Exploring Children’s Journeys into the Youth Justice System from Multiple Perspectives: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

Abstract

In order to contribute to research into youth crime prevention, the current study aimed to explore the experiences of children in conflict with the law prior to receiving their first caution or conviction. Participants were recruited at a Youth Justice Service and included five children working with the service, their five case managers, and two of their parents/guardians. Data was collected using semi-structured interviews and timelines were used to support the children in sharing their experiences. Data was analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, which focuses on understanding how individuals experience the world and how they make sense of those experiences. Six group experiential themes were identified within the analysis. These consider the events leading up to offending and whether it could have been predicted, the extent to which the children felt supported, the effect of school practices, the impact of peer influences, difficulties with managing emotions, and the children’s readiness for change. Each theme is discussed and recommendations for practice and future research are considered. The importance of placing children’s experiences at the forefront of research is highlighted throughout.

1. Introduction

The Youth Justice Board’s (YJB) ultimate aim is to reduce offending by children, whether that be first-time offending or ‘reoffending’ [1]. For many years, one of the key aims of the YJB has been to reduce the number of ‘first time entrants’ (FTEs) to the youth justice system. FTEs are defined as “children (aged 10 to 17), resident in England and Wales, who received their first reprimand, warning, caution or sentence in England and Wales, based on data recorded by the police” [2] (p. 24). The purpose of focusing resource attention on reducing FTE rates is linked to the understanding that supporting children to avoid contact with the system at the earliest opportunity has the most beneficial impact on future desistance [3]. This is in line with the YJB’s child first approach [4], which emphasises the importance of diverting children from the system by “using pre-emptive prevention, diversion and minimal intervention” [5] (p. 11). This commitment to diversion appears to be widely supported, not least due to the evidence that suggests that youth justice system contact can increase the likelihood of reoffending [6] and lead to stigmatisation [3].

However, what this looks like in practice is unclear due to the high variability in prevention and diversion practices across the country and the lack of formal recording and monitoring of these practices [7]. Furthermore, guidance regarding best practice lacks clarity [8], meaning Youth Justice Services (YJSs) are left to interpret guidance independently. Furthermore, the focus on how YJSs should implement preventative and diversionary interventions appears counterintuitive, since the aim is to keep children away from this very system. Police-initiated diversion, for example ‘Outcome 22’ which allows the police to defer prosecution until the child has had opportunity to engage with intervention activity [9], ultimately still enforces children’s engagement with the system. In many YJSs, the intervention offered with a diversion outcome looks extremely similar, if not identical, to the intervention offered to a child on a statutory order. The recent Prevention and Diversion Project has provided some clarity surrounding existing practice [7], however, significant work is still required to establish a clear and coherent strategy for diversionary work.

At present, there is a lack of qualitative research in this area to provide context regarding what could be done differently to prevent children becoming involved with the youth justice system. Quantitative research can provide evidence for associations, such as the relationship between school exclusion and early first conviction [10], but it fails to provide the context required to know how to solve these issues, for example, how exclusions are experienced by children and whether they consider them key in the commencement of offending.

It is important for youth justice practice to be ‘evidence-based’ [11]. However, this is often biased towards evidence from adults, as articulated by Jean Hine, “policies are determined by adults using ‘evidence’ collected and interpreted by adults and containing implicit adult beliefs and assumptions about the nature of childhood/youth” [12] (p. 168). Instead, Hine advocates for the use of children’s perspectives to inform youth justice practice [12]. While participation of children is generally accepted as best practice in a child first system [13], there continues to be a lack of opportunities for children to contribute to decision-making [14]. Researchers have a unique challenge when attempting to meaningfully engage children involved with the youth justice system due to the power imbalances present and the fact that some children may perceive their involvement with the YJS as “unnecessary and intrusive” [15] (p. 42), and hence may not wish to engage.

Some previous research has directly asked children about their experiences of the system, often in the form of surveys and questionnaires e.g., [16,17,18,19]. Often research into children’s experiences within the youth justice system fails to take an idiographic approach, leading to reports that see children as ‘case studies’ rather than individuals, and where their voices are lost within adult interpretation of their experiences e.g., [20]. However, a small amount of research has succeeded in gaining more in-depth exploration using interviews and focus groups both within the community [21,22] and in youth custody [23]. This research has provided a unique insight into how children experience youth justice practices and how things could be improved. However, to date no research has explored children’s experiences prior to their involvement with the system, which is arguably necessary to inform practice regarding prevention and diversion.

The current study aims to explore how children make sense of their journey into the youth justice system and what events or situations they think are most relevant to their journey. It also aims to explore how parents/guardians and case managers (CMs) understand the child’s journey to provide an additional perspective.

The research question was split into the following sections:

• What does the journey look like? What life experiences were most relevant to becoming involved with the youth justice system?
• What helped or hindered the journey? What did other people do, or not do, to change the course of this journey? Which statutory and non-statutory services were involved with the child and how was their involvement perceived?
• Could the journey have looked different? Could anything have prevented their involvement with the youth justice system?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The participants were recruited using purposive sampling at a YJS in the East Midlands. CMs at the service were approached, either in person or via email, and asked to review their caseload to identify eligible participants for the study. Eligible children were FTEs, meaning their current order was their first ever youth caution or sentence. Once CMs had reviewed their caseloads, they were asked to speak to any identified children and provide them with the study’s Information Sheet. If the child wished to take part in the study, their parent or guardian was then contacted by the CM to provide their consent.

A total of five participants were identified, four male and one female, aged between 14 and 18. The oldest participant turned 18 during their order and therefore is included, despite technically being an adult. The five participants were working with the YJS on a range of outcomes, from a Youth Caution (an out-of-court disposal usually lasting no more than 16 weeks) to a one-year Referral Order (a court-directed outcome). They were at various stages of their intervention, some at the start and some nearing the end. A pseudonym was allocated to each participant to preserve their anonymity. Pseudonyms were selected that had a similar origin to the child’s original name, using an online name generator tool. There are several debates surrounding the use of pseudonyms in research [24,25], however, this practice was selected as most suitable for the current study, providing a balance between the importance of anonymity within this population and recognising that names are important for connecting to people’s stories.

Once the interview was completed with each participant, their CM and parent/guardian were contacted and asked if they would also like to take part in the study. All five CMs and two parents/guardians agreed to take part. Two CMs were male and three were female. They had a range of experience working in youth justice, from just a few months to 25 years. The two parent/guardian participants are referred to as ‘guardians’ with neutral pronouns throughout the remainder of the report to increase anonymity.

In total, there were 12 participants in the final sample, in five groups (see

Table 1. Participant Demographic Characteristics.

	Alex	Charlotte	Darryl	Henry	Jack
Age	16	18	14	14	14
Gender	Male	Female	Male	Male	Male
Ethnicity	Black British (White and Black Caribbean)	White British	Black Caribbean	White British	White British
Youth Justice Outcome	Referral Order	Referral Order	Youth Conditional Caution	Youth Caution	Youth Caution
Offence	Possession of a bladed article	Possession of a firearm	Assault occasioning actual bodily harm	Assault occasioning actual bodily harm	Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Case Manager Participated?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Guardian Participated?	Yes	No	No	No	Yes

).

2.2. Materials

Interviews were carried out using a semi-structured interview protocol. The protocols used differed depending on whether the participant was a child, guardian, or CM, but followed the same broad themes in line with the research questions.

In the interviews with the children, a timeline exercise was used to support elicitation of information. Timelines provide a “useful way of visually depicting events over time to facilitate conversation in a research interview” [26] (p. 167). The timeline can focus the participant’s attention and assist their recollection of events as well as supporting the researcher in structuring the discussion by using the timeline as a prompt rather than relying on an interview schedule [27]. It can support researchers to elicit narrative reflections on the participant’s experience of the events included within the timeline as well as the relationships between events [26,28]. Previous studies have demonstrated the utility of the tool, particularly for building rapport with participants [27,29], mediating power imbalances [29], facilitating dialogue, and obtaining data that is more detailed, accurate, and reflective than when using a traditional interview [27,30]. Timelines are also thought to alleviate some of the discomfort experienced by participants when talking about difficult topics by focusing their attention on a shared task [29,30].

To facilitate creation of timelines in this study, A3 paper and coloured pens were provided. Participants were given the choice of whether they would like to draw their timeline or dictate to the researcher.

Children and guardians were offered a £10 voucher to thank them for participating.

2.3. Procedure

Participant recruitment and interviews for this study took place in September 2023. Prior to each child’s interview, their individual needs were discussed with their CM and subsequently with the child themselves. Reasonable adjustments were made to ensure their understanding and ability to participate fully, for example, reading the information sheet aloud to them. Children were given the choice to have their CM or guardian present for the interview if it would make them feel more comfortable. When adults were present, they were instructed to be silent unless requested by the participant. Their interviews were conducted separately following concern that joint interviews may have led to the child’s voice being lost [31]. All participants signed the consent form and then completed a short questionnaire requesting demographic information.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all participants. For the children, a visual timeline was the main focus of the interview and allowed the researcher to direct conversation. Interview schedules were used to guide the conversation; however, participants were encouraged to talk about the things that they thought were most relevant, and the interviewer followed their lead with respect to which topics were discussed in more or less detail. The interview schedule was designed to make the participant feel comfortable, with space for rapport building at the start, the more challenging questions in the middle, and ending on a positive note [26]. Non-verbal communication and minimal prompts were used to encourage participants to expand on their answers, providing more detail and depth. The interviewer took a curious stance, used follow-up questions to gain clarity, encouraged participants to expand or be more specific. Effort was made to ensure no leading questions were used, as these can be particularly problematic when interviewing children [32]. Participants were reminded at the start of the interview that they did not have to answer any questions they did not feel comfortable answering and non-verbal communication was observed to check for signs of discomfort or distress [33].

Interviews lasted between 20 and 50 min and were recorded on a secure recording device. The interviews were later transcribed using a combination of an Automated Transcription Service and manual transcription by the lead researcher. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, due to the perceived importance of authentically representing children’s voices.

The 32-item Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research [34] was used to ensure important aspects of the study were reported.

2.4. Ethics

Ethical approval for this study was received on 2 August 2023. Significant ethical considerations were made prior to conducting the study, particularly given that the study involved interviewing children about a potentially emotive topic. Full informed consent was received for all participants, and additional parental consent was sought for those under 18. Efforts were made to avoid coerced compulsion, which was possible given that participants were recruited via their CM. It was highlighted to CMs that children’s engagement was entirely voluntary, and they were requested to emphasise this when asking the child [33]. When the researcher met with the child, they reminded them again that their participation was voluntary and that they could withdraw at any time, including after commencement of the interview and up to one month after their interview date. It was emphasised to the children that this would not impact their work with the YJS, and they would still receive the voucher. Debriefs were offered and participants were given an opportunity to identify parts of their interview that they did not wish to be included in the study. All information was stored securely using anonymous participant numbers and all identifying information was removed prior to inclusion in the analysis. Internal anonymity (participants identifying themselves or people they know within the study) was a concern due to the small sample size. Therefore, where necessary, quotations have not been ascribed to a certain participant to reduce the chances of them being identifiable. Due to the time taken between data collection and publication, concerns regarding the impact of the research on the working relationships between the children and their CMs are minimal.

2.5. Approach to Data Analysis

As discussed above, youth justice research tends to use methods that create generalised conclusions about children’s experiences. It was therefore extremely important to use an analytic approach that prioritised the children’s voices, aiming to understand how they made sense of their journey into the youth justice system.

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) [35] was selected for use in this study due to its commitment to the “examination of how people make sense of their major life experiences” [36] (p. 1). IPA is underpinned by phenomenology, the study of subjective experience. IPA acknowledges that fully understanding a person’s experiences requires interpretative work on the part of the researcher. IPA therefore takes what is often referred to as a ‘double hermeneutic’ approach, meaning there are two levels of interpretation occurring—the participant making sense of their own experiences and the researcher’s interpretation of this sense-making [37]. The approach is idiographic in that it is interested in an individual’s experience and how they make sense of it, rather than attempting to retrieve data from large, generalisable samples [38]. When interpreting participants’ experiences, IPA researchers aim to be both empathic, in that they want to understand life from the individual’s perspective, as well as questioning, in that they must interpret the experience from an external perspective and attempt to make sense of their account by studying it deeply [36].

Classic IPA studies tend to interview a small homogeneous sample about a shared experience. However, in recent years there has been an increase in IPA research using ‘multiperspectival’ designs [39], for example, interviewing both patients and their family members about the experience of an illness [31]. These more complex designs allow researchers to study phenomena from different perspectives and consider how those involved may have similar or different experiences [39]. The current study differs from most multiperspectival designs in that the adults were asked about their perspective regarding the child’s experiences, rather than talking about their own experiences. In this study, the child’s perspective was prioritised and interpreted fully using IPA. The adult perspectives were interpreted within the context of the child themes in order to add context. The adult perspectives could therefore be considered an additional level of interpretation, with the adults interpreting the child’s experience, and the researcher interpreting their interpretation. This aligns with the hermeneutic underpinnings of IPA, though it is not an approach that appears to have been used in any previous research.

2.6. Data Analysis Procedure

IPA does not prescribe a single method for data analysis; what is most important is that the analytic focus is on participants’ attempts to make sense of their experiences [36]. Therefore, a procedure was developed that followed the key IPA processes, outlined by Smith et al. [38], while also working with the design of this particular study. Significant consideration was given to the order in which the interviews were analysed, due to the importance of prioritising the children’s voices and ensuring interpretation of their interviews was not impacted by prior analysis of the adult interviews. Transcription was therefore considered part of the analysis to ensure that transcribing the adult data did not influence interpretation of the child data. The steps followed are included in Appendix A. The timelines were used to support the interpretation of the interviews but were not analysed as data in their own right, as everything included on the timelines was discussed within the interviews. The timelines are not included within this article due to the risk of identifying the children and the sensitive nature of the content included.

3. Results

There is no one journey into the youth justice system and the children in this study all had unique stories. However, there were elements of shared experiences within their narratives which have been analysed to form the group experiential themes and subthemes listed below:

1.

A series of unfortunate events;

• Things were going “downhill”;
• This couldn’t have been predicted;
• Things could have gone differently;

2.

I struggle with managing my emotions;

3.

“Chillin’ with people I shouldn’t be chillin’ with”;

4.

I wasn’t supported;

5.

“Issues in school”;

• Missed opportunities for support in school;
• Exclusion makes things worse;

6.

“It’s about when they’re ready”;

• Rejecting support;
• Turning points.

None of the themes were present for all five children, demonstrating the variability within the group. Furthermore, within a theme there was often convergence and divergence within the group, which is explored below. The outlined themes could be argued to oversimplify the children’s rich narratives; however, the purpose of the following interpretation is to consider key elements of their experiences, which may lead to advances in understanding or practice within the field of youth justice.

Due to the importance of prioritising children’s voices within this research, themes raised by the children are prioritised, with reference to their CMs and guardians either to provide additional information, or to highlight whether they converged or diverged with the child’s perspective. At times, details linking the children to the adults have been omitted to increase anonymity.

3.1. A Series of Unfortunate Events

When thinking about the period immediately prior to becoming an FTE, the group diverged into two group experiential themes. Two children talked about things going ‘wrong’ for them in the leadup to their involvement with the youth justice system (things were going downhill), while another two children spoke about how they felt there was no leadup and their offence could not have been predicted (this couldn’t have been predicted). In all of the children’s stories, although not always explicitly identified by the children themselves, there was a sense of bad luck involved with their situation, and that things might have been different under different circumstances (things could have gone differently).

3.1.1. Things Were Going “Downhill”

This theme captured the sense expressed by some of the children that things had not been going well for them in the leadup to their offence and they had been getting into trouble at home and/or school for a period prior to the offence. Darryl recognised that his behaviour was escalating, starting with “skipping lessons” or “not going detention” in Year 7 and then starting to “fight in school” in Year 8, with the frequency and severity of the fights increasing, until the point when the police became involved and ultimately, he received a caution. He explained that at the point of the police getting involved, he was “fighting with anyone, to be honest”, demonstrating his recognition that he was involved in lots of negative situations but struggling to understand why this was happening

Similarly, Alex spoke about things getting worse for him prior to his offence, using the word “downhill” several times during his interview. In contrast to Darryl, Alex had a clear understanding of why things “went downhill”, explaining that the trigger of his difficulties was the death of a close family member a year before his involvement with the YJS. He spoke about the profound impact that this had on all areas of his life, including his identity, stating, “that just changed me, I guess”. He linked his bereavement to his offence stating, “If [name of family member] didn’t pass away, then I wouldn’t have got caught with the knife, I probably wouldn’t’ve even been bad at school, to be honest”. He spoke with a sense of inevitability about his ultimate offending behaviour, describing a sense of powerlessness in stopping things from going “downhill”. Alex’s guardian echoed the importance of this bereavement throughout the interview, describing the bereavement as “like their hearts had been torn out”, and saying that things have “really escalated” since this loss.

This theme was also present in Henry’s CM’s account, though not in his. Henry spoke about negative events happening prior to the offence, such as being “kicked out of school”, but did not think these were linked to his involvement with the youth justice system, while his CM thought there were signs Henry needed additional support. When Henry was asked whether the events were linked, he simply stated, “no…because being kicked out of school isn’t the same as having a fight with someone”. This demonstrated how Henry viewed his offence as an isolated incident, in contrast to Darryl and Alex.

3.1.2. This Couldn’t Have Been Predicted

Like Henry, both Charlotte and Jack saw their offences as isolated incidents. They highlighted the unexpected nature of the situation they were involved with and spoke about how they had never been involved with the police before, or even been in much trouble at school, and most likely never would be again. This is depicted within the following quote from Jack’s interview:

“Until about the actual incident, not even maybe five seconds before, it was just a normal day, like there was nothing like a change of mindset or change of actions, like it was just a split-second thing... just went a different way than usual”.

The adults interviewed agreed with this perspective, with Jack’s guardian describing the incident as “a rash decision” and his CM stating, “I don’t think... it could really have been avoidable because it was that snap judgement decision”. Meanwhile, Charlotte’s CM described her situation as “a one-off kind of circumstance” and “a serious offence that was isolated”. These accounts were in direct contrast to those of Darryl and Alex.

3.1.3. Things Could Have Gone Differently

When recounting the events surrounding their offence and caution/conviction, four of the children highlighted the element of bad luck involved with their situation and how things could have gone differently.

Alex was stopped and searched by police in relation to an offence in the local area. He explained, “they stopped me, because they thought I was one of them, but I wasn’t one of them. And then they just said, ‘have got anything on you?’ and I just said ‘ah, yeah, I’ve got a knife on me’”. If Alex had not been in the vicinity of the unrelated incident, he may never have been found in possession of a knife. Meanwhile, Henry’s mother took him to the police station after finding out he had been involved in an assault. His CM acknowledged, “if she hadn’t done that, I don’t know whether or not they would have traced it back to Henry”, highlighting the element of luck regarding whether incidents are detected. Meanwhile, Jack felt his situation was relatively “normal” and would not have ended up with police involvement had the victim not been as injured, stating, “I’ve had situations like that before that have just been normal, gone away”. Jack’s guardian spoke in detail about how police decisions are “based around the injuries, not the intent”, highlighting that an offence will be punished in line with the harm caused, rather than the intention behind the action, meaning that a situation can lead to serious implications despite the intention not being to cause significant harm, again emphasising the luck involved.

Alex’s CM explained that, “because he was sixteen, he automatically gets referred to court”, acknowledging that, had he been a few months younger, or policies had been different, he could have received an out-of-court disposal and had a “much shorter intervention with the YJS”. Meanwhile, another CM talked about the policies in the local area that meant children were more likely to be criminalised than in other areas, explaining that “the police have a specific knife team that runs in [name of area], which means they stop people and catch them with knives, right, if you haven’t got that team in another area, these kids aren’t going to be coming through”. This again highlighted that there is an element of luck associated with whether offences are detected and convicted, based on policing priorities.

3.2. I Struggle with Managing My Emotions

For those children who recognised that things were going “downhill” prior to their involvement with the system there was a prominent theme of struggling to manage their emotions. Both Alex and Darryl spoke about feeling like they have historically struggled with managing their emotions and particularly anger. Alex talked about how he was “always angry as a kid” and both boys spoke about getting in trouble regularly “at home and at school” (Alex), because of their difficulty tolerating frustration. Darryl talked about regularly getting into “fights” with peers, and Alex described “swearing, punching walls, punching doors, throwing stuff”. Alex summarised his difficulties by simply saying, “I just couldn’t control my anger, I still can’t now, to be honest”. Darryl described his anger in more detail, as a feeling that builds up until he cannot manage it anymore:

“Sometimes it spills up and goes up and when that one person just annoys me then everything else will just lash out, so more stuff will build up... it’s like steps, it goes up and up and up”.

Their CMs agreed with the boys on this, expressing concern regarding their emotional wellbeing and emotion management. Another CM also spoke about their child’s management of anger stating, “what I’ve picked up on is that he perhaps gets angry and frustrated and doesn’t really know what to do with it”, suggesting this may be something more of the children struggled with but did not discuss in their interviews. However, where the CMs diverged from the children in this theme was that they linked difficulties managing emotions with a need for increased support and guidance from services, whereas the children saw their difficulties as something they needed to manage independently, for example, Darryl expressed, “I’ve got to the age I have to learn to control it”. This contrast was interesting, particularly as it was present within other themes discussed below.

3.3. “Chillin’ with People I Shouldn’t Be Chillin’ with”

Three of the children spoke about the impact that their peers had on their behaviour. Darryl explained that he was “chillin’ with people I shouldn’t be chillin’ with”, and that these peers “kept getting me into all sorts of trouble, to be honest”. Meanwhile, Alex spoke about how he used to spend time with people who “used to like gettin’ in trouble and stuff”. He explained, “I’d just chill with them, but get in trouble myself, and most of the time it weren’t even my fault, just because I’d been with them I’d get the blame for it most of the time”. Charlotte expressed learning that “you can’t just trust anyone, you know, just because you’re young you think these are my friends and, realistically, they’re not”. All three children highlighted that their behaviour was their own responsibility and did not suggest that peers ever actively persuaded them to do things, but they recognised that they may not have been in the same situations had it not been for their peers. They all expressed frustration at themselves for spending time with these peers, acknowledging this was a poor decision, and all of them reported no longer spending time with these people. Alex was the only child to speak about how his offence was directly influenced by his peers:

“Some of them used to carry knives and... they used to just tell me like ‘ah, I carry a knife for my protection’... I used to just think if they can do it, I can do it. But then, yeah, I got caught”.

This quote provides an insight into how peer influences impacted Alex’s decision-making. Knife carrying was the norm within his peer group, making him think that it was something he should, or at least could, do.

CMs reiterated the children’s concerns regarding their peer associations. However, where the CMs diverged was that they tended to express empathy about how difficult resisting peer influence can be for children, while the children themselves focused on the choices they made and took full responsibility for choosing to spend time with people who were negative influences. This contrast echoed the divergence within the previous theme, where the children are more likely to take responsibility for their actions while adults see their behaviour as part of a wider context.

3.4. I Wasn’t Supported

The children’s tendency to take full responsibility for their actions, discussed above, appeared to make it difficult for them to think about how things could have been different, other than by simply changing their own behaviour. Darryl, for example, talked about how he should have “walked away from situations” and been better at “saying no”. However, on deeper analysis of the interviews, there was an underlying theme for some of the children that the support offered to them prior to their involvement with the justice system could have been better. For example, Alex spoke about difficulties engaging with his social workers because he had “one after another, after another”, never working with them for long enough to get to know them. Meanwhile, Darryl talked about not feeling particularly supported by social care and when he was asked what more they could have done to help he simply said, “talk to me”, suggesting his involvement with the service left him feeling unheard. He expressed feeling they could have “tried to prevent [him] from doing stupid stuff...rolling with the wrong people”, again suggesting he would have liked more support with the things that were going on for him at that time, such as managing peer influences.

Henry spoke fondly about a youth centre he used to go to, saying, “it was fun” and talking about the various activities available such as “hide and seek…cooking, football”. “It’s been shut down”, he explained, and then went on to speak about rumours it might be reopening, indicating that he hoped it would. When asked why he liked it he said, “it kept me off the streets”. This is a relatively adult construct, perhaps something Henry had heard adults saying about his attendance at the youth centre rather than his authentic opinion. However, it does suggest some recognition that this provision was supportive and if it had stayed open, he may not have come into contact with the criminal justice system. This was certainly the view of his CM, who spoke about the importance of him having something “structured” which might have prevented him from “going out looking for something new and exciting to do”. She also acknowledged that he was attending regularly and voluntarily, and that this likely had positive impacts on his wellbeing, motivation, and “goals for the future”. While Henry did not use these words himself, it was clear he had positive memories of attending the youth centre and perhaps wondered how things might have been different if this service had been able to continue to support him.

It was noteworthy that, other than Henry, none of the children spoke about any positive support they had received prior to their involvement with the youth justice system, despite being explicitly asked. This absence of positive experiences of support is arguably further evidence for this theme.

The theme was more explicit within the adults’ accounts who gave numerous examples of gaps in how the children had been supported prior to justice system involvement. Alex’s guardian spoke about the lack of support offered to Alex for his bereavement, stating, “social services rung me today and said... they’ve referred the kids now to the bereavement services, which I think should have been done 18 month ago, rather than now”. He spoke about how the delays in both Alex and his brother accessing these services has meant “issues have built up that much, they’re like little volcanoes ready to erupt”. Alex’s CM agreed the family had not had good support from social care, for example, questioning, “I think, why didn’t you check how he was doing at school?...What could you put in there to support him?”. However, she empathised that resources are stretched: “don’t get me wrong, there is some really good social workers out there, but a lot of the time they haven’t got the space”. Another CM agreed with this sentiment, stating more broadly, “it just comes back, I suppose, to all of the services for our young people being cut within the city”.

Four CMs also spoke about how support from services often begins, or increases, when the child enters the system. They spoke about children’s needs being assessed by the YJS, perhaps for the first time ever, which meant they could be referred to the appropriate services. Alex’s CM spoke about how their role meant they could “advocate” for the family and ensure necessary support was provided by external agencies. They also identified that new services become available to children once they are working with the YJS, such as “mentoring” (Darryl’s CM) which they would not have been able to access prior to system involvement.

3.5. “Issues in School”

“I’ve lost count of the amount of cases that I’ve had where there have been issues in school”, said Henry’s CM. Four of the five children discussed difficulties in school prior to their offending. This group experiential theme is separated into two themes. The first relates to gaps in the support offered to children in school, identified by both the children and their CMs (missed opportunities for support in school). The second relates to the use of exclusion by schools and the concerns of CMs that this is linked to offending behaviour (exclusion makes things worse).

3.5.1. Missed Opportunities for Support in School

When talking about school, some of the children referred to feeling unsupported. For example, Darryl said, “school didn’t really do anything, to be honest” and when asked what he thought they could have done he said, “they could have spoke to me”, demonstrating his desire, expressed throughout his interview, for someone to take the time to listen to him. Darryl identified the COVID-19 pandemic as relevant to his increasing difficulties at secondary school because he “didn’t really do a full year six...it just kinda skipped to year seven”. He explained that the pandemic made secondary school more difficult because “you skipped basically a whole year...so I didn’t really know as much going to secondary school, so everything was different to me innit... it was more difficult, to be honest”. He returned to the pandemic several times during the interview, explaining that he would have benefited from additional support with the transition and would have liked to “at least finish off the year”; however, he also acknowledged that the school were limited in what they could do to support him within government restrictions.

Alex did not express the same desire for support as Darryl, tending to think he did not require additional help. However, he did talk about inconsistent support from school, for example, “they told me that they was going to put me on [support programme for emotion management], but they just never did, I don’t know why”. Highlighting this inconsistency suggests perhaps he may have liked to have been offered this intervention, even if he would have chosen not to engage with it. His CM felt “more support could have been put in with school” regarding both his academic work and emotional wellbeing in the period between his bereavement and his GCSE examinations.

Henry’s CM expressed frustration at him being provided just 12 h of education per week at an alternative provision (AP) which she described as “absolutely not enough”. She talked about how the system was not supporting him sufficiently by providing such a limited provision and this would likely lead to him falling further behind his peers in mainstream school which seemed unfair. Another CM spoke about frustration regarding additional needs, such as neurodevelopmental disorders, or speech and language difficulties, not being picked up in school. They expressed frustratedly, “I picked up on it straight away, so why are schools not picking up on it?”, explaining that there were several support needs they thought were apparent on meeting the child for just a short assessment, and yet nothing has ever been identified by the school. They went on to highlight the importance of schools picking up on additional support needs, stating:

“I’m not saying that because they’ve got additional needs, that that’s the reason they’re offending, it’s not, but if these things were picked up on and supported better, maybe they can manage their emotions better, you know, maybe they can regulate themselves a bit more, maybe they could communicate with other people better to avoid it from happening?”

These examples from across the interviews developed a picture of opportunities to support the children being missed by schools.

3.5.2. Exclusion Makes Things Worse

Both Henry and Darryl had been permanently excluded from school prior to their offence and Alex had experience of fixed-term exclusions. They all spoke about being “kicked out” (Alex) of school as the norm when they had behaved poorly and, from their accounts, it seemed their schools tended to use fixed-term exclusion to attempt to manage behaviour. Henry talked about how he had been excluded “between 16 and 20 times” before he was moved to another school. He expressed feeling that his behaviour was not bad enough to warrant permanent exclusion, stating, “all I would do is skiving, swearing, that’s about it”, suggesting he did not have a good understanding of the rationale for his exclusion.

Alex’s guardian talked about how they would regularly get phone calls from the school saying, “Alex’s kicked off in class, can you come and fetch him”, explaining that the school couldn’t seem to contain Alex when he was struggling and instead sent him home, which placed the responsibility onto the family to support him rather than the school. Henry’s CM felt that exclusion is too often used as the default way to manage behaviour, saying, “I feel like secondary schools nowadays just have this culture of just punishing behaviours rather than trying to understand why they’re happening... rather than just trying to unpick it and work out what’s going wrong”.

An additional element of this subtheme, present only in the CMs interviews, was the association between school exclusion and engagement in offending behaviour. Darryl’s CM recognised that being excluded from school worsened his situation as he was spending more time with peers that were “like him, in that they weren’t going to school”. Henry’s CM highlighted that his education provision is part-time, leaving him with more unstructured time than children in mainstream school. She expressed, “he’s just going out with his mates, other mates who are excluded, who are not in education... you know, looking for something fun to do, and that’s going to lead to him getting into trouble”. Another CM talked about the number of children that get sent to APs and quickly end up involved with gangs, expressing that although this may sound “stereotypical”, these pathways really do exist. While the children did not explicitly state the link between their exclusion and offending, including it on their timelines suggests they may have recognised it as a key part of their journey into the system.

3.6. “It’s about When They’re Ready”

In contrast to the themes that emphasised gaps in the support offered to the children, this theme focused on the personal decision-making processes involved in children accepting support and changing their behaviour. Two subthemes were identified: the first referred to times the children had turned down support from adults (rejecting support), and the second reflected the children’s recognition of the turning points in their lives which led to change (turning points). Darryl’s CM summarised this theme with his comment, “ultimately, I think that with young people it’s not so much what we could have done, it’s about when they’re ready”.

3.6.1. Rejecting Support

Alex recognised that previous attempts had been made to support him earlier in life. For example, “in primary school I had a counsellor for my anger, and secondary... I stopped going”. He also recognised that social workers had attempted to help him over the years but explained, “I don’t like speaking to people, so it didn’t really help”. Similarly, Darryl spoke about the fact he “wasn’t engaging” with the support he was being offered by the YJS prevention team. Meanwhile, when speaking about the support his mum offered him when he was younger, he acknowledged, “she always helped me, but at the same time I wasn’t listening”.

Darryl’s CM echoed this theme of him being offered support by various services in the past, but not being “ready” to engage with the support. However, this theme was not present for the other CMs, who were more likely to focus on why the support offered to the children was not sufficient (discussed within the Section 3.4). It was interesting that none of the children criticised the support offered to them and instead appeared to take on the burden of responsibility for choosing whether or not to “engage”, rather than considering whether something about the support offered made engagement more difficult.

3.6.2. Turning Points

Three of the children spoke about their involvement with the youth justice system triggering them to reflect and make a change to their life, which we call ‘turning points’. Charlotte spoke about her experience of having to work with the YJS in a positive manner, stating that it had made her reflect on her life and make positive changes, stating, “it’s definitely shaped me into the person I am now”. She recognised if it had not have been for working with her CM, she would not have made the same positive changes to her life such as ending a negative relationship. Jack also spoke about how he thought he would try to “think more of the consequences” in future, suggesting this was something he had learnt from his justice system involvement.

On the other hand, Alex emphasised that he did not think the YJS had helped him to make positive changes and that he would have made the changes, such as changing his friendship group, regardless of their input. The interviewer curiously asked him, “do you think if you’d not been found with the knife by the police you would have still made the same changes?”, which appeared to make him reflect and, after a pause, he responded, “I don’t think I would have, to be honest”. This is understood as Alex’s acknowledgment that the police involvement and the “scary” experience of attending court, was a turning point in him deciding to make a change. His guardian agreed saying, “I think going to court was a bit of a scare, scare factor, sort of, to him, and I think it helped”. For Darryl, his turning point occurred after he had to attend court for a subsequent offence that was “much more serious”. He explained that, since this incident, he has realised he needs to make a change and has begun engaging more with the support offered to him, including attending boxing which helps him “release anger”.

4. Discussion

The participants interviewed within this study provided a unique insight into the experiences of children prior to their involvement in the youth justice system. Children are rarely asked about their experiences, particularly in research settings, and this study puts their stories at the forefront. The variation in their accounts reminds us that each child involved with the system is an individual and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to supporting them.

Some of the children spoke about how their offending could not have been predicted. This theme fits with ideas recently presented by Kevin Haines and colleagues which posit that children think and act “in the moment” [40] (p. 276). They suggest that offending behaviour by children is typically unplanned, expressive, and rarely involves thought of future consequences [40]. In line with interpretation derived from this study, offending is understood as confined to the moment in which it took place, rather than a feature of the child’s whole life or identity. This theme opposes rational choice theory, the assumption that individuals weigh up the costs and benefits before deciding to engage in an offending behaviour [41], and suggests children act more on emotion and impulse than a rational decision [40]. This way of thinking about offending behaviour calls into question the merits of attempting to predict risk of offending, given human behaviour can ultimately be unpredictable [42]. Instead, this theme reinforces the need to treat each child as an individual, supporting them with their own personal needs, which may not always be related to so-called ‘risk factors’. Furthermore, it is important that work with children minimises stigma and recognises that the child made a decision in the moment, but this does not mean they are ‘risky’.

For most of the children there was an element of ‘bad luck’ in their journey, whether associated with their offending behaviour or the process of being cautioned/convicted. This links to the theme that involvement with the youth justice system was not anticipated by the children and suggests a sense of limited control over situations in their lives. While not often discussed in justice research, it appears to be well-recognised by practitioners that the boundary between what is and is not convicted is often unclear, inconsistent [43], and significantly impacted by current or local policing and prosecution practices [44]. Considering this finding at a societal level, these practices often mean children known to the police, who are usually from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, are more likely to be criminalised [45]. Furthermore, practices such as stop and search, which was experienced by Alex, have been criticised for being disproportionately used with people from black and ethnic minority backgrounds [46]. If ‘luck’ or ‘chance’ are perceived to be involved in youth justice system processes, this may cause children, their parents, and perhaps professionals working with them to question the legitimacy of these processes, thereby making it more difficult for children to engage with the system and behave in the ways expected of them. Detection and conviction will never be an exact science, but it is important, especially with children, that police and court processes are fair and support diversion from system involvement wherever possible.

Most of the children also spoke about the impact that peers had on their offending. Peer influence is commonly cited as amongst the most important predictors of offending behaviour in children [47]. Experimental research demonstrates that children make riskier choices in the presence of peers and are more impacted by peer presence than adults [48]. Peer influence is understood to be especially important for children due to their developmental stage, a time when deviating from behaviour endorsed by peers may lead to rejection or harm from the peer group, much more so than for adults [49]. The theme in this study echoes findings by Yeng and Mohamad [50] who found children identified their peer circle as impacting their behaviour, although similarly not due to pressure or coercion. Supporting children to recognise and resist negative peer influence and select positive friendship groups is aligned with the child first principle related to developing ‘prosocial identity’ [5]. Perhaps future research should consider what types of interventions can help children to do this in practice.

The theme of things going “downhill” for some children prior to their offence suggests that there may be warning signs that a child is struggling and would benefit from early intervention. From this study it seems those warning signs may be related to difficulties in school and perhaps difficulties with emotion management. For Alex, difficulties were related to a single event: the loss of a close family member. Research suggests that a disproportionate number of children involved with the criminal justice system have experienced bereavement [51,52]. Bowlby’s attachment theory highlights the impact of early loss on later behaviour [53] and research suggests delinquent peer groups may be more appealing to children who have experienced loss, due to their increased need for belonging [54,55]. Research with adults suggests that the death of a loved one can trigger the onset of criminal or risk-taking behaviour due to the grief response [56]. Furthermore, the impact of the grief reaction appears to be mediated by the person’s coping abilities [57], meaning children may be at an even greater risk of engaging in offending behaviour when bereaved, given their less advanced coping skills. The relationship between bereavement and offending in children would be a beneficial area of future research, in addition to focusing on how children can be better supported when bereaved in order to facilitate a healthy grieving process. The importance of timely intervention was highlighted by Alex’s guardian, who rightly identified that 18 months was too late to wait for a referral to a bereavement service. Furthermore, services should remember that guardians may struggle to implement the appropriate support for children at these times, given they are likely to also be grieving themselves.

The theme ‘I wasn’t supported’ explored the lack of support offered to children prior to their involvement with the system and the sense that support offered had been insufficient or inconsistent. In practice, it seems opportunities to support children before they offend are often missed. Research suggests this may in part be related to the fact that children and families do not know what services are available to them or may not identify the need for additional support [58]. Other reasons may be that professionals who come into contact with these children are missing early opportunities to offer additional support [58], or because the resources to offer the support, such as Henry’s youth centre, no longer exist following cuts to children’s services [59]. In a recent study by the Youth Endowment Fund [16], only one in ten of the children who had perpetrated physical violence were offered support to prevent it from happening again, demonstrating a lack of proactive offers of intervention. CMs in Newcastle raised the same concerns as participants in this study about the impact of cuts to youth services [60], and it seems a long-standing issue for YJSs that they take on welfare issues for their cases that would typically be the responsibility of social services [61].

When considering practical solutions for increasing preventative support, results of this study identify emotion management as something that children involved with the system may struggle with. The link between anger and aggression is well researched [62] and difficulties with emotion regulation has been linked to offending in children [63], particularly in those with more minor offending [64]. It may, therefore, be interesting to explore the use of emotion management interventions as a preventative intervention for children who may be at risk of justice involvement. For example, Dialectical Behaviour Therapy [65] has been shown to have positive results with children in custody [66].

Results of this study highlight schools as places where significant impact could be made [67]. This was echoed in a study which interviewed children with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) and identified that opportunities to support these children in school, prior to justice involvement, were regularly missed [22]. The report also suggests that large numbers of children enter the youth justice system with undiagnosed SEND that is often picked up relatively soon after their first contact with a YJS [22]. As found in interviews with CMs in this study, this leads practitioners to question why these needs had not been identified in school [22]. It seems schools may be struggling to look beyond a child’s presenting behaviour and consider what the function of this may be. In a large-scale survey of children, 75% of those who had been in contact with the police in the past 12 months reported to have skipped school due to not feeling safe [16], demonstrating the importance of looking beyond a behaviour such as non-attendance to work out what might be going on for the child.

The theme regarding the use and impact of school exclusions is again in line with research in this area. The over-use of exclusion by mainstream schools in recent years has been called a “scandal” [68] (p. 1) and punitive school discipline practices have long been associated with increased risk of contact with the criminal justice system, commonly known as the ‘school to prison pipeline’ [69]. There are issues with identifying causation in this pathway, as behaviours that may trigger exclusion may be the same behaviours that lead the child to justice involvement. However, findings of this study suggest that exclusion may occur prior to justice involvement, at least for some children. Black and mixed heritage boys are disproportionately impacted by exclusion practices [17], as are children with SEND [70]. School exclusion has several negative consequences, including disrupting the child’s education, stigma associated with being excluded, and an increase in unsupervised time with peers [71]. This is aligned with what the participants in this study reported, that schools’ use of punitive practices such as exclusion, temporary or permanent, exacerbated the children’s problems. Therefore, echoing several previous authors [72,73], this paper recommends that schools work towards more preventative, holistic, and inclusive approaches. This means targeting children who are at risk of being excluded, considering their needs within their wider family context, and developing a plan to support them to remain in mainstream school. Existing interventions to reduce school exclusions have shown minimal effect, demonstrating the need for innovative interventions to be developed and tested in the UK [74,75].

As well as highlighting areas for improvements to the support offered, the children’s narratives also identified times when they have not been ready or able to access the support offered to them. They expressed a strong sense of personal responsibility for their decisions to engage with support, rather than criticising its value or the efforts made by the adults involved to engage them with it. This concept of personal responsibility was also present when the children spoke about their decisions regarding their offending behaviour and their ability to resist peer influences. It may have been important for the children to emphasise their own agency within their narratives, given the disempowering effects of youth justice involvement [14]. Alternatively, this responsibility may have been imposed on them by adults, for example, within ‘offending behaviour’ work which often emphasises the importance of taking responsibility for one’s own actions. There was evidence of adult constructs within the children’s interviews, for example Henry spoke about how his youth centre “kept [him] off the streets”, which echoed the opinion of his CM who felt his lack of structured activity increased his risk of offending behaviour. Similarly, Darryl spoke about the fact he “wasn’t engaging” with the prevention team, which aligned with his CM’s view that he had not been “ready” to accept the support offered to him in the past. This demonstrates how the children’s narratives are influenced by the adults in their lives, meaning it may be difficult to distinguish their true opinions from those they have absorbed from the adults around them. ‘Responsibilisation of children’ is a term used in child first youth justice literature to describe children being considered primarily responsible for their offending behaviour and desistance [4]. While this is often intended to empower children [76], it can lead to practices which are deficit-led and problem-focused [4]. Therefore, the child first approach highlights the importance of “responsibilising adults”, holding them responsible for providing support that meets the child’s needs, enabling them to access services, and guiding them to achieve their full potential [4] (p. 12). The findings of this study related to the children’s sense of responsibility emphasise the need for this shift in practice, so that children do not feel blamed for ‘not engaging’ and practitioners see it as their responsibility to work creatively to ensure children can benefit from the support offered to them.

The final theme also suggested that there may need to be a shift in the child’s life, such as involvement with the youth justice system, to catalyst change in their behaviour. The concept of ‘turning points’ is common in developmental theories of desistance. These are described as events that either push people into crime or pull them away from it [77]. However, within these theories, a turning point, such as contact with the police or having to attend court, also has to coincide with structural support in order for desistance to occur [78]. As was the case for Darryl, turning points will not always occur on the first contact with the system, but rather with the right combination of support and other factors which are associated with desistance in children, such as engaging with education or employment and moving away from negative peer influences [79]. This therefore highlights the importance of fostering opportunities for desistance for children. The children in this study have demonstrated that positive change can and does happen and that each child’s journey within the youth justice system will be unique.

Strengths and Limitations

This unique research design demonstrates the propensity of IPA to adapt to the phenomenon in question and to be used with multiple participant groups, prioritising one group’s perspective whilst acknowledging convergence and divergence with the other groups. Within the children’s interviews, there was evidence of distinctly adult constructs and concepts which suggested their narratives may have been influenced previously by the opinions of adults around them. Hence, it was a strength of this study to also interview the adults in their lives to help distinguish the children’s own experiences from the adults’ evaluations of these experiences, as much as this can ever be possible.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to use a timeline approach to support a research interview with an individual involved with the youth justice system. The feedback from all five children during their debrief was that the timeline improved the experience of being interviewed. One participant in particular spoke about how the timeline allowed him to talk about things he would usually find difficult to articulate, and others spoke about it making the interview more comfortable or even ‘fun’. This, therefore, provides methodological support for the use of timelines as a method of supporting elicitation of children’s lived experience which could be used in future IPA research in other fields.

A limitation of this study is its generalisability, given it includes the accounts of only five children, meaning the findings cannot be considered representative of all FTEs. It should also be acknowledged that, as with all IPA research [80], this analysis is only one possible interpretation of the children’s experiences. However, quantitative and superficial qualitative research has been conducted previously and, therefore, it was deemed important to gain rich accounts from the children and to analyse them in detail, hence the use of a small sample.

While participants were recruited in an unbiased manner, it may be that those who had a more positive perception of the YJS or a better relationship with their CM were more likely to participate. Furthermore, it is possible that CMs may not have offered the opportunity of participation entirely equally, for example, by not asking children whom they assumed would not wish to participate. This may mean that the views of those children considered more ‘difficult to engage’ may be missing from this study.

A final potential criticism of this study is the use of a mixed participant group, due to the risk of children’s voices being obscured by the adults’ perspectives. This decision was considered in great detail and the inclusion of adult participants was intended to add depth to the children’s accounts of their experiences, provide insight into the systemic issues of which the children may not have been aware, and highlight convergence and divergence regarding how the children interpreted their experiences compared to the adults around them. Data collection, analysis, and synthesis of this study was carefully designed to prioritise children’s voices, with adult perspectives included to enhance, not undermine, their narratives.

5. Conclusions

This research has provided a unique insight into the life experiences of children who have recently formally entered the youth justice system for the first time. The children’s accounts demonstrate that every child’s journey to youth justice involvement is different and there is an element of chance related to justice involvement. Participants in this study received little support prior to their involvement, highlighting some gaps in prevention provision particularly in schools, but also reminding us that some incidences of offending behaviour simply cannot be predicted. This research highlights the importance of placing children’s voices at the forefront of youth justice research as a deep understanding of their experiences is required to inform future developments in this field.