Written evidence submitted by Dr Sarah Brooks-Wilson, Social Scientist, Department of Social Policy, Sociology and Criminology, University of Birmingham (SOC0026)

1. Introduction and parameters of this response

Thank you for considering this evidence, which addresses how serious and organised crime affects people living in impacted communities. This evidence uses the Home Office definition of serious and organised crime: ‘individuals planning, co-ordinating and committing serious offences, whether individually, in groups and/or as part of transnational networks’[i]. The backdrop to this response is one of elevated child exploitation or abuse, illegal drugs and firearms levels. This evidence shows that such environments significantly undermine children’s daily lives, wellbeing and opportunities.

I have extensive experience researching social deprivation and access to essential services[ii][iii][iv], including how disadvantaged groups struggle to reach everyday destinations like schools, shops and youth justice services[v]. This response draws on qualitative evidence from a Birmingham Youth Justice Service project involving 30 children under 18 years of age, living and travelling in areas with high levels of crime and violence[vi]. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child protects children’s civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.[vii] Children in areas affected by serious and organised crime experience breaches of these rights and have a heightened exposure to serious harm.

For example, Article 6 states that:

Every child has the right to life. Governments must do all they can to ensure that children survive and develop to their full potential[viii].

Article 27 states that:

Every child has the right to a standard of living that is good enough to meet their physical and social needs and support their development[ix].

I present this evidence in observance of Article 12:

Every child has the right to express their views, feelings and wishes in all matters affecting them, and to have their views considered and taken seriously[x].

2. The local context

The West Midlands is one of 20 police areas with a Violence Reduction Unit[xi][xii]. Serious youth violence remains common and is closely linked to child exploitation[xiii]. Children involved in county lines often experience victimisation alongside offending, making their status complex. The National Referral Mechanism identifies and responds to exploitation, and 45 per cent of West Midlands referrals concern children aged 24 or under. Of those involved in county lines, 94 per cent were male, and Black children were disproportionately affected[xiv], although poverty and other intersecting disadvantages also contribute. Targeted children are typically highly vulnerable, and those in my research had particularly complex needs. Birmingham also faces high neighbourhood deprivation, with over half its areas in the 20 per cent most deprived nationally in 2019, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 2 shows seven domains of deprivation from 2019[xv] with the bold line placed between the 5th and 6th deprivation decile. This indicates that over 90 per cent of neighbourhoods in Birmingham are in the 50 per cent more deprived in England for living environment, and over 70 per cent of neighbourhoods in Birmingham are in the 50 per cent most deprived in England for crime[xvi].      

Protected characteristics, complex needs and disabilities were over‑represented within the cohort of children in this research. Figure 3 outlines the extent of known protected characteristics and other issues present among participants. Conditions counted as both ‘disabled’ and a protected characteristic included attachment disorder, attention deficit disorder, autistic spectrum disorder, neuro‑disabilities, physical disabilities, special educational needs, and speech, language and communication difficulties. The category of ‘other issues’ refers to children experiencing childhood trauma, domestic abuse, risks of self‑harm or suicide, anxiety or wider mental health concerns, substance misuse, periods of being not in education, employment or training, or those with a child protection plan. Youth justice teams now respond to trauma[xvii] and adverse childhood experiences[xviii] and this research site is also currently involved in a Youth Justice Board pathfinder on racial trauma, which is being evaluated by the Universities of Wolverhampton and Birmingham[xix]. However, much of what is discussed in this evidence exists in children’s communities, independently of the sector.

Figure 3. Protected characteristics and other issues experienced by children in the research  

3. Main evidence themes

Social deprivation increases children’s reliance on public space. When structured leisure activities are unaffordable, children socialise in parks, streets and other communal areas. Those in low‑income households are also less likely to have access to a family car and therefore more dependent on walking or public transport[xx]. This heightens the risk of unpredictable encounters and personal safety concerns, leading children to adopt protective strategies that can restrict other aspects of their daily lives. Some children also live in households and neighbourhoods where serious and organised crime is present. Staff conducting home visits undertake risk assessments and use emergency contact systems as standard practice. The following evidence is primarily children’s words, unless otherwise indicated.

Local spaces

Lack of safety at home:

There is the use of weapons on my street and near the local shop. There’s been like two shootings, a lot of knife crime and a lot of people breaking into houses, robbing and stuff.

On my street there were two drive-bys and some houses got shot up. You never know when I’m outside […] they’re driving by so anyone could have been shot.

There have been a lot of people breaking into houses on my street, and I've had some experiences as well, so I never feel safe at home, especially if I’m alone.

For other children, the risk of serious harm was so high that leaving home was not considered feasible. For justice-engaged children, such circumstances means children can have to choose between the threat of serious violence or criminalisation. Such constraints have a significant impact on the capacity for formal services to successfully engage children in legitimate pathways out of crime. For example, one issue related to service delivery differences before and after the age of majority (18 years old):

I have a child who he's going to probation as he turns 18 tomorrow, but there was a point where he couldn't go to any offices at all. There was nowhere safe for him in the community, so everything was being done in his house. It's not common, but it's not uncommon to have children like that where you can't identify safe space. When he goes to probation - you might not feel safe, but tough. You're coming into an office

Avoiding public space in the evening

When travelling in neighbourhoods and around the city, children in the research described limiting or modifying their use of public space due to safety concerns:

In my area in the daytime everything’s better. At night I feel like it’s completely different - it’s a whole different place because everyone comes out that are on drugs or whatever, doing their little deals

It’s safer in the daytime because there’s cars about, there’s light about, there’s shops open, there’s people walking around. But in the dark there’s not even one bloody soul bro. And if a car goes past you and it’s tinted or something, you might just get put in the back and that. So, it’s a bit unsafe in the dark

I usually walk in the neighbourhood but I never go at night because it’s a dangerous area. Drug dealers and you know - there needs to be some police there at night because there’s been so much crime

Avoiding walking:

If you run into someone that you’ve got a problem with, then you’ve only got two things you can do, which is fight or flee. If they can run faster than you, they’re catching up. I’d say walking’s unsafe because you haven’t got as many choices

Being aware of surroundings:

I always have one earphone in and one out, but that’s just so I can actually hear things around me. Because if someone’s running up behind me I’m not going to hear with earphones in. I’m going to hear it with one out and one in

Avoiding places perceived to be higher risk:

Say for example you see something violent has happened on the news I would most likely tend to stay away from that area because if stuff like that's happening you never know what could happen to you.

Watch where you're going at night, going down alleys at night, shortcuts. Just take the long way, take a main road. Lights are shining, cars going past, so if anything happens you can run out to a car or whatever.

Avoiding leaving the local area:

I stay in the same area because obviously I know the faces. That's another reason why I wouldn't go to a new area, especially on my own. I don't like travelling on buses on my own - I have to be with someone else

I know I’m safe in the place I grew up because I know the people, they know me. I don’t have a problem with them, they don’t have a problem with me. But if I go to a different area, maybe half an hour away from here, and I’ve never been to that place – I know no one. You never know what they have in mind – it’s not safe for me. I can’t just go there and trust it there.

I feel safe in my neighbourhood. I just know it all from like the back of my hand.  If someone tried to come and touch me or run after me, I know all the secret hiding spots.

When asked about what they would advise other children, with regards to staying safe. One child suggested minding your own business:

You hear them talking, you hear them doing stuff but you’ve just got to, you know, head down, close your ears, you haven’t heard nothing, you haven’t seen nothing, do you know what I mean? So, my advice would be just head down and mind your own business, to be honest, because there is nothing much you can do.

Public transport

Bus drivers have multiple high priority objectives (road safety, passenger management, adherence to a timetable) so are poorly placed to provide passenger safety oversight.

Unpredictable communal bus spaces

Bus services can provide ideal conditions for unexpected interpersonal violence, and one practitioner described: ‘if I'm honest with you, buses are the most unsafe things that they can actually use - that's not me exaggerating’. Another practitioner noted how:

The bus is a communal vehicle, anybody can jump on the bus, so it's difficult to control who goes on. Whereas for a taxi, [bespoke transport] or member of staff's vehicle, you can control who's in that vehicle, so it reduces the risk and enhances safety for the young person. Probably some kind of system where the young person can be in a controlled environment when travelling from point A to B would be useful

Fixed bus routes and schedules can facilitate violence:

One practitioner noted how:

I know what young people are like - they jump straight onto social media, “I've had a little scrap with whoever else, this is where he's at right now and we already know where he lives so these are the possible buses” and they can be dotted around the local area. I needed to book secure transport which was Uber at that time, because I can track it, so if it was to stop anywhere I’d know, and I could ring the driver, “I can see you’re stopped, is everything okay?” (Practitioner 2) 

No choice but to travel through rival neighbourhoods:

There’s beef with areas. People can’t go to different areas. But that’s because of family problems as well – that’s a massive issue’

In some cases, simply not being from the area could also present a personal safety risk, and such risks were gendered. Girls were more likely to receive unsolicited sexual attention, in line with the West Midlands VRP Strategic needs assessment[xxi], males were more likely to be victimised in the context of serious violence:

Let’s say some guy from [one area] goes on a bus in a [conflict area], he comes up the stairs, and then the [conflict area] boys are there aren’t they? They’ll stab him to death just because he came on the bus in [conflict area], because he’s from [the other area].

Sitting in specific places to maintain travel safety:

It depends where you’re sitting. I prefer being at the back so that no one can come from behind – I can observe the situation. But if I’m sat in the middle or at the front of the bus… I’m not on my phone or anything – I’m observant.

I’d probably avoid the top deck. I’d sit downstairs near the driver. It would probably be the safest place’.

When incidents occurred on buses, it was possible for those involved to easily leave the scene. Facing safety risks, children often felt they had limited options: staying on the bus could be dangerous, but getting off presented a risk of being followed. Because buses were considered unsafe, Uber was used for getting to school and appointments. One child, under threat of serious violence, relied heavily on Uber, and a practitioner raised concerns about how such strategies were funded.

4. Implications and recommendations

This evidence shows that children living in areas affected by serious and organised crime, and organised violence, experience significant harm to their wellbeing. Despite having the right to a voice[xxii], children in these contexts rarely contribute to discussions about improving area safety for a range of complex reasons. They are also frequently subjected to high levels of police stop‑and‑search, meaning they are routinely positioned as being under suspicion. Such long standing practices have eroded trust within families and communities, and this reduces children’s ability engage with formal mechanisms that are designed to protect all citizens.

General recommendations for children living in areas with high serious and organised crime:

1. Develop age and capacity-appropriate methods of engaging with children regarding the ways that serious and organised crime detrimentally impacts their lives. Ensure children’s voices and experiences are included in any strategic planning so responses benefit children living in communities where such activities are present.

2. Identify new opportunities for safe travel to ‘essential services’ for children living in areas with serious and organised crime: Travel and transport are essential for children’s everyday lives, yet in areas affected by serious and organised crime, walking and bus travel presents heightened risks, as it is not possible to control who children encounter in these settings.

3. Find ways to reduce travel‑related stress and anxiety for children living in areas with serious and organised crime: Children in this research expressed varied responses to the high levels of violence in their neighbourhoods and across the city. Some seemed desensitised, and were resigned to the fact that something might or might not happen. Others experienced significantly heightened anxiety during everyday travel, because they had experienced, witnessed or heard about personal safety problems in the local area.

Recommendations for children living in areas of serious and organised crime, who are in contact with youth justice systems:

4. Find ways of addressing blocked access to legitimate opportunities arising from personal safety problems: Some children face such serious personal safety risks that they remain at home, limiting their ability to engage with the legitimate opportunities promoted through youth and criminal justice interventions—such as education, skills development and employment. When children feel unsafe in their neighbourhoods and across the city, these interventions are significantly disrupted, as they depend on using public spaces that, for some, pose a genuine threat to life.

5. Avoid the criminalisation of children who breach community orders due to self‑preservation: Evidence suggests that once children reach the age of majority (18), home appointments are no longer available - youth justice services may deliver at home, but probation services typically require attendance at an office. This shift in expectations increases the likelihood that children will breach requirements and escalate to custodial settings, not through unwillingness to comply, but because they are trying to preserve their own personal safety.

References

9