The Trouble with Girls Today: Professional Perspectives on Young Women’s Offending
| Author | Gilly Sharpe |
| DOI | 10.1177/1473225409345103 |
| Published date | 01 December 2009 |
| Date | 01 December 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
A R T I C L E
© The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions:
http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Published by SAGE Publications
(Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC)
www.sagepublications.com
ISSN 1473–2254, Vol 9(3): 254–269
DOI: 10.1177/1473225409345103
The Trouble with Girls1 Today: Professional
Perspectives on Young Women’s Offending
Gilly Sharpe
Correspondence: Dr Gilly Sharpe, School of Law, University of Sheffi eld, Bartolomé
House, Winter Street, Sheffi eld, S3 7ND, UK. Email: g.h.sharpe@sheffi eld.ac.uk
Abstract
Drawing on recent empirical research, this article discusses youth justice professionals’
beliefs about the causes of young women’s offending, and examines whether ‘moral panics’
proclaiming that we are witnessing an explosion in female youth crime and disorder are refl ected
in contemporary youth justice discourse. I found disturbing evidence that girls continue to
be drawn into the youth justice system for welfare reasons – as a result of the criminalization
of domestic disputes or because of concerns about their sexual vulnerability. The widespread
cultural belief that girls are getting worse received some support amongst youth justice prac-
titioners and managers, although many professionals expressed confusion as to whether female
youthful behaviour has deteriorated or whether girls are subject to more intensive and formalized
methods of governance than hitherto. The implications of these fi ndings for the criminalization
of girls are discussed.
Keywords: girls, moral panics, net-widening, professional perceptions, youth justice
Introduction
Girls who break the law are hyper-visible in contemporary Western media discourse (though,
paradoxically, all but invisible in youth justice policy and practice – see Burman and Batchelor,
this volume) and popular representations of (working-class) girls have constructed them as ‘bad
in ways that they never used to be’ (Chesney-Lind, 2006: 11). Girls’ behaviour – and their
violent and alcohol-consuming bodies, in particular – attract relentless popular attention, much
of which focuses on their excesses or defi cits, and often both (Griffi n, 2004). A profusion of
media interest in young women’s violence has contributed to, if not created, perceptions that
today’s young women are increasingly appropriating (supposedly) traditional ‘masculine’
behaviours and turning into ‘ladettes’ in growing numbers (Worrall, 2004; Chesney-Lind and
Eliason, 2006; Chesney-Lind and Irwin, 2008). Statistical ‘evidence’ that girls’ offending, and
particularly their violence, is increasing dramatically, and at a faster rate than that of boys, adds
superfi cial support to such claims. However, close scrutiny of the available data strongly suggests
that such claims have been exaggerated and that the increase is attributable more, if not entirely,
to changes in the labelling and criminalization of girls’ bad behaviour – including the sites in which
they are governed – than to widespread behavioural change (Bateman, 2008; Sharpe, forthcoming).
Sharpe – The Trouble with Girls Today
255
The extent to which these popular concerns have infi ltrated the professional imagination
since the advent of a ‘new’ youth justice system in England and Wales (Goldson, 2000) have
not previously been examined empirically. Researching ‘front line’ perspectives (Robinson and
McNeill, 2004) on the causes of crime and the needs of offenders is extremely important. As
street-level bureaucrats who enjoy a relatively high (albeit arguably decreasing) level of discretion
and autonomy (Lipsky, 1980), youth justice and related professionals act, in a sense, as policy
makers: the youth justice ‘system’ is shaped in part by their decisions and actions, including
the extent to which they apply, modify, resist or even undermine central government policies.
Furthermore, in spite of the rapid increase of managerialism in criminal justice (Feeley and
Simon, 1992), it remains the primary responsibility of (usually) Youth Offending Team (YOT)
offi cers to attempt to persuade magistrates and judges to dispense particular punishments in
respect of young people and to enforce their compliance.
The fi rst part of this article discusses youth justice professionals’ beliefs about girls’ pathways
into crime. I then present evidence, refl ecting previous research fi ndings (Bottoms and Pratt,
1989; Hudson, 1989), that services targeted at young people ‘at risk of offending’ are drawing
girls who have not offended, but who are considered to be (sexually) vulnerable, into the youth
justice sphere by confusing welfare needs and criminogenic risk factors. I contend that such
practices may have been exacerbated in recent years by the contraction of non-criminal justice
avenues of support for young women in diffi culty. Finally, I analyse professionals’ perceptions of
contemporary patterns of female juvenile lawbreaking and criminalization, in order to examine
the extent to which media-promulgated ‘moral panics’ about ‘ladettes’ and girl violence are in
evidence in contemporary professional ideology.
Professional Accounts of Offending Girls
I interviewed 48 youth justice and related professionals between September 2005 and June
2006 as part of a larger study of Girls in the Youth Justice System (Sharpe, 2008), the majority
(38) of whom were employed in two YOTs in the Midlands of England – hereafter referred
to as ‘Midshire’ and ‘Castleshire’. Of the remaining ten, nine worked for one of the YOTs’
partner agencies providing services for young offenders or young people ‘at risk of offending’,2
and one was a unit manager in a secure training centre. Interviewees were selected to refl ect the
broad range of professional backgrounds of workers in the contemporary youth justice system.
Thirty-two women and 16 men were interviewed, all but one of whom were white. Two-thirds
(30) were case-holding practitioners, one-quarter (12) were team leaders and one eighth (six)
were strategic-level managers. All undertook, or had previously undertaken, direct work with
young people in youth justice or a related fi eld. Interviewees came from a variety of professional
backgrounds – including (most frequently) social work, probation, police, education, health,
youth work, careers guidance and the prison service – and had between one and 23 years’
experience of working with young people.3
Excess ‘Baggage’: Family Pathology
Consistent with much academic, political and popular opinion (Goldson and Jamieson, 2002;
Arthur, 2005), the majority (38) of the professionals I interviewed maintained that there is a
close association between family dysfunction and youth offending. Moreover, whilst poor
256
Youth Justice 9(3)
parenting, strained family relationships and family breakdown were frequently felt to have
similarly negative consequences for young people of both sexes, a signifi cant minority (over a
quarter) of interviewees felt that family pathology was more prevalent amongst, or that it had
a distinctive psychosocial impact upon, their female clients. Girls were thus sometimes felt to
be carrying a lot of ‘baggage’ in relation to their problematic family histories. As one probation
offi cer put it: ‘I think usually the girls’ backgrounds tend to be more diffi cult and more in need.
They usually have some sort of baggage that they’re carrying, where the boys won’t necessarily
have as much’ (Probation Offi cer, male, Castleshire YOT).
Several professionals considered the association between familial adversity and offending to
be particularly pronounced amongst girls who are more entrenched in the youth justice system.
For instance, one YOT offi cer believed that although many girls ‘get into a little bit of trouble’
but soon ‘sort themselves out’, those who remain in the system:
…usually have got really, really broken family backgrounds. […] Always abused. Always very
unstable. Always rubbish accommodation issues. […] I’m trying to think of any girls who’ve had
really supportive families, and I’m struggling to think of any, to be honest with you.
(YOT Offi cer, female, Castleshire)
The predominance of a family psychopathology paradigm has long been emphasized in studies
of professionals’ beliefs about girls’ offending (Campbell, 1981; B. Hudson, 1984; Gelsthorpe,
1989; A. Hudson, 1989). Contemporary developmental research, however, indicates that there is
confl icting evidence about the special relevance of family problems to the aetiology of female
offending (see Moffi tt et al., 2001: 151–158).
Complaints that statutory children’s services are too pressured to be able to work with
teenagers except in situations of extreme seriousness were frequently voiced; many interviewees
believed that social services, in particular, act as gatekeepers, restricting access to help for many
children and families in need.4 Their experience of family-related adversities, and a lack of
external support, may result in some young women effectively entering the youth justice system
by default, where family relations have reached breaking point and parents or carers are de-
sperate for help, as the following quotation illustrates:
The girls that I’ve seen in [police] custody… they’re the ones who were there for self-harm, and
they’re doing things like criminal damage within the home in order to… get into the system.
Because the parents believe they can get into the system that way to get more help. […] I think
parents...
To continue reading
Request your trial