Peer violence in adolescent residential care: A qualitative examination of contextual and peer factors

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.006Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Four main themes contributed to peer violence amongst residents.

  • The first two themes included the peer culture and victimization upon admission.

  • The remaining themes included deprivation and poor relationship with staff.

  • A number of research and policy recommendations are provided.

Abstract

This research examined the way contextual and peer factors influence peer violence in adolescent residential care. One hundred and twenty residents aged 11–21 from 20 residential care facilities participated in 20 focus groups about peer violence in care. The results demonstrated that four, mutually interrelated themes, contributed to explanations of violence amongst residents: 1) residential peer culture; 2) vulnerability at the beginning of institutionalization; 3) deprivation, stigmatization and frustration; and 4) poor relationship with staff. The results are discussed with reference to the existing residential care and prison-based research on bullying and peer violence and a number of research and policy recommendations are provided.

Introduction

The existing research on residential care suggests that bullying and peer violence represent one of the greatest threats to achieving the complex aims of residential care (Sinclair & Gibbs, 1998). However, research on residential care that focused exclusively on bullying or peer violence amongst residents is limited. Except for one qualitative study focusing on peer violence in general (Barter, Renold, Berridge, & Cawson, 2004), and one quantitative study (Sekol, 2011) focusing on bullying in particular, no previous research has focused solely on attempts to explain peer violence and bullying in adolescent residential care.1 Although using different approaches, both studies demonstrated that bullying and peer violence are serious problems amongst young people in residential care.2

Using an anonymous self-reported bullying questionnaire, Sekol (2011) explored the nature and prevalence of bullying in a national sample of institutionalized youth in Croatia (N = 601) and individual risk factors for bullying and victimization. Approximately three quarters of residents in both children's homes and correctional homes were involved in bullying at least two or three times a month, either as victims or as perpetrators. Indirect and direct bullying and victimization were about equally prevalent and more girls than boys were involved in bullying. Just under half of residents in both samples believed that staff rarely knew about bullying, that bullying was part of the way things work in residential care, and that victims deserved to be bullied. More than a quarter of residents in both types of facilities believed staff rarely try to stop bullying and about half of all victims in both samples stated that they did not report their victimization to staff.

In terms of individual risk factors for bullying, Sekol (2011) examined personality traits, empathy, self-esteem and attitudes towards bullying and demonstrated that residents who reported the involvement in bullying and victimization differed from those who did not in a number of important ways. However, her final regression models accounted for, at best, 27.0% of variance in bullying and 18.0% of variance in victimization. This left a large proportion of the variances still to be accounted for by other individual and contextual variables.

The context of peer violence was explored by Barter et al. (2004).3 Semi-structured interviews with 71 young people and 71 staff from 14 English children's homes revealed six institutional factors that contributed to peer violence amongst residents. These referred to: 1) the inconsistent application and scarce practical assistance of policies and procedures regarding peer violence; 2) misinterpretations of the Children Act 1989; 3) a lack of rationale for the organization of the young people's meetings that provide residents with the opportunity to share their thoughts and opinions about peer violence; 4) inappropriate referrals of residents; 5) inappropriate physical features of the homes; and 6) insufficient staffing levels.

The authors also recognized the importance of the residential peer group and its norms in shaping violence amongst residents. They noted that: a) residents had their own rules; b) there was a normalization of violence in the homes and that residents' perceptions of violence depended on their place and role within the peer group; c) peer group dynamics was hierarchical with dominant members (‘top dogs’) who used oppression and control to impose their will upon their peers); d) residents often had a justification for behaving violently (e.g., ‘I never hit him before he hits me’); and e) young chronological age and/or immaturity often served as catalysts for violence.

The authors further described how young people usually perceived a new admission as a threat to their own position in the hierarchy stating that they had to ‘protect their patch’ (Barter et al., 2004: 64). To do so, residents used a variety of unacceptable means ranging from verbal and physical attacks and intimidation to ‘initiation ceremonies’. If new residents did not fight back or resist in some way, they would be labeled as weak and placed at the bottom of the hierarchy. Overall, staff viewed the peer hierarchy as a normal and even beneficial aspect of peer relationships in care, stating that it was important for residents “to know where their little places are” (Barter et al., 2004: 44) and describing the practice of relying on residents' pecking orders as a mechanism of control. Similar processes of manipulating residents' social hierarchies by staff and social changes after new admissions were described in the classic work of Polsky (1962). Although Polsky (1962) did not focus explicitly on the relationship between peer culture and violence, he provided a detailed description of the social system of delinquent boys in residential treatment and found that aggression represented the main model by which boys learned to conform to group norms.

While residential care research provides little information about the role of contextual and residential peer influences in creating tensions between residents, existing research on bullying and peer violence amongst adult and young offenders provides a better insight into the prisoners' subculture and factors creating it. Residential living of any kind means that the whole personality of a young person is involved in a more or less inescapable social system (Elliot & Thompson, 1991). Such a system not only renders victims captive and increases their exposure to the aggressor, but it also gives the aggressor access to personal information (e.g., about family situations) for intimidating or controlling the victim (Baker, Cunningham, & Male, 2002). Residential care facilities also admit young people with troubled backgrounds, challenging behavior and conflicting needs (Gibbs & Sinclair, 2000), making it likely that patterns of peer violence and peer cultures similar to those found amongst young offenders will occur in other types of residential care for young people. Therefore, the classic and recent work of prison sociology, which describes the nature of inmate hierarchies and the defining features of the inmate ‘code’, may be useful for understanding peer violence in adolescent residential care.

Sykes and Messinger (1960), for example, argued that prisoners' social relations were determined by their value system which took the form of an explicit ‘inmate code’. The inmate code was seen as a product of the natural deprivations of prison life (‘pains of imprisonment’) and explained as a cultural mechanism for alleviating these pains. Five principles of the code served as guidance for inmate behavior: “never rat on a con”; “refrain from quarrels or arguments”; “don't exploit inmates”; “don't weaken”; and do not show “respect to the custodians or the world for which they stand” (Sykes & Messinger, 1960: 6, 7, 8).

Although the dominant themes of the inmate code were group cohesion, solidarity and loyalty, the violations of the code could result in variety of “sanctions ranging from ostracism to physical violence” (Sykes & Messinger, 1960: 5). Furthermore, deviation from and conformity to the inmate code also served as a basis for determining inmate ‘argot roles’.4

The above-described deprivation model (see also Goffman, 1961) was first challenged by Irwin and Cressey (1962) who argued that the ‘inmate code’ is an extension of the ‘criminal subculture’ which prisoners bring with them into the prison. Hence, while Sykes (1958) described a single prison subculture, Irwin and Cressey (1962) found three different subcultures imported into the prison.5 The research that followed was based on the deprivation–importation debate and demonstrated that the prison culture is determined not only by ‘pains of imprisonment’ and influences from the outside world, but also by the ideology and management of the institution (Sparks, Bottoms, & Hay, 1996).

The role of correctional officers in contributing to peer violence in custody has also been examined. Peterson-Badali and Koegl (2002) interviewed 100 male juveniles in Canadian secure custody and found that correctional staff allow, and even encourage, inmate-on-inmate violence. Approximately half of the juveniles reported that they had witnessed staff turning a blind eye to imminent peer violence, guards using too much force on inmates, or staff saying or doing things to put inmates' safety in jeopardy. Roughly one-third of participants reported that they had witnessed or experienced staff offering an incentive to an offender to intimidate or assault another inmate. Just a little under half of juveniles stated that it is unwise to report problems to staff for fear of being labeled a ‘rat’.

Using a grounded theory approach in analyzing qualitative data obtained in two focus groups with young offenders, Spain (2005) also found that the negative interaction between prisoners and staff disrupted the overall social cohesion of the prison. The lack of social cohesion led to the separation of the prisoners and staff subcultures. The stronger the ‘us and them’ society was, the less likely the inmates were to report bullying for the fear of peer reprisals and the stronger the inmate code was. Overall, the role of staff in inducing bullying was the most important factor contributing to the disruption of the prison's social cohesion. Participants reported that they had witnessed staff inciting bullying through favoritism, using the ‘favorites’ to control other prisoners by violence, or turning a blind eye to bullying when it occurred. Social cohesion was further disrupted by frustration because of lack of material goods, poor relationship with staff, unpredicted regimes, and boredom. Apart from social cohesion, two other themes relevant for explaining bullying emerged from the focus groups. First, to avoid bullying, residents had to ‘adapt to survive’ which meant abiding by the inmate code and having the support of peers. Second, rejection of new prisoners was common and sometimes referred to as being triggered by race, religion or regional rivalries.

Although the pioneering work in residential care by Barter et al. (2004) provided valuable information about the influence of group structure and its hierarchy in shaping violence between residents, the authors referred to peer group norms as to a feature that existed per se. They spoke of the fact that young people had their own rules, without disentangling either what those rules were or what had shaped them. Consequently, the crucial question of deviation from what norms of a peer culture provided justification for violence remained unanswered. Similarly, Spain (2005) noted the importance of abiding by the inmate code in young offender institutions but described only one principle of the code. This referred to the double-bubble rule which obligated male prisoners to pay double back when they borrowed goods off another prisoner.6

This paper is a qualitative part of the above-described quantitative study by Sekol (2011); also see Sekol and Farrington, 2009, Sekol and Farrington, 2010. The paper aims to add to the research on peer violence in adolescent residential care by examining the concept of residential peer culture in more detail. The paper intends to examine what contextual and interpersonal factors contribute to the creation of the residential peer culture and what peer norms, values, and beliefs (if any) constitute ‘the residential code’. Finally, the paper aims to investigate the way residential peer culture and other contextual factors contribute to violence amongst residents. The method selected for this study is Grounded Theory, an inductive technique which requires approaching the data in as open a manner as possible (Anglin, 2002). Hence, although the literature review is provided above, the aims of this study remain rather general and no explicit predictions or hypotheses are tested. To assure that the results of this study emerge from the actual research data and not from prior formulations, the above literature review was conducted and written after the data were analyzed.

The work reported here goes beyond the existing research in several ways. First, although in focus group discussions it relies on a vignette applied by Spain (2005), this paper uses a modified and extended version of the vignette so that it addresses a wider specter of peer violence as well as residential peer values and rules. Second, this paper is the first attempt to describe the peer culture in adolescent residential care in greater detail, rather than just referring to it as to the feature which exists per se. Third, contrary to Spain (2005), who conducted only three focus groups, and to Barter et al. (2004), who studied 14 children's homes, this paper is based on 20 focus groups conducted in 20 residential care facilities. Fourth, the present study is the first qualitative study on peer violence conducted in a variety of residential placements for adolescents ranging from children's homes to correctional institutions (for details, see below).

Section snippets

Young people

The sample was drawn from the pool of 601 young people aged 11–21 from 22 residential care facilities in Croatia who participated in the above-described quantitative part of this study (for details, see Sekol and Farrington, 2009, Sekol and Farrington, 2010, Sekol and Farrington, 2013). All participants who completed questionnaires were asked whether they would like to participate in a group discussion on ‘What is it like to live in care’. At least 20 residents in each facility agreed to

Results

Four main themes emerged as vital to understanding the relationship between group home life and bullying amongst residents: 1) residential peer culture; 2) vulnerability at the beginning of institutionalization; 3) deprivations, stigmatization, and frustration; and 4) poor relationship with staff. The themes were mutually inter-related, and are separated here just for an ease of interpretation. For instance, poor relationship with staff, deprivations, stigmatization and frustration contributed

Discussion and conclusion

This paper demonstrated that peer violence in adolescent residential care is not simply the behavior of individual young people but that it is also the product of institutional life (Howard League for Penal Reform, 1995). Although previous research noted the importance of peer cultures in shaping violence amongst institutionalized youth, there was a tendency to ‘gloss over’ the meaning of crucial elements that shape such cultures, such as group values and principles of the residential code. The

References (67)

  • E. Brown et al.

    Making residential care work: Structure and culture in children's homes

    (1998)
  • K. Browne et al.

    Factors related to bullying in secure accommodation

    Child Abuse Review

    (1996)
  • N. Cantwell

    STOP violence against children. ACT NOW!

  • L. Christmas

    Looking after learning: Making a difference for young people in care

    Educational and Child Psychology

    (1998)
  • J. Chung et al.

    Exploring social desirability bias

    Journal of Business Ethics

    (2003)
  • W.A. Corsaro et al.

    Children's peer cultures

    Annual Review of Sociology

    (1990)
  • G. Dyson

    Examining bullying among institutionalised young offenders: Triangulation of questionnaires and focus groups

  • N. Elliot et al.

    Limiting bullying in residential care

  • R. Emond

    Understanding the resident group

    Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care

    (2002)
  • D.P. Farrington

    Understanding and preventing bullying

  • B. Fletcher

    Not just a name: The views of young people in foster and residential care

    (1993)
  • F. Fletcher-Campbell

    The education of children who are looked after

    (1997)
  • F. Fletcher-Campbell

    Progress or procrastination? The education of young people who are looked after

    Children & Society

    (1998)
  • J. Francis

    Investing in children's futures: Enhancing the educational arrangements of ‘looked after’ children and young people

    Children and Family Social Work

    (2000)
  • J. Francis et al.

    The quality of the educational experience of children in care

    (1996)
  • L. Fulcher

    Differential assessment of residential group care for children and young people

    British Journal of Social Work

    (2001)
  • T. Garfat

    Meaning-making and intervention in child and youth care practice

    Scottish Journal of Residential Child Care

    (2004)
  • G. German et al.

    Tackling bullying and racial harassment in schools, children's homes and youth clubs

  • A. Gibbs

    Focus groups. Social research update

    (1997)
  • I. Gibbs et al.

    Bullying, sexual harassment and happiness in residential children's homes

    Child Abuse Review

    (2000)
  • R. Gilligan

    The importance of schools and teachers in child welfare

    Child and Family Social Work

    (1998)
  • B. Glaser et al.

    The discovery of grounded theory

    (1967)
  • E. Goffman

    The inmate world

  • Cited by (37)

    • Bullying in residential care for children: Qualitative findings from five European countries

      2019, Children and Youth Services Review
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, we found that younger children participating in this study were more confident in the staff's ability to deal with bullying, whereas older children expressed their distrust in the measures adopted by staff. Previous studies, showed that a poor relationship between residents and staff contributes to bullying and to the conviction that residents should solve bullying by themselves (Sekol, 2013). Unlike older children, the younger ones could be in need of more emotional support from their caregivers (i.e., educators); as a result of that, they might have a closer bond with them and trust them more.

    • Bullying and peer violence among children and adolescents in residential care settings: A review of the literature

      2018, Aggression and Violent Behavior
      Citation Excerpt :

      However, gaining power over the peer group has been also identified as a social goal of children who bully their peers at school (Volk et al., 2014). Furthermore, another specific characteristic of bullying in RCS is the anti-grassing culture that contributes to reinforce the dynamics of bullying and prevents adults from stopping bullying (Sekol, 2013). Although bullying and peer violence share some attributes, the studies included in the present review, suggest that while bullying involves serious and repeated attacks, peer violence episodes may involve different degrees of severity (Barter et al., 2004).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text