course theory emphasises that young people who do not have strong and close bonding to prosocial adults and institutions are more at risk to be offenders. Schools, represent a vital opportunity for juvenile offenders, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to develop prosocial skills. Enhancing school engagement, particularly through extracurricular activities and mentoring, can significantly mitigate the risk of reoffending and support the reintegration of juvenile offenders. Examples of extra-curricular activities could include the provision of different sports, programmes, as sport develops self-discipline, teamwork, as well as providing opportunities to build positive relationships with peers and coaches. Artistic activities (music, visual arts, theatre) can also support self-expression and creativity, help emotional regulation and offer alternatives to destructive behaviour. The review also underscores the influence of social relationships on educational success. Family dynamics and peer relationships have a profound impact on school bonding and on the likelihood of delinquent behaviour. Interventions that strengthen these social bonds, such as mentoring programs and involvement in extracurricular activities, have been shown to enhance school engagement and decrease offending (Bender, 2012; Chung et al., 2011)

1.Atilola, O., Abiri, G., Adebanjo, E., & Ola, B. (2021). The cross-cutting psychosocial and systemic barriers to holistic rehabilitation, including educational re-engagement, of incarcerated adolescents: Realities in and perspectives from Africa. International Journal of Educational Development, 81, 102335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102335 2.Bender, K. (2012). The Mediating Effect of School Engagement in the Relationship between Youth Maltreatment and Juvenile Delinquency. Children & Schools, 34(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdr001 3.Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (1992). School Bonding, Race, and Delinquency. Criminology, 30(2), 261–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01105.x 4.Chung, H. L., Mulvey, E. P., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Understanding the school outcomes of juvenile offenders: An exploration of neighborhood influences and motivational resources. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(8), 1025–1038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9626-2 5.Cook, T. D., & Hirschfield, P. J. (2008). Comer’s School Development Program in Chicago: Effects on involvement with the juvenile justice system from the late elementary through the high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 38–67. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308648 6.Feijó, M. C., & Assis, S. G. de. (2004). The context of social exclusion and vulnerabilities in delinquent youths and their families. Estudos de Psicologia (Natal), 9, 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-294X2004000100017 7.Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. University of California Press. 8.Jäggi, L., Kliewer, W., & Serpell, Z. (2020). Schooling while incarcerated as a turning point for serious juvenile and young adult offenders. Journal of Adolescence, 78, 9–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.11.002 9.Kirk, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (2013). Juvenile arrest and collateral educational damage in the transition to adulthood. Sociology of Education, 86(1), 36–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040712448862 10.Longshore, D., Chang, E., & Messina, N. (2005). Self-Control and Social Bonds: A Combined Control Perspective on Juvenile Offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(4), 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-005-7359-2 11.Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A Life-Course Theory of Cumulative Disadvantage and the Stability of Delinquency. In Developmental Theories of Crime and Delinquency. Routledge. 12.Silva, J. L. da, Cianflone, A. R. L., & Bazon, M. R. (2016). School Bonding of Adolescent Offenders. Paidéia (Ribeirão Preto), 26, 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-43272663201611 13.Tan, K., Brown, A., & Leibowitz, G. S. (2018). School, Social-Communicative, and Academic Challenges Among Delinquents and Juvenile Sexual Offenders. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 35(6), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-018-0549-1