Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis.  Permission is given for 
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and 
private study only.  The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without 
the permission of the Author. 
 



 
 

Why and What Can We Do? University Student Perceptions of Why Young People Offend. 

 

 

 

A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of 

 

 

Master of Arts 

in 

Psychology 

 

 

at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. 

 

 

 

 

Tayla Marline Ellison 

2023 

 



ii 
 

Abstract  

 Purpose. Public perceptions of youth crime have not received much academic attention; 

instead, most studies have focused on the perceptions of people who offend, their victims and 

those who work with them.  This study aimed to understand better how university students 

define crime, what they think causes youth to engage in crime, and any recommendations for 

lowering the youth crime rate in Aotearoa, New Zealand. The purpose of focusing on 

university students is in hope they will provide new insight as a group close in age to youth 

offenders. 

Method. A subjectivist epistemology and an interpretivist theoretical framework were 

employed in this research. The research was approached using a qualitative methodology 

focused on grounded theory. Twelve university students participated in semi-structured 

interviews.  

Results. University students' perceptions of crime are related to the laws set forth by 

their government. There was limited knowledge of the New Zealand justice system, and the 

practises for dealing with young offenders. However, there was general consensus that the 

existing system was ineffective. Three types of crime were proposed by participants: theft, 

property damage, and drug-related offences. It was asserted that peer or familial pressure, 

thrill-seeking, mental health problems, desperation, or a lack of stability are the main causes 

of youth criminality. Findings suggested improved support networks, mentoring, education, 

and alternative spaces for prevention.  

Discussion. The results of the study suggested several methods for addressing youth 

crime in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Suggestions were made for how the results of this study 

could be applied in a real-world setting. Limitations and recommendations for further 

research are discussed with a focus on how to build upon and further the conclusions of this 

research.   

 

Keywords: public perception, youth crime, causes, prevention. 



iii 
 

Acknowledgements 

This project was reviewed and approved by the Massey University Human Ethics Committee, 

Application 4000025818. 

To the participants of this study, thank you for your time and your knowledge, without you 

none of this would have been possible. 

To my supervisor, Julia Ioane, from day one you have provided me with support, 

encouragement, and guidance, thank you for making all of this not only a dream but a reality. 

To my cultural consultant, Matt Shepherd, thank you for the time you set aside to help ensure 

this project complied with the principles of partnership, participation, and protection.  

To my grandparents, Marline, and Lindsay, for always reminding me that the hard work 

would pay off. 

  



iv 
 

Dedication 

For my mother, Donna, 

This is a result of all your sacrifices and hard work as a mother. Thank you for supporting 

me during my doubts and turmoil, for being my number one supporter and always believing 

in me. 

 

 

 

  



v 
 

Table of Contents  

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................................ II 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................III 

DEDICATION .................................................................................................................................................. IV 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................... V 

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. VI 

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 

CHAPTER 2 – LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................... 7 

2.1 BACKGROUND OF YOUTH CRIME .......................................................................................................................... 7 
2.2 WHY? PERCEPTIONS AND FACTORS OF YOUTH CRIME ............................................................................................. 11 
2.3 WHAT CAN WE DO STRATEGIES AND PREVENTIONS FOR DETERRING YOUTH CRIME ..................................................... 17 

CHAPTER 3 – EPISTEMOLOGY, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, AND METHODOLOGY........................................ 25 

3.1 EPISTEMOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................... 25 
3.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................................... 26 
3.3 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................. 27 

CHAPTER 5 – METHOD ................................................................................................................................... 34 

4.1 ETHICS .......................................................................................................................................................... 34 
4.2 GATHER OF PARTICIPANTS AND PARTICIPANT CRITERIA ........................................................................................... 34 
4.3 SAMPLE ......................................................................................................................................................... 34 
4.4 PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................................................... 35 

CHAPTER 5 – ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 38 

5.1 THEMATIC ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................ 38 
5.2 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................ 42 

5.3 University Students’ Understanding of Crime ........................................................................................ 42 
5.4 University Students’ Understanding of the Justice System .................................................................... 44 
5.5 University Students’ Understanding of Youth Crime Levels and Sentencing .......................................... 45 
5.6 University Students’ Perception of Youth Crime Types .......................................................................... 47 
5.7 University Students’ Perceptions of Why Youth Engage in Crime .......................................................... 48 
5.8 University Students’ Suggestions for Preventions .................................................................................. 52 

CHAPTER 6 – DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 56 

6.1 INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................... 58 
6.2 IMPLICATION OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................ 71 
6.3 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................................... 74 
6.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...................................................................................................... 75 

CHAPTER 7 – CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 77 

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 80 

APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................... 88 

APPENDIX A: CONSENT FORM ................................................................................................................................. 88 
APPENDIX B: INFORMATION SHEET ........................................................................................................................... 89 
APPENDIX C: ADVERTISEMENT ................................................................................................................................. 91 
APPENDIX D: SCHEDULED QUESTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 92 

 



vi 
 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Description of Participant Sample                                                                              35 

Table 2. University Students’ Understanding of Youth Crime Levels and Sentencing           47 



1 
 

CHAPTER ONE – INTRODUCTION  

Background  

According to the Ministry of Justice (2022), most of the time, local authorities in the 

community deal with youth in the juvenile court system. A police warning or a referral to 

police youth aid is often used to accomplish this. In more complicated situations where local 

authorities cannot appropriately deal with the youth, the next step is to hold a family group 

conference (Ministry of Justice, 2022). The Youth Court is only involved in cases where 

youth have engaged in serious crimes; however, the High Court manages crimes such as 

manslaughter or murder. This demonstrates that typically youth are faced with charges when 

there are no other options available within the local community. Based on the information 

provided by the Ministry of Justice (2022), youth usually receive an absolute discharge after 

court proceedings. This means that the youth have admitted to their crimes and participated in 

any required intervention programmes.1These interventions are planned during family 

conferences (Ministry of Justice, 2022). In cases where youth receive an absolute discharge 

under Section 2822 their crime will not be listed on their criminal record. However, if they 

fail to meet the criteria for an absolute discharge, their crimes will remain on their criminal 

record according to Section 283 (Ministry of justice, 2022); this is utilised when the judge 

decides the charges are severe enough to justify an order.  

The Ministry of Justice (2022a) provides statistics on the charges for all youth that 

have been finalised in any court, including the Youth Court, District Court, and High Court. 

These statistics only resemble those youth who have appeared in court and not those who 

have been dealt with by local police. These statistics indicate that from July 1st, 2021, to June 

30th, 2022, there were 7,2033 charges brought against youth between the ages of 10 and 17 

(Ministry of Justice, 2022a). During this period, 34% (2,460 charges) were theft or theft 

related offences (Ministry of Justice, 2022a). While theft and theft related crimes were the 

most commonly charged offences, it is essential to note that offences ranged from homicide 

(9 charges) being the most severe crimes to less serious crimes such as property damage (522 

charges) or traffic and vehicle offences (432 charges). Of the 7,203 charges against youth, 

46% (3,306 charges) were proved and given a section 282 absolute discharge (Ministry of 

 
1 These include drug and alcohol programmes, community service, curfews, and any other limitations set out 

for them. 
2 Section 282 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 
3 This information is based on “Table 2: Number and percentage of charges for children and young people 

finalized in any court, by offence type. 2012/2013 - 2021/2022” (Ministry of Justice, 2022a) 



2 
 

Justice, 2022a). Based on the statistics of charges against youth in 2022, there appears to be a 

decrease in the frequency in which youth are being charged for crimes compared to the years 

preceding. The statistics for 2012 to 2013 show a significant decrease in charges during this 

period totalling 11,508 (Ministry of Justice, 2022a). This data demonstrates a 38% decline in 

youth crime rates between 2012 and 2022. In 2020, Oranga Tamariki suggested that several 

variables, including adjustments to policing, elevated levels of community security, including 

CCTV, and more secure vehicles, may contribute to the decline in youth crime in Aotearoa, 

New Zealand. Oranga Tamariki also indicated that antisocial behaviour might shift to the 

internet (Stevens, 2022). While this represents a considerable decrease over the past ten 

years, it does not lessen the fact that there were 7,203 charges brought against young people 

between July 1st, 2021, and June 30th, 2022; this number does not include youth whose crimes 

were addressed by local law enforcement.  

The Ministry of Justice (2022a) also provides statistics outlining charges against 

youth based on age, gender, and ethnicity4. This helps gain a better understanding of the 

history of youth crime in Aotearoa, New Zealand. The data shown here are based on the most 

serious crimes committed by young people between July 1st, 2021, and June 30th, 2022. In 

addition to young people who had been found guilty and given a sentence in youth court, 

charges that were proven in the adult criminal justice sector were also mentioned in this data 

section. With 83% of offences (1,035 males) related to crimes, these numbers clearly show 

that young males are more inclined to commit crimes (Ministry of Justice 2022a). This is 

compared to only 216 young females engaging in crimes that result in charges (Ministry of 

Justice, 2022a). Based on the Ministry of Justice (2022a) statistics, youth typically begin 

engaging in crime between the ages of 12 and 13; this is demonstrated in the statistics where 

3% (36) of the charges given to youth were to those between these ages and zero charges for 

youth younger. From there, the number of charges increased for the older youth represented 

in these statistics, with most crimes being committed by youth aged seventeen at 28% (357 

charges). Based on the same statistics, youth offending rates in relation to ethnicity are as 

follows; 64% of charges (798 charges) against youth are towards young Māori, 23% of 

charges (288 charges) are towards European youth, and 6% (78 charges) are against Pacific 

Youth (Ministry of Justice, 2022a). However, it is essential to note the over-representation of 

Māori within the criminal justice system, "Māori are 37% of people proceeded against by 

 
4 This information is based on “Table 6: Number and percentage of children and young people with charges 

finalised in any court, by gender, ethnicity, and age. 2012/2013 – 2021/2022." 



3 
 

Police, 45% of people convicted, and 52% of people in prison. This is despite Māori being 

only approximately 15% of the New Zealand population” (Ministry of Justice, 2021). 

There are several reasons examined by current literature to explain why youth engage 

in crime. These reasons cover a wider variety of issues, such as familial influence, peer 

influence, and individual circumstances. Research conducted by Putniņš (2010) suggests that 

youth engage in crime for various reasons, such as engaging in crime out of boredom, thrill 

seeking, fitting in with peers, and due to the influence of drugs and alcohol. The studies 

conducted by Putniņš (2010), and Tam et al. (2007) focused on youth crime from the 

perspectives of youth who had engaged in crime. The study conducted by Skrzypiec (2013) 

had a mixture of youth who had engaged in crime and non-offenders. Of these three studies, 

Skrzypiec (2013) is the only study that incorporates public perceptions of youth crime. 

Research conducted on homeless youth (Tyler & Johnson, 2004) stands out amongst the 

literature, suggesting youth engage in crime as a form of revenge; among their findings, 

crime as a mode of survival is a strong theme, suggesting youth engage in crime to meet their 

basic needs. Putniņš (2010) also found that youth were likely to engage in crime as a mode of 

survival. Burson et al. (2019) conducted research on youth crime worker perceptions, 

suggesting unstable home lives, abuse, and a lack of family support are contributing factors to 

youth engaging in crime. It is important to note that all these studies suggest that youth do not 

engage in crime for one specific reason but that reasonings for youth crime are multifactorial. 

These studies also demonstrate a lack of research focusing on public perceptions of youth 

crime, as none of these studies focused on the general public's understanding of youth crime.  

Focus and Scope  

The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of youth crime and prevention 

strategies through the use of public perceptions. A subjective epistemology is used to 

approach this research. Subjectivist epistemology holds that a person's understanding of the 

world depends on how they perceive and comprehend it. People interpret the world in ways 

that make sense to them, giving it value and meaning (Moon & Blackman, 2014). An 

interpretivist theoretical framework is used in this research. The theoretical foundation of 

interpretivism is founded on a number of realities and truths. Qualitative researchers that do 

not believe in a single, coherent world utilise this framework (Katz-Buonincontro, 2022). A 

qualitative methodology with a focus on grounded theory (Lewis-Beck et al., 2003) will be 

used to gather the data for this research, and a thematic analysis will be used to analyse the 



4 
 

findings (Clarke & Braun, 2021). The sample was limited to university students residing in 

Aotearoa, New Zealand, who are between the ages of 18 and 25. Twelve University students 

from various parts of New Zealand will be included in this study, which will examine their 

perceptions of youth crime, its causes, and possible preventions. This project's entire research 

process was conducted over the course of 12 months (February 2022 to February 2023). The 

focus on university student perceptions can aid in bridging this gap and supporting the 

findings in current literature (Halsey & White, 2008; Barretto et al., 2016; Skrzypiec, 2013). 

This indicates that any conclusions drawn from this study may not apply to the global 

population and should be considered within the context of Aotearoa, New Zealand. While the 

sample for this research may not be generalisable to the wider public, the researcher chose to 

focus on university students as they are an underrepresented group within the current 

literature. 

Rationale and Important of the Research Topic 

There has been little research into public perceptions of youth crime and interventions 

the public feel will aid in reducing youth crime rates. Research was conducted by Skrzypiec 

(2013), who looked at public perceptions of why youth engage in crime, and Barretto et al. 

(2016), who examined public perceptions on managing youth crime. For example, Tyler and 

Johnson (2004) studied homeless youth, and Burson et al. (2019) studied perceptions of 

youth crime from the perspective of juvenile justice workers. The currently available research 

typically focuses on the opinions of youth who have engaged in crime themselves (Tam et al., 

2007; Putniņš, 2010) and those who have been victims of crimes committed by youth 

(McArdle et al., 2018). University students are voices that are not accounted for in the current 

literature, and as a group who are close in age to youth who engage in crime. It is hoped that 

university students’ perspectives in this research will build on existing literature and bring to 

light areas these public views believe need additional attention if youth crime rates are to be 

reduced in Aotearoa, New Zealand.  

Research Objectives 

This study aims to understand how university students perceive youth crime in Aotearoa, 

New Zealand, as well as what they believe may be done to reduce or discourage youth from 

engaging in crimes. The research aims to answer the following questions: 

• What do university students believe causes youth crime? 



5 
 

• What do university students believe can be done to reduce and prevent youth crime 

rates? 

This study employed a qualitative methodology to examine how university students view 

the problem of youth crime in Aotearoa, New Zealand. The research aims were divided into 

four sections to understand the research topic:  

• the understanding of crime among university students 

• the types of crimes they felt youth were likely to engage in  

• their perceptions of the conditions that lead youth to engage in crimes 

• what they thought could be done to deter youth from engaging in crimes 

Thematic analysis of the interviews will be used to provide insights into what university 

students understand about youth crime and any potential prevention strategies that may be put 

in place to aid in reducing crime among youth. 

Author Positionality 

In order for me to write and engage in this project, I needed to acknowledge first, who 

I am, where I came from, and any biases I may be bringing to the research. At the time of 

authoring this thesis, I am a 24-year-old/25-year-old Pakeha female. I was born in New 

Zealand and have spent my entire life living here. I grew up in a single parent household; this 

was important for me to reflect on as it shaped my understanding of parental roles in our 

lives. I have spent the majority of my life either in school or in tertiary education. I currently 

have four degrees; a Certificate of human health and science gained in 2016, a Bachelor of 

Arts majoring in psychology with minors in philosophy and social anthropology gained in 

2020, a Graduate Diploma of Arts gained in 2021, and a Post-Graduate Diploma of Arts 

specialising in psychology gained in 2022. These degrees helped me form an understanding 

that, typically, human actions have multiple driving factors. I do not align myself with any set 

religion or political stance. Prior to the research, I was a victim of youth crime in 2019; this 

was a driving factor for this research. The incident left me wanting to understand why it had 

happened and if there was anything that could be done to prevent youth from engaging in 

crime. It is important to note that before this research, I had minimal knowledge of the youth 

justice system in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Much of the understanding I gained was through 

research and information shared by my participants. I am aware that my education, my 

individual experiences, my race, my sex, and my age are all factors that influence my 

understanding of the world; every person has varied factors that influence their 



6 
 

understandings. For this reason, I approached this research with the understanding that my 

participants would share perceptions based on their understandings of the world; these 

understandings may not always be in line with my understandings. 

Overview of Thesis Structure 

The introduction for this thesis provided information on youth offending in Aotearoa, 

New Zealand. This section briefly discussed the findings of research conducted on the 

reasons youth engage in crime. The introduction also included information on the focus of 

this thesis, the relevance of this research, and the aim of the research. An overview of recent 

research on youth crime is presented, along with potential reasons why young people commit 

crimes and prevention tactics. The perceptions of youth who have engaged in crimes and the 

general public are two examples of the perceptions that are currently available and are 

examined in this project. This is followed by an overview of the proposed epistemological 

framework, theoretical framework, and methodology. The next section of this thesis describes 

the method used while conducting this research, from ethics to conducting interviews. The 

section following this is the results section, where the analysis method is described, as well as 

the findings of this research. Following the results is the discussion section; in this section, 

the findings of the research are related to the current literature, the limitations of the research 

are discussed, and recommendations for future research on the topic. Lastly, the conclusion, 

in this section, the research aims will be restated, and the research will be summarised.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



7 
 

CHAPTER TWO – LITERATURE REVIEW 

2.1 Background of Youth Crime  

The following section will briefly discuss youth crime at an international level. Then, 

there will be a clear focus on youth crime in Aotearoa, New Zealand. This will be done by 

using three government documents providing an understanding of youth crime from a 

statistical view. The first report discussed is ‘offending by children in New Zealand’ (Spier, 

2016). While this article's research report was released in 2016, it is discussed here as it is the 

most recent information provided publicly by the Ministry of Social Development. This 

section will also examine the report on ‘reoffending patterns for participants of youth justice 

Family Group Conference’s held in 2011 and 2012’ (Spier & Wilkinson, 2016). This will 

help provide insight into reoffending when family intervention is provided. Lastly, this 

section will examine the report on ‘reoffending patterns for recipients of Youth Court 

supervision’ (Spier & Sun, 2016). These reports will help provide an understanding of why 

youth crime in New Zealand is an issue that needs to be addressed.  

Although the United Nations and other organisations have attempted to get a clear 

picture of the extent of youth crime globally, their relevance is poor, their information is 

sparse, and they are often of dubious authenticity (Hartjen, 2008). How often and how 

frequently youth engage in crime cannot be quantified reliably (Hartjen, 2008). Criminal 

activity is widespread. No country that has been researched is exempt from youth engaging in 

crime, and every country on which information is available reports at least some involvement 

by youth that can be considered delinquent or criminal. In that sense, youth crime is prevalent 

in all cultures (Hartjen, 2008). Despite the restrictions placed on official statistics, 

delinquency is a global problem escalating in many regions of the world. The widespread, 

serious, and even vicious criminality of their youth has caused several nations to voice 

extreme alarm and even terror in recent years (Hartjen, 2008). While this information does 

not provide evidence on global youth crime rates, it draws attention to youth crime being a 

worldwide issue rather than suggesting youth crime is only an issue amongst specific 

populations. There were 18,128 youth offenders (10-17 years old) in New South Wales 

between 2020-21. This was a 2% (418 offenders) increase over the previous year (Australian 

Bureau of Statistics, 2022). In 2020, about 100,000 serious violent crimes were committed by 

youths between the ages of 12 and 17 in the United States. This shows a decrease of 30,000 

compared to 2019 (Statista Research Department, 2023). In 2021, Norway saw 25,836 youth 

under the age of twenty-one being charged with criminal behaviour (Statista Research 



8 
 

Department, 2022). Statistics show that 29,126 youth under the age of eighteen engaged in 

crime in Russia in 2021 (Statista Research Department, 2022a). These statistics demonstrate 

high levels of youth crime at an international level; however, statistics for the United States, 

Norway, and Russia demonstrate a steady decline in youth crime rates. The statistics provide 

a concerning insight that youth crime rates are slowing inclining in New South Wales rather 

than declining, as seen in countries such as the United States, Norway, and Russia. According 

to the World Health Organization (2023), there are three types of risk factors that can lead 

youth to engage in crime. The first set of risk factors is those within the individual, such as 

being exposed to family violence, the use of alcohol and drugs, and low education. The 

second set of risk factors is related to those youth have close relationships with such as 

inconsistent parenting, parental mental health issues, and parental involvement in crime. The 

third set of risk factors is related to the community, such as access/misuse of alcohol or 

firearms, poverty, and "the quality of a country's governance" (World Health Organization, 

2023). This suggests that when addressing youth crime at either a global or national level, 

there needs to be consideration of the micro, meso, and macro levels. While the information 

provided by the World Health Organisation (2023) explicitly focussed on youth violence, this 

information is valuable when discussing youth crime more generally. 

It is important to note that Spier (2016) defined children as those who had been born 

between the years 1995 to 1999. In New Zealand, the police were aware of approximately 5% 

of the birth cohorts from 1995 to 1999 who had committed crimes before the age of 14 

(Spier, 2016). When this report was published, it was noted that there had been a significant 

decrease in the number of children between the ages of 10 and 13 who had been reported to 

the police for their engagement in crime. This decrease in crime was also observed between 

2009 and 2013; this suggests that demographic changes were not the primary cause of the 

decline in minor offenders (Spier, 2016). By the age of fourteen, Māori children were around 

three times more likely than non-Māori youth to be identified by the police as an offender. 

When comparing Māori versus non-Māori rates, the gap was more significant for females 

than males. Just over half of the decline of young offenders was attributed to Māori. The 

report discusses that in 2009 Māori made up 56% of youth offenders compared to Māori 

making up 59% of youth offenders who were noticed by police in 2013 (Spier, 2016). It is 

crucial to note that while the overrepresentation of Māori criminals is discussed in this report, 

the numbers are still pertinent to the study. Between 2009 and 2013, there were 1,344 fewer 

youth aged 10 to 13 who were first-time offenders and brought to the police's attention. 



9 
 

Seven hundred fewer youth were arrested for shoplifting as their first offence between 2009 

and 2013, accounting for more than half of first-time offenders' overall decline (Spier, 2016). 

However, this does not confirm that youth were committing less crime; it could suggest that 

they were not being arrested for their offences or had not been caught. 

Spier and Wilkinson (2016) consisted of two cohorts, the intention-to-charge family 

group conference (ITCFGC) cohort and the court-ordered family group conference 

(COFGC). The ITCFGC cohort consisted of youth who had allegedly engaged in crime but 

had not been arrested, whereas the COFGC cohort consisted of youth who had been arrested 

and been to court for their crime. Before the family group conferences, there was an increase 

in the frequency and severity of youth offences for both of the above cohorts, followed by a 

decline in both measures following the family group conferences (FGC). The three most 

frequent offence categories – theft-related, burglary, and property damage – saw significant 

declines in their numbers. Both cohorts had FGCs, which account for the bulk of the overall 

decline in the number of offences (Spier & Wilkinson, 2016). Past offences are typically a 

good indicator of future offences. Due to this, it would make sense to assume that those with 

shorter criminal histories would reoffend less frequently than people with longer criminal 

histories. According to the report by Spier and Wilkinson (2016), ITCFGC participants had 

fewer serious prior offences than those of COFGC. Based on this statement, it is likely that 

the ITCFGC cohort would have better results than the COFGC cohort. This could be 

attributed to the COFGC cohort having more serious criminal records than that of their 

counter cohort. However, the report found that 36% of the ITCFGC cohort did reoffend in 

comparison to 30% of the COFGC cohort (Spier & Wilkinson, 2016). In 2011 the percentage 

of the COFGC cohort who did not commit a new crime after twenty-four months was 18%; 

however, the percentage for the ITCFGC cohort was slightly higher at 23% (Spier & 

Wilkinson, 2016). Given that they had not been detained and taken to court for their offence, 

this could imply that the ITCFGC cohort did not take the conferences as seriously as the 

COFGC cohort did. According to this study, FGCs can help prevent youth from committing 

crimes again. The majority of research on the effectiveness of FGCs is favourable, suggesting 

the following, "families are able to follow through with effective family plans that address the 

welfare concerns of the child who offended; are more likely to engage in the services 

recommended in the FGC; and give young offenders better contact with their extended 

family" (Williams & Ioane, 2021, p. 68). It is essential to acknowledge that FGCs are not 

used solely for youth offending but also in situations regarding the care and protection of 



10 
 

youth. However, Dijkstra et al. (2016) concluded that there is no significant effect when 

FGCs are used in cases of child abuse, youth care, and when youth need to be removed from 

their homes. According to Spier and Wilkinson (2016), these interventions work best when 

used on young people who have been arrested and brought before a judge than when they are 

not. 

Spier and Sun (2016) examined the impact of court ordered supervision of 

reoffending by youth. This report found that in the 12 months following all three forms of 

supervision orders, compared to the 12 months prior to the orders, there was a general 

decrease in both the frequency and the gravity of offending (Spier & Sun, 2016). This 

suggests that the young people who participated in this prevention strategy benefited from all 

types of court-ordered supervision. The survey notes that theft-related and burglary offences 

were the most commonly committed by young people in the year before and after the 

enforcement of all three decrees. These offenses displayed the most significant decrease in 

the year after the orders (Spier & Sun, 2016). This demonstrates a trend in the types of crime 

youth engage in that is reflected in the Spier and Wilkinson (2016) report. Youth who 

received short supervision with activity orders of three months or less were more likely to 

commit new offences in the 12 months after the order than those who received lengthier 

orders of more than three months. Despite this fluctuation, the percentages of youth who 

reduced the frequency or severity of their offences based on the duration of the supervision 

with activity order did not differ (Spier & Sun, 2016). This suggests that longer-term 

supervision as an intervention strategy is most effective as youths were less likely to reoffend 

where supervision periods were more extended than those with shorter supervision periods. 

However, these differences were not statistically significant, with shorter supervision having 

a 40% reoffending rate and lengthier supervision having a 34% reoffending rate. According 

to Sapouna (2015), supervision can assist offenders in overcoming real-world barriers to 

reoffending, such as unemployment and drug abuse, by facilitating skill development or 

gaining access to drug treatment programmes. It is crucial to have a strong working 

connection with the supervisor and feel that they are aware of the demands.  

This section has briefly reviewed three government documents highlighting youth 

crime in Aotearoa, New Zealand. According to the statistics in this section, youth crime in 

Aotearoa, New Zealand, has steadily decreased, similar to what has occurred in countries 

such as the United States, Norway, and Russia. These reports provide a basic understanding 

of New Zealand youth crime and current reoffending interventions. These reports help 



11 
 

highlight the types of crimes youth are more likely to engage in and how effective the 

interventions were at reducing reoffending. From these reports, supervision interventions and 

Family Group Conference's aid in reducing youth crime; however, there is still a significant 

amount of work required in this area. These reports indicate that the amount of crime youth 

engage in has decreased over the years; however, at least a portion of this could be due to 

youth not being arrested for minor crimes. This suggests that youth still engage in these 

crimes with the police using less restrictive measures.  

2.2 Why? Perceptions and Factors of Youth Crime.  

The following section will review research to understand why young people engage in 

crime. The sources used here are not limited to public perceptions of youth crime and will 

also include sources where youth themselves give the reasoning for their crime. Adverse 

Childhood Experiences (ACEs) also play a role in why young people become involved in 

crime (Bergquist et al., 2022). These include having numerous caregivers (such as foster 

care), receiving harsh punishments or maltreatment, and abusing drugs at an early age (New 

Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage Te Manatu Taonga, 2017). These elements can 

also play a role in academic challenges, which is another element linked to youth crime (New 

Zealand Ministry for Culture and Heritage Te Manatu Taonga, 2017). Reoffending is more 

common among boys, those who do not complete high school, and those who are associated 

with the police or child welfare in early life (Maxwell, 2017). When attending a family 

meeting or going to court, young people who do not have sufficient support and solid plans 

for their future are more likely to reoffend (Maxwell, 2017).  

Halsey and White (2008) conducted a literature review investigating public 

perceptions of youth crime. This research differed from other research in the area as it looks 

at youth crime from the public perception but also because it investigates what influences 

these perceptions. According to Halsey and White (2008), the perception of young people 

nowadays looks to be under threat; in fact, one study indicated that 71% of media stories 

about young people were unfavourable and that 33% of articles dealt with criminality. Young 

people are forced to deal with the difficulty of growing up in a culture where there are 

pervasive negative impressions about youth because of this excessive focus on young 

people's behaviour (Halsey & White, 2008). This illustrates how an overrepresentation of 

harmful behaviours among young people may skew public perceptions of youth offences. 

Halsey and White (2008) found that the public tended to overestimate the amount of youth 



12 
 

who engage in crime, with people believing that roughly half of all youth are engaging in 

some form of crime. However, when reviewing statistics on youth crime, they found that, on 

average, only one-fifth of youth are engaged in crime. According to Halsey and White 

(2008), there was no evidence of a connection between the statistics on actual youth crime 

rates and data on public views of youth crime, indicating that attitudes towards young 

people's behaviour and the occurrence of adolescent offences are unrelated. When attempting 

to understand this disparity between statistics and public perceptions of youth crime Halsey 

and White (2008) found that the media played a substantial role in what influences the 

public's perception. Halsey and White (2008) state, "the media has a tendency to report on the 

most violent and sensational crimes – these are in the minority and not representative of the 

types of offences that make up the majority of youth court hearings… much media content 

relating to young people is crime related and conveys negative messages or imagery" (p. 11). 

It is clear from this assertion that the media, which frequently exaggerates crime and the 

types of crimes that young people commit, plays a role in how the public views young 

people's behaviour. When examining what influences public perceptions of crime, Halsey and 

White's (2008) research investigated the literature on those perceptions. This information aids 

in providing a baseline of current understandings of youth crime based on public perceptions. 

This research deepens our understanding of how institutions like the media contribute to the 

public's perceptions of crime. 

Putniņš (2010) researched youth who had committed crimes and their self-reported 

reasons for committing them. The Secure Care Psychosocial Screening (SECAPS) and the 

Community Adolescent Psychosocial Screening (CAPS) were the two evaluations employed 

in the study (Putniņš, 2010). Offending history, family and residence, intellectual functioning, 

substance use, mood and self-destructiveness, aggression, attention, restlessness, and reasons 

for offending were among the topics covered in the assessments (Putniņš, 2010). Using both 

SECAPS and CAPS allowed the researchers to multiple factors in the youth's lives that could 

have led to them participating in crime; it also allowed them to get a bigger picture of the 

youth's lives and how these factors may be intertwined. The most frequent justifications 

given for committing crimes were being irate, bored, and without much else to do, 

participating because their friends were, being intoxicated or under the influence of drugs, 

continuing to commit crimes because they had not been caught before, getting a rush or buzz 

from it, needing money, lacking self-control, and being irritated by other people (Putniņš, 

2010). In contrast to this, the least prevalent justifications for committing crimes were a lack 



13 
 

of concern for other people's well-being, the notion that it was unfair that others had more 

than they did, the desire to gain respect, and the notion that some people deserved to be 

victims, and the notion that they could get what they wanted without anyone suffering as a 

result of their crimes (Putniņš, 2010). The most and least frequent justifications for 

adolescent crime should be taken into account as they provide insight into what young people 

suggest their motivations are. Justifications such as the necessity for clothing, food, or shelter 

were among the responses that lay more in the middle of the reasoning spectrum. The 

findings of this study demonstrate that every participant gave more than one reason for 

committing a crime, which helps understand that young people who engage in crimes do so 

for a variety of reasons. This is significant as it contributes to discussions that in order to 

lower youth criminality, multiple factors need to be addressed. The article may have 

benefited from a discussion of the types of crimes the youth committed, as this would have 

helped to ascertain whether their justifications applied to serious crimes or were solely linked 

to minor and petty crimes. 

Tam et al. (2007) conducted research on youth offending by examining youth who 

had committed crimes and the self-reported justifications for their crimes. The research 

conducted by Tam et al. (2007) discussed the types of crime that young people engaged in; 

this contrasts with Putniņš (2010), who did not include this information. These crimes 

included breaking and entering, theft, property destruction, robbery, possession of drugs or 

use of a controlled substances, and illegal possession of weapons. In their study in Singapore, 

Tam et al. (2007) found that peer pressure and influence were significant contributing factors 

for youth engaging in crime; this is a similar finding to that of Putniņš (2010). Much like the 

research conducted by Putniņš (2010), anger was also found to be a cause for engaging in 

crime, with youth mentioning being unable to deal with their anger which resulted in violent 

outbursts, these outbursts occurred in the heat of the moment, and youth later felt regret for 

their choices (Tam et al., 2007). Of the fifty-four case studies, 13% of youth stated that they 

committed their crimes for the thrill to overcome their boredom. This was also seen in the 

study conducted by Putniņš (2010). While drugs and alcohol were prevalent causes in 

Putniņš's (2010) research, in the Tam et al. (2007) study, just 6% of youth cited drugs and 

alcohol as the reason they committed crimes. In the Tam et al. (2007) study, youth reported 

committing crimes more frequently for money for essentials than those in Putniņš's (2010) 

research, with 28% of the youth reporting they engaged in crime to pay for things they 

needed, such as clothes. This provides an insight that was not given by Putniņš (2010) as it 



14 
 

shows the various levels of crimes that were committed; this helps to understand that 

justifications for crimes remain the same no matter how serious the crime is. This study's 

findings were much more constrained, given that it was based on case studies in which the 

young people's statements were obtained on the day of the crime. Because the researchers did 

not interact with the young people, they were unable to determine whether they continued to 

justify their actions with the same reasonings. 

Skrzypiec (2013) conducted a study in South Australia to get youth perspectives on 

why young people offend. This study had twenty-four participants, both offenders, and non-

offenders, intending to gain an understanding of what they believed led youth to engage in 

crime. This helps determine whether public perceptions diverge from those of young people 

who are committing the crime by allowing comparisons between non-offenders and those 

who have engaged in crime. This is a comparison that is not seen in studies such as those 

conducted by Tam et al. (2007) and Putniņš (2010). Interestingly, unlike other research in this 

area, youth suggested that a reason youth engage in crime could be related to their home 

lives, "it could be the way they're raised, because some parents just let their children go from 

when they're born; like, they grow up doing what they want, and do it whenever they want, 

and it just gets worse as they grow older. They do what they want, except in a bad way" 

(Skrzypiec, 2013, p. 193). Some participants made the suggestion that because they were 

exposed to illegal behaviour as children, they now think that is how everyone should act. 

Participants also claim that criminal behaviour is learned; as they watch their family members 

commit crimes like stealing, they imitate and perpetuate these actions. The results of this 

study's youth participants also imply that thrill-seeking serves as an excuse for committing 

crimes; this is a finding consistent with other research in this area. Many of the participants 

responses linked back to the youth's home life. This is not seen as firmly in other research, 

where causes such as anger are not linked to the youth's parents. This shows that a stable 

family/home life significantly impacts how young people perceive and/or commit crimes. 

Participants also believe that young people commit crimes to blend in with their peers or 

enhance their reputation. Some young people claim that they boast about their crimes to 

obtain their peers' respect or admiration. Skrzypiec (2013) indicated that the causes of youth 

crime are often complex and not just one particular event in the life of the young people. 

Tyler and Johnson (2004) had the most interesting selection of participants in the research 

discussed here. The sample for this research consisted of forty youths, both male and female. 

However, what makes this sample interesting is that Tyler and Johnson (2004) focussed on 



15 
 

homeless youth in four different states across America. This brings an interesting element to 

the research as it allows researchers to address justifications for offending in specific groups 

of youths, in this case, the homeless. This study sought to understand why some youths are 

more likely to be victims than others, why some young people commit crimes while others do 

not, and why those who are victimised initially are more likely to retaliate. This introduces an 

element for comprehending youth criminality that is not covered in other research: youths 

commit crimes because crimes have been perpetrated against them. Unsurprisingly several of 

the youth in this study stated they had engaged in crime as a form of survival, needing to 

provide themselves with clothes, shelter, and food; "the majority of criminal behaviors 

described by the respondents could be classified as offending for the purpose of survival 

and/or financial gain. Several of the youth reported stealing as strictly for “survival purposes" 

(Tyler & Johnson, 2004, p. 435). These explanations are evident in the studies stated above, 

but this study indicates that they are more pronounced in young people who are homeless. 

Comparing this to earlier studies where crime for survival was less common, this might be 

because the youth in this study are fending for themselves and doing what they can to satisfy 

their basic requirements, as opposed to those who are being cared for in the home. The urge 

to present an image of invincibility also emerged as a common motif among justifications 

from youth why young people engage in crime. For many young people, seeming strong, 

resilient, and unafraid of anything is the only way for them to survive while being homeless 

(Tyler & Johnson, 2004). This survival technique leads youth to engage in violent crimes. 

Doing so means they appear tough, which keeps them safe from others, as one participant 

suggests that hurting other people kept her safe as people were less likely to mess with her 

(Tyler & Johnson, 2004). Due to its focus on a more specialised group of participants, this 

study offered a more detailed understanding than those of other studies. The results are 

significant because they reveal shared causes among homeless and non-homeless youth, even 

though they cannot be generalised to youth criminality in the broader population. According 

to Tyler and Johnson (2004), homelessness is the primary cause of youth crime, with other 

reasons following it as a method of survival. This research also demonstrates that the causes 

of youth crime appear multi-dimensional. 

Burson et al. (2019) examined perceptions of the causes of youth crime, but their 

sample consisted of juvenile justice professionals and focused on the causes of female youth 

criminality. This contrasts with Halsey and White (2008), who examined youth criminality 

from a broader perspective. The study looked at both internal and external factors for young 



16 
 

females' engagement in crime and how they matched gender norms and societal expectations 

of females. The sample of this group provides an essential perspective on public perceptions 

of youth crime as those amongst this sample worked closely with youth who had engaged in 

crime. The choice to focus on one gender and how social standards influence their 

involvement in crime is another intriguing aspect of this study. Burson et al. (2019) found 

that internal factors perpetuated stereotypes about young females as manipulative, histrionic, 

hysterical, and in need of care and protection, depicting them as incapable of navigating high-

risk situations. Participants suggested that young females are more concerned about their 

appearance and social status, with little care about their education or future. Some 

participants suggested that young females engaged in crime because "they are mentally ill or 

very dysfunctional and very traumatized and need help that they are that they've refused to 

engage in other places" (Burson et al., 2019, p. 161). External factors centred on the lives of 

young females, their dysfunctional families, poverty, and gender-specific risk factors (Burson 

et al., 2019). Burson et al. (2019) found that participants frequently discussed examples of 

family conflict experiences by young females in the past, such as a lack of family support, a 

distance between the young female and her family, or a lack of functional home life. These 

observations were made in response to instances of abuse, neglect, and poverty. The young 

female's engagement in crime was also related to inadequate parenting techniques or parents' 

poor moral integrity (Burson et al., 2019). According to participants' perspectives of youth 

crime, an unstable life at home is a factor for young girls engaging in crime, which is 

consistent with the study done with youth who had committed crimes (Burson et al., 2019). 

However, there were only six participants in this study, and they all took part in lengthy in-

person interviews. The researchers did not disclose the gender distribution of the participants. 

This study may have benefited from a larger sample size that would have produced more 

reliable data. Contrary to Halsey and White (2008), this study's participants' judgements gave 

more weight to preconceptions of female behaviour, demonstrating that gender is a crucial 

factor in what causes young people to offend. This study might benefit from evaluating the 

results of a young male focus group to see if stereotypes of men also affect perceptions of 

youth crime to understand better what motivates young people to commit crimes. 

This section has discussed public perceptions of youth crime and perceptions of youth 

who have engaged in crime. Youth engage in crimes for several reasons, including 

participating in criminal activity for social purposes, boredom, intending to harm others, and 

utilising criminal activity to fulfil fundamental needs like obtaining food, clothing, and 



17 
 

shelter. The information above makes it clear that youth crime is multifactorial. This means 

that when addressing why youth engage in crime, it is vital to remember there is not one 

single reason they engage in crime but several circumstances that build up to crime 

engagement. The types of crime that youth engage in are varied. However, in most cases, the 

justifications remain the same. Further research should be conducted around public 

perception of why young people engage in crime as current research is limited; it would also 

be valuable to research further what influences perceptions of why youth engage in crime. 

The current research does suggest that media plays a vital role in public perceptions of why 

youth engage in crime. While research in this area is limited, the research available does yield 

consistent evidence on why youth engage in crime. 

2.3 What Can We Do? Strategies and Perceptions for Deterring Youth Crime.  

The following section will review public perceptions of what can be done to deter 

youth from engaging in crime in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Two of the articles will discuss 

measures that the public feels should be included in efforts to deter youth from offending, as 

well as measures discussed to help prevent youth from reoffending. One of the articles will 

look at the justice system from the perspective of youth and their experiences in the New 

Zealand Youth Justice system, focusing on challenges that these youth may face. Part of this 

section will also look at the current New Zealand Youth Crime Action Plan to see how the 

New Zealand government intends to address and prevent youth crime. This plan will be 

compared with suggestions of measures from public perception to see if the government and 

the public's ideas of addressing youth crime address the same factors. Lastly, two other 

intervention plans will be discussed, one that is based in Australia (Communities That Care) 

and the other based in the United Kingdom (Towards a Youth Crime Prevention Strategy). 

This will be done to compare interventions and evaluate if any measures in these plans could 

be integrated into the New Zealand plans.  

Barretto et al. (2016) researched public perceptions of youth offending and the New 

Zealand criminal justice system. The study aimed to compare the opinions of those who had 

personally experienced victimisation by youth offenders with those of people who had not 

about how to manage youth crime in New Zealand. The findings of this study can be applied 

to the entire population of New Zealand rather than just those who took part in the study by 

utilising a nationally representative sample. The data collected from the survey was both 

qualitative and quantitative, which aided the researchers in their analysis of public 



18 
 

perceptions of youth crime and the New Zealand criminal justice system. The most prevalent 

issue in the study was the need for systemic measures to deter young people from engaging in 

crime. To deter youth from committing crimes, participants suggested addressing broader 

societal issues. Government policy, parenting, poverty, and other environmental factors, 

including access to alcohol and drugs, were among the issues brought up by participants 

(Barretto et al., 2016). As seen in the section above, these are issues mentioned by both the 

public and youth who have engaged in crime as being factors in their crime. For this reason, 

it seems vital to address these to prevent youth from engaging in crime. Rehabilitation was 

listed by 34% of participants as another crucial factor. Participants concurred that 

rehabilitation involves the individual's family or the broader community in addition to the 

individual. One of the suggested individual rehabilitations included ensuring that 

fundamental reading and math abilities were attained to help with job searches, as well as 

recommending individual therapy to raise motivation, self-esteem, and interpersonal goals 

(Barretto et al., 2016). These treatments could be utilised as strategies to stop reoffending, 

even if they cannot stop young people from committing crimes entirely. More harsh penalties 

were indicated by 29% of the sample as a better way to deal with young criminals. Due to the 

apparent lack of respect and discipline, support for harsher punishments like boot camps and 

military training was stated in these comments. Additionally, harsher punishment was urged, 

especially for young people who continue to commit crimes (Barretto et al., 2016). These 

measures could be justified where other preventions or intervention strategies are not 

producing the desired results. According to the comments offered by survey participants, it 

seems that the general public is interested in seeing youth involved in treatments and/or 

preventions that assist them in re-entering society as mature individuals. These 

recommendations emphasise the value of educating youth and giving them a secure 

environment in which to develop. 

McArdle et al. (2018) conducted a study to examine the connection between 

perceived community safety and public perceptions of how youth who engage in crime are 

treated in New Zealand. The findings of this research are especially interesting as they are 

remarkably similar to those of Barretto et al. (2016), whose study also examined the 

connection between public views of teenage criminality and neighbourhood safety. This 

research differs from the study conducted by Barretto et al. (2016), who wanted to compare 

the opinions of those who had been victims of crime versus those who had not. Much like the 

research conducted by Barretto et al. (2016), this research also suggests that participants feel 



19 
 

it is vital to address systemic issues. The study found that 35.6% of participants 

recommended addressing and resolving the systemic factors that are thought to increase the 

chance of youth engaging in crime (McArdle et al., 2018). The participants said that a 

number of issues needed to be resolved to address youth criminality. These components 

resemble and expand upon those provided in the study by Barretto et al. (2016). Drugs and 

alcohol, poor parenting, family violence, poverty, and a lack of jobs were some of the factors 

suggested for targeting (McArdle et al., 2018). According to Barretto et al. (2016), the 

participants' ideas for stricter punishment for youth who engage in crime were less common, 

with only 24.7% of the participants in McArdle et al. (2018) making this suggestion. These 

participants made it clear that they favoured stronger sanctions, such as longer prison terms. 

Others offered suggestions with punitive undertones, such as youth paying higher fines, 

physical punishment, permitting parents to punish their children physically, and restricting 

the rights of youth (McArdle et al., 2018). Participants in this study seemed to have stronger 

opinions about physical measures that should be considered than those of the Barretto et al. 

(2016) study. However, many of these measures are not plausible with current legislations in 

New Zealand, such as those related to parents no longer being allowed to hit their children. 

Instead of suggesting boot camps as a harsher punishment, like Barretto et al. (2016), 

McArdle et al.'s (2018) participants suggest these measures might be utilised as a form of 

rehabilitation. However, they advise that these be considered training camps. According to 

the findings of McArdle et al. (2018), it appears crucial to give young people stability and life 

skills as necessary measures to prevent them from committing crimes.  

Lount et al. (2017) researched youth perceptions of communicating in the youth 

justice system in New Zealand. This is necessary research as it provides insight into how 

youth understand the processes in the criminal justice system and their awareness of their 

proceedings. This study is helpful in providing perspective on the current processes for 

interacting with youth who have engaged in crime. This research differs from other 

perspectives on how to work with youth who engage in crime as it provides an inside 

understanding of the situation from youth in the system themselves. The young people in this 

study expressed a sense of having no control or feeling as though they had no voice as they 

struggled to grasp most of what transpired in court (Lount et al., 2017). This could be a result 

of the terminology employed in the juvenile justice system or the educational backgrounds of 

the young people. This is supported by Lount et al. (2017), who state, "It was clear that 

aspects of the court hearing presented difficulties for the young people, and that the legal 



20 
 

jargon and formal language contributed to a general lack of understanding of the events. This, 

combined with the uncertainty of how and when to participate, led to frustration for the 

young people" (p. 600). Youth must play a proactive role in both of these circumstances and 

must be able to comprehend what is occurring and why; otherwise, they may lack the courage 

to speak up or engage in their hearing, which has been linked to frustration. Through further 

discussion with the youth in this study, they found many of the youth would have found it 

helpful to have someone nearby willing and able to break down the court language when 

needed. As stated by participants, this shows that it is crucial that a mechanism be put in 

place so that young people using the legal system have access to someone who can explain 

what is happening; doing so would make them feel less anxious and frustrated about their 

hearings. According to the participants, their interactions with professionals had a critical role 

in communication. To ensure that young people have a trustworthy resource they can turn to 

when comprehension or communication becomes difficult (Lount et al., 2017).  

The New Zealand Youth Crime Action Plan, referred to as YCAP (Ministry of 

Justice, 2013), intends to reduce youth criminality and assist those who have offended in 

changing their lives. It focuses mainly on government organisations collaborating more 

closely and joining forces with Māori, communities, families, and education systems to 

address the issue of youth offending and the causes of this offending. YCAP (Ministry of 

Justice, 2013) introduces three strategies to address youth crime in New Zealand. The first 

strategy in this plan is partnering with communities; this strategy intends for government 

agencies to collaborate with communities to identify the issues within communities and 

provide coordinated responses to those who become aware of the issues. This plan then 

intends to introduce online tools and guidance related to youth justice. Members of the youth 

justice system and community will use these to create action plans. These plans will be 

implemented in communities with the highest levels of Māori youth engaging in crime. These 

plans will be modified to include measures that are working and exclude measures that are 

not (Ministry of Justice, 2013). The public's suggested actions, which include the necessity 

for family and community involvement in the process of avoiding youth crime, match this 

method. The second strategy suggested by YCAP (Ministry of Justice, 2013) is to reduce 

escalation; this strategy aims for youth who are engaging in crime to be dealt with outside of 

the justice system, with the justice system being the last resort. This strategy suggests after an 

arrest, making sure that most cases are sent to the Police Youth aid, creating a process for 

early case consultation, and expanding the number of alternatives to placing youth in 



21 
 

residential facilities (Ministry of Justice, 2013). At the core of New Zealand law is the idea 

that children and young people should be managed outside of the official criminal system. 

The principles, protocols, and laws of the United Nations also recognise this on a global 

scale. Research on New Zealand Police Alternative Actions also demonstrates that keeping 

young people and adolescents out of the formal criminal system can lower their likelihood of 

reoffending (Ministry of Justice, 2013). There is a contradiction between this and some of the 

public suggestions, where some called for the implementation of stricter punitive measures 

(McArdle et al., 2018; Barretto et al., 2016). The final strategy suggested by YCAP (Ministry 

of Justice, 2013) is introducing early and sustainable exits; this strategy aims to improve the 

current court systems, which is something that youth who have been in the court system says 

is important. This strategy also suggests increasing the range of options for dealing with 

youth who engage in crime, suggesting family group conferences were most appropriate. 

Once more, this runs counter to the belief that juveniles who commit crimes should face 

harsher penalties. However, YCAP (Ministry of Justice, 2013) defends this by claiming that 

less severe punishment and early intervention diminish criminal behaviour. 

Communities That Care, referred to as CTC is a community-based, evidence-based 

prevention plan that aims to lower youth crime, behavioural issues and encourage healthy 

development. The article by Rowland et al. (2021) evaluates the effectiveness of this 

programme in Victoria, Australia. Risk and protective environmental factors are those that 

can be addressed by community coalitions. CTC offers a framework for analysing and 

enhancing risk mitigating factors for the development of youth. The adoption of the CTC in 

Australia started in the late 1990s in response to an increase in youth behavioural issues 

linked to environmental factors that make it easy for them to get access to alcohol and drugs 

(Rowland et al., 2021). This type of plan aligns with public perceptions of what needs to be 

addressed to prevent youth offending and reoffending, where a substantial portion of the 

public believes that youth engagement in crime is related to systemic issues such as access to 

alcohol and drugs. There are five phases to the CTC plan phase one consists of identifying 

and enlisting relevant community stakeholders and important decision-makers to get ready 

for action. In phase two, community leaders and government are formed to guide planning 

and decision-making in the community. In phase three, data is collected, and the involved 

community/government decides on priorities for their plans. In phase four, a plan is 

developed that is evidence-based and indicates relevant roles, responsibilities, and outcomes, 

and lastly, in phase five, the plan is implemented and evaluated (Rowland et al., 2021). 



22 
 

Although CTC is not a predetermined method for dealing with youth who engage in crime, it 

offers a solid framework for tackling specific factors that motivate young people to commit 

crimes. Rowland et al. (2021) found that there was a significant reduction in crime in 

communities using this plan compared to those communities not using CTC. The results of 

the study conducted by Rowland et al. (2021) are in line with the CTC framework, where this 

study target the use of CTC concerning Drug and Alcohol. Rowland et al. (2021) suggest 

alcohol and drug use, injuries, and criminality will all improve if risk factors for youth are 

decreased, and protective factors are increased. According to police estimates, alcohol is a 

factor in around one-third of crimes (Ball et al., 2022). The correlation between reducing 

youth drinking and declining juvenile crime in Aotearoa, New Zealand, is thus not surprising. 

Although there are several reasons for the decrease in crime, one of them is highly likely the 

declining prevalence and frequency of youth binge drinking. Along with increased efforts to 

prevent or lessen substance use and related harm, continued monitoring of substance use and 

harm is essential. (Ball et al., 2022). The framework shows immense potential, whereas the 

YCAP focuses on a broader set of factors. CTC could be incorporated to address specific 

factors such as alcohol and drug usage. While there are regulations against drug use and the 

use of alcohol by those under the age of eighteen in New Zealand, this does not stop young 

people from using these substances. Research conducted by Ball et al. (2022) supports that by 

addressing specific factors relating to crime engage, crime rates are likely to decline.  

Towards A Youth Crime Prevention Strategy, referred to as TYCP (Ashford, 2007), is 

a prevention plan suggested in the United Kingdom. Ashford (2007) suggests it is vital to 

reduce the entrants into youth crime by allowing more resources to be dedicated to improving 

the quality of community sentences and allowing for more effective work with those in the 

system. An interesting element of this plan is that Ashford (2007) draws attention to the cost 

of not intervening in youth crime. Although it might not directly affect youth crime rates, this 

encourages legislators to think about what would happen economically if nothing were done. 

This could help the YCAP programme and convince the public that harsher punishments 

would be more expensive for the nation than other suggested solutions. Much like the CTC 

(Rowland et al., 2021), the TYCP suggest targeted prevention is vital to improve the lives of 

youth and steer them away from engaging in crime. According to Ashford (2007), all relevant 

agencies, youth, parents/caregivers, and the community must work together to address risk 

factors associated with offending while attempting to increase and/or strengthen factors that 

protect youth from engaging in crime if there is to be a long-term, sustainable decrease in the 



23 
 

number of youths who engage in crime. For all relevant agencies to reach and provide 

services to youth most at-risk, it is vital to encourage, facilitate, and improve accountability 

(Ashford, 2007). As seen with the CTC (Rowland et al., 2021) and the YCAP (Ministry of 

Justice, 2013), it is vital to include the wider community and family when it comes to 

preventing youth crime or re-engagement with crime. Interestingly, Ashford (2007) suggests 

the importance of accountability where other programmes do not; this could be a valuable 

strategy to provide youth who are engaging in crime with a moral code that steers them away 

from crime. Like YCAP (Ministry of Justice, 2013), there should be measures in place that 

steer youth away from the justice system, with only severe crimes requiring the youth to 

appear in court. Also included in the TYCP were case studies to support their programme 

goals. They provided examples of youth who engaged in crime and how their suggested 

prevention methods benefited these youths' lives. This could be beneficial for YCAP as it 

would provide reassurance to policymakers and the public that their suggested strategies are 

evidence-based. 

This section discussed public and youth views on the New Zealand Justice system as 

well as three different approaches to youth crime. The two studies completed on public 

perceptions of how to address youth crime yielded comparable results suggesting that those 

involved in these studies hold the same belief on youth crime and how it should be addressed. 

The article by youth suggests there need to be better communication measures for youth in 

the justice system. The Youth Crime Action Plan is making significant efforts to address 

youth crime in New Zealand; however, not all strategies in this plan work with what the 

public believes should be done to address youth crime. There is no mention of addressing 

issues raised by youth about current issues in the Youth Justice system either. Communities 

That care could be incorporated into current New Zealand systems to address the specific 

factors that result in youth crime. Factors suggested by the public, such as alcohol and drug 

usage, poverty, and family violence, have the potential of being specific topics this 

programme could address. Towards A Youth Crime Prevention Strategy provide insight into 

the importance of addressing youth accountability. Many of their points also relate to current 

New Zealand systems or points that could be incorporated from Communities That Care. 

Closing summary 

Youth criminality is a multifaceted problem, according to both youth and the public 

perceptions discussed. Both sides have mentioned the influence of family and friends, 



24 
 

boredom, and drug and alcohol use as contributing factors. Public views and young people 

who committed crimes also supported this thinking. It is essential to understand how public 

perceptions of youth criminality are developed. Halsey and White (2008) suggest that media 

play a significant role in shaping perceptions of youth crime. While some members of the 

public advocated for tougher sentences, recent preventative initiatives like YCAP have 

demonstrated that less severe punishments and early intervention are better strategies for 

combating youth crime. As one of the current preventative programmes in New Zealand for 

dealing with youth crime, YCAP, consideration should be given to combining tactics 

proposed in programmes like CTC as research suggests addressing factors such as substance 

abuse can lower crime rates (Ball et al., 2022). Addressing issues on a micro, meso, and 

macro level could help lower youth criminality rates.  

The literature reviewed here helped the researcher better understand the factors that 

lead to youth crime, potential preventative measures, and existing youth crime prevention 

programmes. The study deduced from this that public perceptions of juvenile crime were 

underrepresented. This study aims to supplement and enhance existing material for dealing 

with and reducing youth crime wherever it is practical, as current literature focuses on small 

sample sizes and low reliability of findings. 

 

  



25 
 

CHAPTER THREE – EPISTEMOLOGY, THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK, AND 

METHODOLOGY 

3.1. Epistemology  

The goals of focus groups and interviews are influenced by various epistemological 

frameworks or philosophical methods of knowing, which are used to conduct research. The 

lens of knowledge the researcher uses to see the world and the process of conducting research 

is known as an epistemological framework (Katz-Buonincontro, 2022). The potentials, 

nature, sources, and boundaries of knowledge in a subject of study are all topics covered by 

epistemology. As an alternative, epistemology might be defined as a study of the standards by 

which a researcher categorises what does and does not constitute knowledge (Grix, 2019). 

What defines a knowledge claim, how knowledge may be produced or gained, and how the 

breadth of its applicability can be established are just a few of the topics that epistemology 

addresses. The importance of epistemology to conservation science can be attributed to how 

it affects how researchers frame their investigations in an effort to gain information (Moon & 

Blackman, 2014).  

Subjectivist research is valuable in that it demonstrates how a person's life 

experiences affect how they view the world (Moon & Blackman, 2014). According to 

subjectivist epistemology, knowledge is based on how an individual interprets and 

understands reality. Therefore, reality is pluralistic, which means that reality may be 

expressed using a variety of symbols and linguistic systems, and plastic, which means that 

reality can be bent and moulded to suit the needs of different people. This is also a limitation 

of this epistemology as it suggests there is no single reality on which we base our 

understanding. However, for the purpose of this research, the researcher decided participant 

perceptions were more crucial to the research than constructing a set reality to fit participant 

understandings into. The world is given meaning and worth by people, who also interpret it in 

ways that make sense to them. The maxim of subjectivism may be, 'believing decides what is 

seen,' as opposed to the maxim of objectivism, 'seeing is believing.' (Moon & Blackman, 

2014). Subjectivist research is valuable in that it demonstrates how a person's life experiences 

affect how they view the world. Due to the fact that the world is frequently perceived based 

on very individual experiences, a substantial portion of perception research uses a subjective 

epistemology. Therefore, subjectivist research offers crucial insight into the elements that 

influence each person's conservation behaviour (Moon & Blackman, 2014). As stated above, 

subjective epistemology is frequently utilised in perception research, and this study will focus 



26 
 

on university students' perceptions. This research's use of a subjective epistemology is due to 

the fact that it gives participants the opportunity to share the way they view the issue of youth 

crime in Aotearoa, New Zealand. As this research aims to gain an understanding of university 

student perceptions of youth crime, using a subjectivist epistemology allows the researcher to 

gain these perspectives without being influenced by the idea of a precise and uniform 

understanding of the world. This epistemology allows each participant to share their 

perceptions and meaning to be extracted based on their unique understanding of the world.  

3.2 Theoretical Framework 

An idea or collection of ideas that give a theory in a research study structure is known 

as a theoretical framework. Researchers may use theoretical frameworks to direct their work, 

identify or examine innovative viewpoints, or make links between concepts that appear 

unconnected (Dziak, 2020). Theories are developed to explain, forecast, and comprehend 

phenomena, as well as frequently to challenge and advance current knowledge while staying 

within the bounds of crucial limiting assumptions. The structure that can hold or support a 

research study's theory is known as the theoretical framework. The theoretical framework is 

the philosophical perspective that informs the methodology, giving it meaning and 

underpinning the research's logic and standards (Crotty, 1998). The researcher is connected to 

existing knowledge by the theoretical framework. A theoretical framework provides 

researchers with a foundation for the researchers' hypotheses and method of research 

selection, guided by a pertinent theory. It compels researchers to answer the how and why 

questions by outlining the theoretical presumptions of a research project. It enables 

researchers to go beyond merely describing an observed phenomenon to making 

generalisations with the aid of a theory. A theoretical framework identifies the crucial factors 

that affect a prominent issue. It prompts researchers to consider how and under what 

conditions those crucial elements might change. 

The theoretical framework applied to this research is the interpretivism theoretical 

framework (Crotty, 1998). The interpretivism theoretical framework, often known as 

relativism, is based on a variety of truths and realities (Brown, 2019). The interpretivist 

framework is used by qualitative researchers who do not perceive a single, cohesive world 

(Katz-Buonincontro, 2022). Interpretivism, which rejects the objectivist theory that meaning 

exists in the world independently of consciousness and is connected to the philosophical 

viewpoint of idealism, is a term used to describe a variety of methods, such as social 



27 
 

constructivism, phenomenology, and hermeneutics (Katz-Buonincontro, 2022). According to 

the interpretivist method, it is critical for the researcher to recognise how people differ as 

social actors (Brown, 2019). Additionally, interpretivism studies frequently concentrate on 

the meaning and may use a variety of techniques to reflect various facets of the problem 

(Brown, 2019). The interpretivism framework requires researchers to look at the subjective 

meaning and social phenomena. A researcher's focus should be on the details provided by 

participants. They should consider the reality behind these details, any possible motivating 

actions, and the subjective meanings of the data. This also reflects the subjectivist 

epistemology adopted in this research. The interpretivist framework acknowledges that it is 

appropriate to live in and study the social environment and that analysis will never be utterly 

neutral due to the fact that researchers are inextricably linked to the social reality that they are 

studying (Grix, 2019). As a result of the interpretivists' interest in subjectivity, understanding, 

agency, and how people create their social environments, there are now more complexities 

and unpredictability present. Even within the answers that interpretivism offers, there is a 

chance that contradictions and internal inconsistencies will appear. The scientific pursuit of 

specific laws or unambiguous knowledge of how things operate is at odds with this (Grix, 

2019). Grix (2019) helps provide justification for using the interpretivism framework by 

drawing attention to the interpretivism's aim to gain an understanding of the topic being 

researched; this aligns with the way this research aims to use university students' perspectives 

to understand and address the issue of youth offending in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Grix 

(2019) explains that interpretivism is not limited to merely understanding but also aims to 

explain the issues being studied using this framework. Within this research, significant 

importance is placed on the perceptions of the participants and how they believe youth crime 

can be addressed in Aotearoa, New Zealand. The use of an interpretivist framework allows 

for participant perceptions to explain the causes of youth crime and possible preventions. 

3.3 Methodology  

Qualitative research   

To better comprehend ideas, views, or experiences, qualitative research entails 

gathering and evaluating non-numerical data such as text, video, or audio. It may be utilised 

to uncover intricate details about a situation or to spark new research concepts. Qualitative 

research is done to comprehend how individuals see their surroundings (Merriam & Tisdell, 

2016). Although there are several ways to approach qualitative research, most of them are 



28 
 

adaptable and strongly emphasize preserving rich meaning when analysing data. Grounded 

theory, ethnography, action research, phenomenological research, and narrative research are 

examples of common methodologies. While they stress distinct goals and views, they do have 

certain commonalities.  

Utilising one or more data gathering techniques is a part of any research strategy. The 

most common qualitative techniques include observations, surveys, secondary research, and 

interviews. Observations require researchers to take careful field notes to document what has 

been seen, heard, or encountered. Interviews can be direct questions asked of participants in 

one-on-one discussions or by posing questions among focus groups with the intent of group 

discussion on the questions. One of the few areas of conducting qualitative research where 

there is a preferred method is data analysis. In a qualitative study, the researcher has 

identified the issue and has chosen a deliberate sample to gather information from in order to 

address the issue. However, the researcher is unsure of what will be learned, what or whom to 

focus on, or what the outcome of the study will be. In this case, participants were selected 

based on their age and their enrolment in tertiary education. The data that is gathered and the 

analysis goes along with the entire process to influence the final result (Merriam & Tisdell, 

2016). Cardano (2019) explains the process of analysing data as the following process. 

Firstly, researchers need to organise and prepare their data. This can require typing up field 

notes or interview transcriptions. The second stage usually entails evaluating and examining 

the gathered information to look for any patterns or themes that may have converged. In the 

third step, which involves developing a system for data coding, researchers compile a list of 

codes they can use to categorise the data per their initial hypotheses. Giving the data codes is 

the fourth phase. As researchers go over their data, they can add new codes. Recognizing 

recurring motifs and overarching themes is required during the last phase (Cardano, 2019). 

The analysis of qualitative data can be done in several diverse ways. These strategies 

highlight various concepts even if they use similar processes. 

There are several benefits of using qualitative research, including how new research 

topics emerge. Qualitative research can be modified while frequently attempting to maintain 

the voice and perspective of the participants. One of the most significant advantages of 

qualitative research is the accuracy of information gained, as it allows participants to interact 

naturally and express themselves on their own terms (Cardano, 2019). Qualitative research is 

useful for its flexibility as fresh concepts or patterns surface, the data gathering, and analysis 

procedure can be modified. They are not predetermined inflexibly in advance. Data is 



29 
 

gathered in realistic settings in a naturalistic manner (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Designing, 

evaluating, or enhancing systems can benefit from insightful observations and thorough 

descriptions of people's experiences, feelings, and perceptions. Qualitative research allows 

for the creation of novel concepts, and open-ended questions allow for the discovery of 

contemporary issues or possibilities that would not have occurred to the researcher otherwise. 

Researchers should take theoretical and practical constraints into account when evaluating 

and interpreting their findings.  

Qualitative research has several drawbacks, which are important to consider when 

conducting research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative research may not be credible if 

any uncontrollable factors have an impact on the results. When conducted in a real-world 

setting, qualitative research can be unreliable. Due to the researcher's primary role being data 

processing and interpretation, there is also the issue that qualitative research is subjective and 

cannot be replicated. When analysing data, the researcher selects what is relevant and what is 

not. Therefore, different people may interpret the same set of data quite differently. 

Qualitative research also has a narrow range of generalisation; to collect comprehensive data 

regarding specific topics, small sample sizes are frequently used. Cardano (2019) explains a 

lack of generalizability as a disadvantage. Despite careful research methods, it can be 

challenging to obtain generalizable results since the data may be biased and unrepresentative 

of the wider population. Another drawback of qualitative research is that it is labour 

intensive, which means data analysis frequently must be reviewed or done manually, even 

though software may be used to organise and record the data that is collected (Merriam & 

Tisdell, 2016). The decision to focus on a qualitative approach in this research was made to 

gain an understanding based on participant perceptions without limiting them to a set variety 

of responses that would have been gained using a quantitative approach. Here there was a 

focus on participant voices rather than responses that would have been gained using yes or no 

questionnaires or Likert scales.  

Grounded Theory Approach 

This research uses the grounded theory approach to qualitative research. Grounded 

theory describes a collection of systematic inductive approaches used to create theories 

through qualitative research. The term grounded theory refers to two distinct concepts; the 

first, a methodology made up of adaptable methodological procedures, and the second, the 

findings of this kind of research. As a means of enquiry for gathering and, in particular, 



30 
 

interpreting data, academics are increasingly using this theory. This approach's reasoning is 

fundamentally based on an inductive theoretical approach. Robust empirical underpinnings 

serve as the foundation for subsequent studies. These analyses present specialised, abstract, 

conceptual ideas that account for the investigated empirical phenomena (Lewis-Beck et al., 

2003). Katz-Buonincontro (2022) explains that grounded theory studies 'ground' the theory in 

the data using the authentic voices of many individuals from an interview or focus groups, as 

opposed to speculating about how people behave.  

Grounded theory, which is fundamentally comparative, offers rules for dealing with 

data that inspire new ways of thinking. The researcher develops new concepts by contrasting 

data sets; data sets with theoretical classifications and sets of theoretical classifications. The 

creation of grounded theories is not a result of the data itself but of the researchers' extensive 

empirical training and their analytical interaction with the data (Morse et al., 2021). 

Grounded theory techniques allow researchers to start but not end with these perspectives, 

even when disciplinary opinions make them more aware of conceptual issues. (Lewis-Beck et 

al., 2003). With these techniques, researchers engage in early data analysis from the start of 

data gathering. The following data collecting for grounded theory researchers are thus guided 

by early analytical work. Strategies based on grounded theory keep researchers actively 

involved in the analytical process. These methods also include checks to make sure that the 

emergent theory is supported by the evidence it is meant to explain. Additionally, grounded 

theory techniques influence the types of analysis and the substance of the data (Lewis-Becket 

al., 2003). The purpose of grounded theory interviews is to facilitate an in-depth discussion 

on a specific theme. Therefore, interviews are not tools for gathering facts but a method for 

creating interpretations of experiences (Tarozzi, 2020). Grounded theory instructs researchers 

to approach their research in a deliberate, analytical manner. They concentrate data collecting 

more on addressing analytical queries and completing gaps in the developing field. This was 

incredibly important to this research as one of the aims of this research is to bridge a gap in 

the current literature using public perceptions to address youth crime. They look for 

information that will enable them to have a complete understanding of what is being 

examined. Instead of focusing on the overarching structure of one social environment, 

grounded theory tactics in this research encourage the collection of detailed data about youth 

crime in Aotearoa, New Zealand.  

It is important to note that grounded theory streamlines and integrates data collection 

and analysis, advances conceptual analysis of qualitative data, and validates qualitative 



31 
 

research as a legitimate mode of scientific enquiry. Researchers from various fields and 

professions have been influenced by grounded theory approaches, which have become a 

staple of social research theory (Morse, 2021). Without properly comprehending or 

implementing its specific guidelines, qualitative researchers frequently assert that they have 

conducted grounded theory investigations. One of two of the guidelines might be used, or 

they might confuse qualitative analysis with grounded theory. In contrast, other researchers 

apply reductionist, mechanistic grounded theory techniques. The flexible yet methodical 

manner of enquiry, the focused yet open-ended analysis, and the creative theorising from 

empirical evidence that grounded theory approaches can produce are not embodied in either 

approach. Therefore, the grounded theory approach promises to produce a middle-range 

theory that has yet to be completely fulfilled (Lewis-Beck et al., 2003). Incorporating 

grounded theory into this research aided and reflected the subjectivist epistemology and 

interpretivist framework used in this research. The use of grounded theory was justified as the 

current research did not aim to prove or disprove previous theories of youth crime but 

construct meaning from participants' perceptions. 

Semi-structured In-depth Interviews  

Semi-structured interviews are one of the most common qualitative methods used 

(Darlington & Scott, 2002). Semi-structured interviews combine elements from both 

structured and unstructured interview formats (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Semi-structured 

interviews frequently have open-ended questions, which promote flexibility (Merriam & 

Tisdell, 2016). Semi-structured interviews are best used when research is exploratory in 

nature. Participant answers can guide future research questions and help develop a more 

robust knowledge base for future research. Just like in structured interviews, it is critical to 

remain organized and develop a system for keeping track of participant responses. However, 

as the questions are less set than in a structured interview, the data collection and analysis are 

more complex.  

When conducting semi-structured interviews, it is crucial to design the questions that 

will be used; these questions should be phrased clearly so that all participants understand 

them, and they should also be simple and concise (Darlington & Scott, 2002). Knowing when 

to ask related follow-up or free-form questions is one of the most challenging aspects of 

semi-structured interviews. For this reason, having a reference point is essential. It can be 

helpful to make an educated prediction as to what queries participants' responses could raise.  



32 
 

There are several sampling techniques that can be used to find research participants, 

including convenience sampling of people who can be reached easily for participation in the 

research, stratified sampling of a particular characteristic attribute of interest in the study, or 

voluntary sampling (Cozby & Bates, 2015). This research used voluntary response sampling 

where an advertisement was posted, and participants were sourced from these respondents. 

Whichever sampling method is selected, it is vital to be mindful of sampling bias; this can 

occur when specific individuals of a population are more likely to be included in research 

than others. It is crucial to plan out the conduction of the interview in advance (Darlington & 

Scott, 2002). Video conferencing might come out as uncomfortable or unnatural, which could 

have an impact on the results of the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Due to Covid-19, 

this research was conducted using video conferencing. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) explain 

that video conferencing provides the researcher's freedom from geographical restrictions 

when selecting participants. Video conferencing does have a downfall in that technology can 

be unreliable, "there can be problems with audio recording equipment as sometimes break up 

on cell phones or over Skype or other computer-mediated venues which can cause frustration 

for both the interviewer and the interviewee" (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 85). Lastly, it is 

essential to keep environmental conditions as constant as possible this helps avoid bias. As 

these interviews were conducted using Zoom, the researcher used the available blurring 

feature. Researchers need to be aware of their body language and their facial expressions; it is 

also vital to maintain an appropriate tone of voice (Magnusson & Marecek, 2015). To address 

this, the researcher opted for casual dress and maintained neutral expressions throughout the 

interviews. 

Semi-structured interviews come with many advantages. Semi-structured interviews