Research consistently shows that young people from out-of-home care (OHC) are over-represented in criminal justice systems. The disproportionate numbers of people with a care history within the youth justice system and adult prisons have led some to pose the question as to whether OHC is simply a stepping stone to custody (Blades et al. 2011). Concerns regarding over-representation while in care, among young people transitioning from care and ex-care leavers, have been reported in a wide range of contexts including England and Wales (Barn and Tan 2012; Darker et al. 2008), Northern Ireland (Youth Justice Review Team 2011), Australia (Malvaso and Delfabbro 2015; Mendes et al. 2014; Mendes et al. in this volume), and the USA (Cusick and Courtney 2007; Jonson-Reid and Barth 2000; Vaughn et al. 2008). Findings from the research literature on why young people transitioning from care may be more vulnerable to becoming involved in the criminal justice system can be distilled into three main themes. Firstly, many young people in care have experienced a range of adversities that place them at higher risk of offending. Secondly, the care experience may in itself be âcriminogenicâ (i.e. a factor leading to an increased likelihood of offending). Thirdly (and linked to the first two points), the transition to adulthood for young people leaving care is often compressed and accelerated, placing them at increased vulnerability to a range of negative outcomes.
This chapter charts these three themes by considering the research on care leavers coming into contact with youth or adult justice systems. We note the application of criminological theory in a small number of studies, and argue that the findings from research on desistance, while focused on the reasons why people cease offending, may provide a useful framework for considering future areas of research and implications for practice. This is because it holds potential for an examination and understanding of the interplay of agency, structure and the importance of identity in young peopleâs lives and in transitions.
Risk Factors
Much of the research on the over-representation of young people in care and care leavers within the criminal justice system has been influenced by ârisk factorâ research, which seeks to establish and quantify a range of characteristics that place young people at risk of offending (Farrington 1996, 2007). This broad body of research, sometimes referred to as the âRisk Factor Prevention Paradigmâ (RFPP) (Haines and Case 2008), is premised on identifying precursors to personal and socially harmful behaviours in order to intervene to reduce risk and harm (Haines and Case 2008; OâMahony 2009). It has been particularly influential in the sphere of youth justice, but has also permeated other areas of social policy relating to families, communities, child and youth development and education and health (Armstrong 2004; Kemshall 2002; Turnbull and Spence 2011).
RFPP is derived from longitudinal research such as the Cambridge Delinquency Study (Farrington 2007), which followed a group of young people over the life course and sought to retrospectively identify factors that led some to become involved with offending in order to develop predictive tools that would enable earlier intervention. This work and further developments have led to the identification of a range of putative risk factors focusing on the characteristics of the individuals and their immediate environment. Individual factors include hyperactivity, low self-control, low IQ, poor ability to delay gratification and poor school performance. Environmental risk factors include lack of parental supervision, disrupted families, low family income and living in poor, high-crime areas (see Farrington 1996, 2007).
There are numerous critiques of risk factor research and its applications. Some question its predictive utility, arguing that it lacks explanatory power by virtue of its conflating of correlations and causality (OâMahony 2009). Others have observed that the narrow conceptions of what constitutes risk (i.e. those focusing on the characteristics of individuals) do not sufficiently account for wider structural influences such as levels of inequality and the extent of social welfare provision (France 2008; MacDonald et al. 2005). Linked to this are observations that the focus on the level of the individual is associated with neo-liberal strategies of âresponsibilizationâ whereby the target of intervention (i.e. the risk-bearing subject) bears both the burden of these risks and the responsibility for effecting change (Phoenix and Kelly 2013).
Given the orientation of the RFPP, it is therefore unsurprising that research regularly points to an overlap between the backgrounds of those with experiences of care and the risks associated with offending (Darker et al. 2008; Hayden 2010; Schofield et al. 2012). Similar risk factors, which are said to increase a young personâs propensity to offend, are extensively reported in studies of care populations, for example, poor caregiver attachments, lack of parental supervision and experiences of maltreatment (Smith and Thornberry 1995; Stewart et al. 2008). Some studies, therefore, seek to explain the over-representation of young people from state care in the criminal justice system by reference to the fact that they are more likely to score highly in many risk factor domains (Schofield et al. 2012; Schofield et al. 2015; Vaughn et al. 2008).
While identification of risks can add to our understanding and potentially help to target services and interventions, the application of the RFPP lens (particularly in relation to individual risk) is potentially tautological. And even where attention is paid to wider factors, such as family composition and community context, these tend to be narrowly constructed in that they preclude consideration of wider important structural factors, such as levels of inequality or social welfare provision. In an attempt to widen this lens, an emerging body of work has sought to integrate a consideration of individual factors alongside the characteristics of the care system. This research has focused on systemic issues within the care system and provision of supports (or the absence of these) for young people leaving care (Fitzpatrick 2014; Mendes et al. 2014).
Criminogenic Care?
The type and quality of care placement may have an impact on whether a young person becomes involved in offending and/or comes to the attention of authorities for criminal behaviour (Darker et al. 2008; Hayden 2010; Taylor 2006). In particular, problematic issues have been identified regarding residential care placements when compared with foster care placements. Residential care is often considered a placement of âlast resortâ (Hayden 2010; Shaw 2014). In many instances, young people in residential care have experienced multiple previous placements. Residential care may also be used for older teenagers who are considered âtoo difficultâ to place in foster care. This positioning of residential care means that young people with multiple and complex difficulties are placed together in an environment that is ill-equipped to meet their complex developmental needs (Littlechild 2011; Shaw 2014). Within this context, peer influences may be particularly significant (Ashford and Morgan 2004; Taylor 2006; Shaw 2014). Furthermore, policies in residential units may lead to the criminalization of young people. Examples include calling the police for relatively minor infractions, which, in a non-care context, would be dealt with by parents or other adults without recourse to authorities (Darker et al. 2008; Hayden 2010; Fitzpatrick 2014). Other policies may also lead to young people in residential care coming to the attention of the police, and therefore increasing their likelihood of being charged with incidental offences (Hayden 2010). For example, within the UK, there are policies in place requiring residential units to report a young person as missing if they fail to return home at a particular time. In some instances, this can lead to young people incurring criminal charges (e.g. being found in possession of a drug when they are located), and early contact with the police can impact on future contact. This issue has garnered recent policy attention in the context of reviews focusing on child sexual exploitation and the particular vulnerabilities of young people who go missing from care (Jay 2014). Here, it has been noted that, in some instances, young people are treated as potential offenders and that, within this context, the fact that they have been the victims of crime may not be recognized (Fitzpatrick 2014; Jay 2014). Further still, wider research shows that young people who have had prior negative experiences of police contact may be reluctant to make reports when they have been the victim of crime themselves, thereby compounding this negative effect (McAlister and Carr 2014).
The criminalization of young people in care is an issue that intersects with other areas of social policy and the extent to which boundaries between child welfare and youth justice systems are delineated. One of the obvious differences that impacts on this is the fact that the minimum age of criminal responsibility varies widely across countries. In Europe alone, it ranges from 10 (England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Switzerland) to 18 (Belgium), in the USA it varies from 6 to 14, in Australia it is 10 (although doli incapax provisions also apply) (Cipriani 2009; Cuneen et al. 2011; Dunkel 2015). Doli incapax refers to a presumption that a child is incapable of a crime because he/she does not have sufficient understanding of right and wrong. This can be used as a rebuttable presumption, that is, it must be taken as true by the court unless proven otherwise. In Australia, this applies to children aged 10â14. In some countries (e.g. England, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland), doli incapax provisions previously existed in legislation, but have been repealed. In places where the age of criminal responsibility is lower, there are clearly higher risks of young people being officially processed through the criminal justice system and, as a consequence, acquiring a criminal record (Carr et al. 2015). If, as the research evidence cited above suggests, young people from care are more likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system by virtue of the fact that they are on the radar of the child welfare system, then this may have a long-reaching effect. The impact of system contact and the potential for young people to be ârecycledâ through the criminal justice system are supported by findings from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime (a longitudinal study on pathways into, and out of, offending of a large cohort of young people who started secondary school in 1998). In this research, McAra and McVie (2007, p. 319) found that âselection effects in the youth justice process mean that certain categories of young people â the âusual suspectsâ â become propelled into a repeat cycle of referral into the systemâ. Given the issues highlighted regarding the disproportionate contact that looked after children may have with criminal justice agencies, it is not hard to see how they too may ...