ISSN 1392 – 0758 SOCIALINIAI MOKSLAI. 2012. Nr. 1 (75)
Empowering Partnership as Resocialization Form of Juveniles Subject to
Delinquency: Findings of Empirical Research
Paulius Skiecevicius and Irena Leliugiene
Kaunas University of Technology
Donelaicio 73, LT-44029 Kaunas, Lithuania
http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ss.75.1.1588
Abstract
Juvenile delinquency is part of general
delinquency, one of the reasons of adult criminality.
The holistic analysis of the reasons and characteristics
of this social and legal phenomenon creates premises
for its understanding and allows creating new more
effective preventive programmes. One of them is
educational activity taking place in the partnership
between a juvenile (juveniles) subject to delinquency
and an educator (teacher); it is considered to be one of
the
resocialization
elements,
which
contains
empowerment potential. The article aims to answer the
following questions: can empowering partnership be
treated as resocialization form of juveniles subject to
commit a crime? What specific features characterize
empowering partnership as resocialization form of
juveniles subject to commit a crime? The aim of the
research is to identify specific features of empowering
partnership as resocialization form of juveniles subject
to commit a crime.
Keywords: empowering partnership, resocialization,
juveniles subject to delinquency.
Introduction
Delinquency ia a complicated social and legal
phenomenon, the origin of which is addressed by theories
of different sciences. According to Tarolla, Wagner and
Rabinowitz (2002), juvenile delinquency is part of general
delinquency, one of the reasons of adult delinquency as
well as one of the social problems that oppresses worst and
that conditions destructive emotional, physical and
economical outcomes, which a particular community
experiences.
Although the extent of juvenile delinquency differs in
different countries, the tendencies of growth of this
negatively treated phenomenon are more freqently
observed. This is a relevant issue globally. Juvenile
delinquency is related not only to negative outcomes for
juveniles themselves but also for their families and society
(Katsiyannis et al., 2008; Geib et al., 2010). According to
Jatkevicius (2003), Lelekov and Kosheleva (2008), no
country can avoid this phenomenon.
Referring to the data of Lithuanian Department of
Statistics (2012), in 2007 juveniles committed 4051, in
2008 – 4325, in 2009 – 4023, and in 2010 – 3589 criminal
acts. In 2007 the real imprisonment sentence was served by
192, in 2008 – 200, in 2009 – 188, in 2010 – 158 juveniles.
The analysis presented by the Information Technology and
Communications Department under the Ministry of the
Interior of the Republic of Lithuania (2012) indicates that
in 2011 in Lithuania 3296 criminal acts, in the
performance of which juveniles are suspected (prosecuted),
were inquired. The absolute majority of them (90.5
percent) are boys. The repeated criminal acts were
committed by 174 suspected (accused) juveniles.1
When comparing the presented statistical data of the
latter years, the gradually decreasing2 number of criminal
acts comitted by juveniles as well as of juveniles serving
real sentence is observed.
However, formal statistics of delinquency cannot
precisely reflect all crimes performed in certain territory
because a lot of them remain not officially fixed due to
different reasons (Giddens, 2005; Kiskis, 2008). The
inconsistence of statistical data determines the inedaquate
understanding of the problem extent and the need for
solutions. Tendencies of juveniles’ delinquency increase
remain poorly changing3. The holistic analysis of reasons
and characteristics of juveniles’ delinquency creates
premises for deeper understanding of this phenomenon and
allow creating of new more effective prevention
programmes.
As Gottfredson (2001) (cit. Weerman, 2010) states, the
relation between the delinquency of juveniles and the
factors of school environment (learning failures,
inappropriate teaching methods and so on) has been
identified by researches. Mulcahy et al. (2008) notice that
frequent failures of organizing, developing and
1
According to the data of the same department in 2011 out of 3296
juvenile persons suspected/accused in committing crimes 1297 juveniles
had elementary, 1236 – basic, 46 – secondary, 8 – vocational education,
25 persons did not possess any education. When differentiating the
above-mentioned group of juvenile persons according to their occupation,
2084 of them learnt at different type educational schools (comprehensive,
vocational, colleges and so on).
2
The relatively decreased number of imprisoned juveniles is related to the
latest Criminal and Criminal Procedure Codes (effective from May 1,
2003), which foresee milder sentences for juveniles who committed a
crime (Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas, 1996, 2008).
3
Sakalauskas (2007) notes that according to the number of sentenced
(imprisoned) persons Lithuania takes one of the leading positions in
international bulletins.
30
P. Skiecevicius, I. Leliugiene. Empowering Partnership as
Resocialization Form of Juveniles Subject to Delinquency:
Findings of Empirical Research
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2012. Nr. 1 (75)
assistanceing the educational process of juveniles serving
their sentence create serious problems for the professional
working in imprisonment institutions, researchers and
imprisoned juveniles.
In juveniles’ justice and in the society the stigmatizing
viewpoint to juveniles subject to commit a crime is
common. They are often considered to be ‘bad’,
‘selfish’,’incorrigible’. The offered educational solutions
of this problem are often understood too narrowly, rudely.
For example, the attitude that, when applying pedagogical
abilities and competences, specialists ‘having rendered’
necessary information will teach juveniles to behave
properly in the society prevails. Such understanding of
education is influenced by the gap between educational
practice and theory ground in the context of this topic.
Unidirectional presentation of information is named
teaching (a provider of information – an authority, and a
recipient of information – a juvenile who has to accept and
apply the information), in other words, it should be called
educational dominance4; it is ineffective and often ignored
in the subculture of juveniles subject to delinquency due to
their unwillingness to accommodate to positions of a
subordinate and an authority. The possible alternative is
education during the service of one’s sentence, in the
context of empowering partnership5 when an educator and
a learner (in this case – a juvenile subject to delinquency)
have equal status – both of them are active partners in the
educational process.
It is probable that the application of empowering
partnership principles when educating juveniles subject to
commit a crime would in turn serve as their resoliaziation
form.
Most analysed different aspects of empowerment,
partnership, juvenile delinquency, resoliazation in various
contexts. The importance of empowerment in different
environments and situations that are often related to
enviroment of personal development was highlighted by
different researchers: Juceviciene and Lipinskiene (2001),
Lipinskiene (2002), Lorion and McMillan (2008),
Monnickendam and Berman (2008) and others. The
aspects of empowering partnership in education were
analysed by Brown, McWilliam and Ward-Griffin (2006),
Juceviciene (2007), Miller and Curpen (2009), McPhee
(2009), Reid and Reid (2009) and others. The reasons for
juvenile delinquency, its prevention possibilities, problems
of a personality subject delinquency were analysed by
Cepas (1989), Michailovic (2001), Geceniene (2002),
Jatkevicius (2003), Kvieskiene (2005), Zukauskiene (2006,
2007), Rohall, Milkie and Lucas (2007), Babachinaite
(2002, 2008), Sorlie, Hagen and Ogden (2008),
Skiecevicius, Leliugiene and Zydziunaite (2010) and
others. Merkys, Ruskus and Juodraitis (2002),
Liaudinskiene (2005), Liaudinskiene and Leliugiene
(2007), Alifanoviene and Sapelyte (2009), Lengvinas
(2009), Lengvinas and Grosas (2010) and others analysed
the peculiarities resocialization of juveniles who made law
violations. Karabanow and Clement (2004) analysed
empowerment aspects (including educational) that
possessed preventive impact upon delinquency. However,
until present the research, in which empowering
partnership would be the research subject related to
juvenile delinquency, and, in particular, treated as
resocialization6 form of juveniles subject to delinquency,
has not been carried out.
The article aims to answer the following questions: can
empowering partnership be treated as resoliaziation form
of juveniles subject to commit a crime? What specific
features characterize empowering partnership as a form for
resocialization of juveniles subject to delinquency? The
aim of the research is to identify peculiarities of
resocialization form of juveniles subject to commit a
crime.
The article consists of three parts. The first part
presents the essence and characteristics of empowering
partneship as a resocialization form. The second part
disloses the methodology of the empirical research. The
third part presents the research findings and discussion.
Empowering partnership as resocialization form:
essence and characteristics
As in this article empowering partnership is considered
a resocialization form of juveniles subject to delinquency,
it is important to highlight essential aspects of the concepts
of empowerment in partnership and resocialization. It
should be pointed out that the resocialization process is
complex and treated not unambiguously. Different authors
emphasize different resocialization aspects. Michailovic
(2001), Liaudinskiene (2005), Liaudinskiene and
Leliugiene (2007), Prakapas and Katinaite (2008),
Mesoniene (2009) and others state that there is no
generally accredited definition of resocialization.
4
The research performed by Lengvinas (2010) revealed that most
teachers working at juveniles’ penitentiaries thought that a teacher had to
be the supporter of hierarchical communication.
5
Nightingale (1894, p. 2, cit. Attewell, 2010) used the term of
empowering partnership when speaking about the persons in community
who needed one or another assistance. She expressed the essential idea of
empowering partnership – the work not ‘for’ but ‘together’ with a person
by the following statement: ‘We do not have to speak for them or instead
of them, we have to speak together with them’. Tanner (1990, cit.
Gillespie, 2001, 2005), when speaking about empowering partnership in
educational context, states that in the partnership teachers and pupils
become collectively learners, get involved into open dialogue and share
responsibility for learning and development. Empowering partnership
changes the status of both teacher and learner (the one who is
empowering and the one who is empowered). In this article empowering
partnership is considered as a dynamic strategy of education of juveniles
subject to delinquency, which possesses resocialization potential and
which refers to the application of principles of involvement,
collaboration, parity, mutuality, partnership, justice, respect,
responsibility, openness, trust in educational process.
6
In the laws and legal acts valid in the Republic of Lithuania the concept
of resocialization is often enough used, but is treated ambiguously. ‘The
Programme for Social Adaptation of Convicts and the Persons Freed from
Imprisonment Places for 2004-2007’ approved by the Government of the
Republic of Lithuania (Žin., 2004, No. 23-709) foresees that until the
beginning of 2008 constantly to implement the policy of the
resocialization of convicts and persons freed from imprisonment places
considering continuity principle – to decrease the possibility for them to
repeat commitment of a crime. Or the Programme of Juveniles’ Justice
for 2011-2013 (Žin., 2009, No.: 110 – 4664), defines resocialization as
‘the return of person’s social status and value orientations by purposeful
social, pedagogical, psychological, educational or other means in order to
integrate the person into society’.
31
P. Skiecevicius, I. Leliugiene. Empowering Partnership as
Resocialization Form of Juveniles Subject to Delinquency:
Findings of Empirical Research
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2012. Nr. 1 (75)
change. As Jovaisa (2001, 2007) notes, a school is the
place where resocialization can be take place.
In the context of this article it is important to
emphasize the means of resocialization, which are applied
under the conditions of isolation by revealing the aspects
of the activity of the educational institution, which is
functioning in juveniles’ correctional institutions, and the
need for empowring partnership as the form of
resocialization of juveniles subject to commit crimes. The
time of imprisonment is the period when juveniles,
together with qualified specialists, can learn alternative
strategies of behaviour, which they either have not
acquired or they are not adequately used and do not
provide the expected benefit. Prakapas and Kunigyte
(2005) note that usually resocialization means are applied
too late, i.e. when the person having formally served the
sentence leaves the custodial place. Penitentiary
institutions theoretically should perform not only the
function of imprisonment but also apply certain means for
the change of delinquent behaviour or rehabilatation. Thus
it is practical to apply resocialization means in penitentiary
institutions when a person still is isolated from society.
Carizosa and Poertner (1992, cit. Karabanow and Clement,
2004) note that the best way to avoid the problems related
to ‘street youth’ is their teaching and empowerment.
The importance of specialist assistance7 in
empowerment processes is emphasized by Knowles (1970,
1975, cit. Zepke and Leach, 2002), Kolb and Stuart (2004),
Reid and Reid, (2009). Referring to these authors, the
youth has to get a lot of possibilities for practice of
problem solution, which transfer them into the role of
active decision makers.
In the process of empowering partnership when
working together with a qualified specialist (in this case –
a teacher), juveniles can be be provided with the conditions
to acquirelacking skills, at the same time not to take away
the possibility to remain active personal decision makers.
As Murphy (2002) points out, the role of an active
decision-maker is important when creating empowering
partnership strategies is also one of the the successful
principles of resocialization. Liaudinskiene (2005),
referring to different authors, notes that in most cases
resocialization is hardly possible or almost impossible to
implement compulsorily. It would contradict the very idea
of resocialization. First of all, the consent of a participating
person is necessary.
McWilliam et al. (2003), Brown, McWilliam and
Ward-Griffin (2006), Colvin (2007), Cantero (2010), when
speaking about implementation of resocialization process
among people subject to commit a crime and their
empowerment, point out the principles important for
empowering resocialization – parity, mutual respect, trustbased relationship, tolerance to different true-life
experiences. According to the authors, in implementing
resocialization initiatives, it is important to pay attention to
the aspects of equal relationship and respect when working
with a person subject to commit a crime. Mesoniene
(2009) also notes that only harmonious relations among
Liaudinskiene (2005), Liaudinskiene and Leliugiene
(2007) in detail conveyed the essence of resocialization of
juveniles subject to delinquency. According to the authors,
first of all resocializations aims to deflect a juvenile from
unlawful activity not through a penalty or isolation, but
through timely assisstance – effective impact – appropriate
supervision. It is defined as complex, integral process with
unlimited possibilities to act, containing the content of the
entire programme, the essence of which is repeated
integration of an individual into society (the return of a
delinquent person into socially accepted life). Essential
components justifying juveniles’ resocialization –
humanity, involvement, economy, care, assistance,
education, responsibility, possibility, correction and
development.
In this article resocialization is considered as the
process, during which it is pursued for active involvement
of a juvenile subject to commit a crime into educational
activity in order to ease his / her integration after the
punishability by applying educational strategies based on
empowering partnership principles as well as to diminish
possibilities of resignation and repeated delinquency. If
empowering partnership is treated as the form of
resocialization of juveniles subject to commit a crime, the
greatest attention is paid to educational context. Namely,
educational activity taking place in the partnership among
a juvenile (juveniles) subject to commit a crime and an
educator (teacher) is considered to be one of
resocialization elements, which contains the potential of
empowerment.
According to Liaudinskiene (2005), Liaudinskiene and
Leliugiene (2007), educational activity is one the most
important elements of resocialization. In the resocialization
process, the educational aspect stresses the inevitability of
educational impact and juvenile’s participation in different
educational programmes. Kalendra (2006) also points out
the importance of educational activity in the resocialization
process. With reference to premises for continuous
education and learning of the people sentenced by
imprisonment in Lithuania, he notes that resocialization is
the way of permanent learning and self-education, which
induces more effective process of returining to normal life
on the outside. Gerber and Fritsch (1995), Harr (1999),
Tracy, Smith and Steurer, (1998) cited in Brewster, Sharp
(2002) consider educational activity as one of the most
efficient means that weaken manifestations of repeated
delinquency in future. As Liaudinskiene (2005) points out,
educational activity is an empowering factor, which
provides individuals with non-asocial perspective of their
development.
Educational activity in the resocialization process of a
juvenile is inevitable. Merkys, Ruskus and Juodraitis
(2002) point out the holistic nature of resocialization and
education processes. Due to frequency and intensity of the
contacts with a juvenile, educational institutions, especially
schools play a particularly important role. The most
important function of educational activity, according to
Liaudinskien÷ (2005), is to actively and alonside effective
educational means participate in resocialization in order to
develop new skills and thus positively influence juvenile’s
7
In the context of this work – assistance of teachers working in juveniles’
imprisonment places.
32
P. Skiecevicius, I. Leliugiene. Empowering Partnership as
Resocialization Form of Juveniles Subject to Delinquency:
Findings of Empirical Research
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2012. Nr. 1 (75)
crime; they alos reflect the main ideas of empowering
partnership and resocialization.
Thus the application of the strategy of empowering
partnership, which distinguishes in the characteristics of
general empowerment plan formulation together with the
person to be empowered, of planning education process
considering individual features of a learner, formation and
maintenance of equal parity relationship in the education
process, provision of knowledge necessary to control life
situation and so on, in the context of juveniles’ education
resounds essential principles of the wider construct –
resocialization (integration, exploitation of possibilities,
consulting in solving problems, assisstance in a crisis
situation – in order to acquire education, assistance in
repeated socialization, development of motivation to
integrate into public life, decrease of stigmatization and so
on). The character of these principles is common to
characteristics of person’s empowerment, and the latter is
not inseparable from partnership relationship. Considering
the
above-mentioned
characteristics,
empowering
partnership should be treated as one of the resocialization
forms of juveniles’ subject to delinquency.
people participating in resocialization process can ease its
effective implementation.
The results of the empirical research by Prakapas and
Katinaite (2008) revealed that most imprisoned persons
possessed expressed educational needs and the vision how
to meet them. Liaudinskiene (2005) also points out that,
considering the characteristics of juveniles subject to
commit crimes, the need for individualised and modified
education is evident. Roming (1978), cited in Sutton
(1999) considers individualised teaching as one of
effective methods when working with juveniles subject to
delinquency.
Although this article does not get deeper into the
methods of teaching individualization and differentiation,
but main principles of individualised and differentiated
learning (mutually formulated goal of education process;
maintenance of parity-partnership relationship in education
process; consideration of individual features of a particular
pupil; adjustment of learning content and methods to a
particular person and so on) reflect essential ideas of
empowerment in partnership and resocialization process.
The above-mentioned principles are particularly important
considering the aspects of education of juveniles subject to
delinquency and strengthens the possibility to implement
empowering partnership as resocialization form in the
education of juveniles subject to delinquency. In the
process of individualised and differentiated learning
empowering partnership can also contribute to the
formation of positive viewpoint of juveniles’ subject to
delinquency in respect of teachers and teaching process.
Thus individualised and differentiated teaching based on
empowering partnership would serve as the form of
resocialization of juveniles subject to commit crimes.
According to Siauciukeniene (1997), the principle of
learning individualization expresses general orientation to
an individuality and, first of all, refers to individual’s
cognition permitting to understand them as personality and
influence them. Teaching differentiation, according to the
author, can be understood as concretizing teaching
individualization.
As
Siauciukeniene
(1997),
Siauciukeniene, Visockiene and Talijuniene (2006) point
out, the system of differentiated teaching is based on parity
interaction between an educator and a learner through
individual viewpoint and approach to each learner by
considering their personal features and differences; it
ensures different ways of teaching individualization
expression. By means of this system, attempts are also
made to create conditions for further partnership
collaboration and decision-making of teaching participants.
When learning, pupils collaborate, share their experience,
have no doubts, do not compete but strive for well
developed awareness of individual and general goal.
Duobliene (2006) and Fine (2003) also point out the profits
of collaboration and learning; the authors relate person’s
development to successful changes.
The implementation of differeniated teaching is
inseparable from flexibility and dynamics of the
educational process. These aspects are essential when
speaking about application of empowerment in partnership,
pursuing to resocialize juveniles subject to commit a
Research methodology
The method of the research sample selection criterion
sampling. The research sample consisted of two groups of
respondents. The first group of the respondents – 16 – 19
year old boys (sometimes until the age of 218) who are
inmates of institutions performing custody and imprisoning
juveniles in Lithuania; 15 respondents belonging to this
group were interviewed. Their average age is 17.5 years.
The freedom of the research participants is limited by the
court sentence due to the committed crimes of different
degree. The imprisonment time – from 0.5 to 3.5 years.
Juveniles’ education – from 5 to 12 years of
comprehensive education. One of the criteria of the
research sample was that juveniles serve their
imprisonment repeatedly; it was chosen in order to avoid
inaccuracies and manipulations. The second group of the
respondents were the teachers of the comprehensive school
functioning in juveniles’ imprisonment place, who directly
take part in education process of juveniles’ subject to
commit a crime. The work experience of the five
respondents interviewed is from 2.5 to 12 years. The
distribution of the respondents according to gender: 1
male, 4 females.
The research data collection instrument was a semistructured interview. The list of questions for the first
group of the respondents (juveniles) consisted of 30
questions and situations, which were divided into 11
thematic groups (the ability of juveniles subject to
8
Referring to Clause 1 of Article 81 in the Criminal Code of the Republic
of Lithuania: ‘The convicts, who turn 18 years old and who apparently
begin to improve, in order to consolidate their improvement results, can be
left until the end of their imprisonment in the juvenile prison, but not
longer than they become 21 year old’ (Valstyb÷s žinios, 2002-07-19, No.
73-3084). In the context of this article, a person from 19 to 21, who serves
sentence in one of the institutions performing custody and imprisoning
juveniles in Lithuania, is treated as a juvenile because he committed the
crime when being 14-18 (i.e. being a juvenile).
33
P. Skiecevicius, I. Leliugiene. Empowering Partnership as
Resocialization Form of Juveniles Subject to Delinquency:
Findings of Empirical Research
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2012. Nr. 1 (75)
delinquency to acquire necessary knowledge; motivation
for learning of juveniles subject to delinquency; an
authority for a juvenile subject to delinquency; individual
and group learning; attractiveness of a school; teaching
individualization and differentiation; relationship with
teachers; juveniles’ interrelationship in the classroom;
trust among juveniles subject to delinquency; strict
requirements in teaching process; teaching based on
principles of empowering partnership). The list of
questions for the second group of respondents (teachers)
consisted of 13 thematic groups (characteristics of
juveniles subject to delinquency, resocialization potential
of a school; trust in a teacher; juveniles’ viewpoint to
learning; coherence between knowledge and authority;
aspects of rationality of juveniles subject to delinquency;
motivation for juveniles’ learning; particularity of
teaching of juveniles subject to delinquency; teaching
individualization and differentiation; competition in the
process of learning; individual and group teaching;
application of empowering partnership principles;
assistance of an imprisonment institution; personal
viewpoint of teachers); in total – 31 question and situation.
If necessary, additional purposeful questions were given.
The method of data analysis was content analysis. All
activities of the performed research were based on
generally accepted principles of research ethics. Referring
to Zydziunaite (2007), these principles include the right to
be unimpaired, the right not to be exploited, research
usefulness, relationship between risk and benefit, respect
for person’s dignity, justice, privacy and confidentiality.
if the requirement is ‘very strict’. However, in many cases,
when teachers strictly require something, juveniles subject
to delinquency behave conversely – they do not respond to
the requirement.
‘Conditions for implementation of teacher’s
requirement’. For juveniles subject to delinquency to do
what the teacher has asked asked, the latter should draw on
professional competence – clearly deliver the teaching
material in the language understood for pupils. The
respondents point out the importance of parity relationship,
which would create conditions for the performance of the
assignment given by the teacher: unemotional, equal
communication; identification of pupils’ needs in common
discussion as well as readiness to render good-natured
assistance.
‘Individualization and differentiation factors in
education of juveniles subject to delinquency’. Some of the
juveniles who took part in the research point out that the
teachers, when getting ready to their lessons and
conducting them, consider their possibilities,wishes, likes,
needs and interests. In common discussion with the pupils,
they consider and agree together on every lesson’s process.
However, the respondents also note that not all teachers
who teach them tend to discuss the issues of the subject
taught. Some teachers give teaching assignments not
considering juveniles’ interests, i.e. without any
discussion.
‘The principles applied in teaching of the juveniles
serving their sentence’. By means of presented simulation
model and when analysing the situation in the
comprehensive school functioning in the imprisonment
place, opinions of the juveniles differed. The respondents
pointed out the features characteristic of different teaching
methods. To the principles of empowering partnership
method the respondents attributed learning in groups, equal
communication, teaching comprehensible for juveniles,
abstract features of parity relationship. The research
participants also recognise the features characteristic of a
traditional school: too abstract explanations, emphasis on
individual work, undisputable presentation of assignments,
abstract features of traditional teaching. Some juveniles
who took part in the research pointed out the features of
both parity relationship based and of traditional teaching
characteristic for teaching at the imprisonment place.
According to the juveniles, this depends on the teacher of a
particular subject.
‘The choice of teaching based on the principles of
empowering partnership’. All juveniles who took part in
the research, referring to different arguments, would
choose learning in the classroom, in which the principles
of empowering partnership are applied. The respondents
welcome parity relations in communication, possibility to
learn in group, premises for easier learning. The
participants of the research also expressed their critical
viewpoint towards group work, which was partly related to
pupils’ wish to avoid work, possibilities to cheat (Table 1).
Research results
During the data analysis 61 cluster has been extracted.
Some of them presented in this article directly disclose the
specific features of empowering partnership as the form for
resocialization of juveniles subject to delinquency.
Features of empowering partnership as resocialization
form – juveniles’ viewpoint
‘Assistance in the learning process’. With reference to
assistance in the learning process, imprisoned juveniles
point out implicit assistance to each other in different
situations of learning. In most cases assistance is willingly
accepted. In exceptional cases their wish to help can
depend on their mood. The answers of the research
participants revealed that in certain cases the assistance of
classmates in the learning process encouraged learning and
served as the possibility for adjustment to the friends
having the authority. Assistance to a friend can be related
to the question whether a juvenile understands the subject
he is learning: in separate cases juveniles help only their
most close friends, i.e. the ones they spend most time with.
‘Reaction to a strict requirement’. In the situations
when teachers strictly require something juveniles
implicitly perform their assignments only in exceptional
cases (e.g. in order to avoid penal sanctions harmful for a
juvenile). Juveniles respond to strict requirements of a
teacher if they understand that a particular assignment is
given wishing them well. Assignments are also performed
34
P. Skiecevicius, I. Leliugiene. Empowering Partnership as
Resocialization Form of Juveniles Subject to Delinquency:
Findings of Empirical Research
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2012. Nr. 1 (75)
Table 1
The choice of teaching based on principles of empowering partnership
Category
Subcategory
Confirmative statement
‘The second (perfect). Well, the teacher communicates with us as equal to him
Equal, partnership-based
communication
LEARNING IN
THE SECOND
FORM
Possibility to learn within a group
Easier learning
Critical viewpoint to group work
<...>’.
‘<...> That the teacher there communicates , collaborates well; I think it is OK. <...>
The teacher as partner, so well here it seems to me it is good, well, it seems to me’.
‘I’d better like when everyone discusses what to do, what to solve <...>’.
‘Those where the teacher helps and feels equal.<...>’.
‘Where the teacher helps. When together, when he treats us as friends. <...> If to
ask, you don’t know... There you ask the teacher, he will come, explain, do this
well. Well, that you would understand what to do <...>’.
‘In the second. Because it would be more pleasant to learn. You communicate with
a teacher as equal to you <...>’.
‘<...> the second form. There they explain easier, better explain’.
‘<...> it is more acceptable for me where a teacher behaves with you as with an
equal’. <...> it is better for me to communicate with a teacher as equal; then I like
him more and I will like that teacher and perhaps his subject, at least I’ll try to
learn, partly for this teacher... For example, when somebody does something good
to me, I somehow feel indebted to that person. Well, I perhaps would try to learn
well his subject due to this <...>’.
‘<...> it is easier to work there. You don’t understand – they tell how to do,
everything <...>’.
‘<...> all the same there they prepare lessons together...’.
‘<...> if you do not understand something – someone in the group explains <...>’.
‘<...> it is much easier to learn than when the teacher only says what to do’.
‘<...> it is easier to perform assignments in a group’.
‘<...> doing homework in groups would be nice there’.
‘<...> about small groups – it is not so good there; it seems to me because everyone
can copy and you will not learn there<...>’.
Table 2
Expression of empowering partnership principles applied in practice
Category
Subcategory
More active involvement into
teaching / learning process
Consideration of pupil’s emotional
state
Encouragement of interest
APPLICATION OF
EMPOWERING
PARTNERSHIP
PRINCIPLES
Development of partnership
relationship
Importance of teachers’ attitudes
Positive influence of previous work
experience
Absence of alternatives for
partnership
Confirmative statement
‘ <...> I could say that ‘so and so’, but I like it very much when it comes from them.
Well, I say: ‘I have a problem’, I am lost, I do not know how to behave – help me’.
Well, they help me then... <...>’.
‘<...> And the other, if he has problems with his head, he cannot do it, he could do
that assignment, but he is not able. Well, he... Today he has problems. Well, it is not
his day [smiles]. He will not do <...>’.
‘<...> And thus you do both the assignments, and crosswords and tests in order to get
them involved to the activity’.
‘Aha. It is at us, let’s say that, well... <...> More perhaps you are as partner <...>“
‘I might constantly work like this. <...> either you leave them alone to fight with your
assignments, or you have to show them <...> Collaboration is inevitable <...>’.
‘<...> It seems to me that I try to do this way <...>’.
‘<...> from the subject point, very much, well, that we collaborate or not, there we
work in groups, but,well, but from the human point, if you, well, put yourself in such
a position that you on their level, you do not want to look superior, this is possible
<...>’.
‘<...> He himself sees if I am interested in his work, automatically he also becomes
interested. He sees that this is important’.
‘<...> this again depends on the teacher. I think first of all about them... How they
come to the lesson, are they in the mood. Or only, well, how to turn those children
into marionettes, well, let’s say – ‘You here go to the left, and now you need to go to
the right <...>’.
‘<...> Well but again, first of all, that your fair, well, fair behaviour is with them’.
‘It seems to me that yes. Ambiguously. I somehow, well, I work with them as with
students, this is always so. <...> This can freely be done at school <...>’.
‘<...> You would kill their ‘small sprout to learn’, it is weak yet, but it might happen
that it disappears at all...’.
‘<...> Well, if you communicated with them in a different way – ‘they would ‘sit with
their teeth backwards’ <...>’.
‘<...> Because if you give what it is not interesting to them, ‘drop from the top’, then
they will do nothing and you will not get any result <...>’.
35
P. Skiecevicius, I. Leliugiene. Empowering Partnership as
Resocialization Form of Juveniles Subject to Delinquency:
Findings of Empirical Research
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2012. Nr. 1 (75)
‘Practical expression of application of empowering
partnership principles’. The research participants apply
the following principles of empowering partnership in the
teaching process of the juveniles subject to commit a
crime: by more actively involving juveniles into
teaching/learning process, by considering pupil’s
emotional state, by inducing juveniles’ interest, by
developing partnership relationship. The teachers point
out the importance of teacher’s attitudes in forming the
teaching based on empowering partnership principles.
Also the positive experience of the work based on these
principles. It is important to mention that some teachers
do not imagine the teaching of juveniles subject to
delinquency without applying empowering partnership
principles (Table 2).
‘Personal opinion about the education based on
empowering partnership principles’. The teachers who
participated in the research expressed their positive
disposition towards the education based on empowering
partnership principles, which is grounded by antagonism
against ‘standard’ learning. Also the research participants
expressed the need that teaching of juveniles subject to
delinquency is constantly based on these principles. Some
respondents were not certain about this, which is related
to the fear of changes in ‘the system’.
‘The attitudes of authority in the aspect of
application of empowering partnership principles’. The
teachers who participated in the research assume that the
institution’s authority would positively accept and
assistance the implementation of the above-mentioned
strategy. The respondents base their opinion on the strong
attention of the authority paid to the school and
promotion of innovations. The respondents named the
lack of financial resources, problems of ‘one classroom’
school, too little attention of the authorities, the problem
of criminal subculture castes as possible difficulties
important for the implementation of this strategy.
‘The need for additional resources for the
implementation of the principles of empowering
partnership’. The respondents elaborated additional
means necessary for the implementation of the teaching
based on the principles of empowering partnership. This
is financial stimulation, individual need for
communication with a pupil, acquisition of teaching
means, necessity of trainings for teachers; close
collaboration of specialists of different fields, who work
in the juvenile imprisonment institution.
Features of empowering partnership as resocialization
form – teachers’ viewpoint
‘Aspects of teaching with the potential of
resocialization’. Referring to the answers of the teachers
who took part in the research, a school can weaken
negative and strengthen positive characteristics of the
behaviour of juveniles subject to delinquincy by
pedagogical means: teachers’ efforts; system of
stimulation; teacher-pupil communication; maintaining the
uniform style of teaching; encouragement of juveniles’
occupation; paying more attention to pupils; trying to
understand imprisoned juveniles.
‘Expression of learning among classmates’. The
research participants point out that the imprisoned
juveniles constantly learn from each other in the
classroom. Often such learning manifests by copying from
a friend, or classmate.
‘Reaction to an order’. The teachers state that pupils’
reaction to an order distinguishes in situational
dependence. In certain cases pupils implicitly follow
teacher’s orders. Some imprisoned juveniles react to orders
negatively. The teachers have faced cases when a teacher
strictly required something and juveniles’ astonishment
took place – they did not believe that the teacher was able
to do this. According to the teachers, negative reaction of
juveniles can be avoided by escaping conflict situations, by
motivating juveniles through constructive communication.
‘Discussion about curriculum issues’. Some teachers
discuss curriculum issues together with the juveniles.
However, most research participants distinguished the
interferences, which burden common discussion on this
issue. Main difficulties, which the teachers face, are as
follows: juveniles’ unwillingness to work, necessity to
consider the curriculum requirements, shortcomings of
material facilities, the lack of pupils’ competence to choose
as well as the necessity for teacher’s interference.
‘Factors
of
teaching
individualisation
and
differentiation’. The respondents, with reference to
consideration of juvenile’s wishes, interests, needs,
learning abilities,
motivation,
distinguished
the
particularity
of
teaching
individualization
and
differentiation, as well as difficulties of application of
these methods as well as the feeling of disability against
‘the
system’.
Teaching
individualization
and
differentiation is performed by collaboration of a teacher
and pupils; by adjusting to the situation in the classroom;
by searching for different teaching methods. The teachers
who teach imprisoned juveniles consider their mood,
wishes, learning motivation, abilities. The research
participants also presented the difficulties of their practical
activity, which hindered individualizing and differentiating
the teaching of the juveniles subject to commit a crime.
This is the limited time of a lesson (considering that at the
same time the teacher works with the pupils from several
different forms); difficulties of ‘one-form’ school; absence
of understanding of juveniles’ duty to work. It should be
pointed out that among the teachers who took part in the
research the feeling of disability against ‘the system’, i.e.
the belief that they cannot change anything, manifests.
Discussion
The answers of the research participants revealed that
a school can contribute to resocialization of juveniles
subject to commit crimes by different ways. As Jovaisa
(2001, 2007) points out, the school is the place where
resolialization could be implemented.
The research disclosed that in most situations juveniles
subject to commit crimes consider collaboration aspects in
learning process positively. According to Fullan and
Hargreaves (1991, cit. Duobliene, 2006), collaboration is
the inseparable part of person’s learning. Knowles (1970,
36
P. Skiecevicius, I. Leliugiene. Empowering Partnership as
Resocialization Form of Juveniles Subject to Delinquency:
Findings of Empirical Research
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2012. Nr. 1 (75)
1975, cit. Zepke and Leach, 2002) directly relates the
possibility to collaborate to the achievement of learning
control.
When preparing a lecture and conducting it, most
teachers consider juveniles’ possibilities, wishes, needs,
interests. In common discussion with pupils they consult
and together solve the process of each lesson, the content
of teaching. Others present assignments of learning not
considering juveniles’ interests, i.e. without discussing.
The rejection of the principles of individualization and
differentiation partly confirms the research finding of
Lengvinas (2010) that the educational relation based on
authoritariasim, which still prevails in comprehensive
schools functioning at custodial places of juveniles.
When analysing received data of the research, the
disclosed wish of juveniles based on different arguments to
learn in the classroom, in which empowering partnership
principles would be applied resound the thought of CookSather (2002, p.10, cit. Reid and Reid, 2009) that when
schools consider learners’ needs, pupils not only feel more
involved into learning process but also take more
responsibility for their learning. Learning starts to be
understood not as ‘something is done for them’, but as
‘something what they do themselves’. Also Fine (2003)
states that the change of the power ‘for somebody’ into the
power ‘together’ induces the emergence of collaborative
relations, which finally determine positive results of
educational attempts.
When forming empowering partnership in the process
of education of juveniles subject to commit crimes, it is
important to consider different life experiences of juveniles
as well as their learning needs (McWilliam et al., 2003;
Colvin, 2007); it is necessary to give time to create
equivalent, partnership, trust-based relationship (FalkRaphael, 1996, cit. Brown, McWilliam and Ward-Griffin,
2006). The empirical research disclosed that some part of
these essential principles characterising empowering
partnership is episodically (in some cases – constantly)
applied in educating juveniles subject to commit crimes.
Alifanoviene and Sapelyte (2009) point out that
constant pressure of authorities of correctional institutions
for juveniles as well teacher’s supervision is felt.
The research disclosed the opposite tendency to the
statements by the above-mentioned authors – the
institution performing imprisonment sentence develops
assistance to the education of the juveniles subject
delinquency benevolently and by different means. This
difference can be related to the changes in the institution’s
managers.
•
References
1.
Alifanovien÷, D., & Šapelyt÷, O. (2009). Juveniles’ Resocialisation
at Medium Supervision Institutions: Educators’ Viewpoint.
Socialinis ugdymas, 9, (20), 171-185.
2.
Attewell, A. (2010). Florence Nightingales Relevance to Nurses.
Journal of Holistic Nursing, 28, (1), 101-106.
3.
Babachinait÷, G. (2002). Nepilnamečių smurtas Lietuvoje: raiška,
priežastys ir prevencija. Jurisprudencija, mokslo darbai, 27, (19),
108-117.
4.
Babachinait÷, G. (2008). Smurtinio nusikalstamumo samprata,
tendencijos ir šiuolaikiniai raiškos ypatumai Lietuvoje.
Jurisprudencija, Mokslo darbai, 1, (103), 16-21.
5.
Brewster, D., & Sharp, S. (2002). Educational Programs and
Recidivism in Oklahoma: Another Look. The Prison Journal, 82,
(3), 314-334.
6.
Brown, D., McWilliam, C., & Ward-Griffin, C. (2006). Clientcentered empowering partnering in nursing. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 53, (2), 160-168.
7.
Cantero, F. (2010). La accion pedagogica en las prisiones.
Posibilidades y limites. Revista espanola de padagogia, 68, (245),
49-64.
Conclusions
•
education of imprisoned juveniles. In this way
juveniles themselves take greater control of their
learning process, feel more responsible for it, forms
positive viewpoint towards the person (persons) who
teaches. The character of resocialization principles is
common to the characteristics of person’s
empowerment, and the latter is inseparable from
partnership relationship. Empowering partnership
should be treated as one of resocialization forms of
juveniles subject to commit a crime.
The empirical research revealed that in most cases the
juveniles performing the custodial sentence were
ready to help each other in their learning process
without reservation – they consider collaboration
positively. And on the contrary – a strict requirement
of a teacher lives to see a negative reaction of the
juveniles subject to commit a crime. In order to avoid
it, teachers use different methods. One of them is
formation of parity and cooperation relationship. The
application of teaching individualization and
differentiation principles in the education process of
juveniles subject to commit crimes depends on the
individual choice of a teacher. The research results
disclosed the positive viewpoint of both the teachers
and the juveniles sentencing the imprisonment to the
education based on empowering partnership
principles. Some part of the teachers point out the
necessity of the application of these principles in the
process of the education of juveniles subject to
commit crimes. The manifestations of ambivalent
viewpoint among teachers are to be related to the fear
in the ‘system’ of changes. It has been determined
that the institution performing the imprisonment
sentencing of the juveniles performs it by improving
the process of education of juveniles subject to
delinquency by including a positive viewpoint to
innovation implementation.
Empowering partnership in educational environments
and self-education environments, which is created in
the relationship of a competitive specialist with
juveniles subject to delinquency, gives them
alternative ways and strategies of their behaviour,
which often are unknown or unacceptable. The
performance of learning assignment together with a
juvenile as with equal learning partner facilitates the
37
P. Skiecevicius, I. Leliugiene. Empowering Partnership as
Resocialization Form of Juveniles Subject to Delinquency:
Findings of Empirical Research
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2012. Nr. 1 (75)
8.
Čepas, A. (1989). Nepilnamečių nusikalstamumas ir jo priežastys.
Vilnius: Mintis.
9.
Colvin, J. (2007). Peer tutoring and social dynamics in higher
education. Mentoring and Tutoring, 15, (2), 165-181.
28. Kvieskien÷, G. (2005). Pozityvioji socializacija. Monografija.
Vilnius: VPU.
29. Lelekov, V., & Kosheleva, E. (2008). On the Prevention of
Juvenile Crime. Russian Education and Society, 50, (9), 68-83.
30. Lengvinas, D. (2010). Educational Assistance to Convicted
Juvenile Offenders by Educators Working at the Houses of
Correction. Tiltai, 2, 113-123.
10. Duoblien÷, L. (2006). Šiuolaikinio ugdymo filosofija. Refleksijos ir
dialogo link. Vilnius: Tyto Alba.
11. Fine, M. (2003). Reflections of the intersection of Power and
competition in reflecting teams as applied to academic settings.
Journal of marital and family therapy, 29, 339-351.
31. Lengvinas, D., ir Grosas, J. (2009). Nuteistų nepilnamečių požiūris
į resocializaciją Kauno Nepilnamečių tardymo izoliatoriuje
pataisos namuose: kiekybinio tyrimo duomenų interpretacija.
Tiltai, 3, 17-30.
12. Geč÷nien÷, S. (2002). Baudžiamosios justicijos poveikis
nepilnamečio asmenybei (kardomojo kalinimo tyrimo pavyzdžiu).
(Daktaro disertacijos santrauka, Lietuvos teis÷s universitetas,
2002).
32. Liaudinskien÷, G. (2005). Resocialization Barriers of Juvenile
Delinquents. Social Sciences, 1, (47), 41-48.
33. Liaudinskien÷, G., ir Leliūgien÷, I. (2007). Nepilnamečių
resocializacija – anachronizmas, utopija ar iššūkis šiuolaikiniams
socialiniams mokslams? Pedagogika, 88, 106-118.
13. Geib, C., et al. (2010). The ecucation of juveniles in detention:
Policy considerations and infrastructure development. Learning
and Individual Differences, 21, (1), 3-11.
34. Lietuvos Respublikos Bausmių vykdymo kodekso patvirtinimo
įstatymas. Bausmių vykdymo kodeksas. (Žin., 2002 Nr. 73-3084).
Retrieved
21
January,
2012,
from
http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=370789
14. Giddens, A. (2005). Sociologija. Kaunas: Poligrafija ir informatika.
15. Gillespie, M. (2002). Student – teacher connection in clinical
nursing education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37, (6), 565-576.
16. Gillespie, M. (2005). Student-Teacher Connection: a Place of
Possibility. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52, (2), 211-219.
35. Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas. (1996). Kardomojo kalinimo
įstatymas.
Retrieved
3
February,
2012,
from
http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter2/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=278565&
p_query=&p_tr2=
17. Informatikos ir ryšių departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos
vidaus reikalų ministerijos (2011). Duomenys apie įtariamų
(kaltinamų) nepilnamečių nusikalstamumą Lietuvos Respublikoje.
(Forma 30N-SAV). Retrieved 12 February, 2012, from
http://www.vrm.lt/fileadmin/Image_Archive/IRD/Statistika/index2.
phtml?id=198&idStat=10&metai=2012&menuo=1&regionas=0&i
d3=1&idAta=1#Atas
36. Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas. (2008). Lietuvos Respublikos
Kardomojo kalinimo įstatymo pakeitimo įstatymas. Retrieved 21
January,
2012,
from
http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=324326&
p_query=&p_tr2=
37. Lietuvos Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerija (2012). Statistinių
duomenų apie 2011 m. užregistruotas nusikalstamas veikas, kurių
padarymu įtariami (kaltinami) nepilnamečiai, apie nepilnamečius,
kurie įtariami (kaltinami) padarę nusikalstamą veiką, bei apie
vaikus, nukent÷jusius nuo nusikalstamų veikų, analiz÷. Retrieved
17
February,
2012,
from
http://www.vrm.lt/fileadmin/Padaliniu_failai/Viesojo_saugumo_de
p/analizes/ataskaita_apie_vaikus_2011.pdf
18. Jatkevičius, A., Sakalauskas, G., Geč÷nien÷, S., ir Michailovič, I.
(2001). Vaikų ir jaunimo baudžiamoji atsakomyb÷: užsienio šalių
patirtis. Vilnius: Justitia.
19. Jovaiša, L. (2001). Ugdymo mokslas ir praktika. Analitinių
straipsnių monografija. Vilnius: Agora.
20. Jovaiša, L. (2007). Enciklopedinis edukologijos žodynas. Vilnius:
Gimtasis žodis.
38. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausyb÷s nutarimas „D÷l nepilnamečių
justicijos 2009 – 2013 metų programos patvirtinimo“. (Žin., 2009,
Nr.: 110 – 4664). Retrieved 28 January, 2012, from
http://www.vyriausybe.lt/lt/teises-aktai/priimti-teisesaktai?a=Nutarimas&an=&df=&dt=2010-1004&ot=0&q=nepilname%C4%8Di%C5%B3%20justicijos
21. Jucevičien÷, P. (2007). Besimokantis miestas. Monografija.
Kaunas: Technologija.
22. Jucevičien÷, P., ir Lipinskien÷, D. (2001). Edukacin÷, studentą
įgalinanti studijuoti, sistema mokymosi paradigmos kontekste.
Socialiniai mokslai, 2, (28), 55-59.
39. Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausyb÷s nutarimas „D÷l Nuteistųjų ir
asmenų, paleistų iš laisv÷s at÷mimo vietų, socialin÷s adaptacijos
2004–2007 metų programos patvirtinimo“. (Žin., 2004, Nr. 23709).
Retrieved
1
February,
2012,
from
http://www.vyriausybe.lt/lt/teises-aktai/priimti-teisesaktai?a=Nutarimas&an=&df=&dt=2010-1004&ot=0&q=D%C4%97l%20Nuteist%C5%B3j%C5%B3%20ir%2
0asmen%C5%B3,%20paleist%C5%B3%20i%C5%A1%20laisv%
C4%97s%20at%C4%97mimo%20viet%C5%B3
23. Kalendra, R. (2006). Preconditions for Continuing Education and
Learning of Individuals Sentenced to Inprisonment: the Case of
Lithuania. Social Sciences, 2 (52), 107-120.
24. Karabanow, J., & Clement, P. (2004). Intereventions With Street
Youth: A Commentary on the Practice-Based Research Literature.
Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4, (1), 93-99.
25. Katsiyannis, A., et al. (2008). Juvenile Delinquency and
Recidivism: The Impact of Academic Achievement. Reading &
Writing Quarterly, 24, 177-196.
40. Lietuvos statistikos metraštis (2011). Vilnius: Statistikos
departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausyb÷s. Retrieved
17
February,
2012,
from
http://www.stat.gov.lt/uploads/metrastis/1_LSM_2011_Lt.pdf?PH
PSESSID=
26. Kiškis, A. (2008). Nusikalstamumas Lietuvoje: ko neparodo
oficialioji statistika? Jurisprudencija. Mokslo darbai, 113, 114123.
41. Lipinskien÷, D. (2002). Edukacin÷ studentą įgalinanti studijuoti
aplinka (Daktaro disertacija, Kauno technologijos universitetas,
2002).
27. Kolb, Sh., & Stuart, Sh. (2005). Active Problem Solving: A Model
for Empowerment. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, (2), 14 –
20.
38
P. Skiecevicius, I. Leliugiene. Empowering Partnership as
Resocialization Form of Juveniles Subject to Delinquency:
Findings of Empirical Research
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2012. Nr. 1 (75)
42. Lorion, R., & McMillan, D. (2008). Does Empowerment Require
Disempowerment? Reflections on Psychopolitical Validity.
Journal of Community Psychology, 36, (2), 254-260.
62. Tarolla, M., Wagner, F., Rabinowitz, J., & Tubman, G. (2002).
Understanding and treating juvenile offenders: a review of current
knowledge and future directions. Agression and Violent Behaviour,
7, 125-143.
43. McPhee, M. (2009). Developing a practice – academic partnership
logic model. Nursing Outlook, 57, (3), 143-147.
63. Weerman, F. (2010). Delinquency after Secondary School:
Exploring the Consequences of Schooling, Working and Dropout.
European Journal of Criminology, 7, (5), 339-355.
44. McWilliam, C., Coleman, S., & Melito, C. (2003). Building
empowering partnerships for interprofessional care. Journal of
interprofessional care, 17, (4), 363-376.
64. Zepke, N., & Leach, L. (2002). Contextualised Meaning Making:
one way of rethinking experiential learning and self – directed
learning. Studies in Continuing Education, 24, (2), 205-217.
45. Merkys, G., Ruškus, J., ir Juodraitis, A. (2002). Nepilnamečių
resocializacija: priežiūros įstaigų psichosocialin÷ edukacin÷
situacija Lietuvoje. Mokslo studija. Šiauliai: Šiaulių universiteto
leidykla.
65. Žukauskien÷, R. (2006). Kriminalinio elgesio psichologija.
Vilnius: MRU.
46. Mesonien÷, S. (2009). The Problem of Eficient Resocialization:
Legal Regulations and Social Demands. Jurisprudencija, 4, (118),
235-246.
66. Žukauskien÷, R. (2007). Raidos psichologija. Vilnius. Margi raštai.
67. Žydžiūnait÷, V. (2007). Tyrimo dizainas: struktūra ir strategijos.
Kaunas: Technologija.
47. Michailovič, I. (2001). Baudžiamajame įstatyme numatytų
nepilnamečių resocializacijos priemonių taikymas (Daktaro
disertacijos santrauka, Vilniaus universitetas, 2001).
P. Skiecevičius, I. Leliūgien÷
48. Miller, K., & Curpen, A. (2009). New Colonialism for New
Times?: Exploring the Potential for Empowering Partnerships in
Postgraduate Teacher Education. The International Journal of
Learning, 16, (10), 721-734.
Santrauka
Įgalinanti partneryst÷ kaip nusikalsti linkusių
resocializacijos forma. Empirinio tyrimo rezultatai
Nusikalstamumas – sud÷tingas socialinis ir teisinis reiškinys, kurio
kilmę bando paaiškinti daugelis įvairių mokslo krypčių teorijų. Anot
Tarolla, Wagner, Rabinowitz (2002), paauglių nusikalstamumas –
bendrojo nusikalstamumo dalis, viena iš suaugusiųjų nusikalstamumo
priežasčių ir viena iš labiausiai slegiančių socialinių problemų, lemiančių
žalingus emocinius, fizinius ir ekonominius padarinius, kuriuos patiria
konkreti bendruomen÷.
Remiantis Lietuvos statistikos departamento (2012) duomenimis,
2007 m. nepilnamečiai padar÷ 4051, 2008 m. – 4325, 2009 m. – 4023, o
2010 m. - 3589 nusikalstamas veikas. 2007 m. realią laisv÷s at÷mimo
bausmę atliko (buvo įkalinti) 192, 2008 m. – 200, 2009 m. – 188, 2010 m.
– 158 nepilnamečiai. Informatikos ir ryšių departamento prie Lietuvos
Respublikos vidaus reikalų ministerijos (2012) pateiktoje analiz÷je
nurodoma, jog 2011 m. Lietuvoje buvo ištirtos 3296 nusikalstamos
veikos, kurių padarymu įtariami (kaltinami) nepilnamečiai. Absoliuti
dauguma (90,5 proc.) iš jų – vaikinai. Pakartotinas nusikalstamas veikas
padar÷ 174 įtariamų (kaltinamų) nepilnamečių.
Lyginant pateiktus pastarųjų metų statistinius duomenis, pastebimas
laipsniškai maž÷jantis nepilnamečių padaromų nusikalstamų veikų bei
realią laisv÷s at÷mimo bausmę atliekančių paauglių skaičius.
Tačiau formalioji nusikalstamumo statistika negali tiksliai atspind÷ti
visų tam tikroje teritorijoje įvykdytų nusikaltimų, kadangi nemažai jų d÷l
įvairių priežasčių lieka oficialiai neužfiksuoti (Giddens, 2005; Kiškis,
2008). Statistinių duomenų prieštaringumas lemia neadekvatų problemos
masto ir sprendimų poreikio suvokimą. Nepilnamečių nusikalstamumo
augimo tendencijos ir toliau išlieka menkai besikeičiančios. Holistinis
nepilnamečių nusikalstamumo priežasčių ir charakteristikų analizavimas
sudaro prielaidas gilesniam šio reiškinio supratimui ir leidžia kurti naujas
efektyvesnes prevencines programas.
Skirtingus įgalinimo, partneryst÷s, paauglių nusikalstamumo,
resocializacijos aspektus įvairiuose kontekstuose nagrin÷jo daugelis
mokslininkų. Įgalinimo svarbą ir reikšmingumą įvairiose aplinkose ir
situacijose, kurios neretai siejamos su asmens ugdymo ir ugdymosi
aplinkomis, akcentavo Lietuvos ir užsienio šalių tyr÷jai: Jucevičien÷,
Lipinskien÷ (2001); Lipinskien÷ (2002); Lorion, McMillan (2008);
Monnickendam, Berman (2008) ir kt. Įgalinančios partneryst÷s ugdant
koncepto aspektus fragmentiškai nagrin÷jo Brown, McWilliam, WardGriffin (2006); Jucevičien÷ (2007); Miller, Curpen (2009); McPhee
(2009); Reid, Reid (2009) ir kt. Nepilnamečių nusikalstamumo kilm÷s
priežastis, prevencines galimybes, nusikalsti linkusio nepilnamečio
asmenyb÷s problemas tyr÷ Čepas (1989); Michailovič (2001); Geč÷nien÷
(2002); Jatkevičius (2003); Kvieskien÷ (2005); Žukauskien÷ (2006,
2007); Rohall, Milkie, Lucas (2007); Babachinait÷ (2002, 2008); Sorlie,
Hagen, Ogden (2008); Skiecevičius, Leliūgien÷, Žydžiūnait÷ (2010) ir kt.
Merkys, Ruškus, Juodraitis (2002); Liaudinskien÷ (2005); Liaudinskien÷,
Leliūgien÷ (2007); Alifanovien÷, Šapelyt÷ (2009); Lengvinas (2009);
Lengvinas, Grosas (2010) ir kt. nagrin÷jo teis÷tvarkos pažeidimus
padariusių nepilnamečių resocializacijos ypatumus. Karabanow, Clement
49. Monnickendam, M., & Berman, Y. (2008). An Empirical analysis
of the Interrelationship between Components of the Social Quality
Theoretical Construct. Social indicators research, 86, 525-538.
50. Mulcahy, C., et al. (2008). Lessons Learned: Barriers and Solutions
for Conducting Reading investigations in Juvenile Corrections
Settings. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 24, 239-252.
51. Murphy, M. (2002). Social partnership – is it ‘the only game in
townʼ? Community Developement Journal, 37, (1), 80-90.
52. Prakapas, R., ir Katinait÷, R. (2008). Nuteistų asmenų
resocializacija: socialin÷ komunikacija ir edukacinių lūkesčių
realizavimas. Socialinis ugdymas, 5, (16), 81-92.
53. Prakapas, R., ir Kunigyt÷, I. (2005). Pedagogical Preconditions of
Re-socialization of Under-Age Transgressors’ Rights. Socialinis
ugdymas, 10, 215.
54. Reid, P., & Reid, R. (2009). Finding Our Voices: Empowering
Latino Students through Partnerships with School Social Workers.
School Social Work Journal, 33, (2), 57-69.
55. Rohall, D., Milkie, M., & Lucas, J. (2007). Social Psychology.
Sociological perspectives. Pearson Education, Inc.
56. Sakalauskas, G. (2007). Įkalinimas Lietuvoje: praktika ir prasm÷.
Sociologija. Mintis ir veiksmas, 2, (20), 122-134.
57. Šiaučiuk÷nien÷, L. (1997). Mokymo individualizavimas
diferenciavimas. Monografija. Kaunas: Technologija.
paauglių
ir
58. Šiaučiuk÷nien÷, L.,Visockien÷, O., ir Talijūnien÷, P. (2006).
Šiuolaikin÷s didaktikos pagrindai. Kaunas: Technologija.
59. Skiecevičius, P., Leliūgien÷, I., ir Žydžiūnait÷, V. (2010). Įgalinanti
partneryst÷ – paauglių nusikalstamumo edukacin÷s prevencijos
forma. Socialiniai mokslai, 2, (68), 112-121.
60. Sorlie, M., Hagen, K., & Ogden, T. (2008). Social Competence and
Antisocial Behaviour: Continuity and Distinctiveness Across Early
Adolescence. Journal of research on Adolescense, 18, (1), 121144.
61. Sutton, C. (1999). Socialinis darbas, bendruomen÷s veikla ir
psichologija. Vilnius: VU Specialiosios psichologijos laboratorija.
39
P. Skiecevicius, I. Leliugiene. Empowering Partnership as
Resocialization Form of Juveniles Subject to Delinquency:
Findings of Empirical Research
Social Sciences /
Socialiniai mokslai. 2012. Nr. 1 (75)
(2004) analizavo įgalinimo (taip pat ir edukacinio) veiksnius, turinčius
prevencinį poveikį nusikalstamumui. Tačiau Lietuvoje ir užsienio šalyse
iki šiol nebuvo atlikta tyrimų, kuriuose įgalinanti partneryst÷ būtų tyrimo
objektas, siejamas su paauglių nusikalstamumu, o tuo labiau traktuojamas kaip nusikalsti linkusių paauglių resocializacijos forma.
Straipsnyje siekiama atsakyti į šiuos probleminius klausimus: Ar
įgalinanti partneryst÷ gali būti traktuojama kaip nusikalsti linkusių
paauglių resocializacijos forma? Kokie specifiniai bruožai charakterizuoja
įgalinančią partnerystę kaip nusikalsti linkusių paauglių resocializacijos
formą?
Tyrimo tikslas - empiriškai nustatyti įgalinančios partneryst÷s, kaip
nusikalsti linkusių paauglių resocializacijos formos, ypatumus. Tyrimo
objektu pasirinkta įgalinanti partneryst÷.
Pirmojoje straipsnio dalyje pristatoma įgalinančios partneryst÷s, kaip
resocializacijos formos, esm÷ ir charakteristikos. Įgalinanti partneryst÷
ugdymo bei ugdymosi aplinkose kompetentingo specialisto kuriama su
nusikalsti linkusiais paaugliais. Tokiu būdu paaugliams pateikiami
alternatyvūs elgesio būdai ir strategijos, kurios dažnai jiems yra
nežinomos arba nepriimtinos. Mokymosi užduoties vykdymas ne už
paauglį, o kartu su juo, kaip su lygiaverčiu mokymosi partneriu,
palengvina bausmę atliekančių paauglių ugdymą. Paaugliai prisiima
didesnę savojo mokymosi proceso kontrolę, jaučiasi atsakingesni, ugdosi
teigiamą požiūrį juos mokančio asmens (asmenų) atžvilgiu.
Resocializacijos principų pobūdis savo esme yra tapatus asmens
įgalinimo charakteristikoms, o pastarasis neatsiejamas nuo partneriško
santykio. Įgalinanti partneryst÷ traktuotina kaip viena iš nusikalsti
linkusių paauglių resocializacijos formų.
Antrojoje straipsnio dalyje pateikiama empirinio tyrimo
metodologija. Tyrimas, taikant pusiau struktūruoto interviu metodą,
atliktas vienoje iš kardomąjį kalinimą ir laisv÷s at÷mimo bausmę
vykdančių įstaigų Lietuvoje. Tyrimo imtį sudar÷ dvi respondentų grup÷s.
Pirmoji respondentų grup÷ yra 16 - 19 metų vaikinai (atskiru atveju - iki
21 metų), min÷toje įstaigoje atliekantys laisv÷s at÷mimo bausmę. Tyrimo
metu apklausti 15 šiai grupei priskiriamų respondentų. Antroji
respondentų grup÷ - laisv÷s atlikimo bausm÷s vietoje dirbantys ir
tiesiogiai nusikalsti linkusių paauglių ugdymo procese dalyvaujantys
asmenys, t.y. šioje įstaigoje veikiančios bendrojo lavinimo mokyklos
mokytojai. Apklausti 5 respondentai, kurių darbo stažas įstaigoje - nuo
2,5 iki 12 metų. Pirmosios respondentų grup÷s (paauglių) klausimyno
sąrašą (temos vadovą) sudar÷ 30 klausimų ir situacijų, suskirstytų į 11
teminių grupių. Antrajai respondentų grupei (mokytojams) skirtą
klausimyno sąrašą sudar÷ 13 teminių grupių, bendrai – 31 klausimas ir
situacija. Duomenų analiz÷s metodas – kokybin÷ turinio analiz÷.
Trečiojoje straipsnio dalyje aptariami ir apibendrinami tyrimo
rezultatai, išryškinantys įgalinančios partneryst÷s, kaip nusikalsti linkusių
paauglių resocializacijos formos, ypatumus. Empirinis tyrimas atskleid÷,
jog daugeliu atvejų laisv÷s at÷mimo bausmę atliekantys paaugliai
mokymosi procese yra besąlygiškai pasirengę pad÷ti vienas kitam - į
bendradarbiavimą žvelgiama pozityviai. Ir priešingai - griežtas mokytojo
reikalavimas susilaukia neigiamos nusikalsti linkusių paauglių reakcijos.
Siekdami išvengti tokios reakcijos, mokytojai taiko skirtingus metodus.
Vienas jų – paritetinio, bendradarbiaujančio santykio kūrimas. Mokymo
individualizavimo ir diferencijavimo principų taikymas nusikalsti linkusių
paauglių ugdymo procese priklauso nuo individualaus mokytojo
pasirinkimo. Tyrimo rezultatai atskleid÷ teigiamą tiek mokytojų, tiek
laisv÷s at÷mimo bausmę atliekančių paauglių požiūrį į įgalinančios
partneryst÷s principais paremtą mokymą. Kai kurie mokytojai pabr÷žia
šių principų taikymo būtinybę nusikalsti linkusių paauglių ugdymo
procese. Ambivalentiško mokytojų požiūrio apraiškos sietinos su pokyčių
„sistemoje“ baime. Nustatyta, jog laisv÷s at÷mimo bausmę paaugliams
vykdanti įstaiga geranoriškai prisideda prie nusikalsti linkusių paauglių
ugdymo proceso tobulinimo, įskaitant ir pozityvų požiūrį į inovacijų
diegimą.
Raktiniai žodžiai: įgalinanti partneryst÷, resocializacija, nusikalsti
linkę paaugliai.
First received: February, 2012
Accepted for publication: March, 2012
40