Public Attitudes to Youth Crime by Jessica Jacobson and Amy Kirby - Article Example

Public attitudes to youth crime: Report on focus group research Introduction ‘Public attitudes to youth crime: Report on focus group research’ is a 33 page report that was written by Jessica Jacobson and Amy Kirby, and published by the UK Home Office on July 2012. The report is a coalescence of public focus group discussions and exploration of public attitudes on the topics of; extent and causes of youth delinquency and anti-social behaviour in the local community; restorative justice; and volunteering, and community role in crime prevention and supporting youth justice (Jacobson & Kirby 2012, p. 2). The report involved applying a qualitative approach to research in which 125 participants were engaged; of which 68 were female while 57 were male. All the participants were between 18 and 76 years of age. A focus group methodology was then applied to analysing the diversity and range of community attitudes towards youth perpetrated crime, and the reasons underlying the presented views (Jacobson & Kirby 2012, p. 2). The article identified youth delinquency and antisocial behaviour as a major source of concern and contributor to local crime statistics. Youth groups that often hang around neighbourhoods and public spaces are described as intimidating presences that start out being moderately petty annoyances and disruptive in behaviour, before moving on to behaviour that could be intentionally intimidating and offensive, before graduating to committing outright violence. Antisocial behaviour was also presented when the youth engaged in vandalism, damaged cars, smashed windows and place graffiti on public spaces. The article further argues that the local community had failed on curtailing youth delinquency and antisocial behaviour, by failing to discipline the youth they condoned the behaviour and allowed the youth to graduate into worse forms of delinquency. The local community and parents were not the only groups’ assigned blame for youth delinquency and antisocial behaviour, the weak and ineffectual criminal justice system was also assigned blame. Poor parenting and diminished sense of community were specifically identified as the major factors that allowed the youth to grow up without the understanding that their actions had consequences or respect for authority (Jacobson & Kirby 2012, p. 2). In analysing the views presented by the participants, the article identified four themes in community approach to youth delinquency and antisocial behaviour; there was need for teaching the youth about the consequences of their behaviours and how to make amends; there was need to adopt informal punishment systems as the formal systems that included police arrests would give the perpetrators a criminal record that damaged their future prospects; need for first offenders would be subject to less stringent action while repeat offenders would face tougher penalties; and need to make the offenders feel some measure of humiliation as part of their rehabilitation (Jacobson & Kirby 2012, p. 3). There was a general consensus that restorative justice was only appropriate in tackling small offences and first time offenders. The article defined restorative justice as providing a platform in which offenders faced their victims and got to have a first-hand understanding of the consequence of their offence. It was recommended that repeat offenders and serious crime offenders face overtly punitive responses (Jacobson & Kirby 2012, p. 3). In its conclusion, the article addressed the topic of community justice. Although some of the participants volunteered in community justice projects, those who did not participate raised legitimate reasons for their not participating in the projects. Some of the participants were not confortable volunteering with young offenders, who were not interested in changing. Other issues raised included: time constraints, bureaucracy, insurance, liability, and the perception that professionals were best placed to handle young offenders. Though there was some scepticism about the political reasons behind the government initiated community justice projects, the participants felt that it was a good idea in theory. Nevertheless, they were uncertain about its practical use. They felt that even though community members may have been willing to support them, they would only work if there was a valid infrastructure in pace to support them. The article questioned the feasibility of reviving the sense of community and established that there was very little prospect of the sense of community being renewed (Jacobson & Kirby 2012, p. 3). Discussion The paper applied qualitative research approaches in collecting primary data. Given that the research topic is a complex one that that incites varied opinions that are often sturdily held and communicated, but that can also be indecisive, ambivalent and nuanced, focus group discussions were considered the best data collection tool. The tool would allow close scrutiny of participants’ views, allowing them to reflect on the issues, discuss them and revise opinions where necessary (Jacobson & Kirby 2012, p. 3). Fifteen focus groups were conducted; with five different neighbourhoods have three focus groups each. The areas in which the groups were held were a mix of urban, suburban and semi-rural localities, and each was in a different region. In each neighbourhood, the three groups were structured by parental status and age as follows: 18 to 25 year old non-parents, parents with at least one child, and individuals who were older than 25 years of age but didn’t have any children living at home with them (Jacobson & Kirby 2012, p. 3). The groups also had selection criteria based on socio-economic status, ethnicity and gender, to ensure that they generally echoed the local population demographics. Participants were vetted and enlisted by a market research agency in public places within the research sites. Individuals who met the selection criteria were invited to attend the groups and offered an incentive payment of £35. Each groups had seven to ten members (125 participants), of whom; 68 were female and 57 were male; 49 were between 18 and 30 years of age, 45 were between 30 and 49; and 31 were between 50 and 76 years of age; 85 were White, 22 were Asian, 15 Black, and the remaining 3 were Mixed ethnicity; 79 were employed, 17 were students; 13 were unemployed; 9 were retired; and 7 were house carers (Jacobson & Kirby 2012, p. 3) Participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire prior to the discussion. This comprised questions about their backgrounds and attitudes. The aim of the questionnaire was to gain an insight into participants, initial views on youth crime and to gather basic socio-demographic data (Jacobson & Kirby 2012, p. 3). Although a qualitative approach that allowed for in-depth analysis of the research topic was applied, integrating a quantitative approach that would allow for re-examination of respondents would contribute to the research value. There are limitations to the conclusions that can be drawn from focus group research, as the findings are not derived from a representative sample of the general public. Focus groups also provide limited scope for exploring the impact of social and demographic variables on public perceptions. They do not allow the views of specific individuals to be tracked across different issues. Using an amalgamated research approach, which includes qualitative and quantitative research approaches, would present a comprehensive view of the research problem, as opposed to either a quantitative or qualitative research approach applied in isolation (Blaxter, Hughes & Tight 2006, p. 47). Conclusion The findings are not representative of the general population, but explore complex issues across a broad cross-section of the general public. References Blaxter, L Hughes, C, & Tight, M 2006, How to Research, McGraw-Hill International, London. Jacobson, J. & Kirby, A. 2012, Public attitudes to youth crime: Report on focus group research. Home Office, London. Read More