.png)
This paper describes the way to find a working model in order to facilitate more constructive youth crime prevention. Together with my colleague Lena Wahlgren a quantitative study was made on all young people, 12 to 17 years old, who were referred from the police to the Social Services in Kirseberg, a borough of Malmö, Sweden, suspected of committing criminal acts between 01-01-2000 to 06-18-2001. The group selected included 30 boys and 7 girls. Some of the more vital findings were that 93% of the young people had been in an activity before the crime and 72% of them were a part of a group at the time of the crime. How can we comprehend the collective risk activity among young people, at a certain time and place, which inevitably leads to an individual criminal act?
The culturalhistorical activity theory made it possible for me to create analytical tools that were useful in examining these risk processes and also to give constructive tools in order to understand the protective processes. Furthermore the theory made the concept of prevention programmes more distinct and understandable.
Based on the culturalhistorical activity theory I was able to find a tentative working model. To test the model a programme was designed and started up with groups on three levels. The first level consisted of three groups of young boys and girls who had committed criminal actions, the second three groups of their parents and the third one group of the people who worked directly or indirectly with the young people. The groups closed down during spring 2002 and were evaluated. The evaluation shows at the outset that the constructed model, for youth crime prevention, based on the culturalhistorical activity theory seems to be both valid and useful.
This paper describes one way to find a working model in order to facilitate more constructive youth crime prevention. The assignment is a part of the project “To come late, as early as possible”, which is funded by the borough of Kirseberg, Malmö and the county administration board in Skåne, Sweden. The task for the project is two folded. First to identify the group of young people in Kirseberg committing crime. Secondly to find methods, based on theory, for better and earlier youth crime prevention. For the project, two persons were employed, the social educationalist Lena Wahlgren and the author. We started in 2001 to make a quantitative study of the target group, which showed without doubt that youth crime emerged out of previous activities, involving more than one young person. In June 2002 the newspaper, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, made a study, based on our report and their findings supported ours about activity before crime.
Since the key word was activity we turned our eyes to the culturalhistorical activity theory for help to examine the risk process, but also to give some constructive tools in order to understand how to implement a protective process. We took our starting-point in the Norwegian researchers Yngve Hammerlin and Regi T. Enerstvedt findings about suicide and Pär Nygren about socialization, personality, need and motive. We interpreted them into crime activity and out of that designed an operational model. The model was both used as an analytical and a practical tool. We tried out the model on two groups of boys and their parents, one group of girls and their parents and finally one with people who work directly or indirectly with the young people. Let us enter a little bit deeper into each of these subjects and start with the Kirseberg study.
As the first step we made a quantitative study of all young people, 12 to 17 years old, who were referred from the police to the Social Services in Kirseberg, a borough of Malmö, Sweden. They were all suspected of committing criminal acts between 1 of January 2000 to 18 of August 20011. How the study was made I refer to the report. The borough of Kirseberg has 13 800 inhabitants and Malmö as a whole 260 000. We found that the group consisted of 30 boys and 7 girls. Figures that confirm that we are not really talking about youth crime, we are talking about young boy’s crime. More than half of the young people were 17 years old and 60% of them were native Swedes, nearly 20% born in Sweden with one or both parents born outside Sweden, and 20% born outside Sweden. These figure differ from the rest of Malmö’s 10 boroughs, which had more non-native young Swedes committing crime and the young people were younger in age. 35% of the group lived with both of their parents, 55% lived with the mother, 5% with the father and 5% in an institution. Nearly three out of four (72%) parents lived in flats, 14% in co-operative flats and 14% in private house.
The young people lived in one of the six districts of the borough of Kirseberg. More than half of the young people lived in the old district with flats, Kirsebergsstaden. Most of them attended an ordinary senior high school programme. 57% state they did not belong to any organization. Nearly 80% of the young people had no history of misuse of drugs and in 89% of the committed crimes there were no drugs involved, according to police reports. 78% of the parents did not have or have had social benefits. Most of the young people had no known problems in their family.
Assault was the most common act of crime, half of the young people were charged for that. Again these figures differ from the rest of Malmö, where robbery was most common. A fact that made us reflect on the importance of knowing what the target group looks like. If we had taken as our starting-point a 15-year old non-native young Swede committing robbery, we would miss our group. The older the young people became, the further away from the borough they committed their crime, so after high school they became mobile. When did they commit these crimes? We found that the most common time was Wednesday and Saturday evenings between 16.00 to 20.00.
The most vital findings were that 93% of the young people had been in an activity before the crime and 72% of them were a part of a group at the time of the crime. That implies that in relation to committing crime there is an activity going on with more than one young person. Therefore to be able to design youth crime prevention work one has to consider the activity process before.
The newspaper Sydsvenska Dagbladet2 examines all youth robbery committed, from 1 January 2002 until 31 May 2002. They found 155 of them. In 20 cases there was one perpetrator, in 48 cases two persons, 39 cases three persons, 21 cases four and in 27 cases between five to thirty persons. So in 87% there were more than one person. Furthermore in 113 cases both the perpetrator and the victim were under 20 years of age, in 42 they robbed persons between twenty and forty and in 20 cases the victim was over forty years of age. Looking into the perpetrators age the most dominant was 15 years of age followed by 16. Finally they did not find any robbery made in the borough of Kirseberg. These figures support our findings that youth crime is part of an activity. That is not to say that this activity is a crime activity, but an activity involving and carried out by young people. Therefore using theories and methods that do not take activity into account cannot be useful in designing youth crime prevention strategies. So how do we find this theory?
We were looking at texts based on culturalhistorical activity theory and found a couple that could help us. Most social work deals with matters, which are very hard to define, so we wanted a reasoning which was clear, easy to understand and easy to explain. We found what we were looking for in Hammerlin & Enerstvedt3 text about suicide, where they try to describe the phenomenon suicide from a culturalhistorical activity theory perspective. We also found interesting discussions in Pär Nygren4 writings, about how individuals shape his/her personality by stepping into different activities and by how society takes its residence in the person’s life. Moreover discussions about the concepts of socialization, internalization, need and motive. It would take too long to explain them here, but they serve as the canvas we paint our picture on.
We will in the paper focus on Hammerlin & Enerstvedt reasoning. They state that even if the decision to take ones life is an individual decision, the fact is that the motive behind this decision has its roots in social and collective activities. This is analogous to our findings, even if the crime is an act of an individual decision, it is based on a social and collective activity. This fact has nothing to do with collective suicide or crime, but is based on the activity theory’s principle, that through artefacts and communications man’s goal and motives are moulded. Hammerlin & Enerstvedt write;
Regarding the goal the activity appears as action, but regarding the motive it appears as activity.5
To understand suicide as an activity, always imply the understanding of it in a communication context. Activity and communication are as content and forms are to each other. To understand suicide as an activity, mean that you at the same time understand it as communication.6
Suicide action has a very important communicative aspect, which communicates something, tells us about something, and utters something. The action is also given meaning and significance, not only by the people who commit it, but also by those who interpret it. This is an activity theory omen. By doing so Hammerlin & Enerstvedt are able to show suicide as an expression for a concrete historical existence problem, an interest problem or as a contrast in the activity process. Therefore, according to them, it is important to “study the human beings concrete historical life processes, the actual contrast in them”7. When we understand suicide as an activity process we are able to study that activity, which step by step contribute to that life giving way to death.
This differs from the act of suicide itself, which could be understood as a point of time when the person in fact hangs or shoots himself. This gives rise to a statistical definition while the former gives rise to an operational definition. Operational definition gives the options to prevent since suicide cannot be reduced to its form of expression, as hanging. Suicide is more than to hang oneself. Furthermore suicide is not about hurting one’s body. Instead Hammerlin & Enerstvedt suggest a new definition of suicide
Suicide is an activity, which contains actions with the goal and result one’s biological death out of social, concrete historical motive.8
The methods for committing suicide, as taking poison or to shoot oneself and the motive, as jealousy or revenge, do not only differ from individual people. They also differ historically and are different in various cultures and societies. If we, as the authors, look at suicide as an activity, where the meaning with the action is to include death as a goal, out of various kinds of motive, then the goal of the action could be to die. It could also be a wish to live, in other words not to die. Finally it could be an expression for a persons doubt to die or to live. Because of these conditions Hammerlin & Enerstvedt suggest a further definition, namely what they call “death activity”
Death activity is all activity which implies an intentional self-injury with a likely serious result, either the goal is to die or not.9
The person that commits suicide dies. There are also people that try to commit suicide, but for one reason or another fail, with the result attempted suicide. Accordingly there are, as mentioned earlier, even those who are not sure if they want to die or not in a death activity. Hammerlin & Enerstvedt call this an ambivalent activity. Some will instead try to commit suicide, an appealing activity, in order to achieve something. Out of this the author’s claims that a death activity consists of suicide, attempted suicide, ambivalent and appealing activity. Through this separation they reach an additional definition.
Life-threatening activity is an activity where an intentional death risk is included, but where the individual goal for the action, is not self-injury and/or death.10
When Hammerlin & Enerstvedt then examine the motives behind suicide they are able to divide them up in four main types11.
Suicide as protection
Suicide as revenge or retribution
Suicide as extortion
Suicide as sacrifice or offering
First suicide can be used as protection, to protect oneself from someone or something, as physical and mental pain. A young person can choose to take his/her life because of bullying. This group also includes suicide as an escape from someone or something, which is mostly related to criminal activity. Secondly for revenge or retribution, which always is directed towards someone or something. In this context the way to do it and the point of time for suicide becomes important. Thirdly suicide can be used as extortion. For example the death of IRA-activist Bobby Sands on 5 May 1981 after 66 days of hunger strike belongs to this category. The fourth motive, sacrifice-suicide, is to protect somebody, to help or to relieve the pressure, where the intention is reached through death. Included in this group are those young people who sacrifice themselves in suicide attacks, who give their life for a cause.
When we talk about motive it is important to remember that the action can be thoroughly penetrated, well reflected, planned and considered. The choice to die can be logical and well thought-out. However it has become apparent that motive for many suicides bear the stamp of an unclear conception and of a confused ambivalence12. They are often not properly thought-out, confused and characterized by a twisted understanding of reality, although they always have a motive. Which leads us to ask if motive is identical with rationality? As an answer on that question, one could ask back: Rational for whom? What is rational for one person in one situation, does not necessarily have to be rational for another person in the same situation. On the contrary, the action could be regarded as irrational. Finally when we think about motive and activity it is a necessity to do this in relation to the concept need.
In order to illustrate Hammerlin & Enerstvedt’s argument I designed a model. To make the model simple (and that is way you make models) I left out the concept “needs” among other things. The understanding of need is fundamental, for one who works with activity theory, in relation to activity, action, goal and motive. Since the model should illustrate an individual action I have chosen to place the action as a result of activity, instead of something that realizes it. In the activity I have put in Hammerlin & Enerstvedt differentiation of activity out of motive, namely to fulfil the goal, appealing and ambivalent. I have also inserted another pair of concepts like necessary and voluntary activity and spontaneously or planned activity. By doing so I have gained a simplified, but practicable operational model (fig. 1).
If we instead of suicide apply the concept “car theft” and try to illustrate this activity with an example of a 16-year old boy, let’s call him Marco. I assume that you who read share the view that stealing a car has a prehistory and this history we will name a car thief activity. When the car theft activity result in the action stealing a car, it will be statistical measurable, like Marco has been stolen five cars during the autumn. However the statistical definition does not describe the proceeding process. A process which could imply that Marco is obsessed with cars, he was abused by his parents and ran away from them, or in love and tried to get to his partner as soon as possible etceteras. By understanding stealing a car as an action that is to say, in relation to the goal stealing a car, we are able to understand the action as a point, which proceeds stealing a car. If we only understand car stealing as one point we are not able to give a good answer on the question why Marco stole the car or what the motive was for stealing it.
A more usable way opens if we are able to understand the car stealing as a process, namely as an activity, with the result that other options give way for stealing a car. An activity that is communicating something. It is here the social worker gropes in the dark, since the statistical definition of stealing a car is shown to be unsatisfying to describe the preceding process before the stealing. The operational definition gives us the opportunity to describe this course of events and is at the same time useful in prevention and treatment work.
Analogous to the reasoning around suicide, stealing a car stands out with, in sight of the goal as action, but in sight of the motive as activity. The decision to steal a car is an individual one, Marco has to decide for himself, but the motive is social and collective and emerges from concrete historical situations. Activity is carried out in a context of communication and to understand stealing a car as an activity, means that we also understand it as a communication.
As mentioned earlier an activity may be divided up in necessity and voluntarily, where stealing a car belongs to the latter. Activity can also be split up into spontaneous and planned, where stealing a car could be both. According to Hammerlin & Enerstvedt an activity may also be distinguished by appealing, to receive help, mostly unconsciously. For example stealing a car to reveal a bad family environment13. An activity can also be characterised by a motive that is ambivalent, where various doubts compete, as to take the car or not. In that way the activity of stealing a car will contain acts of volition, which can be
To steal a car
To express a wish of something else
To express doubt about stealing a car or not
The starting-point for our examination will then be that stealing a car takes
place as a result of voluntary actions by a subject, in this case Marco. By
doing so we get two definitions in line with the previous mentioned authors.
First we get one statistical definition where stealing a car is an activity,
which includes actions with the goal and the result of stealing a car out of
social and concrete historical motives. Secondly we get one operational definition
where the car stealing activity is an activity, which implies stealing a car,
with the result stealing a car or not. In that way our examination of stealing
car activity will include stealing a car, attempt to steal a car, appealing
and ambivalent activity. To steal a car will be an action undertaken by a social
motive. Which are the motives that give the stealing a car activity meaning
and fulfil that person’s vital function? What will Marco, consciously or
unconsciously, communicate about? That examination is not yet done. I just want
to show by the example how this model could be used for analysis and a foundation
for measures.
How we went about
After I designed the model I have used it successfully for different kinds of group of young people who have committed criminal actions and their parents. When I used the model they were able to better understand what had happened when they committed their crime. The model also helped them to analyse how it happened, and not only that, it gave them also an opportunity to discuss alternative ways of acting.
For example Lena Wahlgren and I work with two groups of boys and one group of girls who had committed crime. We used this model about activity out of the culturalhistorical activity theory, among many other training. Both cognitive and emotional we talked about motive, social and collective activity, goal, individual decision and actions. In order to keep the paper short I have left out all other measures taken by the social service and focus on our work with the model. The same goes for the wider understanding of other processes influencing changes in young people’s life. I will mainly focus on the two groups of boys.
First we started from the right side in the model and drew the goal box and went through what happened when they stole the car. All boys made comments and at the end they agreed to the description of the crime. Then we passed on to draw the next box, action, where we explained to them that they needed to do something in order to get something, to move their body etceteras. After some discussion they understood the point and agreed. As the third step we drew the decision box and explained that they have to decide individually in order to make the action? At this stage a big discussion arose since the boys said, “I didn’t think, I don’t know”. We argued from of a couple of perspectives. The first one was: were you unconscious and woke up in the car? Didn’t you get in the car by yourself? Another perspective was: if you eat, how do you get your food to your mouth? Don’t you move your hand yourself? A third perceptive was to compare their car theft with truancy or other collective activities. For example even if a whole group of students have decided not to go to a class, still some young people will show up. So even, if you have agreed at one time, you still are able to decide by yourself at the moment before the action. After some argument they also agreed to this.
Secondly we move to say that this was the individual part and before that part there is a collective part, in relation to a concrete and historical situation. We drew the activity box and gave the activity that lead up to the individual criminal action the name risk activity. Later on we renamed it “car theft activity”. Then we started to examine the activity and at that time we introduced the motive box. In the first group of boys, one boy just wanted to drive with the motive “excitement”, “to be cool” and “to keep his position as king”. For the other boy who rode with him the motive was “to be together with the first boy” and he did not really want to do the thing. In the second group of boys, all the boys wanted to have a joyride. Then we passed over to discuss the preceding activity. In the first group, there was different collective activity before stealing the car. One group of young people was eager to joyride and the other group was friends with the first ones. In the second group, however they had the activity of wandering about, searching for fun, they were all in the same collective activity.
Thirdly we tried to get the boys to identify their motives. We found out that is was much easier to talk about motives in relation to the activity than to actions and reason in relations to the criminal act. That was a very productive experience, since most social workers find themselves trapped while discussing the committed crime with answers from the delinquent as, “It just happened” and “It was not the intention”. Now the boys talked, talked and tried to find out their motive for the activity, not the action. The motives they mentioned were “to have fun”,” excitement”, “appreciation”, “feeling of community”, “want to do something” and “to not be bored”. After that we asked what activity they like to do as a positive activity. With one voice they answered, “Have a girlfriend”. Next they identified the motive for the “girl-friend-activity” and found out that this motive was nearly the same as those they had while stealing the car. They found out that the motive could lead them to a positive activity as being together with their girlfriend as well as the activity of stealing a car. A fact they had never thought about before and as a matter of fact neither had we.
At the fourth step we went back from the left to the right again in the model. We highlighted the differences between necessary and voluntarily activity and tried to make the boys compare them. By doing so we hoped that the necessary activity, like school and homework, should become stronger than the voluntary, when they competed. Accordingly we did the same thing for spontaneous and planned activity, where we tried to get their planned activities like football, etceteras to be compared with the spontaneous and become first choice. While talking to the boys we found out one of the reason they liked spontaneous activity was the fact that the spontaneous activity had no rules like the planned activity. Maybe this is an important characteristic for risk activity, an activity with no determined rules.
Finally we had long discussions about how to change back or redirect an activity, which is starting to become criminal and if the activity goes criminal how, one can decide for oneself another alternative. We also brought up the differences between reaching the goal, not wanting to do it, (appealing), and in doubt what to do (ambivalence). As a matter of fact I did not think the boys would have any ambivalence, that the theory would not apply on this. But to my surprise one of the boys in the first group brought this matter up himself describing that at the time for the crime he had in mind if he should or shouldn’t. To my knowledge discussing this ambivalence is not on the social worker agenda, at least in Sweden. Reasoning in this way opened up to discuss the force they felt to do criminal actions and also helped them to separate between the collective activity and the individual decision before the action. On the following training meetings we often referred back to the model when we talked about other issues.
For the group of parents the model helped them to better understand what had happened. However they first had to try us out with a lot of questions. The model also helped the parents to shift their focus from only condemning the crime, their son and his friends and instead look upon what alternative activities they could do together with their son. For the group of professional the model liberated the discussion, but the group were to focus to find out measures, so they were not able to understand the model at once. We found out that it takes more time to work with professionals.
At the follow up of the first group three months later we asked the boys if any of them had been in a situation that could have developed to a criminal action and had avoided it. One of the young people then told us that he had been together with his friends and had seen a car, which they considered stealing. Just as he was going to take the car he remembered our discussion and decided to give up. Instead to prioritize the criminal action he chose to give priority to another activity, which was very important for him and could give him options in the future. Motive curiosity, excitement, to be one of the gang, to receive attention and to be popular, which earlier had lead to criminal actions, he now used as driving forces for another activity. When he did not continue to steal the car and explained why, none of the other friends did it either. In other words, we had successfully planted an activity reflection that when time was mature was released at the time of crime. We have during the spring 2002 made an evaluation on all the young people, their parents and professionals. What we have found out so far is that no one of the six boys or three girls has committed any new crimes. We can therefore conclude that this model for youth crime prevention based on the culturalhistorical activity theory seems to be valid and useful.
Finally as youth crime prevention workers, we got to learn how to correct identify
different kinds of risk activity in order to develop strategies which can implies
in these. In the coming work of analysis it is important to give the activity
the right name, all activities that precede a criminal action are not risk activities.
The activity can be marked by “wandering about”, “excitement”,
“fellowship” or “having fun”. For example a risk activity,
like to make a parachute jump or race a snowboard does not necessarily lead
to criminal actions. With these words I will finish the paper. I will continue
to develop the theory and to find more practical applications to youth crime
prevention. I also challenge you to take over the baton for more research in
this field.
Haley, Jay (1980), Leaving home. The therapy of disturbed young people. New
York;
McGraw-Hill Book Company
Hammerlin, Yngve & Enerstvedt, Regi Th. (1988), Selvmord i virksomhetsforståelsens
perspektiv. Oslo; Falken Forlag.
Hammerlin, Yngve & Schjederup (1994), Når livet blir en byrde. Oslo;
Ad Notam
Knutagård, Hans & Wahlgren, Lena (2001), Målgruppsanalys i relation
till aktualisering
för misstänkt kriminalitet på IoF, Övrigt bistånd
2000-01-01--2001-06-18. Delrapport 3.
”Att komma för sent så tidigt som möjligt”; Kirsebergs
SDF
Nygren, Pär (1991), Virksomhesteori og barnevernarbrbeid. In Broch, Hedvig
et al.
Virksomhetsteorin- En innføring og eksempler. Oslo; A/S Falken Forlag.
Nygren, Pär (1995), Profesjonelt barnevern som barneomsorg. Fra teori til
verktøy. Oslo;
Ad Notam Gyldendal. (2. edition 1997).
Sydsvenska Dagbladet, 5 June 2002, Part C, page 1.