A geography of early vulnerabilities and exploitation in the narratives of adolescent males in England

Abstract

Purpose

The victimisation and criminal involvement of young people in organised criminal groups is a recognised form of child criminal exploitation (CCE) in the UK. Three phases of exploitation were identified (peer influence, adult street-level gangs and organised criminal groups). This paper aims to consider the locations associated with three stages of criminal exploitation and considers implications for safeguarding.

Design/methodology/approach

The research uses narratives of adolescent males and those of adults reflecting on their experiences as adolescents who had been immersed in street gangs and organised crime from northern England.

Method

Narratives of criminal action approach, a thematic analysis and multidimensional scaling (smallest space analysis) were undertaken to explore key locations in the planning and commissioning of a crime with at least one other person.

Findings

The narratives revealed that local and regional geographic locations relate to the stages of CCE. They offer an insight into the process of CCE and identify locations that could be used as a risk indicator for police forces and safeguarding teams. A clear pathway from involvement with street-level gangs to direct contact with organised criminal groups was found. This transition was represented by a move from outdoor to indoor locations.

Research limitations/implications

Out of the 30 participants, 29 came from the same region in Northern England, spanning a period of 30 years. It is possible that the findings may be limited to this region, or that there have been changes to criminal structures and opportunities over this time.

Originality/value

Although drug selling and the movement of victims across the UK is central to CCE, comparatively little attention has been given to the locations where early exploitation takes place at a micro level. Practical implications for policing and safeguarding will be discussed.

Citation

Ashton, S.-A. (2024), "A geography of early vulnerabilities and exploitation in the narratives of adolescent males in England", Journal of Criminal Psychology, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCP-07-2024-0064

Background

The phenomenon known as “county lines” sees young people “commuting” daily or for short-term stays from cities to smaller towns and rural areas to supply drugs (Coomber and Moyle, 2018; Densley et al., 2020; Windle et al., 2020). Adolescents who are at risk through drug use, drug debt, experience of the care system or being unsupervised by a vulnerable parent (Coomber and Moyle, 2012; Havard et al., 2023; Marshall, 2023) are enlisted by street-level dealers with ties to an organised criminal group (Andell and Pitts, 2018; Ashton and Bussu, 2020; Moyle, 2019). Although the UK Government acknowledges these vulnerabilities, policies do not take account of these mitigating circumstances when young people become involved in associated weapon carrying and violent offences against the person (H.M. Government, 2015, 2016, 2018). It is therefore essential that young people who are at risk of organised criminal involvement should be identified and diverted as early as possible.

Although prior qualitative studies have identified early behavioural vulnerabilities of those who are recruited (Marshall, 2023; Olver and Cockbain, 2021), relatively little attention has been given to the earlier processes of criminal exploitation and crime planning. Additionally, a quantitative study using police records in Merseyside found that most young people who are recruited for county lines operations had been arrested during pre- or early adolescence for expressive violent offences and violent acquisitive crimes (Ashton, 2023). Examples included initial arrests for assaults and/or criminal damage, followed by possession with intent to supply cannabis, car theft, robbery and burglary. Adolescent involvement in violent income generating crimes has been linked to psychological trauma such as mood disorders, PTSD and ADHD. Other vulnerabilities that have been consistently linked to child criminal exploitation (CCE) include drug debt, physical abuse, peer criminal exploitation, gang membership and the precursor of family crime links (Ashton et al., 2021; Baidawi et al., 2020; Holligan et al., 2020; Marshall, 2023; Olver and Cockbain, 2021). Adult criminals recruit young people who exhibit psychological, social and behavioural vulnerabilities into violent criminal enterprises, adding a further level of trauma for this highly impressionable and exposed group (Ashton, 2023; Olver and Cockbain, 2021).

Criminal groups

Previous research on adolescent delinquent and criminal groups in the UK has identified three stages of affiliation, which have been categorised according to the focus and types of criminal involvement. Firstly, a recreational stage of a “young street gang” consisting of friends who are peers from the same area and who share a common history (McLean, 2017). Secondly, a “young criminal gang” that includes core members from the young street gang who have evolved towards more focused criminal activities and outcomes (Deuchar et al., 2015). Lastly, researchers identified a third tier of “serious organised crime group”, with a primary focus on economic outcomes. Importantly, involvement in one of these stages is not necessarily exclusive, nor are the stages fixed (Bolde, 2012; McLean, 2017). Densley’s (2012) hierarchy of street gang membership illustrates a potential overlap between young people involved in a “young criminal gang” who might encounter “serious organised crime group” members. According to this hierarchy, young people (12 to 16 years) were controlled by “elders” (17 to 24 years) who were responsible for drug dealing and violence. Above this level was an inner circle of older, trusted members who served an individual overseeing the organisation.

Prior research using the adolescent data from the current study (Ashton and Bussu, 2020) found a similar hierarchy of groups to those in other UK-based research and recognised that membership was fluid and not exclusive. Participants identified “Peer groups” who were groups of friends who engaged in thrill-seeking activities such as getting a chase from security guards, throwing fireworks or setting fire to a vacant building. “Street gangs” still consisted of friends but also engaged in fighting other groups and selling drugs, often to fund a personal habit. Participants identified organised criminal groups as offenders who made considerable amounts of money and who were involved with larger-scale robberies, and the importation of drugs. Such groups were more structured with more permanent members. In the study, exposure to older criminals occurred through family members or peer introduction (Ashton and Bussu, 2020). The present paper explores whether these relationships ae associated with specific locations and includes adult participants who were asked to reflect on their adolescent offending.

Analysis of the adolescent data for a second publication (Ashton, 2023) indicated that some young people were “talent” scouted by known associates, typically in their 20s. The more experienced offenders, who often had ties with organised criminal groups, tested the young people to see if they could successfully prepare and traffic drugs or conceal weapons, including firearms. Other participants were approached by strangers because they were involved in a particular criminal activity (e.g. drug dealing or handling stolen goods), or they were in an area where other illegal activities occur (e.g. the sale of counterfeit goods). The current paper builds upon these findings by examining the locations where these interactions occurred for both adolescent and adult participants in the research. The inclusion of adults in the present study allows for more reflective and critical narratives because the participants were no longer influenced a criminal group.

The analysis of data relating to youth who had been arrested for drug trafficking offences in Merseyside found that the age of their co-offenders had a relationship to different crime categories (Ashton, 2023). When the offending history of young adults who were involved with organised criminal groups were considered, peer offending was linked to possession of controlled drugs and expressive violence, including crimes with a hate element. Juveniles who had co-arrestees in their 20s were associated with acquisitive crimes that required specialist knowledge, such as burglary, theft of a motor vehicle and robbery. Those who were arrested with co-offenders who were in their 30s were associated with drug dealing, possession of a firearm and attempted murder, showing an escalation of violence. These findings support prior observations regarding the increasingly close links between local street-level drug dealing and serious organised crime (Andell, 2019; Andell and Pitts, 2018).

Motivational vulnerability to criminal recruitment

The recruitment and exploitation of young people by adult criminal groups relies on the promise of social or pecuniary gains (Baidawi et al., 2020; Marshall, 2023; Robinson et al., 2019). In addition to identifying potential juvenile accomplices through their social risks, adult recruiters seem to focus on young people who exhibit risk tolerant behaviours (Baidawi et al., 2020; Hesketh and Robinson, 2019). A higher level of thrill-seeking traits is associated with an increased offending motivation (Burt and Simons, 2013). Drug or alcohol use further increase the risk of criminal exploitation during adolescence (Zuckerman and Aluja, 2015).

Because criminal recruiters target young people in socially deprived areas, the promise of financial rewards is another method used to engage young people (Hesketh and Robinson, 2019; Marshall, 2023). Young people who had been exploited by adult criminal groups reflected on this process and identified how they had been duped by the promise of money and material gains (Irwin-Rogers, 2019). Many of the young people who were interviewed for the present study shared that they had looked up to “elders/olders” who had effectively conditioned them and encouraged them to seek approval for illegal acts (Ashton and Bussu, 2020; Robinson et al., 2019). Young people who had left the criminal enterprise were more critical and reflective of this process, and the inclusion of adult criminal narratives further clarified the conditioning process and methods.

Crime location choice

There are practical and psychological considerations regarding offender crime location choices. Two distinct but not discreet models have emerged in relation to how offenders select locations. A behavioural model advocates that offenders use familiar routes and actions to locate opportunities for crime. This implies that the decision of where to commit an offence relates to their everyday, routine activities (Brantingham and Brantingham, 2017). A cognitive framework purports that offenders use mental maps of familiar areas (Tolman, 1948), which are influenced by their knowledge of where best to achieve their offending aims. It is also worth considering that some offenders may be restricted or limited in terms of their decision-making processes because of their lifestyle (Bennett and Wright, 1984).

In the case of juvenile offenders, their crime map may be limited by practicalities such as a lack of transportation. Location opportunities may also be reduced because of their restricted experiences (Weisburd et al., 2009). Research has found that juveniles spend most of their time either at school or home (Brantingham and Brantingham, 1995), and that adolescent crime hotspots tend to be centred around shops or other recreational venues (Weisburd et al., 2009). Drawve and colleagues (2014) found that distance to crime was influenced by the offender’s age but also the category of offending. For example, the median distance from the home to offence for committing an assault was relatively high. However, the authors suggest that clusters of offending around schools could explain this. They also found that shoplifting and distance were highly correlated and suggest that this could be on account of parental involvement, enabling the young people to travel further to avoid detection. In the case of juveniles, it is essential to consider regional or national variations regarding the distance travelled to school, access to public transport, degree of autonomy and the age of co-offenders.

Crime location and co-offending groups

As Lammers and colleagues (2015) have observed, most crime location studies do not take account of the presence of multiple offenders. Research has determined the offenders select the location of their crimes based on either residential (present or past; Johnson and Summers, 2015) or previous crime locations (Bernasco et al., 2015; Lammers et al., 2015). It is possible that young people acquire new information regarding the selection of crime settings and avoiding detection when adult offenders share their expertise. Not surprisingly when there are multiple offenders, their shared space awareness influences the selection of a crime place (Lammers, 2018). Offences that are committed by criminal groups present a further layer of complexity, in that young people are often instructed or required to offend at a specific location, for example to manufacture or sell drugs. In fact, young people who are trafficked for the purposes of dealing drugs can travel considerable distances and their offending locales are dictated by older individuals with more experienced offending maps (Robinson et al., 2019).

The co-offending literature is relevant to understanding this process because it has identified the occurrence of knowledge exchange from more experienced instigators to less practiced followers. Reiss (1988) recognised that co-offending provides opportunities for the transfer of criminal skills, with more experienced instigators transferring knowledge to accomplices. This process occurs even within peer offending groups (Warr, 2002) and can also viewed as a means of social exchange (Weerman, 2003). Furthermore, it is also established that older offenders are more likely to have greater experience and knowledge to impart to their younger accomplices (Reiss and Farrington, 1991). Co-offending is also associated with an increase in violence during the commissioning of an offence (Conway and McCord, 2002). This can be due to an aggressor within a group escalating violence (McGloin and Piquero, 2010), or disassociation and the denial of responsibility for individual behaviours (Warr, 2002). Adult criminal groups can also provide young people with access to firearms and exposure to increased levels of violence (Ashton, 2023).

An analysis of police data, including juveniles, from The Netherlands found that offenders are more likely to offend in repeat locations, particularly when the prior offence was recent, the offences are of a similar nature and the location is close to the offender’s base (Lammers et al., 2015). Research on CCE and the movement of drugs in the UK has consistently noted that travelling out of area and missing from home are common features (Espeute and Lanskey, 2023; Robinson et al., 2019; Shaw and Greenhow, 2020). The trafficking of young people to an out-of-area “base” from which to sell drugs essentially expands their knowledge and experience of new crime locations. However, CCE changes the dynamics of location selection because of the lack of autonomy of the young people who are trafficked. Although the same police data found that co-offenders were more likely to target areas that were known to multiple members of the group (Lammers, 2018), the process of CCE means that adult offenders decide where to traffic juveniles. Adult gang members introduce new offending locations that are a greater distance from a young person’s home.

Traveling out of area is recognised as a behavioural risk by those supervising young people. As young people become more entrenched in and exploited by criminal groups, they become less visible (Havard et al., 2023). Contextual safeguarding assessment tools (The Children’s Society, 2018; HM Government, 2023) recognise this phenomenon and include elements that are relevant to travelling out of area (missing, train tickets, hotel keys). However, no specific attention is given to the types of location where young people are known to frequent or where they have been arrested.

Research aims and objectives

Prior research on juvenile involvement with organised criminal groups has focused on the point of trafficking, so-called “county lines” (Coomber and Moyle, 2018; Robinson et al., 2019; Densley et al., 2020). Comparatively little attention has been given to the earlier stages of criminal connections and the associated vulnerabilities that lead to adolescent exploitation by such criminal groups. The paper uses interviews with adolescents who had been exploited (Ashton, 2023; Ashton and Bussu, 2020) and the narratives of adults who were criminally exploited as juveniles in the same city in the North of England. These interviews identified adult criminal influence at street level (Ashton and Bussu, 2020) before young people became more actively involved in organised criminal groups and the preparation and sale of drugs.

This paper will add to the previous publications specifically by examining the locations associated with criminal exploitation and offending behaviours, focusing on the micro geographies of early contact, crime preparation and offence location. It will enhance the small number of research papers to include interviews with victims of exploitation, as opposed to soliciting the views of criminal justice professionals. The scope of this paper will include a range of examples of criminal exploitation described by people who were, or became, involved with adult crime groups (including street gangs to organised crime).

The aims of this research are to explore whether older co-offenders offer new crime location opportunities for adolescents. The research objectives are to investigate the relationship between offence category and age of co-offenders to the crime planning location; to consider whether crime locations differ depending on the age and group affiliation of co-offenders; and to explore the relationship between age and group affiliation of co-offenders to time travelled to the crime location.

The present study (method and sample)

Sample and procedure

Data were taken from two studies in the same region of England. Group 1 (Table 1, Cases 1–10) were adults who were asked about their adolescent offending. Adolescence is defined here as ages of 11 to 21 (Shulman et al., 2015). Participants were purposively sampled from a community programme to support men who were on probation or who had a history of offending and were receiving support to return to work. The researcher sent information regarding the study to the host organisation and staff shared this with service users. The researcher then visited the host organisation to respond to any questions that potential participants had. They were reminded that their participation was voluntary, and that their decision to take part would not impact on their involvement with the offending behavioural programme. Those who agreed to take part were asked to consent and were given a randomly selected number in case they wished to withdraw from the study. Ethical considerations for this group included their vulnerabilities (prior incarceration, history of substance use, childhood trauma) and offence disclosure. The researcher checked to see how the participants were feeling after their interviews and, if necessary, could refer them for support. Participants were told that if they shared information relating to sexual offences and terrorism for which they had not been convicted then the researcher had a duty to report these to the authorities. The Institutional Review Board at Prairie View A&M University gave approval for the research in January 2023.

Group 2 (Table 1, Cases 11 to 30) comprised of adolescents who had been referred to a community behavioural programme for young people for violent crime and/or who were at risk of gang involvement (Ashton, 2023; Ashton and Bussu, 2020; Ashton and Bussu, 2022). The researcher shared the project to the youth workers at the organisation. They explained the research with to the young people (or parent if the young person was under the age of 16). Permissions were obtained from the parent (under 16s), and the young person gave consent/assent after reading the information sheet and asking any questions of the researcher. Participants were reminded that their participation was voluntary, and that their decision to take part would not impact on their involvement with the offending behavioural programme. Ethical considerations included disclosure of criminal activities that were unreported to authorities; vulnerability of the underage participants to criminal adults with whom they had contact; and risk to themselves or others through their offending behaviours. Participants were told that if they shared information relating to sexual offences and terrorism for which they had not been convicted, then the researcher had a duty to report these to the authorities. Where the researcher felt that the young person would benefit from additional professional support, this was discussed with the participant at the time of the interview. Ethical clearance was given by Faculty Ethics Committee at Edge Hill University in April 2018.

To be included in the present study, participants were asked to self-identify as having been the following: a member of a group with co-offenders (older for Group 1 and any age for Group 2), a street level “gang” or an organised criminal group. So that early levels of criminal exploitation could be understood, participants were encouraged to share narratives that represented any level of group involvement.

Method

The research used semi-structured interviews in which the participants were asked to describe a delinquent or criminal act that they had participated in with at least one other co-offender. Offender narratives can help to understand how their personal stories connect to criminal behaviours and actions (Maruna and Liem, 2021; Presser and Sandberg, 2019). Narrative analysis has provided an alternative lens for understanding the relationship of criminal identity (Jackson et al., 2023) and crime motivation (Filkin et al., 2022) to juvenile offending. Criminal narratives are especially useful for understanding experiences of co-offending because they apply to all those who were present during the commissioning of a crime, including perpetrators, victims and witnesses (Presser, 2009). The narrative approach also adds a valuable qualitative element to quantitative papers that explore the development of criminal social identity (Boduszek et al., 2021).

The focus of the present study was to understand the pre-crime and offence locations that were associated with organised criminal involvement. Participants for this study were selected from a wider group if they self-reported drug dealing or self-identified as part of a street gang or organised crime group (Ashton and Bussu, 2020). Group 1 adult participants were asked to describe an offence that they committed during adolescence when they were with an older co-offender. Group 2 young people were asked to describe an offence that they had committed in the company of at least one other person. To ensure consistency, participants from both groups were asked to respond to the following questions: whose idea was it to commit the crime? What were the ages of your co-offenders? What did you do before the start of the crime? How did the crime start? What did you take with you? What did you gain from the crime? What did you do immediately after the crime? Group 2 were also asked if they felt that they had been influenced or coerced by their older co-offender(s). These questions ensured a degree of consistency in the contents of the interviews and provided crucial information regarding the co-offender characteristics for the research.

Interviews lasted between 15 and 60 min; they were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. They were anonymised, and any distinguishing factors were removed to protect the identity of participants. Interviews with Group 1 took place in November 2022 and March 2023. Interviews with Group 2 took place over a six-month period in 2019. Where appropriate, quotes from the narratives will be used to illustrate the research findings.

Data analysis

The following variables were selected for the purposes of the research and were dichotomously coded as present or absent in the narratives: offence; age of co-offender (participants differentiated between peers, friends in their twenties and older people); self-identified type of co-offending group (delinquent peer group, street gang, organised criminal group); pre-crime location, crime location, travel to crime (no travel = in the participant’s usual local area such as school/home/recreation; in area = within the county/combined local authority boundaries; out of region = outside of the county); and motivation for crime (acquisitive, social status, thrill-seeking). For the purposes of triangulation, a series of questions was asked regarding the co-offender characteristics, pre-crime location and offending location.

Smallest space analysis (SSA) is a form of multidimensional scaling (Lingoes, 1973). It calculates the inter-relationship between variables and produces the smallest dimensionality among these (Borg and Lingoes, 1987). This produces a correlation matrix, which is transformed into a rank ordered two- or three-dimension plot. The variables that commonly occur together are positioned in the same region of the output in the form of a plot. In the same way, the further variables are from each other the lower their association. The division of the variable groups that appear on the plot is determined by the researcher and is based on empirical evidence. The coefficient of alienation indicates how well the spatial representation represents the matrix; the lower the coefficient of alienation, the better the fit ().

SSA-I has been used for a range of categories of variable and groups. These include offender narrative roles and emotions among juveniles (Ioannou et al., 2018) and females (Ciesla et al., 2019); the relationship between expressive and instrumental offending styles (Youngs et al., 2016); and differentiating behaviours at crime scenes (e.g. Canter and Fritzon, 1998; Salfati, 2003). For the purposes of the present study, the relationship between co-offender age and location is investigated. The rank order of co-occurrence in SSA enables a clearer understanding of the relationship between offences, affiliation, motivation and location that appeared in the crime narratives of the samples.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 shows a summary of the co-offending groups, the self-identified type of group, pre-offence and crime locations. The mean age of participants at the time of the crime was 15.1 years (SD = 1.86, range between 11 and 21 years). Three age groups of co-offenders were identified: peers (the same age/stage of life as the young person, e.g. same school year), co-offenders in their 20s (who were described as friends or acquaintances) and those who were in their 30s (family members or adults who were introduced by the prior group in their 20s). Only in two cases were the older co-offenders members of the young person’s family. The co-offending groups were identified from the interviews with Group 2 (Ashton and Bussu, 2020).

Organised crime groups were associated with armed robbery, Class A (cocaine, heroin) drug preparation/sales and victims of human trafficking (so-called county lines), firearm carrying and theft of a motor vehicle. Street-level criminal groups were associated with income-generating crimes of street-level drug dealing, commercial burglary, theft, robbery, carjacking, theft of a motor vehicle; they were also connected to group fighting. Peer groups were associated with commercial burglary, theft of a motor vehicle, street-level drug dealing and assault. Locations that were associated with pre-crime activities/planning were divided between indoor (house or public house) and outdoor (park or street).

Participants reported different and sometimes multiple motivations for committing the offence. Thrill-seeking (47%) was associated with peer co-offenders and friends. Status (43%) was associated with violent offending, offences against the person and a street group. Income-generating offences were associated with older offenders from organised criminal groups and drug-related crimes.

Pre-crime locations

Figure 1 shows the distribution of 26 variables. The three-dimensional SSA-I (represented here as Axis 1 versus Axis 2) has a Guttman-Lingoes coefficient of alienation of 0.110101, showing a good fit. The association between the pre-crime locations, category of offence and their relationship to the co-offending group was explored. Four regions were identified, each representing a stage of involvement with criminal groups and a shift from outdoor pre-crime spaces to concealed indoor locations. The seven items in Region 1 had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.67; the five items in Region 2 had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82; the five items in Region 3 had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.69; and the nine items in Region 4 had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.73.

In the first region of the plot were crimes that were committed with friends as part of a deviant peer group. Participants described this as means or escalation of securing “chases” from security guards in shopping centres (an activity “for fun” or to relieve boredom). For this phase, there was no travel outside of the immediate area. Planning, or opportunities, occurred when the group was already assembled and in an open space. In one case (Table 1, 24), the young person was with friends riding motorbikes around in a field when they saw an abandoned house and decided to set fire to it. There was only one instance when a participant described dealing drugs in a park before travelling to another location for the primary offence that he described, which was fulfilling another drug order.

The second region represents an escalation in offending behaviours to include violent offences against the person as part of a “street gang” and with the motivation of acquiring status within a co-offending group. The pre-crime location for this region was the street. This section was associated spatially with the third region, which focused on drug dealing offences with older co-offenders in their 20s who had approached the young people to engage them in criminal activities. The motivation of generating income. Although not connected to a specific location, these activities were associated with travelling to the crime.

The fourth region of the plot presents a markedly different scenario compared to the previous stages of pre-crime behaviours. Locations were indoors either in a residential house (ranging from the home of participant or an associate to a “bando” where heroin and cocaine were manufactured) or a public house (“pub” or bar). The participant in Case study 1 described meeting with the head of a local organised criminal group after infiltrating the group: “I was always trying to be in that area where they was, being at house parties where they was. I just sort of got in there, do you know what I mean, slowly but surely […] I was boasting about things that I had done because I wanted to get in with them… [the day before the robbery] we was in the ** pub[lic house/bar], he suggested it [the armed robbery], he was well known in the area” (Table 1, Case study 1). His narrative helps to explain other variables in this location section: organised criminal group, with older criminals, access through an associate of a friend or the young person actively seeking to become involved in the group.

The participant in Case study 11 described a similar process of connecting to people in their 20s for drug dealing “So he gave a few samples to his mates and that, and, you know, it kind of went from there, you know, and kind of like started noticing and then got in contact with me and then they came up to see me and that, and I'd - you know, we’d all, like, chill out or go out for a bit of food or something”. This final region was also associated with stolen motor vehicles and travel to the crime location.

Crime locations

Figure 2 shows the distribution of 27 variables. The three-dimensional (represented here as Axis 2 versus Axis 3) SSA-I has a Guttman-Lingoes coefficient of alienation of 0.09367, showing a good fit. The nine items in Region 1and 12 items in Region 2 had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.67. The six items in Region 3 had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.65, showing an acceptable fit.

Figure 2, Region 1 accords with pre-crime Figure 1, Region 1 locations. The focus of offending was property crimes. This included trespass and breaking into abandoned buildings or building sites for fun and involved an adolescent peer group. Although the initial offence was trespass or commercial burglary, criminal damage often occurred during the entry to the site, and items were sometimes taken if they were available. The primary motivation was thrill seeking, and the co-offenders were the same age as the participant. No travel was required for this stage of offending location because offences were typically unplanned. The settings, although enclosed or inside, led to arrests in all cases; this was typically because alarms had been triggered when the young person entered the site. For this reason, they represent a detectible space.

Region 2 of this plot equates to pre-crime Regions 2 and 3. Locations of the street or a park were within the immediate region but required local travel. The offences were divided between expressive offending (assault and gang fight) and instrumental offences (drug dealing, robbery, with a street-level group). Weapon carrying was associated with the instrumental crimes.

Participants reported going to parks to fight with rival peer groups, an activity that was often encouraged by older co-offenders who were in their twenties. These relationships also enabled travelling legally in cars and increased access to drugs, as disclosed by both set of participants in their narratives when describing their friends. Two motivations were associated with these offences – social status and income.

Region 3 is associated with members of organised criminal groups who were in their 30s.

Consequently, the focus of this region is traveling out of region with the main location for the preparation of drugs for sale in a house. It also includes the theft and use of cars, as described by Case study 23: “[We] kicked him out of his car and drove off in his car and left him there and took his phone off him so he couldn’t call anyone and drove off in his car and then sold his car and bought another car and that was it”.

Motivational vulnerability to criminal recruitment

Different motivations were found in three discreet regions of Figure 2. Thrill seeking was associated with local peer co-offenders. Some adult participants referenced childhood neglect as a reason for committing acquisitive crimes. Parental neglect also left some of the study participants vulnerable to involvement in street-level gangs and drug selling. The desire for status played a role in motivation and membership of street level and a gateway to organised criminal groups.

The findings demonstrate distinct relationships between age of co-offenders/level of group involvement and planning/crime location visibility and distance. Therefore, detecting young people who are exploited by organised criminal groups or adult family members is more difficult because they are out of region and/or concealed indoors. The ability to travel to new crime locations by car increases the levels of vulnerability, exposure to violence and exploitation that are experienced by young people. New locations were also associated with changes in motivation for offending from thrill seeking to income generating.

Discussion

Crime location choice

Support for the behavioural model (Brantingham and Brantingham, 2017) was found for the early stages of co-offending of peers for opportunistic crimes in familiar locations. The transition from peer group to adult co-offenders greatly increases the opportunity to travel and so expand offending locations (Bennett and Wright, 1984; Weisburd et al., 2009). Because instructions were often given by older more experienced criminals, the study did not support the use of adolescent mental maps (Tolman, 1948). It did, however, find that adult co-offenders accelerate the age at which young people travel out of area to offend (Drawve et al., 2014). Importantly, the research demonstrated that distance to crime location was progressive and reflected the category of criminal group (peers, street level, organised crime) to which the young person had access. Contact with adult offenders and the ability to travel out of area greatly enhanced offending location opportunities for participants. This finding adds a new dimension to crime location selection among co-offending groups (Lammers, 2018) because the juveniles do not have an equal status or say in where they are taken.

The relationship between age, group and crime location

Figure 1 showed how the location for pre-crime connections changed from visible to discreet according to the type of criminal group and age of co-offenders. The second stage of violent offending against the person as part of a street group and with the motivation of status makes young people susceptible to criminal exploitation by adult criminals. This accords with the “talent” scouting that young people have described (Ashton and Bussu, 2020). Co-offenders who are in their 20s not only offer access to drug supplies but the ability to travel to a new crime location. This suggests that the movement of young people to another area starts at the street level of gang involvement and could be a precursor to the trafficking of juveniles out of region (Coomber and Moyle, 2018; Windle et al., 2020). In this way, older criminals can accelerate and expand access to new crime location opportunities for young people (Weisburd et al., 2009). At this point, young people are still partly visible, in that they are moved by car and are found with young adult offenders away from their home. A safeguarding referral for young people when an adolescent is found in the company of non-familial adults at the point of arrest could reduce further exploitation.

Early identification of young people who are at risk of exploitation is crucial; when they become involved with organised criminal groups, they become less visible (Havard et al., 2023). Figure 1, Stage 4 shows that pre-crime locations are more likely to be in a dwelling or a public house. This region of the plot was also associated with a willingness to take part in offending. For example, young people who were enticed by older organised criminal gang members or who had asked to join. Effectively, young people are introduced to new locations for the planning of crime rather than being restricted to age-appropriate settings (Brantingham and Brantingham, 2017).

The crime settings (Figure 2) followed a similar pattern to pre-crime localities. The three stages of group offending accord with prior research and revealed specific offences and locations associated with peer groups, street gangs and organised criminal groups (Ashton and Bussu, 2020; McLean, 2017). It is important to remember that these stages are not exclusive, and that they may occur contemporaneously, depending on the group (Andell, 2019; Andell and Pitts, 2018; Bolde, 2012; McLean, 2017). The clustering of variables in the SSA was suggestive of stages of offence involvement according to criminal group, motivation and crime location. Young people are most visible when offending with their peers, for example being chased by security guards was cited as the main reason for breaking into abandoned sites (Ashton and Bussu, 2020).

When young people co-offend with others who are in their 20s, the locations are still visible. Although not in the child’s immediate area, they are still within the policing region, often in a neighbouring local authority. Some young people described travelling by public transport to a park to fight with rivals, others were taken by car to areas that were targeted for robberies or drug dealing. In this way, adult offenders share their personal knowledge of crime locations (Lammers, 2015, 2018). Knowing where to commit a robbery or where to sell drugs to maximise sales and avoid detection represents the transfer or knowledge from one generation to another (Reiss and Farrington, 1991). Young people are therefore being moved locally by adults for the purpose of making money prior to being trafficked out of the region. Furthermore, the locations that are associated with these activities are in the open, meaning that it should be easier to detect and divert young people before they become embedded in an organised criminal group. Achieving early detection and intervention is critical, given that the offence locations associated with organised criminal groups were houses that were out of the young person’s home region.

Motivational vulnerability to criminal recruitment

Drug use among the sample was cited as a means of increased vulnerability for some young people because of the exposure to adult street gang members (Zuckerman and Aluja, 2015). Referencing a lack of legitimate opportunities for making money and an awareness of adult criminal groups were associated with the desire for status in the sample. These findings support existing research on the blurring of legitimate employment and criminal enterprises in Merseyside (Hesketh, 2018; Hesketh and Robinson, 2019). “Deviant entrepreneurship” (Hesketh, 2018) in the form of drug dealing was found to offer young people an accelerated route to status and material goods.

Travelling out of area is a recognised central tenet of adolescent contact with organised criminal groups through the trafficking of drugs and so-called “county lines”. Although missing from home is seen as a behavioural risk or indicator, specific locations do not form part of current safeguarding assessments. The research findings suggest that the location of crime planning and offending offer an important gauge for the level of criminal embeddedness and exploitation that young people experience. The locations that are reported in police intelligence and arrest data offer the opportunity to inform the safeguarding of vulnerable children and adolescents.

Study limitations

The number of adults was limited to ten individuals, and the number of adolescents was restricted to 20 young people. All but one of the participants came from the same region in Northern England, spanning a period of 30 years. It is possible that the findings may be limited to this region, or that there have been changes to criminal structures and opportunities during this time. The respondents had all been identified by the justice system as being criminally active, even though some of the adult narratives described crimes that had not been detected. It is possible that other locations for criminal exploitation exist but are undetected. Regarding the method, although the division of the variable groups on the SSA plot is based on empirical evidence, this is determined by the researcher. There are other possible research results and outcomes.

Conclusion

The research has shown that planning and crime locations are critical to the early identification of children who are at risk of criminal exploitation. The analysis of the offending locations suggests that during early exploitation, young people commit offences in open localities, close to their home or within their immediate region. At this point, family and police officers are more likely to be able to intervene in the co-offending relationship. It should be possible to identify young people who are at risk/in the early stages of exploitation from arrest records on account of the age of their co-offenders, their mode of travel to their offending location and the types of offences they are involved in. However, in the later stages of exploitation, this is likely to involve multiple police forces. Therefore, case sharing with agencies in the young person’s home region is critical.

The research has the potential to enhance practitioner understanding of the risk of exploitation for individuals by considering their offending localities. This is particularly important for young people who are reluctant to share the identity of those who exploit them for fear of reprisals or a sense of loyalty to their group. There is a critical early stage of criminal exploitation between offending with peers and organised criminal involvement. Identifying young people who offend in the company of adults who are in their 20s and involved in street-level income-generating crimes by location could prevent exposure to more serious organised crime groups. At this point, young people are still within their region and offending in visible settings.

In response to the UK Government strategies, contextual safeguarding assessment tools (The Children’s Society, 2018; HM Govrenment, 2023) include elements that are relevant to travelling out of area (missing, train tickets, hotel keys). Like other behavioural indicators of CCE (abduction, getting into a car with an unknown adult and being controlled by an individual or group) occur when a young person is already embedded within an older criminal network. Vulnerabilities that are listed on the assessments (The Children’s Society, 2018) include home, peers, exclusion from school and the neighbourhood. However, no specific attention is given to the types of location that young people are known to frequent, where they have been arrested and their co-offenders’ ages. The results provide other risk markers that can provide an initial assessment of external risk at the point of arrest and which agencies should be involved in supporting a young person.

The research findings have implications for adolescent criminal trajectories. In the short term, contact with an older criminal lifts transportation restrictions and enables travel to new areas (Drawve et al., 2014; Weisburd et al., 2009). Concerningly, there may be a longer-term impact, in that experiencing new crime localities exposes them to more developed cognitive maps and new routes (Brantingham and Brantingham, 2017). In this way, young people are exposed to new offending possibilities and more serious levels of criminal involvement at an earlier stage in their lives.

Future research

Building on the recognition in risk assessment tools of travelling out of area, future research could explore whether early crime locations could be utilised further by professionals to understand the level of risk of exploitation. This could include an analysis of arrest locations in police data to see if these can predict the stages of CCE as identified in the current paper.

Figures

Figure 1

The relationship of pre-crime location to offence, travel, motivation and method of introduction to criminal group

Figure 2

SSA plot showing the relationship of crime location to criminal group, age of co-offenders and crime motivation

Table 1

Summary of co-offending groups, offence type and location

Case study	Age*	Co-offend ages	Group§	Offence	Pre-crime location(s)	Crime location	Travel to crime†
1	16	20s; 30s	OCG	Armed robbery	Pub; park	Road	In area
2	13	20s	Street	Burglary	House; street	Market	No travel
3	11	30s	Street	TOMV	House; street	Road	Out of region
4	17	Peers	Peer	Street dealing	Unspecified	Pub	In area
5	16	peers; 20s	Peer	Drug use	House	House	No travel
6	18	20s	Peer	TOMV	House	Road	In area
7	18	Peers	Peer	TOMV	House	Road	No travel
8	21	20s	Street	Theft (shop)	Street	Shop	No travel
9	15	30s	Family	Theft (business)	House	Commercial	No travel
10	14	30s	Family	Theft (business)	House	Commercial	No travel
11	15	20s; 30s	Street; OCG	County lines	Street; house	House	Out of region
12	14	20s	Street	Street dealing	Park; street	Gas station	No travel
13	14	Peers	Street	Gang fight	House; park	Park	No travel
14	14	Peers	Peer	Assault	Street	Street	In area
15	14	Peers	Street	Robbery person	Street	Street	In area
16	14	Peers	Peer	Trespass	Park	Commercial estate	No travel
17	14	20s; 30s	Street; OCG	Street dealing	Street	Street	No travel
18	17	Peers; 20 s	Peer; OCG	TOMV	House	Road	Out of region
19	13	Peers	Peer	Assault	Street	Street	No travel
20	13	20s	OCG	Weapon carry	Street	Estate	No travel
21	16	Peers	Street	Robbery person	Street	Main street	In area
22	14	Peers; 20s	Street	Gang fight	Street	Street	No travel
23	16	20s	Street	Carjack	Street	Estate	In area
24	16	Peers	Street	Arson	Park	Estate	No travel
25	16	30s	OCG	County lines	Street	Forest	Out of region
26	15	Peers	Peer	Trespass	Park	Abandoned build	No travel
27	15	Peers	Peer	Burglary	Street	Abandoned build	No travel
28	15	Peers	Peer	Burglary	Park	Abandoned build	No travel
29	14	Peers	Peer	Assault	Park	Precinct	No travel
30	15	Peers; 20s	Peer; family	Assault	Street	Street	No travel

Notes:

*Age at the time of the offence;

^§Self-identified; TOMV = Theft of a motor vehicle; 1–10 adult interviewees and 11–30 juvenile interviewees.

^†No travel = in the participant’s usual local area (school/home/recreation); in area = within the county/combined local authority boundaries; out of region = outside of the county

Source: Created by author