Title: Ecological Youth Justice: Understanding the social ecology of young people’s prolific offending
Abstract
This article outlines a social ecological approach to understanding young people’s prolific offending and effective youth justice responses to it. Seeing young people through the lens of interactions and relationships – with family, peers, community and the broader socio-cultural-political context – gives insight into the type of interventions that can most effectively disrupt their offending and enhance their wellbeing. These insights have implications for the way in which youth offending teams engage with young people, in their social context, to bring about positive change in their lives. Effective interventions, we argue, focus on engaging young people in normalising relationships, over time.
Author affiliations:
Diana F Johns
(Department of Law & Criminology,) Aberystwyth University, UK
Kate Williams
(Department of Law & Criminology,) Aberystwyth University, UK
Kevin Haines
(College of Law & Criminology,) Swansea University, UK
Ecological Youth Justice: Understanding the social ecology of young people’s prolific offending
Introduction
Youth justice cohorts in England and Wales have shrunk: since 2006-07 the number of ‘first time entrants’ has fallen by nearly 80%; since 2008-09 the number of children in custody has dropped by 58% (Youth Justice Annual Statistics, This reduction has exposed a group of young people who are persistent, often prolific in their reoffending. The vast majority of young people who can be diverted from further offending are being diverted and the group ‘left behind’ are those with the most complex needs,manifest in the most challenging behaviours. Recent youth justice responses to this group draw largely on a risk-focused, responsibilising narrative that prescribes more intensive risk management through individualised ‘offender’ and offence-based interventions. This article makes the case for a different approach, arguing that interrupting persistent and prolific offending patterns requires a long-term, relationship-focused approach that supports young people’s positive identity development in its social context. This moves away from the pathologising of behaviour and its need to ‘fix’ the individual towards the normalising of behaviour and working to understand and help address underlying issues.
The research on which this paper draws examined young people’s prolific offending in Wales. It comprised two distinct phases. In 2012 the Youth Justice Board Wales (YJB Cymru), working with the Welsh Government, profiled a group of young people identified as ‘prolific’ in their offending(25+ offences), comprising about 4% of the youth justice cohort in Wales. The follow-up study (Johns 2016)examined contextual factors and further offending among that original sample through analysis of youth offending team (YOT) records, Police National Computer (PNC) reoffending data, in-depth case studies and interviews with professionals and young people. Interviews with some of the (now) young adults yielded rich qualitative insights into the support and social processes that helped them move away from offending. These findings provide the empirical basis for the social ecological analysis presented here.
For illustrative purposes we focus on a group of 12young people– including one young woman – living in a post-industrial community in Wales,and the YOT workers who supervised and supported them through their teenage years. In order to protectidentities pseudonyms are used. A social ecological lens is applied as a way of exploring the interactions and relationships between these young men and their particular social, cultural and community setting. This article:briefly critiques the dominant paradigm framing youth justice; considers an alternative strengths-based approach to young people’s positive development; explores literature considering the importance of relationships in working with young people; and outlines the social ecological approach arising from it. This leads into the analysis of the research findings from a social ecological perspective that builds upon existing models to examine the implications for working with young people enmeshed in complex and persistent offending.
An individualising, risk-based paradigm
Both the dominant narrative and practice of youth justice are framed by a risk factor prevention paradigm that tends to conceive young people in terms of their problems, deficits and pathologies (Robinson 2015). This approach is seen by some as overly managerialist and reductionist, oversimplifying children’s lives to ‘restricted bundles of risks’ (Haines & Case 2015: 87). From this perspective, the over-reliance on risk assessment tools (such as Asset and AssetPlus in the UK) can tend to focus attention and resources too narrowly on ‘problem’ areas in a child’s life that are seen as directly related to their offences (Ward 2006). The tendency is to respond to a child’s excessive alcohol use, for example, with a ‘substance misuse’ program rather than working to understand and change underlying causes. Identifying and individualising the risk of reoffending in this way fails to account for wider economic and political factors that limit access and opportunities and thus have a significant impact on young people’s lives, choices and social identities (Bottrell 2007; Bottrell & Armstrong 2007; Barry 2010).
The main criticism of a risk factor approach is its overriding focus on individualising the causes of – and therefore ‘solutions’ to – offending (Gray 2013; Haines & Case 2015). Young people are ‘responsibilised’ for their attitudes, thinking and behaviour notwithstanding the various social, situational and structural forces and conditions shaping and influencing these factors (Kemshall 2008; Gray 2013; Haines & Case 2015). External factors are frequently side-lined by the focus on ‘dynamic risk factors’ or ‘criminogenic needs’, factors which relate to offending and are seen as amenable to change; a focus which ‘is a necessary but notsufficient condition for effective … interventions’ (Ward 2006: 212, original emphasis).Risk-based models tend tofocus on psychometric and individualised psychosocial factors which canproduce an isolated view of a young person and ignore the wider historical, cultural and social structural context of their development. A social ecological framework, in contrast, directs attention to the interactions and relationships within which offending arises, persists and is perpetuated.
Using relationships to support positive development
Two elements are essential here: building an effective practitioner/young person relationship (Sharpe 2012; Drake, Fergusson & Briggs 2014); and using it to support positive youth development (‘PYD’) (Hill, 1999; Roth & Brooks-Gunn 2003). While much of the literature around effective working relationships pertains to adults and desistance (Leibrich 1994; McNeill et.al. 2005) orto social work with vulnerable or involuntary clients (Trotter 1999, Trevithick 2005), many of the principles equally apply to working with young people. These centre on establishing rapport, building trust, modelling and conveying respect, empathy, acceptance, honesty and genuineness (Leibrich 1994; McNeill et.al. 2005; Trevithick 2005; Mason & Prior 2008). Legitimacy,as perceived by the young person (treated as a person, not a problem: Hill, 1999), is essential to effective working (McNeill et.al. 2005; Case & Haines 2014a&b). Demonstrating respect for the young person’s rights and desires, and trust in their ability to change and grow is also crucial. From a strengths-based perspective, this trust can help to develop a young person’s sense of confidence and ‘self-belief in their capacity to change’ (Lewis 2014: 171).
Building an effective workingrelationship requirestime: continuity is critical (McNeill et.al. 2005; Ipsos MORI 2010);as isfrequency. Wilson (2013: 37) found that ‘young people who had more frequent contacts … were less likely to re-offend’. Effective work with young people requires time for trust to develop gradually (Hill, 1999). Time is essential both to allow children to mature out of offending behaviour and because young people’s experience of and conceptions of time reflect cultural expectations embedded in their social context (Brannen & Nilsen 2002) and are thereby ‘shaped by interaction with significant others’ (Woodman 2011: 126). This insight has implications for understanding and working with young people in the context of their social relationships – the ‘proximal processes’ (see below) that shape their behaviour, development and orientation towards others.
The quality of relationships is also important. Positive relationships develop positive identities. Lewis’s (2014: 170) findings attest to the ‘mutual caring’ aspect of ‘positive working relationships’ which suggests a human connection that transcends a supervisory role.A negative relationship cangive rise to anger, bitterness and anxiety which damage worker/client and other significant relationships thus undermining otherwise protective sources of support in a young person’s life. It may ‘push change away’ (Lewis 2014: 170) and make offending more likely. A ‘good’ working relationship can ‘open the door to influence’ (Leibrich 1994: 41) and ‘move change closer’ (Lewis 2014: 170), effectively engaging young people and allowing workers to foster and support their motivation to change (McNeill et.al. 2005; Rowe & Soppitt 2014).
From a PYD perspective young people are not ‘problems to be managed’ they are ‘resources to be developed’ (Roth et.al. 1998; Roth & Brooks-Gunn 2003; Lerner et.al. 2005). Positive, trusting relationships are used to build young people’s capacity and supportive social relationships through interventions emphasising hope, care and, importantly, ‘expectations for adolescents’ success’ (Roth & Brooks-Gunn 2003: 172).The negative framing of risk and deficit is ‘dispiriting’ and ‘discouraging’, assumes young people’s shortcomings and creates an ethos of suspicion and blame (Lerner, 2004: 3). Strengths-based responses moderate this negativity. The overarching focus is on normal development and normalising relationshipsthroughout adolescence, principles echoed by ‘positive youth justice’ proponents (Case & Haines 2014a/2014b; Haines & Case 2015).
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model of human development (Bronfenbrenner 1977, 1979, 1992, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris 2007) assumes human capacity for change arises from the interactions and ‘relationships between the developing person and his or her biology, psychological characteristics, family, community, culture, physical and designed ecology, and historical niche’ (Lerner et.al. 2005: 11). Positive outcomes such as the ‘promotion of desired behaviours’ and ‘prevention of undesirable behaviours’ (Lerner et.al. 2005: 12) ensue when individuals interact with their social context in a mutually beneficial way, enhancing the wellbeing of both. Where relationships are built over time and engage young people long-term(Roth et.al. 1998), a strengths-based approach characterised by the ‘five Cs’– competence, confidence, character, connection, and caring (Roth & Brooks-Gunn 2003; Lerner et.al. 2005) – will bring about positive development. This gives weight to our argument that effective youth justice interventions are characterised by long-term relationships committed to supporting young people’s potential to grow and change. To examine the function, role and impact of the relationships and interactions between YOT workers and young people involved in prolific offending, we have adaptedand built on Bronfenbrenner’s social ecological model.
A social ecological lens
A social ecological framework sees young people in terms of their relationships with their immediate environment of family, friends, school and neighbourhood and the wider socio-cultural, political-economic context. Five ‘nested’ systems – microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems, macrosystems and chronosystems – comprise a set of interrelated ecologies (based on Bronfenbrenner’s work 1977, 1979, 1992, 1994 and Bronfenbrenner & Morris 2007). Within this systems framework the factors and processes that shape young people’s actions, interactions and identities can be seen as operating at various levels, simultaneously and across time. Importantly, a young person’s ‘environment’ is depicted, not as a single setting, but asa constellation of interconnected settings within which human development unfolds and is shaped via increasingly complex interactions (Bronfenbrenner 1994; France et.al. 2012).
Microsystems comprise the individual in relationship with the physical, social and symbolic features of their family, friends, school and neighbourhood settings. The ‘ecology of being in care’ is an example of a microsystem (France et.al. 2012). A mesosystem comprises ‘the linkages and processes taking place between two or more settings containing the developing person’ (Bronfenbrenner 1994: 40); the relations between home and school, for instance, or the nature of communication and cooperation between parents and the youth offending team. Exosystems comprise the connections and interactions between two or more settings that are outside the young person, yet which have a direct impact upon processes within their immediate setting; for example, the links between a young person’s home life and a parent’s criminal activities or social networks.
The macrosystem incorporates the dominant socio-cultural features and historical events within which the preceding systems are embedded. It comprises ‘the overarching pattern’ of beliefs and values, norms and customs, lifestyles, resources, opportunities and options available in a given geo-cultural setting (Bronfenbrenner 1994: 40). The recursive interactions between these four systems occur in a temporal and historic context: the chronosystem. Here time is not only an aspect of the growing person but also of their surrounding environment, manifest in changes in family structures, employment or housing status, and even ‘the degree of hecticness and ability in everyday life’ (Bronfenbrenner 1994: 40).
Bronfenbrenner’s(1995) later theory of ‘Process-Person-Context-Time’ built in ‘proximal processes’ as a key factor in development, featuring two ideas. Firstly, human development ‘takes place through processes of progressively more complex reciprocal interaction’ (Bronfenbrenner, 1995: 620) between a child and the people, objects and symbols in their immediate environment. Children use these interactions to make sense of their world and their place in it. Secondly, ascertaining the impact of ‘proximal processes’ on development requires a focus on the person (child), the context (spatial and temporal) and the power and context of the process (Bronfenbrenner, 1995: 621).
The notion of nested ecologies locates young people’s problematic offending in the broader context of their ‘relations to crime’ (Bottrellet.al., 2010; France et.al., 2012). A young person is decentred as the source of the offending problem and seen in terms of the relationships, interactions and processes that define and influence their everyday lives and experience. This perspective recognises the importance of regular, deep interactions, meaningful to the child; and that new interactions can effectively alter development (or the direction of development) and therefore influence outcomes such as behaviours.
A social ecological framework offers a useful lens through which to explore and understand young people’s prolific offending and youth justice responses to it. It permits examination of how relationships and social processes function to support or impede young people’s positive identity development which, in turn, shapes their actions and behaviour. To illustrate, we apply this lens to a particular social and geographic setting: a small post-industrial community in Wales. Bronfenbrenner’s lens is here adapted and augmented: to understand the implications for effective ways of working with young people, using a relationship-focused approach to support their positive development.
The young people
This paper draws on a larger study of young people involved in prolific offending in Wales: YJB Cymru identified 303 young people as ‘prolific’ (convicted of 25+ offences) in 2009-10 of which 117 were profiled (Johns, 2016). This group was overwhelmingly white (only five identified as other than ‘white British’), male (89%) and aged between 15 and 17 (90% of the boys). Their most common offences were public order, assault, theft and criminal damage,then burglary and drug offences. This paper draws on the experience of 11 young men and one young womanand the YOT workers who supervised and supported them through their teenage years,in an areahere called ‘Tref Ecoleg’.Data are drawn from 12 case file analyses and interviews with four of the young men (‘Elis’, ‘Dylan’, ‘Gareth’ and ‘Rhydian’) and two YOT workers (YW17-YW18). These 12 young people, now aged 21 to 24, were involved in offending very much related to their peer group. Though initially low-level and anti-social,it becameincreasingly ‘serious’:
It was violence, burglaries. There was a lot of car offences at the time as well but definitely violence, robberies ... serious offending. (YW18)
‘Tref Ecoleg’ – the macrosystem
For illustrative purposes we focus here on a particular semi-rural, deindustrialised communityin Wales, ‘Tref Ecoleg’. Once a thriving centre of heavy industry, this declinedfrom the late nineteenth century onwards, though its effects still scar the landscape and the psychology of the people. From the mid-1970s,Tref Ecoleg’s flourishing light manufacturing industry also waned. The town is now known forpervasive unemployment, welfare dependence and ill-health associated with poor diet and heavy smoking. Despitehigh levels of long-term unemployment and economic stagnation, Tref Ecoleg still clings to its credentials as a centre for heavy industry; its values, traditions and beliefs emanate from this cultural memory. These form the pillars of its macrosystem – the structural and (sub)cultural patterns, mores and ethos within which the young people grew up and which shaped their development, filtering down through the microsystems of home, school and peers. Young (1999, 2007) identifies the exceptionally negative effects and disembeddedness which arise out of suchconditions of deficit.Here the extent to which these may pertain is considered alongside whether social ecological approaches can help to resolve them.
For many of the young people growing up in Tref Ecoleg, success must have seemed remote. There was ‘nothing round here … we had nothing to do’ (Gareth), ‘nothing at all’ (Dylan). Limited opportunities characterised their experience:
It’s hard round here … for jobs, and that, it’s low …The crime rates up [and there are] lots of drugs. (Elis)
Elis, describes the background of ‘many boys’ that he grew up, lacking family support or encouragement, in terms of the intergenerational disadvantage seen to characterise the town:
they’ve only got like their mother or father, [and] they’re either ill, or like … 75% of the population ... [they’re] on benefits … half of them just can’t be arsed to get up off their arse.(Elis)
Thesemacrosystemic factors clearly had an impact on the young people’s lives. One worker even suggested that taking them away from the area might have helped: