Appendix 1 Summary of UK policy in relation to gangs
UK national policy on gang-related activities
The ‘Ending Gang Youth Violence Report’ (2011) sets out Coalition strategy for tackling the problem in
the aftermath of the 2011 riots, an approach which addresses the ‘many factors that drive gang
membership – spanning domestic violence and relationship breakdown, educational failure and poor
employability’. Its focus on ‘the underlying drivers of the violence’ excludes macro-economic factors and
the significance of the social determinants of criminality. This Report dovetails with the Government’s
Social Justice Strategy, which ‘addresses the root causes of disadvantage’ by focussing on targeting
individuals and families with multiple needs.
Current government policy on ‘social justice’ hinges on the claim that there are 120,000 ‘troubled
families’ in England, leading ‘chaotic lives’ and who live in severe deprivation (the figure is hotly
disputed in the literature: see Levitas, R. 2012) and reinforces the limited place for ‘evidence’ driven
policy. The Social Justice Strategy focuses almost entirely upon these families. Troubled families
households are deemed those which:
-
Are involved in crime and anti-social behaviour
Have children not in school
Have an adult on out-of-work benefits
Cause high costs to the public purse
The Coalition’s Gangs Strategy (2011) targets 29 gang ‘hot-spots’ in England with £1.2m of new money
made available for 2011-2013 to fund the government's refreshed anti-gang strategy with a further
£10m "redirected" from the Home Office's share of 2012’s Early Intervention Fund into the crossgovernment drive targeted at designated ‘hotspot’ gang areas. The £400,000 a year extra for the
preventative anti-gangs strategy contrasts with the £2m to £4m a year price tag the justice ministry
disclosed in 2011 to be the annual cost of introducing a mandatory four-month jail sentence for
teenagers involved in aggravated knife crime. This at a time when community safety budgets (the
‘Community Safety Grant’) are being heavily cut.
The Gangs Strategy acknowledges girls' victimisation and offending; committing funding to developing
specialist services (dedicating £1.2 million to fund 13 support workers for girls vulnerable to, or exposed
to, gang-related sexual violence); and recognising the support needed, for boys and girls, to challenge
the stereotypes of masculinity that can underpin the violent control and coercion in gang contexts. It
sets out five key principles:
-
provision of support
-
prevention,
-
pathways out of crime
-
effective punishment; and
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
-
partnership working
The chosen areas were identified from a range of information sources on serious youth violence,
including statistics on hospital admissions and local intelligence on the severity of gang activity. The
strategy established an Ending Gang and Youth Violence Team (led by a police superintendent) working
with a virtual network of over 100 expert advisers to provide practical advice and support to local areas
with a gang or serious youth violence problem. Underpinned by ‘risk management plans’ interventions
supplement the ‘troubled family’ programme, government estimate that the cost of troubled families to
the public is around £8 billion a year. Measures include a Criminal Behaviour Order that can be attached
to a criminal conviction, and a Crime Prevention Injunction to stop anti-social behaviour before it
escalates. Powers now exist to speed up the process for evicting anti-social tenants from social housing
and were applied in the aftermath of the 2011 riots.
The drivers of early intervention and the targeting of resources to known ‘hotspots’ is the reduction of
anti-social behaviour, safer neighbourhoods and reduced gang activism. It a policy of crime control and
crime management. The reasoning behind the selection of these areas is:



high rates of serious violence;
high rates of admissions to hospital for assault using sharp objects; and
a significant local gang problem.
The different roles of national and local agencies operating in a gang-related environment In framing the 2011 gang strategy the Coalition government has utilised the Centre for Social Justice
definition of a gang (2009) ‘as a relatively durable, predominantly street-based group of young people
who:




see themselves (and are seen by others) as a discernible group
engage in criminal activity and violence
lay claim over territory (not necessarily geographical but can include an illegal economy
territory);
are in conflict with other, similar, gangs.’
The national policy framework signalled in the 2011 Coalition Gangs Strategy identifies five key
principles addressed through integrated service provision:
 Preventing young people becoming involved in violence in the first place with a new emphasis
on early intervention and prevention
 Pathways out of violence and the gang culture for young people wanting to make a break with
the past
 Punishment and enforcement to suppress the violence of those refusing to exit violent lifestyles
 Partnership working to join up the way local areas respond to gang and other youth violence
 Providing support to local areas wanting to tackle their gang or youth violence problem
Oversight of the 2011 gang’s strategy lies with the Home Office and the secretary of state who reports
annually to parliament on the progress of the strategy and chairs an Inter-Ministerial Group, chaired by
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
the Home Secretary, which meets on a quarterly basis to review progress, including by the Ending Gang
and Youth Violence team. The Home Secretary also leads the Home Office gang strategy’s expert
advisory group. (The ‘Troubled Families‘ programme is managed through the Department of
Communities and Local Government (DCLG) working directly with those local authorities funded through
the strategy.)
Legislation relating to working with gangs or in a gang-related environment and its impact
Gang related legislation and the extension of existing statutory powers provide a further tool in
preventing gang-related violence alongside a range of other prevention, detection and
enforcement measures. Working with and within youth street gangs can be highly challenging and is an
emerging specialism demanding recognition of safe working practices and clear boundaries. (In the UK
employers have statutory duties under Health and Safety legislation (Health & Safety at Work Act 1974;
Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations, 1999) to protect the wellbeing and welfare of
their employees and volunteers and the public affected by their operations/activities.)
Much of the enforcement instruments associated with safeguarding children and young people pre-date
the introduction of the 2011 gangs’ strategy and include:
Crime and Disorder Act 1998/2006
Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended by Section 22 of the Police and Justice Act
2006) imposes a duty on local authorities and police authorities to exercise their functions with regard
to effect on crime and disorder. They are required to do all they can to prevent crime and disorder in the
area, including anti-social and other behaviour adversely affecting the local environment, and the
misuse of drugs, alcohol and other substances.
Gang injunctions
The first instance of injunction powers being used specifically against gangs in the UK was in 2007 by
Birmingham City Council against conflicting gang members, with a view to keeping them apart, banning
association and using curfews to prevent an escalation of serious violence. A number of high profile
gang members were, as a result, remanded in custody although a legal challenge overturned the action.
The new gang injunction legislation puts a legislative framework around the use of conditional
injunctions against gang members, with a ‘control’ limit of 2-years.
The power to apply gang injunctions for adults (post 18) is contained in the Policing and Crime Act 2009.
Gang injunctions allow the police and local authorities to apply to a county court (or the High Court) for
an injunction against an individual who has been involved in gang-related violence.
Gang injunctions allow courts to place a range of prohibitions and requirements on the behaviour and
activities of a person involved in gang-related violence. These conditions could include prohibiting
someone from being in a particular place or requiring them to participate in rehabilitative activities.
The aim of a gang injunction is to prevent a person from engaging in, encouraging or assisting gangrelated violence and may also serve to protect them from gang-related violence. Gang injunctions aim to
prevent serious violence from occurring, break down violent gang culture and engage gang members in
positive activities to help them leave the gang.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
This Act introduces new offences of threatening another with a knife or offensive weapon in public or on
school premises. These offences carry a mandatory minimum sentence of six months in custody for
adults, and a four month Detention and Training Order for 16 and 17 year olds.
The Coalition government has announced its intention to strengthen firearms legislation, which is
already tough, by increasing the maximum penalty for illegal importation of a firearm to life
imprisonment, and creating a new offence of ‘possession with intent to supply’, with a maximum
sentence of life imprisonment. They have also announced an intention to ensure that criminals
convicted of a second serious violent or sexual crime will face a mandatory life sentence.
Government has also extended the work that the UK Border Agency undertakes with the police using
immigration powers to deport dangerous gang members who are not UK citizens. Government also seek
to promote the use of Community Impact Statements to enable the courts to take account of the impact
of youth violence on local communities when deciding sentencing
Publicising the use of Joint Enterprise in cases of gang violence is a new plank of public policy but Courts
and academics have expressed different opinions on the meaning of the common law doctrine of ‘joint
enterprise’ in England and Wales. In gang association contexts the law examines the relationship
between association and complicity (CPS, 2012)
Joint Enterprise
‘Joint Enterprise’ is the name of a 300-year-old English common law that the police have re-employed to
fight gang violence over the last ten years when it has been applied with increasing enthusiasm by the
police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and judges to convict all of those present at the scene of a
serious crime, usually murder, regardless of whether they were aware of any plans or intention for a
crime to be committed. The principle underlying the notion of Joint Enterprise is that when a gang
assaults or murders a victim, even those members who do not physically participate or strike the fatal
blow, but simply lend encouragement and approval to the crime, are as guilty as the chief perpetrator
and will receive similar prison sentences. The House of Lords in its judicial capacity attempted to clarify
the law in R. v. Rahman (2008 UKHL 45). (see: http://www.jointenterprise.co).
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
Appendix 2 Summary of socio-psychological theories
Theory of social disorganisation
While early interest in gangs was primarily descriptive, Thrasher’s (1927) path-finding work on why
adolescent boys become gang members emphasised how economic destabilisation contributed to social
disorganisation, which in turn, led to the breakdown of conventional social institutions such as the
school, the church, and most importantly, the family. The gradual erosion of conventional
establishments meant control of the behaviour of the area's youth was eroded. Thrasher maintained
that one reason why social institutions failed to satisfy the needs of the populace was because so many
people living in disorganised areas were immigrants. Immigrant parents were unable to help their
children adapt to their new culture due to a lack of familiarity with local customs. The lack of support
from established social orders such as schools failed to compensate for this parental ignorance in
opposition the gang emerges in common interests, more especially as a formal structure, attached to
local territory and involved itself in conflict with other gangs and the conventional social order which
opposed them.
Theory of cultural transmission
Thrasher's (1927) observations of social disorganisation threaded into the succession of gang research
that followed. Shaw and McKay (1931, 1942) developed Thrasher's (1927) concepts by arguing that
socially disorganised neighbourhoods culturally transmit criminal traditions which are as transmissible as
any other cultural elements. For Shaw and McKay (1931), families in poor inner city areas have low
levels of functional authority over children, who, once exposed to delinquent traditions, succumb to
delinquent behaviour. In such a cultural climate gang membership becomes a satisfying alternative to
unsatisfactory legitimate conventions. If family, school, church and government all fail to adequately
provide for young people young people will form indigenous groups such as gangs which provide a social
support system in socially disorganized communities (Hill, Howell, Hawkins, & Battin-Pearson, 1999;
Lane & Meeker, 2004; Papachristos & Kirk, 2006). This group formation and the criminality that
emanates from it are passed from generation to generation via socialisation, motivating young people to
deviate from conventional norms. Conversely, conventionality dominates middle class areas and so
middle class youth are not exposed to delinquent traditions and are adequately controlled by parents in
a stable environment. Consequently for Shaw and McKay (1931) it is the environment and not the ethnic
identity of the individual that determines involvement in crime.
Social learning theory: theory of differential association
Although criticisms of the “Chicago school” of gang research for its exclusive focus on working class
criminality (e.g., Cullen, 1984) are justified, the exception to this accusation must be the ideas of
Sutherland (1937), Sutherland and Cressey (1960, 1974). Sutherland recognised that criminal behavior is
prevalent across all classes and developed a theory of differential association where young people
develop the attitudes and skills necessary to become delinquent by associating with individuals who are
“carriers” of criminal norms (Sutherland, 1937). The essence of differential association is that criminal
behavior is learned and the principal part of learning comes from within important personal groups
(Sutherland & Cressey, 1960). Exposure to the attitudes of members of personal groups that either
favour or reject legal codes influences the attitudes of the individual. And people will go on to commit
crimes if they are: exposed more to attitudes that favour law violation than attitudes that favour abiding
by the law: exposed to law-violation attitudes early in life: exposed to law-violation attitudes over a
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
prolonged period of time and exposed to law-violation attitudes from people they like and respect. Once
the appropriate attitudes have developed, young people learn the skills of criminality in much the same
way as they would learn any skills; by example and by tutelage. Sutherland argued that a principal part
of this criminal learning process is provided by small social groups such as gangs.
The appeal of differential association is that it not only looks to the environment for explanations of
criminal behavior to explain differences in populations that other researchers such as Shaw and McKay
(1931, 1942) ignored, Sutherland also considered the transmission and development of psychological
constructs such as attitudes and beliefs about crime. However, Sutherland's ideas also have their critics.
One is that they fail to specify how much individuals need to favour crime before they become
influential in a pro-criminal sense since generally people hold beliefs that justify crime only in certain
situations (Agnew, 1995; Akers, 1997). Differential association has also been criticized for stating simply
that pro- or anti-criminal attitudes develop through the association with others without explaining how
this process works (Akers, 1997). Expanding the ideas of differential association by drawing on
psychological social learning processes, Akers (1997) proposes that crime is learned through: the
development of beliefs that crime is acceptable in some situations; the positive reinforcement of
criminal involvement (e.g. approval of friends, financial gains); and the imitation of the criminal
behaviour of others—especially if they are people the individual values.
Goldstein (1991) examines theories of gang culture and found that many people join a gang initially to
have some form of social recognition. They then start to imitate gang behaviour, because that is what is
expected in a person’s new social circle. This may include acts of aggression. A person may then
continue to commit aggressive acts to fit in socially, or because they feel that if they tried not to, a gang
leader may force them to do it anyway, resulting in consequences
Social Learning Theory argues that crime is learned through the development of beliefs that crime is
acceptable in some situations; the positive reinforcement of criminal involvement (e.g. approval of
friends, financial gains); and the imitation of the criminal behaviour of others —especially if they are
people the individual values (Akers, 1997). A drawback, for example, is that social learning theory fails to
specify how much individuals need to favour crime prior to engaging with like-minded delinquent peers
such as gang members (Akers, 1997).
Theories of socialisation also include the perspectives of social influence, and also obedience. While a
person may be predisposed to committing these acts, they may not do them because of the ways in
which social learning theory suggests. Instead, they may do it because they feel that they must commit
aggressive acts in order to fit in socially, or because they are being forced to do so (or a mix of both).
Although there is obviously an element of social learning theory in aggression, we need to be careful
when generalising the results of a study, as not everyone responds to something in the same way. It has
been found that if a person has unrealistically high self-esteem, then their temper is more likely to be
tested by any social provocations, than someone with low-average self-esteem (Bushman and
Baumeister, 2002).
Critics point to the conceptual shortcomings of this school of thought. It has been accused of seeing
people as motivationally empty, without choice, and as mere vessels to be filled with society's
impositions (Emler & Reicher, 1995). Social Learning Theory, and others, take a uni-directional
perspective of delinquency involving specific risk factors that cause a youth to become delinquent.
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
Interactional theory
(Thornberry, 1987; Thornberry and Krohn, 2001) posit that gang membership results from a reciprocal
relationship between the individual and: peer groups, social structures (i.e. poor neighbourhood, school
and family environments), weakened social bonds, and a learning environment that fosters and
reinforces delinquency. This theory can be considered a marriage between two theories. Control Theory
argues that people who engage in deviant behaviour do so when their bond to society weakens (Hirschi,
1969). However, control theory does not acknowledge the effects of antisocial influences, e.g.
delinquent peers, on gang membership (e.g. Esbensen and Weerman, 2005).
Unlike Control Theory, Interactional Theory provides a more subtle developmental explanation of
delinquency where societal, learning and delinquency factors all interact and mutually influence one
another across an individual‘s lifespan. Thus, the aim of Interactional Theory (Thornberry et al, 2003) is
to examine the reciprocity of relationships between influential factors during the life course (Hall et al,
2006). Interactional theory is likely to have significance for prevention and desistance interventions as it
is consistent with multi agency/disciplinary collaboration and is holistic.
Strain Theory
The central concept of strain theory is that society sets universal goals for its populace and then offers
the ability to achieve them to a limited number of people. The resultant inequality of opportunity causes
a strain on cultural goals. This, Merton (1938) proposes, leads to anomie (Durkheim, 1893); a breakdown
in the cultural structure due to an acute division between prescribed cultural norms and the ability of
members to act in line with them (Merton, 1938). The consequence of anomie is that people adapt to
their circumstances by adopting a specific form of behaviour (Merton, 1938). Cohen (1955) depicts gang
members as working class youth who experience strain resulting in status frustration. Status frustration
may be resolved by the youth associating with similar others in order to “strike out” against middle class
ideals and standards. In turn, this leads to the formation of a delinquent sub-culture where instant
gratification, fighting, and destructive behavior become the new values. It is a rebellion that is
considered to be right precisely because it is wrong in the norms of the larger culture. Cohen argued
that a child experiences frustration and tension due to the unequal opportunities offered in a
meritocratic society that claims to operate on egalitarian principles of equal opportunity. Strain results
when individuals are inadequately socialised to accept the legitimate means available to them.
Inadequate socialisation includes; unstructured leisure time, a failure in the educational system to
provide sufficient resources, and the child's misunderstanding of what school requires of him or her.
Further examples of inadequate socialisation include meagre community resources and educational toys
and facilities in the home. The child experiencing these social deprivations gradually sinks to the bottom
of the educational hierarchy and experiences feelings of status frustration involving self-hatred, guilt,
loss of self-esteem, self-recrimination, and anxiety. The child blames him/herself for the failure and
copes with it by seeking alternative avenues for status achievement such as street gang membership
(Cohen, 1955). Strain theory is developed further in the work of the Birmingham School on youth subcultures.
Theory of differential opportunity
Taking a different perspective on the same issue, Cloward and Ohlin (1960) found that gang members
blamed the system rather than themselves for their social failure, and “waged war” against society
through expressions of anger and fighting, achieving honour through a form of “macho” bravado, and
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
developing a formidable reputation. Although differential opportunity is often cited as a general theory
of delinquency it began as a theory of gangs (Knox, 1994). In this theory, Cloward and Ohlin (1960), like
Merton (1938), explain a class difference in opportunity, but unlike Merton (1938), Cloward and Ohlin
argue that opportunity for delinquency is also limited in availability. Such differential availability of
illegitimate means to resolve strain means that middle class children lack the opportunity to learn how
to offend. Lower class children do have this opportunity and so offend more frequently.
Cloward and Ohlin (1960) argue that Shaw and McKay (1939, 1942) failed to observe a differential
opportunity in learning how to offend and therefore simply assumed (wrongly) that middle classes had
less inclination to offend. Cloward and Ohlin agree with Sutherland's (1937) ideas that young people
learn how to offend from older, more experienced offenders. However, they point out that Sutherland
failed to consider how access to “criminal schools” varied across the social structure while their theory
unites two sociological traditions; access to legitimate means (Merton, 1938; Cohen, 1955) and access to
illegitimate means (Sutherland, 1937). Agnew (1992, p.74) developed strain theory further by identifying
specific forms of strain (irrespective of class): “the actual or anticipated failure to achieve positively
valued goals; the actual or anticipated removal of positively valued stimuli; and the actual or anticipated
presentation of negative stimuli”. Each of these strains may have an increasing effect on delinquency
and so there will be individual differences in response to the strain experienced (Agnew, 1992).
The Desistance model
Although this model is in its very early stages it has the potential to expand research findings regarding
gang membership and delinquency at both a psychological and a criminological level. Because
‘desistance’ includes concepts of non-involvement in crime and gangs and models of desistance, it
allows us to make meaningful comparisons. As Klein (2006) rightly observes, comparisons are all too
rare in the gang literature.
It costs over £45,000 to incarcerate a prisoner for a year in the UK and the Ministry of Justice (MOJ)
must cut its budget to meet the current efforts in deficit reduction (Hansard 2010b). The UK National
Audit Office (2010) has estimated the cost of reoffending by recent ex-prisoners as being somewhere
between £9.5 billion and £13 billion.
Desistance theory relates to criminal behaviours and extrication from crime and is highly relevant to
street gang activism on two fronts: it underpins gang extrication strategies, and it has bearing on
understanding the limits of criminological perspectives. Each of these factors combine in the scope and
detail of post-offence interventions where ‘desistance’ is preferred over ‘persistence’. ‘Desistance’ (the
process which causes and supports the termination of crime) is the process that people go through
when desisting from crime. Desistance refers to approaches that lead to the stopping of criminal activity
and is a concept underpinning much probation practice.
There is considerable disagreement among researchers about how long an offender must be crime-free
before being considered a “desister”, with some researchers claiming that “true desistance” can be
determined with certainty only after offenders die. In most evaluations, a two-year follow-up period is
used to differentiate desisters from recidivists. Despite a wealth of studies on male offenders there is a
lack of research which can provide answers to ‘what works’ to reduce re-offending in women. Similarly,
although mental health problems are disproportionately prevalent in the prison population, and
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
especially among women prisoners, this desktop research failed to find evaluation evidence of mental
health interventions delivered in prison and community justice settings.
It is a consistent finding in the desistance literature that only those offenders who are sufficiently
motivated to change and are optimistic about the future will manage to desist from offending.
Therefore, interventions are more likely to be successful if they target motivational factors and provide
a sense of hope (Caverley and Farrall, 2011). Producing or encouraging desistance is the implicit focus of
much criminal justice policy, practice and research; it is one of the key outcomes that justice
interventions are designed to achieve and much research treats reducing or ending offending as a key
measure of effectiveness. Yet, the dynamics of desistance have only recently become the subject of
intensive study. There is little agreement on the definition and measurement of desistance from crime,
and most studies focus on prolific offending such as burglary, drug supply and low-level violence
use. Some see desistance as a permanent cessation of offending over several years, whilst others take
an arguably more fluid definition of desistance, accepting that episodes of re-offending may occur.
A number of factors are implicated in the natural (changes over time) and manufactured (changes due
to rehabilitation programmes or community strategies) processes of desistance. Although they place the
emphasis in different places, most desistance scholars now tend to agree that desistance can best be
explained by examining the interactions between these three sets of factors:
–
–
–
age and maturity (Van Mastrigt and Farrington 2009) as ‘ontogenic theories’;
social ties – people desist because they have a stake in conformity (Farrall, 2004) as ‘sociogenic
theory’; and
identity transitions (Maruna, 2001; McNeill et al, 2005)
For a review of the competing theories of desistance from crime: see Ezell and Cohen (2004).
Desistance focused probation practice is about individualised assessment which focuses on the interrelationships between desistance factors which build towards plans that are clear in their quest to
support change. This requires active, engaging and participative relationships which are characterised
by the case manager’s optimism, trust and loyalty coupled by interventions that target motivation,
attitudes, thinking and values which can help but can also hinder progress towards desistance. The latter
needs to be addressed by techniques (training tools) such as motivational interviewing where the
practitioner 'rolls with client resistance' (Miller and Rollnick, 1991), solution focused therapy and
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) interventions. CBT is effective in increasing cognitive dissonance
which can serve as a deterrent in negative behaviour and recidivism.
Cognitive dissonance is an important socio-psychological theory within desistance discourse. The father
of cognitive dissonance theory is L. Festinger (1956; 1957) who identified a motivational drive in actors
to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions. A key assumption is that people want their
expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of control. Another assumption is that a person will avoid
situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance. The theory is
highly relevant to the dissonance discourse because it offers profound insights that confrontation with
contrary evidence may actually augment and sharpen the conviction and enthusiasm of a true believer
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
evoked by a disconfirmation of a strongly held belief. The demonstration of the fundamental premise of
cognitive dissonance theory is that people don’t shift allegiances in the throes of contravening evidence.
Critical in the application of desistance is the level of resilience on the part of the subject. Practitioners
need to use techniques to help build this but primary objectives need to be attended to first such as
stability (i.e. mental health, substance misuse, homelessness) and then opportunities
promoted/provided to increase the offenders stake in society (social capital) for them to acknowledge
the merits of this. This can then be coupled with a range of therapies and key working principles. The
understanding in terms of desistance is about how it relates not just to events in offender's lives but
what the events mean to them.
Evidence about the process of desistance has led some to identify a range of principles for criminal
justice practice, including:








being realistic about the complexity and difficulty of the process
individualising support for change
building and sustaining hope
recognising and developing people’s strengths
respecting and fostering agency (or self-determination)
working with and through relationships (both personal and professional)
developing social as well as human capital
recognising and celebrating progress
Anti-social attitudes are among the strongest predictors of offending (Healy, 2010) and would appear to
be the most amenable to cognitive behaviour therapies. Giordano et al, (2002) outlined a four-part
‘theory of cognitive transformation’ where they argue that the desistance process involves:
1
2
3
4
A ‘general cognitive openness to change’
Exposure and reaction to ‘hooks for change’ or turning points
The envisioning of an appealing and conventional ‘replacement self’
A transformation in the way the actor views deviant behaviour
The first of these involves an awareness and willingness on the part of the would-be desister that
change is both desirable and needed. Indeed, as noted by several others (e.g. Cusson and Pinsonneault,
1986; Farrall and Bowling, 1999), a period of reflection and reassessment of what is important to the
individual would appear to be a common feature of the initial process of desistance. Of course, this is
insufficient in itself (Giordano et al, 2002; Farrall 2002); what is also needed is the exposure to some
opportunity to change, and the individual spotting this change as offering a potential ‘way out’ and then
acting upon it. This leads on to the third stage in this schema, the individual’s ability to imagine or
conceive of themselves in a new (and conventional) role doing new things. They argue the process is
complete when old behaviours are no longer seen as desirable or relevant.
Giordano and colleagues draw on evidence about the relationship between individual agency and social
structures (e.g. Farrall and Bowling, 1999) to argue that ‘the actor creatively and selectively draws upon
elements of the environment in order to affect significant life changes’ (2002). In this way, they work
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
towards a model of desistance which draws evidence about both individual agency and social structures
together (see also Maruna and Farrall, 2004).
A recent UK review of the quality of offender supervision highlighted that accredited programmes
cannot operate effectively in isolation, without addressing the broader context in which offending takes
place and the multiplicity of offenders’ needs (Shapland et al 2011). The latest UK evaluation to consider
the impact of CBT on female prisoners was undertaken in 2010 evaluated the effectiveness of the
prison-based ETS programme by linking participation to reconviction outcomes. The evaluation results
show that ETS was successful in significantly reducing both the reconviction rate and frequency of
general reoffending of participants – but is limited to one-year re-conviction rates. The scheme has been
replaced by the Thinking Skills Programme.
One principal implication of this review of the desistance model is that there is no single solution to the
problem of reoffending and how it can be reduced. Interventions that work well in one context may
work less well in others. It is therefore important to consider a number of factors before deciding on an
intervention approach for a given group of offenders, including level of motivation, needs and strengths,
and diversity; a consideration that has implications for gang activism interventions.
Desistance may occur at the criminal activity, or the gang member stage. The youth may relinquish
his/her involvement in criminal activity or gang membership as they take up opportunities for informal
social control such as employment and/or stable relationships. These opportunities may be adversely
affected if the youth has been caught and prosecuted for an offence. In this case the youth's criminal
inclination will either dissipate (from fear of further legal repercussions) or strengthen (from the
obstruction that prosecution puts in the way of legitimate opportunities). If, however, the newly
acquired social controls are reinforced (e.g. opportunities to advance in employment) the youth's
resolve to desist from crime may strengthen and desistance will continue. If, however, they break down
(i.e. employment is lost or a relationship breaks up) then the youth may return to his/her previous
lifestyle (i.e., criminal involvement and/or gang membership)
Conclusion:
Why do people join gangs and ‘behave badly’? They probably do so to fulfil the needs that any
adolescents have: peer friendship, pride, identity development, enhancement of self-esteem,
excitement, the acquisition of resources, and goals that may not, due to low-income environments, be
available through legitimate means. They may offer a strong psychological sense of community, a
physical and psychological neighbourhood, a social network, and social support (Goldstein, 1991). In
short, gangs form for the same reasons that any other group forms; they frame a human need for social
identity (Goldstein, 2002).
Social psychology offers a wealth of theories explaining the dynamics of groups and each offers the
potential for fruitful research into the question of gang formation and desistance.
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
Appendix 3: Social forces that shape social behaviour and form a context in which gangs can
emerge
“The current government funding streams that target gangs are misplaced and monies would be better
channelled into tackling the wide range of socio-economic factors and youth unemployment in the most
deprived areas of our towns and cities” (Smithson et al, 2012).
Although academics have in the past disputed the idea that similar gangs to the USA exist in the UK,
some argue that in areas of concentrated social and economic deprivation, the conditions are now
present to make this a possibility in the future (Hallsworth, 2005).
Social structural conditions (such as demographic change, deindustrialisation and lack of legitimate
employment opportunities, poverty and racism) appear in the literature as far more influential in gang
formation as family structure. A perspective largely replicated in British studies of urban street gangs
(Hallsworth and Young, 2004; Smith and Bradshaw, 2005; Pitts, 2007, 2010; Aldridge et al, 2008). Smith
and Bradshaw also found that gang membership was consistently higher for young people living in
deprived neighbourhoods (Smith and Bradshaw, 2005).
Gangs arise in conditions of ‘multiple marginality’ (Vigil, 1988). The impact of de-industrialisation,
globalisation, declining social mobility, urban deprivation, youth unemployment, racism and the retail
drug trade has reinforced the social marginalisation of many young people. The consequential
emergence of an ‘underclass’ and the ‘racialisation’ of gang constructs has not only fuelled a ‘moral
panic’ it has elevated casual labelling into policy frameworks.
The work of J. Pitts (2007) and his ‘Reluctant Gangsters’ thesis argues that over 20-years Britain has
experienced an unprecedented growth in violent youth gangs whose presence on the streets is an urban
phenomena with clear socio-economic markers disproportionately affecting specific sections of the
population. Globalisation, the realities of post-industrial Britain whose neo-liberal social and economic
policies have trapped many families in deprived neighbourhoods into a cycle of poverty and
disadvantage. An underclass is emerging, particularly, though not exclusively, affecting BAME young
people, resulting in their powerlessness and frustration that turns into rage and the creation of an
alternative values that normalise gang membership and violence as they become immobilized at the
bottom of the economic ladder and cut adrift from the values of mainstream society. Such social
marginalisation flourishes in ‘deprived communities’ and fosters alternative lifestyles. Young people
from African-Caribbean backgrounds are disproportionately affected by knife and gun crime (Eades et al,
2007), but the ‘over-racialisation’ of a gang corollary is hotly disputed (Joseph and Gunter, 2011).
The decline of industry and the rise of the knowledge economy have been instrumental in this:
significant parts of the working class have become the ‘workless class’ and their income has plummeted
accordingly. Particularly hard hit were young people, particularly young men. Between 1984 and 1997
employment amongst 16-24 year olds decreased by almost 40 per cent and by winter 2006/07 youth
unemployment had increased by a further 18,000 on its 1997 level. Work not only provides regular
income, but also provides a sense of purpose, identity and belonging. It is no coincidence the highest
prevalence of gangs is found in areas with the highest levels of general worklessness and youth
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
unemployment; the gang emerges as an institutional alternative to mainstream employment, offering
the same advantages (Centre for Social Justice, 2009).
These factors together have created, in certain communities, a generation of disenfranchised young
people. Alienated from mainstream society these young people have created their own, alternative,
society – the gang– and they live by the gang’s rules: the ‘code of the street’ (Anderson 1999: cited in
Young et al, 2012).
From 1979, the post-war tendency towards a narrowing of the gap between rich and poor was reversed,
resulting in the growth of both absolute and relative poverty. Between 1981 and 1991 the number of
workers earning half the national average wage or less, the Council of Europe poverty line, rose from
900,000 to 2.4 million. In the same period those earning over twice the national average rose from 1.8
to 3.1 million. In February 1999, the gap between the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the poorest and
the richest regions in the UK was the widest in the European Union (Pitts 2003). It was during this period
that political commentators started to talk about the ‘Winner-Loser Society’, and economists the ‘30-4030 Society’, portraying the bottom 30% of the population as an unproductive, ‘socially excluded’,
‘underclass’.
The shift in housing policy to home ownership incentives during the 1980s led to two distinctive
communities within the remaining social housing sector. ‘At one end there are the established elderly
residents, who have lived in social housing all their lives and who remember a time when having a
council home was a desirable goal. At the other end are the new, younger residents, frequently suffering
from multiple problems: unemployment, poverty, poor work skills and perhaps mental illness and drug
abuse as well’ (Dean, 1997). By 1995, over 50% of what had been council households had no
breadwinner (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1995). By 1997, 25% of the children and young people
under 16 in the UK were living in these neighbourhoods. Despite the warnings of housing professionals
about the problems which public housing projects generated when they were confined to the poor, the
unemployed and the elderly, the neighbourhood regeneration schemes under New Labour reinforced
economic ghettoisation as structural unemployment became embedded in many communities.
By 1995, 40% of African-Caribbeans and 59% of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the UK were located in
the poorest fifth of the population. This contrasts with only 18% of the White population (Joseph
Rowntree Foundation, 1995). In London, by the mid-1990s, up to 70% of the residents on the poorest
housing estates were from ethnic minorities (Power and Tunstall, 1997) and levels of adult and youth
non-employment were amongst the highest in the UK.
The ‘collapse of the ghetto’, Wacquant (2004) argues, is followed, by ‘hyper-ghettoisation’, in which
material deprivation, the absence of regulating ‘social relations’ and the violence associated with the
drugs trade leads to an intensification of intra-class and intra-racial crime and violence. J. Pitts study
(2007) in Waltham Forest, London, identified that black and mixed heritage young people are overrepresented in youth gangs, white and Asian young people sharing a similar social and economic profile
and living on the same estates, and in the same neighbourhoods, are also more likely to become
involved. This suggests that the impetus towards gang membership is ultimately determined by the
social predicament of gang members rather than their race or ethnicity.
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.
Individuals who typically perpetrate the violence classified as ‘gang related’ are themselves part of what
Wacquant terms the ‘precariat’; the sub-proletariat that is now surplus to production in a neo -liberal
order which no longer requires an organised working class in general and them in particular (Wacquant,
2009; Hallsworth and Lea, 2011).
The socio-economic location of gang related violence remains a feature of multiple deprived inner-urban
areas, producing for some critics a ‘gang industry’ pursuing ‘gang talk’ resulting in what Joseph & Gunter
see as:
 An over-definition of the problem
 The pathologisation and essentialisation of black youth as a peculiar social problem
 The unwitting influence on the focus of policy and practice away from effective prevention
New skills and competences to address skills gaps and mismatch within the sectors working with Gang and
Youth Crime across Europe (EUGANGS). (539766-LLP-1-2013-1-UK-LEONARDO-LMP/ Grant Agreement 2013 3382 /001001). This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects
the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information
contained therein.