By User Voice

This report presents the voices of young people who have experienced serious youth violence. The principal objectives of this project were to understand young people’s experiences of reporting to the police, safeguarding, interventions, and the support they receive from the police and other services. We examined the factors that made the young people vulnerable to serious youth violence and the facilitators and barriers they experience when it comes to accessing support. User Voice spoke to 13 young people aged between the ages of 18 and 24 who were in prison, in young offender institutions or on probation. Overall, we found that the young people we spoke to had extensive experience, both as the perpetrators and targets of serious violence. Between the ages of 14 and 17, many of the young people we spoke to had been stabbed on numerous occasions, shot, attacked with hammers, assaulted with baseball bats, and run over. They had often been the target first, and had then often become involved in crime and violence. Some spoke of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but most didn’t want to talk about the effect these incidents had had on them. Many of the young people we spoke to had faced many challenges in early life. The majority were poor, had been surrounded by crime and violence, lived in social care, and been criminalised as children. Many of them described feeling let down repeatedly by the people and systems that were meant to care for them. They said that their friends are like family and offer the protection and support they need. Serious violent incidents often relate to earning respect, drugs or money, or to gaining control in specific postcode areas occupied by other gangs or groups. The young people we surveyed have no confidence in the police and other services. Through numerous negative experiences with these systems, they believe that the police can’t protect or help them. There were several accounts of manipulative practices, blame, assault, and police putting them in danger, for example, by dropping them in their ‘enemy’s’ area. There were mixed views on the support offered by the youth offending teams (YOTs). And some of the young people we spoke to said that YOTs, prison services and probation services all failed to consider the life-threatening nature of living in, or passing through, the wrong area. The young people told us they weren’t always offered or didn’t always accept support. They felt that those with ‘perfect lives’ couldn’t understand them and therefore couldn’t help them. Some courses offered were considered tick-box exercises offering unrealistic solutions to complex problems. They stated that they felt set up to fail. They also said that they thought that initiatives led by those with lived experience of serious youth violence, care rather than criminalisation, and alternative means to earn a living would prevent them from committing crime or help them more

London: HMICFRS (Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constbulary and Fire & Rescue Services, 2023. 37p.

By Peers Kayla Freemon, Veronica M. Herrera , Hyunjung Cheon , and Charles M. Katz

Growing up in a household without two parents present is an established risk factor for youth delinquency. However, much of the research on family structure and delinquency derives from U.S. samples, limiting applicability to the developing world. The present study explores the role of traditional and non-traditional family structures on self-reported delinquency in eight English Speaking Caribbean nations. We further examine the moderating role of family processes (parental attachment and parental supervision) and commitment to negative peers on this relationship. We find that youth from intact nuclear families, with a mother and father present, engage in less delinquency than youth from intact blended, single-parent, or no-parent households. Further, family structure moderated the relationship between delinquency, parental attachment, and commitment to negative peers. Theoretical and research implications are discussed.

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2023, Vol. 21(2) 149–171

By Paul Gray, Hannah Smithson and Deborah Jump

While crime has fallen rapidly over the last 20 years, serious youth violence (hereafter referred to as SYV) – defined by the Youth Justice Board (YJB) as ‘any drug, robbery or violence against the person offence that has a gravity score1 of five of more’ – is a growing concern in England and Wales (Home Office, 2018). Despite a substantial reduction in violent crime since the mid-1990s, levels of SYV remain ‘stubbornly high’ (Irwin-Rogers et al., 2020: 16). Alongside this, research has consistently found that justice-involved children have childhoods characterised by disproportionate adverse childhood experiences (hereafter referred to as ACEs) (see, for example, Baglivio et al., 2014; Boswell, 1996; Dierkhising et al., 2013; Jacobson et al., 2010). ACEs are potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood. They include, for example: experiencing violence, abuse, or neglect; witnessing domestic violence; bereavement; substance misuse within the family; mental health problems within the family; parental separation; or having a family member in prison (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). ACEs have been shown to have lasting, negative effects on health, wellbeing, and opportunity. They have also been shown to have an impact on the likelihood of both future violence perpetration and victimisation (Fox et al., 2014). There has been a growing awareness in recent years of the importance of being traumainformed when dealing with children who have a history of ACEs. This is especially the case with those agencies who work with justice-involved children (Glendinning et al., 2021; Liddle et al., 2016). Being trauma-informed means recognising and acknowledging the impact that ACEs can have on an individual and providing appropriate support to that person. In essence, a trauma-informed approach necessitates a change of perspective from ‘What’s wrong with you?’ to ‘What happened to you?’ (see the earlier Academic Insights paper 2020/05 by McCartan). Alongside the current emphasis on trauma-informed practice, is the growing call for the participation of justice-involved children in the development of youth justice policy and practice (Ministry of Justice and Youth Justice Board, 2019; Youth Justice Board, 2016; see also Academic Insights paper 2021/10). Participatory working is fundamental to the principle of Child First. Indeed, in Positive Youth Justice: Child First, Offenders Second, ‘children are part of the solution, not part of the problem’ (Haines and Case, 2015: 45). Research evidence indicates that when participation, engagement and inclusion processes are co-created between children and practitioners, this can produce effective practice relationships (Case and Haines, 2015; Smithson et al., 2020; Smithson and Jones, 2021). This Academic Insight presents the findings from a research study that was commissioned by Manchester City Council’s Youth Justice Service and funded through the YJB’s Reducing Serious Youth Violence (Reference Group) Pathfinder programme. Through the SYV pathfinder projects, the YJB aims to develop understanding around the drivers of SYV. To this end, this research brought together the four areas outlined above – SYV, ACEs, trauma-informed practice, and youth participation – to investigate the complex relationship between SYV and ACEs. By working in close collaboration with justice-involved children and youth justice workers in Manchester, the research had the following objectives: • to gauge the nature and prevalence of ACEs among justice-involved children in Manchester • to explore children’s own articulations of the causes and drivers of SYV • to develop a more in-depth understanding of the relationship between SYV and ACEs • to explore children’s experiences of current youth justice practice, in particular their experiences of trauma-informed practice • to co-create a resource to be used by youth justice professionals. To meet these objectives, a mixed-methods approach incorporating quantitative, qualitative, and participatory elements was adopted. The quantitative element of the research was a bespoke ACEs assessment tool, based largely on the 10-point scale used in the original ACEs study conducted in the US in the 1990s (Felitti et al., 1998). The qualitative element had two strands: semi-structured interviews with youth justice workers and drama therapists commissioned by Manchester Youth Justice Service; and narrative interviews – using the McAdams Life Story Interview method (Bauer and McAdams, 2004) – with justice-involved children. The participatory element of the research was a series of workshops involving justice-involved children, the research team, drama therapists from One Education (www.oneeducation.co.uk), and a professional sports coach. Given the sensitive nature of the research topic, the decision was made to use storytelling techniques in the workshops to elicit further discussion around SYV and ACEs: specifically the 6-Part Story Method (Dent-Brown and Wang, 2006). This method was particularly appropriate as it allowed the children to create fictional, third-person accounts and provide metaphors rather than a description of actual lived events (Dwivedi, 1997).

Academic Insights 2021/13. Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2021. 18p.

By Jonathan Evans, Tricia Skuse, Dusty Kennedy and Jonny Matthew

The genesis of this paper has its origins in two articles: • the first article attempted to answer the question of whether trauma-informed practice and desistance theories represent competing or potentially complementary approaches to working with children in conflict with the law (Evans et al., 2020). • the second, based on empirical fieldwork conducted in a Welsh youth justice service (YJS), explored how desistance theories were being interpreted, applied and – in some cases – re-imagined by practitioners (Deering and Evans, 2021). Building upon these articles, this paper identifies some of the key ideas and evidence that could contribute to a practice agenda which supports desistance from offending processes, engages with social adversity and trauma, and helps to empower children and young people to work towards their pro-social goals.

Academic Insights 2023/08. Manchester, UK: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2023. 20p.

By Katie Hunter

This thesis is concerned with the overrepresentation of black and minority ethnic (BME) children and looked after children, in the youth justice system in general and the secure state in particular, in England and Wales. In the period 1993 to 2008, youth justice was characterised by a process of extensive penal expansion. Since 2008, however, the child prison population has fallen dramatically. The decline has been linked to pragmatic cost reduction as well as an increase in diversionary measures which keep children out of the system altogether. However, BME children and looked after children have not benefited from this decline to the same extent as white children and non-looked after children. The contraction in the system has served to intensify existing inequalities. This thesis interrogates the nature and extent of the overrepresentation of these groups. It employs a mixed-methods approach which involves analyses of secondary data and in-depth interviews with 27 national youth justice and children’s services professionals. This thesis builds upon and extends previous research, it determines that BME children are criminalised through ‘institutional racialisation’ which operates on micro, meso and macro levels. The thesis signals policing as having a particularly powerful influence on the levels of BME children in the system. The weight of these findings lie precisely in the fact that they are so longstanding. …

Liverpool: University of Liverpool, 2019. 307p.

By Tim Bateman, Anne-Marie Day and John Pitts

Although there are some important limitations with the data, the available evidence demonstrates conclusively that children who are in the care of the local authority are consistently over-represented among those who come to the attention of the youth justice system. A similar disproportionality is also evident within the children’s custodial estate. While it appears that the relationship is long-standing, it has only recently become the focus of policy attention which has begun to explore some of the reasons for the patterns discernible in the figures (see, for example, Schofield et al, 2012: Laming, 2016). In particular, an independent review of the relationship between the care system and the criminal justice system, led by Lord Laming, commissioned an extensive exploration of the available literature that provides a useful baseline for future research (Staines, 2016). The current review aims to provide a context for research, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, that aims to identity the particular pathways of looked after children into, through and leaving custody and to establish in what ways, and to what extent, these might differ from those of children who do not have care experience. It does not accordingly aim to replicate the earlier work identified in the previous paragraph; instead the intention is to draw on previous reviews, and relevant additional material, through a lens that focuses on the existing evidence base as it relates specifically to the likelihood of children being incarcerated, to their subsequent custodial experience and to the provision of effective resettlement once they have been released.

Luton: University of Bedfordshire, 2018. 37p.

By Emily D. Buehler

This report describes substantiated incidents of youth sexual victimization perpetrated by youth or by staff in juvenile facilities. The report presents data on the incidents of sexual victimization, such as location and time of day. It also provides characteristics of the victims and perpetrators of the victimization. The report details services provided to the victim and consequences for the perpetrator. In part, it fulfills BJS’s mandates under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA; P.L. 108–79).

Highlights. During 2013–18: About 62% of youth-on-youth sexual victimization incidents occurred in an area under video surveillance in state juvenile systems, and 51% of incidents in local and private facilities occurred in an area under video surveillance. There were three times as many victims of abusive sexual contact (1,054) as victims of nonconsensual sexual acts (358). About 63% of victims and 73% of perpetrators of incidents of youth-on-youth sexual victimization were male. There were 657 victims and 511 perpetrators of staff-on-youth sexual victimization in juvenile justice facilities.

Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2023. 33p.

By Marty Langley and Josh Sugarmann

The gun violence epidemic is devastating for America’s youth. VPC research helps educate the public on youth gun violence victimization, and we work directly with policymakers, gun violence prevention groups, and community leaders to move toward effective solutions.

For five consecutive years, the VPC published Lost Youth, a series of reports that put a spotlight on youth victims of gun violence in California county by county. The primary goal of these reports is to offer localized information on youth homicide victimization on the county level to better inform citizens, advocates, service providers, and policymakers.

By comparing on a county-by-county level the homicide rates for youth and young adults in California, it is our goal to add a new, ongoing context for presenting information and measuring progress on gun violence against youth, while at the same time helping to support discussion, analysis, policy development, and action. Above all, this work is conducted in the belief that information aids in the development of sound prevention strategies — on the local, state, and national levels.

Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center, 2015. 36p.