Youth Crime and Youth Culture in the Inner City

Bill Sanders

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• ISBN:
  9781134256020
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Sozialwissenschaften
• Subtopic: Sozialarbeit

Youth Crime and Youth Culture in the Inner City offers an interpretive account of juvenile delinquency within the modern inner city, an environment which is characterized by a long history of social deprivation and high rates of crime. A wide range of topics are explored, such as young people's motivation for, frequency of, and attitudes towards, a variety of illegal behaviors, such as street robbery, burglary, theft, drug use, drug selling and violence. Why do young people commit these offences? Who do they commit them against? How do they feel afterwards? This book attempts to answer these important theoretical questions, utilizing ethnographic research collected over a seven year period and based around the London inner city borough of Lambeth.

1 Research in the inner city

In my attempt to study US-style gangs in England, I needed to find an area where they might exist – a densely populated, multicultural, inner-city area, in a large urban city with a high rate of crime and unemployment (see Klein 1995; Spergel 1995). So I packed what I could into two suitcases, grabbed my trusty old Apple computer and headed to London. The capital seemed like a good place to start, and, besides, some friends living in the East End extended an invitation to stay with them until I got settled. Where in London to study? My first impressions of London were that the north and west parts of the city are relatively affluent, and that areas in the east and the south are somewhat ‘rough’. I knew that some research on young people and crime had already been conducted in London’s East End (for example, Downes 1966; Hobbs 1988; Willmott 1966), and that Foster (1990) did her research somewhere in South London. I figured that south of the Thames was an ideal place to study gangs because research on young people who have offended in this area seemed relatively scant. Where in the south of London? This decision was not difficult as there was one place I repeatedly read about and heard in the news: Brixton. Brixton, however, turned out to be a relatively small area with loosely defined boundaries, typical of many areas in London. London’s boroughs, however, have solid boundaries, making the collection of demographic and other data about them more feasible. As such, I decided the study should be in the borough containing Brixton – Lambeth.

Upon further inspection, Lambeth looked like an excellent place to conduct research. Importantly, all of the demographic characteristics I looked for in an attempt to find and study street gangs were in Lambeth. Furthermore, very little research on young people who have offended had been conducted in this borough (although see Burney 1990). No question; I had found my setting. So, in the middle of June 1996 I moved into a room in a two-up, two-down terraced house located directly behind the high street in Brixton – the same room where the majority of this book was written.

My general idea was to do an ethnographic study in Lambeth to determine if criminal and/or juvenile street gangs existed. I wanted to find a group of young people that somewhat resembled a US-style gang, befriend them, observe how they interacted with one another at close proximity, talk to them to see how they made sense of their offences and look at how offending fitted in with the rest of their lives – just like other researchers (for example Parker 1974; Patrick 1973). However, I knew this would be difficult. I knew no one in Lambeth, had no connections with anyone who could act as a middle person between myself and young people, and did not even know my way around the borough. In order to collect data on young people who have offended I hit the ground running, and attempted several ways to find some willing to speak with me. It proved to be a very difficult task.

Figure 1.1 The author in front of his residence in February 1997. The house to his right would later become occupied by crack cocaine and heroin users and sellers.

In the spirit of ethnography, I not only moved into the area of study, but also took a job in a second-hand clothing store, and did some volunteer work with a local, community-based organisation that worked with young people who have offended, which I refer to as ‘The Design’.¹ I figured these practices would not only acquaint me with Lambeth, but also help me meet people and make friends, and, in a sense, make me more a part of Lambeth. I also reckoned this would help introduce me to young people who have offended, and those who work with them.

After my first year in Lambeth, the research started taking shape, yet not exactly as planned. I failed to find a willing group of young people to conduct a participant-observational study with. I made some progress with a group of them on my street, several of whom had histories of offending, but they consistently flaked out on our arranged meetings. My hopes of a such a study slowly dwindled. I needed to shift my plan of attack if I wanted to gather information on gangs (or their absence) in Lambeth. Indeed, as others have noted, collecting first-hand data on groups such as ‘young offenders’ is very difficult (see Lee 1993; Maguire 2000).

Taking stock after roughly twelve months in the field I counted a series of interviews with those who worked with young people who offended in Lambeth, such as police and probation officers, youth justice workers, detached youth workers, and those at youth and community centres. These interviews contained a wealth of information about young people in Lambeth in general. Also, around April 1997, I befriended one young person, Nathan, through my volunteer work at The Design, and talked with him extensively about his offending. Initially, my intentions were not to involve any of the young people met through The Design in my research, but after several meetings with Nathan, it became clear he was exactly the type of young person I sought to interview – one with a history of offending. On our second meeting, I told Nathan of the study and asked if he would mind participating. I received permission from both The Design and Nathan’s mother, and everyone was told of my researcher status and intentions, once, if not several times. Nathan and I met up about fifteen times, where we took in a movie, ate at a fast-food restaurant and discussed various aspects about his life, including his offending. Our relationship officially ended when Nathan was put on remand for robbery.

From looking at my interview and observational data collected during the first twelve months of the research, from June 1996 to June 1997, it became clear that US style-street gangs were not in Lambeth and that they never really have been. Absolutely nothing was mentioned by these respondents to suggest that young people in Lambeth joined gangs or engaged in gang-like behaviour (such as possessing identifiable colours or insignias, or long-standing territorial disputes). Informal observations in the borough also failed to record any groupings similar to US-style gangs, and conversations with neighbours and young people on my street suggested that US-style gangs did not appear to exist in the borough. The professionals and young people were specifically asked about delinquent groups or collectives of young people who have offended on a consistent basis, in some sort of combination, not necessarily ‘gangs’. No one I interviewed or came across in the first twelve months really talked about anything like US-style gangs, and the word ‘gang’ itself was not even mentioned by them, a point noted by other researchers in England (such as Foster 1990; Patrick 1973). Furthermore, little evidence existed to suggest young people gathered in ‘posses’ or as yardies, groupings perhaps somewhat akin to gangs previously reported in the British media (see Ruggiero and South 1995). Mick, a detached youth worker in Brixton, said ‘this posse thing’ was largely based on media ‘hype’. He elaborated:

The way the media portrays things. The media is all about hyping things. Any youngsters will go around in groups. I think what [the media] tend to do is go out and say, uh, ‘A Black Posse of Young Men’. They don’t say a group of young men. They say posse or they say gang. Right and that’s the way the media portray that … [Young people he has worked with] are not as bad as the media portray them, this posse thing.

Because a participant-observational study of young people and crime was not looking feasible, and because US-style street gangs did not seem to be in Lambeth, I decided to shift both the focus of this research and how to carry it out. Nonetheless, my central purposes remained intact: to find out what offending means to young people in the borough. Over the course of the first year, I collected a small handful of in-depth interviews with those who worked with young people who offended in Lambeth; established a friendly, ongoing relationship with Nathan, an ‘active offender’; and, more importantly, made a series of connections with those who might be able to put me in contact with other young people who offended, or those who work with them in the borough. Roughly the next eighteen months, between June 1997 and October 1998, were spent networking these connections and conducting as many in-depth interviews as I could with young people who have offended in Lambeth and those who have worked with them.

About two and a half years into the research I decided that I had collected enough interviews. In total I conducted 31 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with young people with various histories of offending, and 67 with ‘professionals’ – police officers, youth justice workers, youth and community workers, and detached youth workers. The young people interviewed were pulled from three distinct pools: a group from a youth and community centre, a group from an educational unit, and several whom I met through Nathan. Both the young people and professionals interviewed were asked similar questions regarding offending. Specifically, I asked the young people if they had done anything they knew was illegal or something they knew that a police officer would stop them for. All were explicitly aware of what I referred to. During the interviews the young people reflected on their offences and the professionals reflected on those committed by the young people they worked with.

The age range of the young people in my sample is 13–23, but the majority were aged between 14 and 16. Also, from the pool of available young people to interview, only three were female. The gender bias of this research stemmed, in part, from the approach. At the youth centres and off-site unit where many of the interviews were conducted, young women were the exception, and were thus unavailable to be interviewed. When interviewed, the professionals’ responses concerned young men, not young women. This observation suggests that the professionals’ conceptualisation of collectives of young offenders in the borough is largely gender specific. To be sure, that most crime is committed by boys and men is a frequently made observation in many criminological studies (Messerschmidt 1993, 2000; Newburn and Stanko 1994; Sutherland and Cressey 1978).

All but a few of the interviews were tape-recorded and conducted with the aid of an interview schedule. Those with the young people were held either at the educational unit or at the community centre where I met them, or at Nathan’s home. Nearly all of the professionals were interviewed where they worked. In-depth and informal interviews were not only the most available methods, but perhaps the most feasible and effective. They allowed access to the young people’s worlds, and we can somewhat gauge how they behaved or are going to behave based on what they say. Their interview responses are not to be taken as absolute truths, but rather as ‘fallible evidence’ of their ‘realities’ (Maxwell 1996; Wengraf 2001). These interviews were also beneficial because they allowed for more elusive sociological concepts, such as values, beliefs and norms, to be accurately examined (Arksey and Knight 1999; Rubin and Rubin 1995) – concepts addressed throughout this book. These concepts play central roles in theories on crime and delinquency, and addressing the values and norms of the young people in relation to their offending behaviours allows us the opportunity to determine the extent of the accuracy of these theories in explaining or evoking these behaviours. In-depth interviews are very useful at drawing out the circumstance, context and incentive regarding the young people’s offending (Hakim 1987; Rubin and Rubin 1995).

Interviews with the professionals proved invaluable. Youth justice workers, youth and community workers, and detached youth workers spend a considerable amount of time working with young people in Lambeth, and they said they probed them on similar questions to those I had put to my sample (for example, Why are you committing these offences? How do you feel about them afterwards?). Importantly, similarities existed between how the young people I interviewed interpreted their offences and what the professionals said about the young people they worked with on many points, including: why they commit offences; what they spend money earned from their offences on; what kinds of drugs they use; how they get along with police officers. As such, the comments from the professionals often serve to support points and arguments made about my sample of young people.

The discrepancy between the number of professionals and young people interviewed may be explained by the difficulties in accessing young people who have offended. Basically, in Lambeth I found it much easier to find willing and accessible professionals to interview in comparison to such young people. I did, however, make several attempts to interview others. For instance, for about six months I corresponded with a police officer and a prison liaison officer about interviewing young people from Lambeth on remand in Feltham, a young offenders’ institution. While it looked promising at the start, I was eventually denied access due to ‘insufficient staff’. I also tried to interview young people through the help of detached youth workers, youth and community workers and youth justice workers, but these attempts were all in vain. Not only was it difficult to find a way to get the information I wanted, but when one path became seemingly clear – in-depth interviews – I then found it very difficult to find young people with histories of offending available and/or willing to be interviewed. I felt lucky to have the 31.

Notes on access: bragging, empathy, doing something different

The difficulty in obtaining first-hand information about young people who are ‘active’ offenders is well documented (Jacobs and Wright 1999; Maguire 2000; Wright and Decker 1994; Wright et al. 1992). Indeed, accessing young people with histories of offending in Lambeth was not easy. For young people in the borough, the idea of talking to a complete stranger about all the offences they committed (or were still committing) may have not sat so well with them. Through much effort, I found 31 of them willing to talk to me about their offences.

Why would young people want to talk with me about their offences in the first place? One observation noted during the interviews with those from the community centre or the off-site educational unit was that they appeared to use the interview as an excuse to escape from their engagement at that time. Even though the young people at both locations attended these places voluntarily, they mentioned something along the lines of not wanting to participate in their current activity. In this sense, the interviews lured them away, offering a break from their routine behaviour.

Another useful research tool that I think helped me gain access was my ‘foreign-ness’, and how respondents may have perceived their position in relation to mine during the course of the interview. For instance, Hannertz (1969) mentioned his Swedish nationality gave him an advantage over local white people when researching black people and black culture in America. Furthermore, my accent is classless and not regionally bound (seemingly a quality by which people in England somewhat gauge one another), and may have aroused their interest simply due its difference. In other words, they might have simply thought it intriguing to speak with ‘the foreign guy’ or ‘the stranger’ (see also Merton 1972). Many of the young people interviewed were very interested in learning about specific things in the USA, and enjoyed talking about what they knew or believed about the country, and asked about my own upbringing, experiences and opinions. Conversations with them held before, after and sometimes during the interviews often strayed into issues of US youth culture, such as music, fashions, issues of the opposite sex, and other interests.

Bravado amongst some of the young people may have been another reason they agreed to be interviewed. For instance, Wright, Decker, Redfern and Smith (1992) commented on their respondents’ predilection to brag about their current ‘score’, and how they enjoyed telling others about their offending. One of them said, ‘What’s the point of scoring if nobody knows about it?’ (p. 154; see also Armstrong 1993; Hobbs 1993; Jacobs and Wright 1999; Shover 1996). Padilla (1992: 17–18) also made a similar point when discussing a group of young people he researched called ‘The Diamonds’ who sold crack: ‘I discovered that, in general, like many other teenagers in US society today, Coco and other members of the Diamonds have had a craving to tell and share their stories with the adult world for a very long time.’

Donning the ‘white lab coat’ when conducting sociological field research and doing it ‘by the book’ are not always the best ways to gain access or obtain accurate responses. When conducting qualitative research a researcher must rely on a great deal of social skills in order to establish a proficient relationship with the subject (Ackroyd and Hughes 1992; Arksey and Knight 1999; Armstrong 1993; Hobbs 1993; Shaffir 1991). Such interpersonal skills were most needed in this research – in-depth interviews with young people who have offended. Researchers have, no doubt, benefited from the social skills acquired from their personal experiences when studying social phenomena. For instance, imagine the relative ease with which Ned Polsky, a billiards aficionado, accessed pool-hall regulars when researching Hustlers, Beats and Others (1969), or how Howard Becker, a jazz musician, probably had few problems infiltrating the lives of marijuana-smoking jazz musicians when researching Outsiders (1963). These researchers were probably afforded access to these lifestyles and offered accurate information about those who live them largely due to the parallels between them and their topics of study.

The interpersonal skills acquired from my upbringing around those in involved in crime, my previous employment working with young people ‘at risk’ of offending in various mediums, and cultural aspects about my life probably aided my access to the young people, and helped secure their rapport. Like many of the young people interviewed, I, too, have grown up around crime, and have friends and relatives who have been in legal trouble. These issues were also brought up peripherally in some of the interviews. Moreover, many of these young people and I shared similar tastes in fashion and music. A likeness existed in the way we dressed and our favourite types of music. We also shared slang words, particularly the term ‘what’s up?’ While the use of this word is relatively ubiquitous in the USA, its use in London appeared, at least during the course of the research, to be very ‘hip’. These qualities, along with my long hair (at the time) and earring, might have suggested to these young people that great differences existed between myself and a stereotypical ‘academic’ complete with camel-hair patches on the elbows of a tweed jacket. What I suggest overall is that, on various levels, many similarities between the young people interviewed and myself were apparent. To some degree, these parallels in life experience and semblance in culture helped me gain access to these young people, and enabled me to draw out accurate and elaborate information from them (Arksey and Knight 1999).

Different young offenders

So that I could explore patterns, the 31 young people were divided into two generic groups based on the classifications and numbers of offences they said they committed, the number of times they mentioned being arrested, the offence(s) that led to the arrest and whether or not they said they had recently (at the time of the interview) offended (see Table 1.1). The groups are labelled those ‘more involved in offending’ and those ‘less involved in offending’. Throughout the book comparisons are made both between these categories and within them on various themes related to the young people’s offences and other aspects of their lives. The groups are used for practical purposes, and serve only to distinguish between different types of young people who have offended. Like Foster (1990: 20), when describing the ‘levels of villainy’ ascribed to those in her study, the labels of the offending groups here only serve ‘as a crude analytical tool within which to consider … attitudes and behaviour’.

Table 1.1 Reported arrests and offences by the young people by offending category

Those considered ‘more involved in offending’ committed serious offences, including burglaries, street robberies and/or selling drugs. About half of these young people mentioned still committing some offences at the time of the...