Abstract
Many Sudanese Australians have faced re-settlement challenges since migrating to Australia from the late 1990s onwards. Challenges have included language barriers, obtaining stable housing, acquiring employment, acculturative stressors and discrimination. Moreover, many have been exposed to pre-migratory traumas and family fragmentation. Despite these difficulties, the vast majority of Sudanese Australians have integrated successfully into the fabric of Australian society. Yet a small number of young Sudanese Australians are at-risk for violence and other criminal activities, resulting in their over-representation in the criminal justice system. These circumstances have been the subject of sustained sensationalised media coverage in Australia. However, little academic attention has been afforded to these matters. This study aimed to address this gap in the literature by identifying the self-reported life experiences and offending patterns of Sudanese-Australian youth in custody. Findings illuminated a number of key risk factors for justice system contact and opportunities for intervention.
In March 2016, sequences of violent activity described as rioting and brawling between rival groups of youth, disrupted Melbourne’s Moomba festival, a popular annual public event (Galloway, Doherty, Jefferson, & Buttler, 2016). Most of the violence was attributed to one of the groups involved, described as ‘Apex’, which has been characterised as a loosely connected network of predominantly South Sudanese young people (Mills & Houston, 2016). The public nature of the incident generated a subsequent wave of negative media coverage and political commentary. Further violent offending attributed to youth alleged to be members of Apex, fuelled ongoing media attention. One Melbourne-based news outlet reportedly ran 173 stories (including 28 front pages) referencing Apex during the year following the Moomba event (Watkins & Sood, 2017). Accordingly, the public discourse concerning Apex has often been both sensationalised and racialised in nature (Kelly, 2016). This has endured despite a measured response from Victoria police who asserted that the Apex gang was not predominantly Sudanese, that it comprised youth from several different cultural backgrounds, and that it had been disbanded in 2017 (Farnsworth, 2017). Reports analysing the media coverage of Sudanese Australians have found numerous instances where media reports, past and present, associate ‘Sudanese’ or ‘African’ refugees, integration difficulties and criminal behaviour (Chingaipe, 2017; Gatt, 2011; Windle, 2008). These narratives have engendered calls for tighter immigration policies and law and order justice initiatives by members of the Australian parliament and sections of the public (Chingaipe, 2017; Gatt, 2011; Nolan, Burgin, Farquharson, & Marjoribanks, 2016; Windle, 2008). Similar sentiment has occurred in response to previous incidents involving Sudanese youth, for instance, the murder of a young male, Liep Gony, in Melbourne in 2007 (Due, 2008; Nolan, Farquharson, Politoff, & Marjoribanks, 2011; Nunn, 2010). The potential criminalising effect of such coverage on the Sudanese Australian population has been the subject of academic attention (Baak, 2011; Centre for Multicultural Youth [CMY], 2014; Collins & Reid, 2009; Coventry, Dawes, Moston, & Palmer, 2015; Hanson-Easey & Augoustinos, 2010; Hebbani, Obijiofor, & Bristed, 2012; Windle, 2008). Yet little has been written academically on the pathways to offending for young Sudanese Australians, a function often left to a less discerning media. As such, a prudent consideration of young Sudanese Australian involvement in crime and the conditions prompting law breaking behaviour is warranted.
Official youth crime statistics from the state of Victoria indicate that Sudanese-born individuals are responsible for only a small proportion of overall crime (CMY, 2014; Farnsworth & Wright, 2016; Joint Standing Committee on Migration, 2017). However, some evidence suggests that there have been increases in criminal activity over the past 2 years for the group, with overrepresentation in particular offending categories including car theft, affray, aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery (Farnsworth & Wright, 2016; Joint Standing Committee on Migration, 2017). Victorian police data from 2010 to 2012 show that Sudanese-born youth are approximately five to seven times more likely to be processed by police compared to other youth (see CMY, 2014). Despite comprising approximately 0.2% of the overall Victorian population, Sudanese-born youth comprised 2% of young people serving youth justice orders between 2011 and 2012 (see CMY, 2014) and were 4.5% of a representative sample of young males in custody in Victoria between 2011 and 2013 (Shepherd, Luebbers, Ferguson, Ogloff, & Dolan, 2014). In 2017, Sudanese young people comprise 4% of Victoria’s youth justice cohort (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017). It is possible that youth contact with the justice system is statistically underreported given that Victorian police data collection services do not record an alleged offender’s ethno-cultural group beyond the ‘country-of-birth’ descriptor (Joint Standing Committee on Migration, 2017). However, there is also evidence that young men of African descent are more likely to be arbitrarily stopped and searched by Victorian police (Haile-Michael v Konstantinidis, 2012) and are more likely to report negative interactions and/or discriminatory treatment compared to Australian born young men (Flemington & Kensington Community Legal Centre, 2011). Among adults, Sudanese-born individuals have the highest imprisonment rates in the country (701.6 prisoners per 100,000, Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2014). Moreover, one-third of adult Sudanese-born prisoners are imprisoned for acts intended to cause injury as opposed to 22% of prisoners generally (ABS, 2016). The available statistical information demarcated by ethnicity is clearly limited. However, the evidence implies that Sudanese-born Australians, despite committing a small portion of overall crime, are disproportionately involved in the criminal justice system.
Many Sudanese-Australians have experienced challenging pre and post migratory circumstances (CMY, 2014; Department of Immigration and Citizenship [DIC], 2007; Hebbani et al., 2012; Khawaja, White, Schweitzer, & Greenslade, 2008; Lejukole, Rainbird, Blewett, Every, & Clarkson, 2012; Milner & Khawaja, 2010; Schweitzer, Melville, Steel & Lacherez, 2006), heightening vulnerability to family breakdown, community disengagement, mental ill health and problem behaviours (CMY, 2014; Coventry et al., 2015; Deng, 2017; Milos, 2011; Savic, Chur-Hansen, Mahmood, & Moore, 2013; Tempany, 2009). The majority of Sudanese immigrants arrived in Australia between 1996 and 2015 with the largest uptake occurring between the years 2001 and 2007 (ABS, 2017). The population of Australians with Sudanese and South Sudanese heritage is estimated to be around 28,000 – many were arrivals as part of the humanitarian program during the Sudanese civil war (ABS, 2017; Robinson, 2011). Moreover, the Sudanese-born population in Australia is disproportionately young and male. Almost half are under the age of 25 while for the general Australian population only one-third are under 25 years of age (see Robinson, 2011). There is an estimated gender imbalance of 10% (in favour of males) among the Sudanese-born population (see Robinson, 2011). The state of Victoria, where the Moomba festival occurs, is home to over 30% of the Sudanese-born population, the highest number of any Australian state or territory (Office of Multicultural affairs and Citizenship, 2013). This demographic picture poses a number of challenges for effective re-settlement, particularly for the traditionally collectivist South Sudanese culture.
The ratio of Sudanese-born people below 50 to those above 50 is at eleven to one (see Robinson, 2011). In other words, the Sudanese-born youth population drastically outnumbers the adult population which comprises elders who customarily are responsible for stabilising and arbitration within, extended family networks (Ethnic Council of Shepparton and District Inc [ECSD], 2015; Robinson, 2011; Schweitzer, Greenslade, & Kagee, 2007; South Eastern Region Migrant Resource Centre, 2007). The potential for broad social support is subsequently limited in addition to the post-migratory challenges faced by new arrivals.
Common integration difficulties reported by Sudanese-born Australians include the acquiring of English language proficiency and employment opportunities (CMY, 2014; Dunja & Arunachalam, 2009; ECSD, 2015; Robinson, 2011; Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission [VEOHRC], 2008). Few Sudanese-born individuals arrive with a strong grasp of English which subsequently impacts their ability to acquire employment (Abdelkerim & Grace, 2012; Federation of Ethic Communities’ Councils of Australia [FECCA], 2014; Lejukole et al., 2012). In addition, a lack of recognised qualifications and local work experience reduce opportunities for employment (Lejukole et al., 2012). The unemployment rate for Sudanese-Australians is over 28% which is significantly higher than the national rate of approximately 5–6% (Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 2014). An inability to find regular employment decreases the capacity to develop further social networks and can hinder effective re-integration. Many Sudanese-Australians report experiences of discrimination in the job market, whilst studying at educational institutions, interpersonally within the community, and during encounters with law enforcement (Abur, 2012; CMY, 2014; Coventry et al., 2015; Dawes, 2013; FECCA, 2014, 2015; Horyniak, Higgs, Cogger, & Dietze, 2017; Khawaja et al., 2008; Lejukole et al., 2012; Markus, 2016; Reiner, 2010; Run, 2013; VEOHRC, 2008). This is perceived to induce feelings of social rejection, frustration and fear, which can be compounded during periods of sustained negative media attention (Baak, 2011; CMY, 2014; Collins & Reid, 2009; Coventry et al., 2015; Dawes, 2013; Hebbani et al., 2012; Run, 2013). The high unemployment rate and lower levels of educational attainment compared to the general community have implications for the socio-economic status of many Sudanese-Australians. The median weekly income for Sudanese-Australians is less than half that of the general population and for all overseas-born Australians (DIC, 2014). As a consequence, Sudanese-Australians are often concentrated in lower income areas, which in many cases are also designated refugee re-settlement regions. Financial hardship, initial reliance on government payments and the social challenges of residing in low-income jurisdictions, can produce unstable and discouraging environmental contexts with limited opportunities for upward mobility and the development of legitimate social capital. These issues are perhaps heightened when migration patterns consign disproportionate numbers of young males to such settings, which can be fertile grounds for boredom, frustration, alienation and law-breaking activity.
Research has discovered high levels of psychological distress among sections of the Sudanese-Australian community (Schweitzer et al., 2006; Tempany, 2009). Moreover, many arrivals have experienced traumatic episodes including witnessing and being subjected to physical violence, family fragmentation, living in refugee camps, and abject poverty, resulting in elevated rates of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and other mental illnesses (Khawaja et al., 2008; Schweitzer et al., 2006; Shepherd, 2016; Tempany, 2009). Early experiences of trauma, particularly prolonged exposure to violence can result in maladaptive behaviours including risk taking, sensation seeking, aggression and difficulty controlling emotions (Ardino, 2012). In many cases, these behaviours are often described as the ‘acting out’ of unresolved childhood trauma. Young offenders in particular have more instances of early adverse childhood experiences and have higher rates of PTSD compared to the general population (Abram et al., 2004). For young Sudanese Australians, re-settlement strain and living difficulties often add to existing unresolved trauma endured pre-migration (Khawaja et al., 2008; Milner & Khawaja, 2010; Reiner, 2010; Savic et al., 2013; Schweitzer et al., 2006; Shepherd, 2016).
Adaptation to new cultural values and community expectations often pose challenges for newly arrived Sudanese-Australians. Traditionally, Sudanese family arrangements are collectivist, encompassing an extended intimate network (ECSD, 2015). Middle-aged and elderly family members assume important guiding roles within these familial structures (Milos, 2011). Discipline, and the oversight of behaviours and practices can be communally prescribed and monitored within such systems (Milos, 2011). These procedures may be rendered less effective or disrupted in Australian settings, which are culturally and institutionally more individualistic (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Deng, 2017; Hebbani, Obijiofor, & Bristed, 2009). Serious family disputes in South Sudanese culture are often resolved internally as opposed to the more formalised civil legal processes within Australian law (Danne, 2004) which may be viewed as the interfering of authorities in family spaces (Losoncz, 2011, 2012). A number of reports suggest that familial tension is sometimes prompted by both the Australian ‘sense of freedom’ and the criminalisation of ‘cultural forms of punishment’ which in turn erodes traditional gender roles and parental relationships with children (Deng, 2017; DIC, 2007; Hebbani et al., 2009, 2012; Losoncz, 2011, 2012; Milos, 2011; Reiner, 2010). The intergenerational and gendered conflicts within extended families that can occur during periods of re-settlement may further weaken a family environment already experiencing language barriers and financial insecurity (Abur, 2012).
It is clear that Sudanese-born arrivals to Australia face cultural, environmental and demographical challenges that can impact successful integration. It is conceivable that these circumstances are associated with their overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, however, there has been almost no research elucidating these pathways. The migration experiences of many Somali-Australians who arrived almost a decade earlier as refugees in 1992 following civil war and famine in Somalia provide some insight into the expected challenges faced by later Sudanese arrivals. Somali refugees were typically younger and male; their families had been displaced; they had disrupted (or sometimes no) education, and limited English language proficiency (White, Perrone, Guerra, & Lammpugnani, 1999). Reports detailed the manifestation of youth drug dealing, fighting and other antisocial activities as Somali youth grappled with economic disadvantage, adjustment to the majority culture, peer pressure, boredom and family difficulties (White et al., 1999). The Centre for Multicultural Youth outlined a concert of risk and protective factors for at-risk migrant and refugee young people which reflect the re-settlement challenges discussed earlier (CMY, 2014). Moreover, there have been several studies discerning Sudanese-Australian community viewpoints on their encounters with law enforcement, barriers to education/employment, experiences of discrimination, healthcare understandings, experiences of trauma, legal needs, wellbeing and social support, acculturation, attitudes towards negative media attention, and re-settlement difficulties (Abur, 2012; Copping, Shakespeare-Finch, & Paton, 2010; Coventry et al., 2015; Dawes, 2013; Deng, 2017; Dunja & Arunachalam, 2009; Hatoss & Huijser, 2010; Hebbani et al., 2009; Horyniak et al., 2017; Khawaja et al., 2008; Lejukole et al., 2012; Losoncz, 2012; Milos, 2011; Savic et al., 2013; Schweitzer et al., 2007). However, no existing research has been conducted with a sample of young Sudanese-Australians who have had contact with the Australian justice system. The current study aims to advance the existing literature base by identifying the self-reported life experiences and offending patterns of justice-involved Sudanese-Australian youth in custody. Responses are expected to illuminate the individual and community circumstances leading to their contact with the justice system.
Method
Data were collected for a total of eight male participants from two Youth Justice Centres in the Australian state of Victoria, Parkville Youth Justice Precinct (PYJP, N = 7), and Malmsbury Youth Justice Centre (MYJC, N = 1). PYJP accommodates young men and women aged 10–17 years who have been remanded or sentenced by a Victorian court, and young women aged 18–20 who have been sentenced by a Victorian Court. MYJC accommodates young men aged 18–20 years who have been sentenced by a Victorian court. Young people aged 18–20 years may be subject to Victoria’s dual track legislation. The dual track arrangement triages a subset of young adult offenders with encouraging prospects for rehabilitation to the youth justice system.
The sample was collected as part of a broader study investigating the cross-cultural risk profiles of young people in custody. That study gathered a representative sample of 215 young people over a 12 month period. The study capture rate for youth who self-identified as Sudanese during the 12 month period was 100%, so although the number of Sudanese participants was small, they constituted all the Sudanese youth approached. There were no females who self-identified as Sudanese in custody throughout the duration of the study.
The mean age of the sample was 18.13 (SD = 1.73, range = 16–20). Six (75%) of the youth were in custody for violent offending. One youth (12.5%) was in custody for breaching a legal order and the other youth’s index offence was unknown. Six of the eight youth (75%) in the sample had previously been charged for a violent offence. The total number of participants in the sample was small, however, this is reflective of the number of Sudanese youth in custody in Victoria. Moreover, data on Sudanese youth serving custodial orders in Australia had previously been unobtainable, underscoring the importance and unique nature of the study.
Detention centre youth were initially approached by researchers and asked if they were interested in participating in the study. If the detainees demonstrated an interest in participating, researchers then explained the study to them in detail. Written informed consent was then obtained from detainees wanting to partake. Detainees who were unable to speak English or did not have the capacity to provide informed consent were excluded from participating. Participants were assessed by means of a semi-structured interview conducted by six post-graduate clinician-researchers. Participants were interviewed individually in a private room allocated by youth justice custodial centre staff. The duration of each interview was approximately 90 minutes.
The semi-structured interview was undertaken with participants in order to gain a greater understanding of their backgrounds, motivations, attitudes, and level of insight into their own behaviour. During the interview, participants were asked about their family and social networks, relationships, drug and alcohol use, accomplishments and aspirations, psychological difficulties, interventions received, as well as their attitudes towards crime and justice. Extensive clinical notes were taken during the course of each interview.
The Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) is an extensively validated Structured Professional Judgment instrument designed to predict violent behaviour in young people aged 12–18 years (Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2006). It comprises 24 risk items separated across three subscales assessing Historical, Socio/Contextual, and Individual domains. Historical Risk Factors include static items focusing on prior behaviours and experiences. The Social/Contextual domain considers dynamic factors concerning peer relationships and community influences, whereas the Individual domain assesses psychological patterns and behaviours (Borum et al., 2006). According to the SAVRY manual, each risk item is scores on a three-level scale (High, Moderate, Low). A rating of ‘High’ indicates the item is currently prominent. A rating of ‘Moderate’ is scored if the item is present to some extent or historically present. A rating of ‘Low’ suggests that the item is not present. The instrument also contains six additional Protective Factors, the presence of which can buffer a risk factor or reduce likelihood of future violence. Protective factor items can be scored as 0 (Absent) or 1 (Present). The information from the semi-structured interview was used to score the SAVRY instrument.
Ethics
This study was approved by the Victorian Department of Human Services, the Victoria Police Human Research Ethics Committee and the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Consent for participants under 18 years of age fell within the ‘mature minor’ concept, as described in local Victorian legislation, in which mental competency is determined by the ability of an underage participant to understand or appreciate points pertaining to their partaking in, and the nature of the study (Luebbers & Ogloff, 2011).
Data analysis
Thematic analysis of the structured interview data was undertaken by a primary coder (author DN) using a progressive process of classifying, comparing, grouping and refining groups of text segments to create and then clarify the definition of categories, or themes, within the data (Fossey, Harvey, McDermott, & Davidson, 2002; Skeat, 2013). In order to ensure reliability, another coder (author SS) independently coded a sub-section of interview notes and cross-checked these with the findings of the primary coder. Discrepancies were discussed and a mutually agreeable interpretation was reached.
Participant frequencies across the high, medium and low categories for each SAVRY risk and protective item were identified. The number of participants who were released from custody and re-offended during the follow-up period was summed.
Results
Thematic analysis
Participants reflected on their previous and existing social/environmental situations, experiences and relationships. They also outlined the circumstances leading to their criminal involvement, their attitudes towards their offending behaviours, their future aspirations and strategies for transitioning out of delinquency.
Education/employment disruption
All but one participant reported a history of disrupted primary and secondary schooling. Expulsions, suspensions and regular truancy were common across the sample. Impressions of school were negative although relationships with teachers were generally viewed as satisfactory. Relationships with other students however were often seen as problematic, with several participants reporting that they were regularly bullied. The bullying was perceived as racist in nature resulting in ‘fighting back’. According to participants, this pattern of retaliation led to frequent suspensions and expulsions from secondary schools. Despite these negative experiences, participants acknowledged the importance of education – the majority planned to continue their education post-detention either at a secondary school or TAFE. The only participant to have completed year 12 stated that it ‘feels good to say I completed it (school)’. Four of the participants reported an employment history however these positions were short-term.
Family disconnection
Most participants reported that outside of custody, they were living with one or both parents. No parental criminality was reported. Relationships with family members were generally ‘okay’, however several participants noted that their parents were overly strict. Other participants viewed parental strictness as ‘tough but fair’. A level of independence from strict parental supervision appeared to be acquired at around 16 years of age for some participants, which allowed them to ‘do whatever’. Several participants reported that they had run away from home when aged 10 years or under, yet only two reported that they experienced neglect within their home environment. Family members were believed to be upset by the participants’ offending behaviours.
Peer group delinquency
All participants reported having both friends and/or acquaintances, with most having at least one or two friends they ‘trust’. The friendship circles were considered to be disproportionately delinquent ranging from at least 50% to 95% delinquent. Although most participants did not believe that they had experienced peer pressure, it was noted by one respondent that they were: ‘not really forced but when you get out something always happens’.
Another participant attributed their incarceration to their friendship group: ‘[my] friends are crazy that’s how I ended up here’.
Regarding intimate relationships, most respondents reported at least one relationship. Casual sexual relationships were commonly reported, although some preferred long-term relationships.
Substance use
Most participants reported commencing drug and alcohol use between the ages of 13 and 16 years. While several youth had tried ice, speed and cocaine, these drugs were generally viewed unfavourably and were therefore not the drugs of choice. Marijuana was preferred, with several participants using the drug multiple times per week. Drinking alcohol was common among the group. However, while many participants reported that they drank in order to get intoxicated, this was often confined to weekends only.
Anger/emotional concerns
Although participants generally did not perceive themselves as angry, several conceded that they have a tendency to lose control, particularly during a fight. Around half of the participants reported that they had hospitalised somebody. ‘I’ll keep going if they’re really bad, I don’t wanna do it, but I’ll do it’. Fighting occurred when the participants were either drunk or if they needed to help a friend. Drinking was believed to impact their decision-making. Participants also noted that they were often bored when they were by themselves, prompting connection with their group of friends. A number of the respondents also reported that they get mad or upset when they are told off, or told what to do. Moreover, some participants appeared to have elevated stress levels.
When experiencing emotional issues, most participants did not want to share their concerns with others – ‘don’t wanna talk to anyone’. While they often understood that they were experiencing emotional problems, participants chose not to disclose their feelings to family. Some reported sharing their issues with older friends, however, there was a tendency to want to ‘fix’ problems on their own. Moreover, most participants had not received, or did not want, formal psychological assistance. Several participants reported family members dying and describing this as the saddest moment in their lives.
Two participants appeared to have previously presented with psychotic symptoms. One had not received psychological assistance for these symptoms, while the other believed that the intervention they had received for these symptoms had not helped him. Only one participant expressed a desire to be able to access psychological assistance.
Offending behaviours
Onset of criminality differed across the sample with some participants commencing offending at the age of 11 and others in their late teens. Most reported a history of lying, stealing and threatening/fighting as children. From 11 onwards, robberies, burglaries, car theft and stealing drugs were common. Participants were also regularly involved in fights throughout their teenage years.
Attitudes towards offending and law enforcement
Reasons for the involvement in criminal activity included boredom, financial, revenge or to help friends. Most reported that the criminal activity was spur of the moment, though never for the ‘thrill’. More than half of the sample expressed some degree of guilt or remorse for their crimes. Some participants blamed themselves solely while others attributed blame to their social group. Victims were generally not held responsible however some participants contextualised their offending by stating that they had ‘flipped at racial slurs’.
Police were viewed very negatively by participants. Responses ranged from a hatred of all police to a strong dislike of approximately half of police. There was a common sentiment among participants that police judged them based purely on their appearance: ‘police should not judge people by how they look’; or harassed them: ‘[they] pick on me, arrest me for nothing’. Obeying the law was generally viewed as important and it was felt that: ‘most people should follow rules’.
Detention was seen to be a ‘waste of time’ and merely presented an opportunity to meet ‘other bad people who give you ideas/plan’. Moreover, detention deprived participants of socialising with their friends and forced them to obey orders, which were both viewed as undesirable outcomes. Several accepted however, that their crimes warranted a custodial sentence.
Desistance/future aspirations
Participants mostly felt that distancing themselves from their current friendship group would enable them to stay out of trouble. Others suggested that having something to do during the day would be helpful. Reducing the amount of alcohol consumed was also submitted.
All participants reported career aspirations. These included employment as a social worker, bricklayer, forklift driver, fitness trainer, nurse, panel beater, roof tiler and working in information technology. However, participants acknowledged that possessing a criminal record would impact their capacity to find employment. Furthermore, engaging in fighting, doing drugs and mixing with the ‘wrong crowd’ were also viewed as likely barriers to achieving their career aspirations.
Pro-social factors
Most participants reported having at least one person in their life who they considered to be a mentor. Mentors included parents, older siblings, uncles, bosses, as well as ‘straight’ friends. Participants conveyed that having these mentors was helpful although they often chose not to listen their advice.
Most participants also reported involvement in sporting activities. Two participants were regular attendees at church.
Presence of risk and protective items on the SAVRY instrument
SAVRY risk item strength. (Borum, Bartel, & Forth, 2006)
SAVRY: Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth.
N = 8.
Re-offense
Four participants (50%) were released during the follow-up period. Of the four participants who were released, three (75%) re-offended. Two recidivists were charged with theft offenses. The third re-offender was charged with a violent re-offense.
Discussion
This was the first study to identify pathways to offending for a cohort of young Sudanese Australians in custody. A number of common themes emerged after participant responses to a structured interview and scores on a youth risk instrument were analysed. Key criminogenic themes included disrupted education, family disconnection, peer group delinquency, excessive alcohol use and (clinically) unaddressed anger and emotional problems. A conflictual relationship with law enforcement was also identified.
Much of the criminal activity appeared to be perpetrated in a group context and fuelled or intensified by alcohol consumption. This pattern of behaviour may have characterised the self-reported robberies, burglaries and group violence. Anti-social behaviour (i.e. fighting) was common among respondents and was both committed as an individual and within group settings. Here, acts of violence were reported as retaliatory/prompted by racism (individual level) and revenge/helping a friend (group level). A third, and likely scenario is the enactment of instrumental violence (i.e. robbery). Anger and boredom were both recounted as precipitating offending. Anger was perhaps more of a function in individual retaliatory violence while boredom and alcohol-induced violence characterised group based criminal activity.
Two distal factors for offending became apparent from participant responses. The first was a disengagement from the family unit which may have led to associating with a delinquent peer group. Although participants generally did not explicitly refer to any serious dysfunction within their family units, there appeared to be opposition towards strict parental management. Feeling ‘liberated’ from confining family structures, youth would then enmesh themselves in their peer group, which increased their sense of personal autonomy yet simultaneously increased opportunities for antisocial behaviour. Sudanese-Australian parents have previously referred to the challenges of parenting their adolescent children whilst acculturating which can undermine traditional forms of child-rearing (Armytage & Ogloff, 2017; Deng, 2017; DIC, 2007; Hebbani et al., 2009, 2012; Losoncz, 2012; Markus, 2016; Milos, 2011). These challenges and other family disputes are undoubtedly heightened without the regular support of elders and other extended family members who were lost prior to, or during the migration process. A reportedly growing number of Sudanese households are led by women (due to parental separation) whom ostensibly have diminishing authority over their children (Deng, 2017; DIC, 2007; Hebbani et al., 2009, 2012; Losoncz, 2012; Milos, 2011). In the study, it was uncertain whether the youth actively sought out like-minded disaffected peers after they had disconnected from their families or whether these friendships represented an organic assembling of youth in neighbourhoods characterised by high crime rates and youth unemployment. Sudanese-Australians in Victoria predominantly reside in lower socio-economic areas. Research has found that violence is often a function of existing community norms as opposed to any supposed unique behaviours and attitudes of migrant youth (Almeida, Johnson, McNamara, & Gupta, 2011). Moreover, experiences of racism in the community and in the schooling environment may have driven participants away from pro-social institutions and fast-tracked delinquent peer-group membership. Associations between experiences of discrimination and street violence have been previously identified among urban youth (Reed et al., 2010). This link would be more likely to occur for this group without family support as a coping factor. In summary, the combined loss of pro-social stabilising influences (i.e. family and educational structures) appear to play a role in delinquent peer group membership. However, it appears that the distancing from these bodies is not necessarily impelled by a lack of social support, which seemed to be available for some participants (but disregarded).
A second distal factor for offending was the presence of emotional problems and distress which may be a manifestation of unresolved trauma. Prior research has found that refugees settling in Western countries are up to 10 times more likely to have post-traumatic stress disorder than the general population (Fazel, Wheeler, & Danesh, 2005). Moreover, an Australian study outlining the re-settlement experiences of humanitarian refugees, discovered that almost 90% had experienced pre-migratory trauma, and over one-third possessed elevated rates of psychological distress (Jenkinson, Silbert, DeMaio, & Edwards, 2016). Similar levels of trauma have been identified in prison populations (Abram et al., 2004; Egeressy, Butler, Hunter, 2009; Komarovskaya, Loper, Warren, & Jackson, 2011). The migration histories of many Sudanese-Australians in particular feature instances of family fragmentation, displacement, sustained episodes in refugee camps, the deprivation of basic needs, witnessing violence against family members, and significant life disruption (DIC, 2007; Savic et al., 2013; Schweitzer et al., 2006). Studies on the mental health of Sudanese refugees depict high rates of psychopathology, in particular PTSD, depression and distress (Khawaja et al., 2008; Schweitzer et al., 2006; Tempany, 2009), most likely in response to such histories. According to the participants in the current study, the deaths of close family members in particular were indeed the most challenging events emotionally in their lives. However, the reluctance to seek help for emotional distress and other mental health symptoms was also common among participants. This disinclination appeared to be a preference, yet how much of this was motivated by the unavailability or inaccessibility of support from family and/or professional services is unknown. Prior research suggests that emotional suppression and stoicism are common coping mechanisms among Sudanese-Australians (Savic, Chur-Hansen, Mahmood, & Moore, 2016; Tempany, 2009).
Presence of SAVRY protective items. (Borum, Bartel & Forth, 2006)
SAVRY: Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth.
N = 8.
Pathways out of crime
Participants believed that their peer groups were influential in their offending and naturally, creating some distance from these peer groups would aid criminal desistance. Discontinuing the consumption of alcohol at hazardous levels was also thought to facilitate desistance. It is possible that a significant proportion of problem drinking occurs while with the peer group. A key part of the desistance process involves the ‘knifing off’ or disassociation from delinquent acquaintances and establishing pro-social relationships (Maruna & Roy, 2007; Warr, 1993). As such, engaging in routine structured pro-social activities (i.e. education/vocational work/employment/organised sport) may offer an alternative to regular delinquent peer group congregation (Sampson & Laub, 1993), which appears to be an antidote to boredom. However, participants in the study were already disengaged from the institutions that provide the social, financial and emotional support (family), and personal development (school) that facilitate meaningful societal participation. These connections may need to be repaired in order to re-direct participants from offending pathways. Pro-social holistic life adjustments through a meaningful connection to local community and broader societal institutions can generate the stability, routine, structure and social acceptance that contributes to a crime-free lifestyle (Laub & Sampson, 2001). Such multi-faceted adjustments are likely to be gradual and involve numerous setbacks (Halsey, Armstrong, & Wright, 2017). As such, at-risk youth require ongoing support through structured programming and mentorship to offset relapses (Halsey et al., 2017). This may require a collaborative approach from correctional agencies, social organisations and the Sudanese community. Previous research with Australian Sudanese refugees has found that receiving social support from within the Sudanese community had a much stronger impact on psychological wellbeing than support from the broader community (Schweitzer et al., 2006). A multi-faceted support network with community/cultural input can help sustain positive modifications in attitudes to desist, but to also view desistance as a means to fulfilment beyond the avoidance of criminal activity (Maruna, 2001; Serin & Lloyd, 2009). There may be generative roles for older adolescent Sudanese youth to offer support and guidance to younger at-risk peers which in turn can be therapeutic for both parties (Maruna, 2001).
Part of the institutional re-connection process may also require addressing sequelae from pre-migratory traumatic experiences. Trauma-informed practice refers to services (i.e. child/family welfare, educational, mental health services, prisons) that are able to respond to the needs of individuals who have been exposed to trauma (Branson, Baetz, Horwitz, & Hoagwood, 2017). Here, staff are aware of how the client’s needs and behaviours are shaped by prior experiences as well as how service delivery approaches might aggravate the impacts of trauma. This may also require an intimate understanding of the unique stressors that Sudanese Australian families endure in an Australian context. It is important to underscore that although many Sudanese Australians have endured previous trauma only a small percentage will have contact with the justice system. It is likely that this smaller at-risk group has lost connection with their families and possibly the broader Sudanese Australian community. The extent to which re-connection is possible depends on the community context. However, for many of the study participants, family (or extended family) re-connection specifically may not be a viable option. Community services therefore must become adaptable to meet the health, legal and social needs, and gain the trust, of young Sudanese Australians who have broken ties with their families. This is of particular importance for law enforcement agencies. Relationships with Victoria police appear to be poor for study participants. While this sentiment is not uncommon among young offenders, other sections of the Sudanese Australian community report negative interactions with police. Community consent and the trusting of police is necessary in order for police to effectively work with local communities. However this also requires a commitment from police services to help cultivate a mutually respectful relationship with the Sudanese community. Part of this process involves acknowledging that some members of the Sudanese community have endured histories of persecution by authorities before migrating to Australia which may underpin their hypervigilance towards Australian law enforcement. These attitudes may also manifest from being targeted at schools by fellow students and the perceived lack of support from teachers which further undermines attempts to cooperate, trust or seek help from social authorities and support services. Evidence from Victoria has shown the benefits of community consultation indicating that ongoing two-way learning opportunities are necessary in improving cross-cultural understandings and interactions (Department of Social Services, 2013). Concerted efforts to recruit Sudanese Liaison officers are necessary to help improve communications and foster healthier relationships between police members and Sudanese young people. The involvement of Sudanese community leaders and elders in community crime prevention strategies has already commenced in particular regions. These roles could be expanded to provide support and guidance for young people who may come into contact with or who may be questioned by law enforcement officials.
The study has several limitations, most notably the small sample size. Findings must therefore be interpreted with caution, particularly the generalisability of the results to all Sudanese youth who are at-risk, or who have had contact with the criminal justice system. Second, the qualitative data was potentially constrained for two reasons. Young people in custody are not always forthcoming when sharing their private personal/family histories and social circumstances with unfamiliar clinical staff. For Culturally and Linguistically Diverse youth, this dynamic may be enhanced due to a mistrust of authority figures, perhaps resulting from migratory experiences or conditions in their country of origin (see Shepherd, 2016). As such the capacity for ‘thick descriptive’ data was restricted. Despite these limitations, the study presented a rare insight into the perceptions, offending narratives and socio-environmental contexts of young Sudanese Australians detained in custody. Several patterns emerged from participant statements which aligned with the literatures on general risk factors for offending and re-settlement/acculturation challenges for Sudanese Australians. However, a deeper exploration of how the general and unique risk factors identified in this paper combine to motivate offending behaviours is clearly warranted.
Conclusion
Many Sudanese Australians face re-settlement challenges including language barriers, obtaining stable housing, acquiring employment, acculturative stressors and discrimination. What is more, many have been exposed to trauma and family separation. The vast majority of Sudanese Australians, despite enduring hardship, have integrated successfully into Australian society. However, a small number of young Sudanese Australians are at-risk for violence and other criminal activities, resulting in their over-representation in the criminal justice system. Although sensationalist media coverage on Sudanese youth ‘gangs’ in Victoria has proliferated, little academic attention has been afforded to this issue. This study aimed to identify self-reported pathways to offending for a sample of young Sudanese Australians in custody. Two broader strands of offending were identified (Group based offending and individual offending) and a number of proximal and distal factors emerged for both categories. Criminal behaviours were often committed in a group context for a variety of reasons (i.e. robbery, revenge, boredom). Much of this behaviour was alcohol fuelled. Youth became engaged with delinquent peer groups after disconnecting with their family units and educational institutions. Individual offending however appeared to be reactionary, perhaps in relation to perceived discrimination. Anger issues and unresolved trauma likely underpinned the reactionary violence whether at the group-based or individual levels of offending. There is a clear need for greater emotional support and perhaps psychological intervention to facilitate healthier coping mechanisms. Community services must adapt to meet the social needs of young at-risk Sudanese Australians, especially where re-connecting with families may not be possible.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.