Youth Violence: A Consequence of Systems, Not Individuals

At Class 13, we work to shift the narrative from blaming individuals to holding the system accountable. We believe youth violence isn’t the result of a "broken" generation—it’s the result of a broken system. In this blog post, we argue that deficit ideology is at the root of why current “solutions” to youth violence don’t break the cycle.

The deficit narrative

Many of us agree that youth violence is the consequence, never the cause. However, in trying to find a solution to the problem, we often get distracted by factors that at first glance seem systemic, but upon closer inspection fall back into the deficit narrative.

What is deficit ideology?: “The belief that inequalities result, not from unjust social conditions such as systemic racism or economic injustice but from [individuals’] intellectual, moral, cultural, and behavioural deficiencies.” (Gorski, 2010)

For example, typical explanations for youth violence, such as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), trauma, poverty, and school exclusions, are focused on the individual and their circumstances. But ACEs, trauma, and poverty are not standalone issues, they are symptoms of a larger problem: a broken system that consistently disadvantages young people, particularly those from marginalised communities.??

Shifting focus: public issues, not personal problems

The deficit narrative limits our ability to create meaningful change. By focusing only on surface-level causes, we end up blaming young people, their families, and sometimes even their cultures, without addressing the real roots of the problem. Sociologist C. Wright Mills therefore urges us to step back and see how personal troubles are connected to public issues.?

Let’s break down some common explanations for youth violence:

• Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs): ?stressful or traumatic events such as domestic abuse, parental separation and disrupted living situations are often cited as major factors in violent behaviour, and are framed within the family context rather than as systemic issues.
• Undiagnosed and untreated trauma: often cited as a cause of violent behaviour, the response to trauma is often a call for counselling and therapy, rather than a reduction in trauma-inducing environments??
• Lack of parental support: this explanation frames parental support as "deficient," shifting the blame onto families and ignoring the broader socio-economic challenges that contribute to these conditions.
• Reduction in Youth Services: as a youth worker made redundant in 2009 during the first wave of cuts, I understand the harm caused by reduced services. But while youth services might distract young people from temporarily engaging in youth violence, they are unfortunately not a systemic fix either.

Each of these so-called "causes" are really a result of a larger, broken system. Thinking in this way? our understanding of individual experiences, and? we miss the larger systemic problems.?

The real root cause

So if the factors typically cited as root causes are not, then what is??

Frantz Fanon, a philosopher, psychiatrist, and revolutionary, defines the root cause of violence as systemic oppression. Fanon argued that when people are dehumanised —stripped of their dignity and treated as less than human—they often turn to violence to reclaim their humanity.

If we view dehumanisation as violent, violence becomes both a symptom and a response to systemic oppression. It’s not just about individual anger but about a system that continuously erodes people’s sense of worth. For those most affected by oppression, violence becomes the only way to demand respect in a world that often denies it. As a result, the system creates a cycle of violence: those most dehumanised by the system often turn to more direct forms of violence as a way to reclaim their humanity and respect.

To ground this in an everyday example, we look to youth workers. During my time as a youth worker, colleagues would often tell me they enjoyed working with "challenging" young people and helping the individual change their behaviour and become less “challenging”. Although well intentioned, this framing perpetuates the deficit narrative rather than addressing systemic issues:

• It suggests that a young person needs to be “challenging” to gain attention and support
• It puts the responsibility on the young person to change rather than the system
• It doesn’t critically reflect on or mitigate the root cause

Ultimately, youth interventions and services are ineffective at breaking the cycle of youth violence because they largely view youth violence as a personal problem. But youth violence isn’t just a personal problem—it’s a public issue rooted in environmental and systemic factors. To truly address it, we need to move beyond individual diagnoses and look at the broader social conditions that shape these outcomes.?

Another example is the school environment. Professor Kehinde Andrews recently likened schools to prisons, describing both institutions as violent environments where psychological abuse, neglect, and harm are commonplace. We would go even further and say that these issues don’t stop at the school gates; if you’re a youth worker, you’re likely seeing similar dynamics in your own spaces. It’s not just an isolated problem—it’s systemic.

A Call to Action: Changing the System Together

Normally we focus our critique on educators, but our foundational learning is applicable to youth workers and other children and young people professionals. Two reflective questions we often ask youth workers are: Has a young person ever told you they hated you, and if so did you believe them? Has a young person ever said this is the only place they feel safe, or that you’re like family to them, and if so did you believe them? What we find is, while answers to the second question frequently make their way onto websites and funding bids as a sign of success, very rarely do we see critical reflection on responses to the first question. In fact, when young people express disdain for youth workers, their feelings are more often than not dismissed.?

This example goes some way to illuminating the ways our practice is harmful for children; compliments are valued over? critical thinking. Recognising the potential for harm means being vigilant and self-reflective. It’s about walking with caution, understanding the power you hold, and being conscious of the environment you create for young people. Only through this awareness can we build a more equitable and supportive space for those we work with.

As a society, we all have a role to play in addressing youth violence. It is not simply about intervening in young people’s lives; it’s about transforming the systems that shape their lives.? This calls for a systemic approach, which understands violence as a consequence, which can be? prevented by identifying? the actual root causes.? We invite you to reflect on your role within this system and join us in building a more just and equitable future for all young people.