University of Sheffield OFFENDING AND STEPS TOWARDS DESISTANCE WITHIN THE SOCIAL CONTEXTS OF EARLY ADULTHOOD Anthony Bottoms, Joanna Shapland and Grant Muir with Deborah Holmes, Helen Atkinson and Andrew Costello Presentation to SCoPiC Conference, Cambridge, December 2006

A Cross-Sectional Age-Crime Curve : Recorded Offender Rates per 1,000 Relevant Population by Age-year and Sex, England and Wales, 2000

A Longitudinal Age-Crime Curve for Recidivist Offenders

Desistance in the Pittsburgh Study Factors measured at 13-16 that do not significantly distinguish between desisters and persisters at 20-25: Behaviours: Hard drug use Frequent alcohol use High number of sex partners Cruelty to people or animals Serious delinquency Beliefs/Cognitions: Lack of guilt Attitude toward school Pro/anti-social self-perception Factors measured at 13-16 ‘promoting’ desistance at 20-25: Belief in likelihood of being caught Low use of physical punishment by parents Good relationships with peers Low peer participation in drug/alcohol misuse.

Objectives of the Sheffield Pathways of Crime Study (SPOOCS) To consider the lives and behaviour of early adult recidivists (including their offending) within their overall social contexts; To examine how these individuals, and their social contexts, may change over time as desistance from crime begins, or alternatively as their offending (whether officially noticed or not) is maintained.

Selection Criteria for Inclusion in the SPOOCS Sample Born in 1982, 1983 or 1984 Convicted of a standard list offence on at least two separate occasions at some point in their lives Had recent contact with the criminal justice system involving the prison or probation services Living in Sheffield at the time of the last conviction.

The SPOOCS Research 113 male offenders Mean age at first interview = 20 years 9 months [Median 20.7; range 19.1 to 22.7] Ethnic status: 89 White; 14 Black or mixed Black / White; 8 Asian or mixed Asian / White; 2 Other Re-contact Rates: 85% at second interview; 78% at third interview

Counting Convictions: A Fictitious Example Derby Crown Court , May 2006. John Smith, Defendant, pleads guilty to: Robbery with Violence, committed 19/1/2006 Take and Drive Away Vehicle, committed 20/2/2006 Drive with Excess Alcohol, committed 20/2/2006 Drive while Disqualified, committed 20/2/2006. This constitutes : 1 Conviction Occasion 4 Convictions 2 ‘Offence Transactions’

Conviction occasions of males born in 1953 up to their 40th birthday

Lifetime Official Criminality Prior to First Interview (N=113) Convictions/cautions prior to first interview Conviction / caution occasions Mean (SD) Number of “offence transactions” Convictions for standard list offences 8.05 (4.51) 17.61 (13.66) Cautions for standard list offences 1.67 (1.12) Convictions for other offences 1.06 (1.17) 2.66 (2.18) Cautions for other offences 0.09 (0.29) Total 10.89 (5.26) 20.27 (14.93)

Percentage men with at least one Self-reported criminality in the 12 months before first interview , by type of offence (N=112) Type of Offence (Legal Description) Percentage men with at least one Median Maximum* Violence against the person 67.9 2 65 Robbery 23.2 22 Burglary of a dwelling 56.5 1 220 Burglary of other property 47.3 209 Taking a vehicle 48.2 100 Other theft or handling 64.3 10 120 Fraud/forgery 17.9 40 Criminal damage 38.4 45 Drug dealing** 33.9 Other standard list offences (driving while disqualified, failing to surrender to bail) 61.6 50 Non-standard list motoring offences 67.0 5 N 112 Notes: * The figures for higher numbers of offences are estimates ** This item related only to supplying drugs/dealing in drugs, not simple possession.

Total number of self-reported offences, in 12 months before first interview, adjusted for time at liberty (N = 112) Extremely Active (100+ offences) 46 (41%) Moderately Active (50 < 100 offences) 29 (26%) Low Active (< 50 offences) 37 (33%)

Aims of This Paper To examine the social contexts of the lives of a sample of (mostly persistent) early adult recidivists, and the ways in which their offending is related to social contexts; To assess how far shared social understandings of the transition to adulthood are relevant to our findings; To consider the extent to which disadvantage in childhood is related to current social contexts and offending in the research sample; To examine offenders’ aspirations to desistance, and some of the obstacles that they identify to “going straight”.

AIM 3: ‘To consider the extent to which disadvantage in childhood is related to current social contexts and offending in the research sample’

Eleven Variables Comprising ‘Early Disadvantage Score’ (Re parental disadvantage): Parent(s) with criminal record; Subject placed in local authority care; Parental attachment scale (Giordano); Parental attachment scale (Hay); Parental supervision (Hay); Parental communication (Giordano); Number of addresses at which the subject lived when growing up ( a proxy for childhood social turbulence); (Re schooling disadvantage): Truancy; School exclusion; Left school without qualifications; Negative attitude to school.

Distribution of Early Disadvantage Scores

Age at First Official Criminality

Recent Criminality and Early Criminality (A) Recorded Offence Transactions in Last Year Lifetime Conviction Occasions (r = 0.23, P < 0.05) Lifetime Offence Transactions (r = 0.19, P < 0.05) Age at First Official Criminality – NS (B) Self-Reported Crime Totals in Last Year Lifetime Conviction Occasions (F(2,108) = 3.96, P < 0.05) Lifetime Offence Transactions (F(2,108) = 3.44, P < 0.05)

Relationships of criminality variables with early disadvantage score Early/lifetime criminality Age at first official criminality (r = - 0.27, p < 0.01) Lifetime number of conviction occasions (r = 0.48, p < 0.001) Lifetime number of offence transactions (r = 0.41, p < 0.001) Lifetime number of custodial sentences (r = 0.27, p < 0.01) (b) Recent criminality* Offence transactions in last 12months NS Self-reported group totals P= 0.049 *Both adjusted for time at liberty

Relationship of social context variables with early disadvantage score (a) Significant relationships Composite variable on whether parent(s) “help you out” in hypothetical situations (i.e., if offender needs money or accommodation or is ‘in trouble’ ) (r = -0.39, p < 0.001) Whether able to ask parents for advice (t(110) = 2.44, p < 0.02) Sleeping rough (t(99) = 3.50, p < 0.01) (b) Not statistically significant Currently in a steady relationship with girlfriend Degree of attachment to partner Whether has children Current living circumstances( living with parents/girlfriend/other) (Un)Employment in last year Problem drugs user Problem alcohol user Whether mates in trouble/whether mates important Neighbourhood social capital

AIM 2: ‘To assess how far shared understandings of the transition to adulthood are relevant to the findings.’

From the ages of 13 to 19 you’re a teenager From the ages of 13 to 19 you’re a teenager. From the ages of 20 to 21 you’re an adolescent. You’re an adult from I’d say about 23 onwards. Then you’re going to start experiencing things, then you’re going to start thinking for yourself. I’m 23 now, I can’t keep going out every weekend robbing people’s phones. I’m 23, I’ve got to look after myself now (quoted in Barrow Cadbury Trust 2005: 12).

Current Living Circumstances Living with parent(s) 56% Living with girlfriend / partner 21% Other living arrangements (living with friends, living alone, living in hostel, etc). 23% 100%

GIRLFRIEND / PARTNER Currently in a steady relationship 47 Have recently been in a steady relationship 39 86 [Of whom 60 claimed that relationship had lasted at least 12 months] Partners ‘very upset’ or ‘fairly upset’ by offending 71

CHILDREN Sample members who were fathers: 35 (31%) Still in relationship with the mother: 14 ‘Rarely’ / ‘Never’ see child(ren) 15 See child at least once a month 20

MATES General Mates ‘very important’ in respondent’s life: 68 (61%) At least 75% of mates have criminal record: 74 (66%) Specific (‘Best Mates’) Up to three “best mates” chosen (but 13 have no “best mates”) Total number of nominated ‘best mates’: 241 Number of mates having criminal record: 197 Number of mates co-offended with sample member: 147 Support from ‘best mates’ Over 80% would turn to one or more ‘best mates’ for help. 207 out of 241 ‘best mates’ are trusted ‘totally’ or ‘quite a lot’

PARENTS Contact Still see mother: 88% Still see father: 70% Help Over 70% of sample would turn to parent(s) in three hypothetical crisis situations (need money or accommodation, or ‘in trouble’) Sometimes ask parents for advice: 54 Parent(s) and criminality Parents ‘very’ / ‘fairly’ upset by respondent’s offending: 98 Respondent upset (or worse) by parent’s unhappiness: 76

AIM 1: ‘To examine the social contexts of the lives of a sample of (mostly persistent) early adult recidivists.’ Key Issues: Diversity within the sample Complex relationship between offending and social context Limited importance of neighbourhoods Importance of driving

Principal components analysis (rotated) of self reported offending in 12 months before first interview Factor 1 – general property crime factor (28.6% of variance) burglary of dwellings (0.92) taking a vehicle (0.87) burglary of other premises (0.74) other theft and handling (0.62) Factor 2 – motoring (15.3% of variance) non-standard list motoring offences (0.89) other standard list offences (0.86) Factor 3 – violence and criminal damage (13.0% of variance) criminal damage (0.79) violence against the person (0.69) Factor 4 – robbery, dealing drugs (10.4% of variance) dealing drugs (0.77) robbery (0.56)

Co-incidence of high scores on general property factor and violence / criminal damage factor for self-reported criminality General Property Only 32 Violence/Criminal Damage Only Both 24 Neither 112

Self-Reported Reasons for Offending Frequency % Drugs 35 31.3 Money (lack of money, opportunity to make easy money) 24 21.4 Excitement/Relieve boredom 15 13.4 Situational (pressure from mates, area, stress, no alternative to crime) 11 9.8 Alcohol 9 8.0 Other/Don’t know 18 16.1 Total 112 100.0

Principal components analysis (rotated) of social context variables Factor 1 – unsettled lifestyle (14.2% of variance) time in prison in last year (0.70) unemployed (0.66) sleeping rough (0.61) drug dependent/problem (0.57) Factor 2 – parent focussed (12.82% of variance) living with parents (0.66) no children (0.59) not in a relationship (0.54) ask parents for advice (0.52) Factor 3 – disadvantage/low social capital (10.08% of variance) victimisation (0.69) early disadvantage (0.55) low neighbourhood social capital (0.35) Factor 4 – alcohol and mates (9.15 of variance) alcohol problem (0.67) mates in trouble (0.66) mates less important (0.51)

‘Problem Drugs Users’ 34 reported use of hard drugs in last 12 months was ‘more than social’ 46 reported ‘feeling dependent’ on drugs in last 12 months ‘Problem drugs users’ defined as either (A) or (B) (or both); N = 52. ‘Problem drugs users’ have high lifetime conviction occasions; but not low age at first conviction or high early disadvantage score. Positively associated with ‘slept rough’; negatively associated with ‘in a relationship’.

(Un) Employment 58% no job of any kind in last year 24% ‘regular’ job at some time last year (10% for full year) 18% ‘cash in hand/casual’ jobs only * * * Unemployed throughout year – higher self-report totals (P < 0.02) ‘Cash in hand’ jobs – higher victimisation

DRIVING 1 full driving licence, 5 provisional licences, 30 disqualified from driving * * * 81 (72%) reported committing at least one of the three driving offences in the self-report study (drink driving, driving while disqualified, no insurance) 24% reported being the victim of an offence of taking a vehicle, or theft from a vehicle.

AIM 4: ‘To examine offenders’ aspirations to desistance, and some of the obstacles that they identify to “going straight”.’

Intention to desist (n=112) Definite decision to try to stop 63 (56%) Would like to stop but don’t know if I can 41 (36%) Unlikely to stop in near future 6 (5%) Other 2 (2%) Total 112 (100%)

Self - Efficacy ‘Self-efficacy is the belief in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the sources of action required to attain a goal’ (Bandura) Used in Theory of Planned Behaviour (health model) to facilitate ‘personal sense of control’ for the future Associated with current official criminality and self-reported criminality (P < 0.01), and with intention to desist (P < 0.001).

Frequencies of reasons why it might be difficult to go straight or stay straight (n = 112)