« Previous | Contents |
Listen
YOUNG PEOPLE AND CRIME IN SCOTLAND: FINDINGS FROM THE 2000 SCOTTISH CRIME SURVEY
Footnotes
1. This approach to the study of youth crime within Britain is typified by the Cambridge Study of Delinquent Development which began in 1961 (see Farrington (1997) for a thorough exposition of its findings).
2. e.g. Glueck & Glueck (1950), Graham & Bowling (1995).
3. e.g. Anderson et al (1994).
4. A discussion of these issues is the subject of Morgan (1988).
5. See Anderson et al (1994), Hartless et al (1995) and Painter (1992).
6. This inclusion of questionnaires aimed at young people was in some respects, a reaction to a persistent criticism of victimisation studies; that they excluded persons aged under 16.
7. Aye Maung (1995).
8. Other information relevant to young people can be found in the main report on the 2000 SCS, and the modular reports on both domestic violence and drugs.
9. Efforts were made to include those who spent a lot of time away from home - interviewers were instructed to return to households to present a questionnaire when a 12-15 year old had not been available at the time of the main interview. However, there were limits to what could be achieved and those young people who spent a high proportion of their time outside their home will have been less likely to be contacted.
10. An advantage of the survey method is that home-based self-completion lessens the chance that group effects may influence results. However, it remains possible that some young people may chose to give inaccurate responses, particularly concerning knowledge of drugs and reported offending.
11. The lattermost difference was significant at the 90% level.
12. The last two differences were significant at the 90% level.
13. The difference in levels of concern regarding housebreaking between males and females was significant at the 90% level.
14. Significant at the 90% level.
15. Housebreaking was significant at the 90% level.
16. Significant to 90% level.
17. Bullying was asked about for the first time in the 2000 SCS. Despite not being strictly classifiable as such, for the sake of simplicity, 'bullying' will hereafter be referred to as an 'offence' or 'crime'.
18. Significant at the 90% level.
19. The reduction from 1996 to 2000 is only significant at the 90% level.
20. Respondents were able to indicate more than one response.
21. Respondents were able to indicate more than one response.
22. This was a category intended to include other locations not already covered. More specific details of the location are not available.
23. More than one response was permitted.
24. This difference was significant at the 90% level.
25. As mentioned above, analysis based on the theft from the person and sexual harassment offence categories should be treated with caution due to the small number of victims.
26. Bullying is not included because victims were not asked any of the relevant questions.
27. Anderson and Leitch (1996).
28. The increase in offending since 1996 is only significant at the 90% level.
29. Significant at the 90% level.
30. Offenders were significantly more likely than non-offenders to be victims of theft from the person, violence, harassment and bullying, though the lattermost difference was only significant at the 90% level.
31. e.g. Shapland and Vagg (1988), Graham & Bowling (1995), Farrington (1997).
32. Those who replied that they did not usually go out or came home at anytime wished were excluded from analysis. Together, these responses accounted for 5% of responses elating to both weekends and weekdays.
33. Both these differences are significant at the 90% level.
34. Significant at the 90% level.
35. Significant at the 90% level.
36. Significant at the 90% level.
37. Unlike previous SCS Young Persons Questionnaires and the SCS 2000 adult self-completion questionnaire, respondents were not asked what illegal drugs they had taken and how they had taken them etc. Instead, questions in the SCS 2000 Young Persons Questionnaire focused on knowledge of illegal drugs.
38. Fifteen per cent of young people (n=59) stated that they had heard of the bogus drug 'semeron' which was included in order to assess the validity of responses. While this was more than in previous years, it was not considered that this sub-group should be excluded from analysis despite the possibility that this may be due to deliberate over-reporting. Such responses could alternatively have been errors in completion, with respondents thinking they had heard of such a drug, and to exclude them would further reduce sample size and bias results. The demographic characteristics of those who had reported 'semeron' were analysed and, aside from a slightly higher proportion of offenders, there was little reason to suspect this group was intrinsically different from the remainder of the sample.
39. Results from 1996 indicate that young people in social classes D and E were significantly more likely to have received no drug information than those in classes A and B. This difference was significant at the 90% level.
40. The difference between young people in classes A/B and C1/C2 is only significant at the 90% level.
« Previous | Contents |