THE SELF-REPORT DELINQUENCY
STUDY IN PORTUGAL
Eliana Gerso and Manuel Lisboa
1. Introduction
The study was undertaken throughout the whole of Portugal with the ex— ception of the islands of Madeira and the Azores, which were excluded for cost-related reasons. Consequently, the information presented only refers to continental Portugal*.
1.1 Socioeconomic information
Nearly three quarters of the present population live in the central and northem coastal areas of the country due to the shift of population over the last twenty years from the interior to the coastal areas (principally around the two main cities, Lisbon and Oporto).
In 1981 (not all the 1991 census data have been released yet), only 29.6% of the population lived in urban areas, that is to say, in areas of over 10,000. Of these, 6.3% lived in areas with a population of 10,000 to 20,000, 6.2% of 20,000 to 40,000, and 5.6% of 40,000 to 100,000. Lisbon and Oporto, the only large cities, accounted for 11.5% of the population.
The level of economically active people was 48.2% in 1990, this being 56.9% men and 40.2% women. However, the percentage of young people in the total active population is declining, mostly in the 15- to 19-year age group (54.9% in 1986 and 46.5% in 1990).
Although large areas of Portugal have low levels of industrialization, the percentage of people who work in the second sector has increased over the last few years. In 1990, this sector comprised 34.8% of the active population, the third sector (services) 47.3% and the first (agriculture) 17.8%. Thirty percent were self-employed, divided into agriculture (14.3%), trade (5.4%), civil construction (1.7%), restaurants (1.2%) and tex tiles (1.1%). Salaried workers (70%) were mainly divided into the follow ing sectors:
*Sources: Instituto Nacional de Estatistica,Anuârio Estatfstico, anos 1981-1991; Estatfsticas
Demogrâficas, anos 1988-199 1; XII recenseamento geral da populaçâo—Resultados definitivos
1981; Censos 91— XIII recenseamento geral dapopulaçso—Resultados pré-definitivos; Portugal
social, 1985-1990.
Address for correspondence: Centro de Estudos Judicidrios, Cabinete de Estudos Juridico Sociais, Largodo Limoeiro 1, 1100 Lisboa, Portugal
213
Agriculture, fishing, mining 4.2 Hotel industry 2.3
Light industry 11.0 Transport 4.0
Heavy industry 11.1 Banking/insurance 3.7
Electricity 0.9 Public administration 7.4
Construction 6.5 Education 4.6
Trade 6.2 Health 2.3
Although the gross national product per capita rose between 1985 and 1990, last year it was oniy 907,300 escudos (about US $6,000).
The rate of unemployment is low — 5.5% in 1990. However, it is higher
among young persons—12.4% in the 15- to 19-year age group and 11.3% in
the 20- to 24-year age group. In 1989 about 15% of the population lived on welfare — 5% on disability pension and 10% on old-age pension
— a per
centage which has risen since then. The illiteracy rate in the over 10-year-olds is 11%; 64.5% of the population only received basic education, 21.7% secondary and 8.2% higher education.
1.2 Demographic information
According to the 1991 census, the population of continental Portugal is 9,357,518 — 48% male and 52% female. The percentage of under
14-year-olds in the total population has declined rapidly in the last twenty years from 28% in 1970 to 19.7% in 1991. This is due to the low hirth-rate which now stands at 11.6 per thousand (average number of children per woman: 1.5). The reduction in birth-rate is beginning to be felt in the number of young people of between 15 and 24 years, which has begun to go down (16.4% in 1981 and 16.2% in 1991).
The marriage and divorce rates have remained relatively stable at 7.3 and 0.9 per thousand, respectively.
In 1990, more than half the families (52.3%) consisted of two to three people; 74% of two to four. Families of one were rare (11.7%) as were fami lies of five (8.8%) or more (5.3%). In view of the fact that inquiries about race are not permitted as this could go against the constitutional principle of non-discrimination, the ethnic composition of the population is un known. It can, however, be considered homogeneous with foreigners ac counting for less than 2%, half of which come from the ex-Portuguese colo nies in Africa.
1.3 Some cuttural factors
Aduits are free to buy and consume alcoholic beverages. In accordance with penal legislation (applicable to over 16-year-olds), drunkenness even in public places is not a crime; in accordance with the legislation to protect minors, alcohol abuse can lead to intervention by the juvenile court.
Drug use, even of soft drugs, is punishable by law; however, the penal ties for the use of drugs are light, whereas drug dealers get very heavy sentences. Campaigns against drugs and alcohol are conducted for chil dren and young people, mainly in schools.
214
Although it cannot 5e said that youth culture contrasts greatly with that of aduits, there are, without doubt, juvenile types of behavior — clothes, language and, most of all, entertainment. Listening to music, go-ing to concerts and especially to discos are favorite ways of spendgo-ing free time. This world — where aduits are not made welcome — is linked with
the enjoyment of night life. A well-known psychiatrist who works with young persons recently said that ‘Friday and Saturday nights’ (and the time of having to be home on those nights) were the main cause of conflict between parents and children nowadays.
2. Study design 2.1 Sampte
The sample size is 1000 respondents of both sexes aged from 14 to 21 years. The probability sampling method was used with proportional strata per district and size of towns and villages (see Appendix, Table 1). The error margin is ±3.2% for a confidence interval of 95%. The respondents were selected randomly (random walk) and substitutes were arranged for the non-responses in order to maintain the representativeness of the sample. The sample represents mainland Portugal (excluding the archipelagos of Madeira and the Azores).
2.2 Administration of the questionnaire
A pilot survey was conducted to test the questionnaire for interview time, the way in which it should be conducted and for interviewer profile. Twenty eight interviewers took part in the fleidwork. They were specifically trained for this research with the participation of the project team. The question naire was conducted face-to-face, and care was taken that the answers were not influenced by the presence of others. The respondents were very coop erative during the interview. There were only 49 non-responses, which were substituted by valid interviews. Therefore, there is no difference from the sample size initially decided upon.
2.3 Control methods 2.3.1 Quality control
Twenty percent of the work was quality controlled, mainly in the following areas:
— Selection of respondents — Filling-in of questionnaire — Performance of interviewer
215
23.2 Reliability and validity
Data to test external reliability were not available in Portugal. With regard
to internal reliability, since the questionnaire had already been devised by the international project team, tests were only conducted on questions for which specific scales had to be devised, taking into account the specific fea
tures of the Portuguese society. The resuits of the tests show the internal
reliability of the data measured on those scales. As there are no comparable studies in this area, it is difficult to evaluate the validity of the instrument used to measure juvenile delinquency in this age group in Portugal*. 3. Delinquency and problem behavior (status offenses)
Table 1 shows that the average prevalence rate is higher in violent crimes
than in property offenses, both in ‘ever’ (55.2% and 43.6%, respectively) and
in ‘last year’ (29.5% and 2 1.4%; see also Appendix, Table II). However, as could be expected, the highest rate of all concerns youth-related offenses (64.1% ‘ever’ and 40.6% ‘last year’), which emerge as even more common
than status offenses, if alcohol use is excluded (50.8% ‘ever’ and 32.1% ‘last
year’). Drug offenses among young persons are lower: 19.0% ‘ever’ and 11.3% ‘last year’.
Tabte 1. Prevalence of delinquent behavior ‘ever’ and ‘last year’
Type Ever Last year
n % n %
Property offenses 436 43.6 214 21.4
Violent offenses 552 55.2 295 29.5
Drug offenses 190 19.0 113 11.3
Other-youth related offenses 641 64.1 406 40.6
Overall delinquency prevalence
(without alcohol and ‘problem’ behavior) 815 81.5 572 57.2 ‘Problem’ behavior without alcohol 508 50.8 321 32.1 ‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol 700 70.0 521 52.1
The most prevalent delinquent behavior and status offenses, with rates over 10%, at least in the ‘ever’ category, are listed in Table 2. The table shows that vandalism and youth-related offenses have the highest rates in both ‘ever’ and ‘last year’. Driving without license/insurance emerges as
the most frequent offense among the Portuguese youth (45.2% ‘ever’ and
28.3% ‘last year’). Fare dodging is also very frequent, especially in local public transport (34.4% ‘ever’ and 15.3% ‘last year’), and immediately fol lows vandalism (40.0% ‘ever’ and 16.1% ‘last year’). The other frequent offenses are engagement in riots, carrying a weapon and use of soft drugs.
The above-mentioned offenses have higher prevalence rates ‘last year’
*
A research about self-report juvenile delinquency carried out by Anténio Castro Fonseca (University of Coimbra) refers to another age group and differs in sampling and data collection methods.
216
Table 2.Most prevalent delinquent and status offenses
Type Ever Last year
n % n %
Alcohol use 551 55.1 433 43.3
Truancy 496 49.6 311 31.1
Driving without license/insurance 452 45.2 283 28.3
Vandaljsm 400 40.0 161 16.1
Fare dodging tramlbus/metro 344 34.4 153 15.3
Fare dodging train 253 25.3 100 10.0
Engagement in riots 223 22.3 111 11.1
Stealing at home 201 20.1 84 8.4
Carrying a weapon 199 19.9 108 10.8
Soft drug use 182 18.2 110 11.0
Graffiti 169 16.9 70 7.0
Shoplifting 161 16.1 45 4.5
Burgiary 156 15.6 49 4.9
Buying stolen goods 103 10.3 48 4.8
than any of the property offenses. Among these, only stealing at home reached a significant level (20.1% ‘ever’ and 8.4% ‘last year’).
At first sight, the low prevalence rate is surprising for shoplifting, stealing at school and stealing bikes/mopeds. This is probably related to the type of commerce which is usually small shops easily watched over by the sales personnel. Low stealing at schools is probably due to the fact that they are, as a rule, poorly equipped. Bicycles are rar&y used as a common means of transport and not many young people can afford motor cycles.
‘Problem’ hehavior is more prevalent than offenses. Truancy (49.6% ‘ever’ and 31.1% ‘last year’) and, above all, excessive alcohol use (55.1% ‘ever’ and 43.3% ‘last year’) have the highest rates.
Considering that alcohol use is common among young people and up to a point is socially acceptable, the question in the survey was only about the regular consumption of alcohol and drunkenness. Even so, the per centage of affirmative answers was very high.
Table 3 (see also Appendix, Table III) shows the categorized frequency of delinquent behavior ‘last year’. About 14% of respondents was involved in one or two delinquent acts, while the same percentage committed 51 or more. Relatively many respondents (6%) admitted frequent involvement (51 or more times) in violent or ‘other youth-related’ offenses. In compari son to property and drug offenses, these types of delinquent behavior show high offender percentages for the other frequency categories as well (1-2, 3-5, 6-10, and 11-50 times).
Property offenses Violent offenses Drug offenses Other youth-related offenses Overall delinquency frequency (without alcohol use and ‘problem behavior’) ‘Problem’ behavior without alcohol use ‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol use Tabte 3. Categonzed frequency of delinquent behavior ‘last year’ (seealsoAppendix,Tableffl) 1rpe Not* 1-2 times 3-5 times 6-10 times 11-50 times 51+ times n % n n % n n % n % 222 22.2 91 9.1 45 4.5 34 3.4 30 3.0 14 1.4 257 25.7 102 10.2 62 6.2 29 2.9 40 4.0 62 6.2 77 7.7 37 3.7 24 2.4 11 1.1 10 1.0 31 3.1 235 23.5 129 12.9 104 10.4 67 6.7 47 4.7 61 6.1 243 24.3 136 13.6 108 10.8 80 8.0 110 11.0 138 13.8 -187 18.7 108 10.8 83 8.3 52 5.2 48 4.8 30 3.0 175 17.5 202 20.2 103 10.3 78 7.8 90 9.0 52 5.2 In some cases respondents answered ‘yes’ to the general questions about delinquent ‘problem’ behavior, but did not answer to the specific questions about ‘How often this last year ?‘ This explains the difference between the rates given in this table and those presented in Table II (Appendix) under ‘ever’. * ‘Not’ refers here to ‘ever’ committed, but not ‘last year’.
218
Tabte4. Gender and prevalence of delinquent behaviors ‘last year’
Type Male Female
n % n %
525 52.5 475 47.5
Property offenses 135 25.7 79 16.6
Violent offenses 197 37.5 98 20.6
Drug offenses 79 15.0 34 7.2
Other-youth related offenses 253 48.2 153 32.2
Overall delinquency prevalence
(without alcohol and ‘problem’ behavior) 335 63.8 237 49.9
‘Problem’ behavior without alcohol 164 31.2 157 33.1
‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol 310 59.0 238 50.1
4. Some background variables and delinquency ‘problem’ behavior 4.1 Gender
Girls are more often involved in offenses than suggested by court statistics. In 1991, women over the age of 16 years sentenced in court were 10.9% of the total number sentenced; only 8.8% of minors aged from 12 to 16 years who appeared in juvenile court as a result of offenses were girls. In our survey sample, of the 572 young people who admitted delinquent behavior in the last year, 41.4% were girls.
The difference between boys and girls in the overall delinquency preva lence rate is much smaller than generally supposed, but it does exist (63.8% boys and 49.9% girls; Table 4 and Appendix, Table IV). The differ ence is less marked in property offenses (25.7% and 16.6%), in stealing at home (8.8% and 8.0%) and especially in shoplifting, which is more preva lent among girls (5.1%) than boys (4.0%). The same thing occurs, in ‘prob lem’ behavior, with truancy rates (32.2% girls and 30.1% boys).
A greater difference between the sexes emerges in violent crimes, par ticularly carrying a weapon (17.3% versus 3.6%) and engaging in riots (16.8% versus 4.8%). Driving without a license seems to attract more boys than girls (35.4% and 20.4%), as well as excessive alcohol use (52.8% and 32.8%).
4.2 Age
The overall delinquency prevalence rate per age group is stable, being be tween 53.1% and 59.8% (Table 5 and Appendix, Table V). However, this is not the case in all categories of offenses. With regard to violent offenses, prevalence tends to decrease with age (36.7% in 14-15 and 21.6% in year olds), as can 5e observed in graffiti (10.2% in 14-15 and 3.1% in 20-21-years-olds), vandalism (22.7% in 14-15 and 9.0% in 20-21-year-olds), and carrying a weapon (15.2% in 14-15 and 8.0% in 20-21-year-olds). The same declining trend is seen in youth-related offenses, regarding driving without a license or insurance (31.1% in 14-15 and 16.0% in 20-21-year-olds).
219
Table 5. Age and prevalence of delinquent behavior ‘last year’
Type 14-l5years 16-l7years 18-l9years 20-2lyears
n % n % n % n %
264 26.4 321 32.1 253 25.3 162 16.2
Property offenses 60 22.7 72 22.4 46 18.2 36 22.2
Violent offenses 97 36.7 88 27.4 75 29.2 35 21.6
Dmg offenses 13 4.9 36 11.2 41 16.2 23 14.2
Other-youth related offenses 106 40.2 148 46.1 102 40.3 50 30.9 Overall delinquency prevalence
(without alcohol use
and ‘problem’ behavior) 151 57.2 192 59.8 143 56.5 86 53.1 ‘Problem’ behavior without
alcohol use 58 22.0 97 30.2 92 36.4 74 45.6
‘Problem’ behaviorwith
alcohol use 92 34.8 180 56.1 159 62.8 117 72.2
Table 6. Educational status and prevalence of delinquent behavior ‘last year’5
Type Low Medium High
n n n %
86 8.6 767 76.7 138 13.8
Property offenses 17 19.8 176 22.9 19 13.8
Violent offenses 31 36.0 243 31.7 19 13.6
Dmg offenses 11 12.8 87 11.3 15 10.9
Other youth-related offenses 35 40.7 327 42.6 42 30.4 Overall delinquency prevalence
(without alcohol use and
‘problem’behavior) 50 58.1 453 59.1 65 47.1
‘Problem’ behavior without
alcohol use 14 16.3 230 30.0 75 54.3
‘Problem’ behavior with
alcohol use 39 45.3 403 52.5 101 73.2
*In 9 cases we got no information about this variable
In contrast, the older groups of juveniles have a higher rate of drug offenses (4.9% in 14-15 and 14.2% in 20-21-year olds) and offenses related to alcohol use (24.6% in 14-15 and 57.4% in 20-21-year-olds).
4.3 Educational status
The average prevalence of delinquency is the same in juveniles with a low or medium educational status (58.1% and 59.1%, respectively), and slightly lower in those with a high status (47.1%; Table 6).
In the delinquency categories, the most significant difference can be seen in violent offenses (especially violent behavior against objects, carry-ing a weapon and engagcarry-ing in riots), which are more prevalent among ju veniles with low educational status (36.0%), closely followed by those with medium educational status (31.7%). Young people with a high educational
220
In the category of property offenses, the highest prevalence is among ju veniles with a medium status (22.9%), but there is no great difference be tween the various groups (19.8% for the low and 13.8% for the high status groups).
The highest prevalence in youth-related offenses is also among juve niles with a medium educational status (42.6%), although there is less dif ference between the various status groups (40.7% in low and 30.4% in high status). The differences in drug offenses are even less marked (12.8%, 11.3% and 10.9% in low, medium and high status, respectively).
Young people with a high education status show a lower prevalence level than the others for driving without a license (9.4% compared to 30.2% and 31.6% with a low and medium status), but a higher truancy rate — probably due to the fact that they are stili students
— and alcohol use (55.8%versus 39.5% and 41.6% in low and medium status groups).
4.4 Socioeconomic status ($ES)
The most noteworthy aspect is the ‘democratization’ of delinquency: the percentage of young people who admit to offending in the last year is almost the same for all social classes (Table 7). The differences in the prevalence levels are few and of little significance. With regard to delinquent behavior, the lower rates appear in the two extremes —lower and upper class (54.0%
and 52.4%)— and the higher rates in the middle and higher middle classes (63.8% and 61.8%). The lower middie class is found in between (58.4%). The same trend emerges in relation to the various offense categories, and conse quently no delinquent behavior can be considered exclusive to any particu lar class.
Youth-related offenses are more prevalent in the higher social classes due to a higher rate of fare dodging among middle class (21.7%), higher middie class (25.5%) and upper class (28.6%) juveniles. Among the lower and lower middle class juveniles, these rates are 9.9% and 14.9%.
With regard to ‘problem’ behavior, upper and higher middie class juve niles are more involved in truancy (40.0% and 38.0%), which might be due to a more prolonged period of education and to the fact that attendance is not obligatory in higher education, which they more frequently attend.
4.5 Source of income
The money at the disposal of the young people in the sample study was provided by their parents in the great majority of the cases (77.7%); only 16.1% earned this (Table 8). Young people receiving welfare (0.3%), scholar ships (1.1%) or money from other sources (3.0%) were so rare that we cannot comment on their prevalence rates (with higher numbers, attention should be drawn to the general involvement in offenses of juveniles with scholar ships).
Among juveniles whose source of income is their parents or work, the overall delinquency prevalence rate is the same (57.5% and 57.1%). The
Property offenses Violent offenses Drug offenses Other youth-related offenses Overall delinquency prevalence (without alcohol use and ‘problem’ behavior) ‘Problem’ behavior without alcohol use ‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol use * In 27 cases we got no information about this variable 25 22.7 8 19.0 30 27.3 11 26.2 14 12.7 4 9.5 52 47.3 18 42.9 68 61.8 22 52.4 45 40.9 16 38.1 63.6 24 57.1 Tabte 7. SES and prevalence of delinquent behaviors ‘last year’* r1,pe Lower class Lower middle Middle class Higher middie Upper class class class n % n n % n % n % 363 36.3 389 38.9 69 6.9 110 11.0 42 4.2 68 18.7 86 22.1 19 27.5 106 29.2 116 29.8 24 34.8 41 11.3 40 10.3 10 14.5 138 38.0 154 39.6 33 47.8 196 54.0 227 58.4 44 63.8 10 18.2 93 32.1 15 21.7 187 51.5 213 54.8 37 53.6 70
Property offenses Violent offenses Drug offenses Other youth-related offenses Overall delinquency prevalence (without alcohol use and ‘problem’ behavior) ‘Problem’ behavior without alcohol use ‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol use ,* Tabte 8. Main source of income and prevalence of delinquent behaviors ‘last year Type Parents Work Welfare Scholarship Other n % n % n % n % n % 777 77.7 161 16.1 3 0.3 10 1.0 30 3.0 164 21.1 32 19.9 0 — 4 40.0 10 33.3 223 28.7 45 28.0 0 — 9 90.0 13 43.3 77 9.9 27 16.8 0 — 3 30.0 4 13.3 324 41.7 60 37.3 1 33.3 5 33.3 12 40.0 447 57.5 92 57.1 1 33.3 9 90.0 16 53.3 259 33.3 47 29.2 0 — 1 10.0 12 40.0 324 41.7 60 37.3 1 33.3 5 50.0 12 40.0 * In 19 cases we got no information about this variable
223
same occurs in the various categories of offenses, except drug offenses, which seem to affect young workers more than young people who receive pocket money from their parents (16.8% versus 9.9%), and also in relation to alcohol use (54.0% versus 41.4%). This could lie due to the fact that workers probably belong to an older age group, since, as has been seen,
drug and alcohol use tend to increase with age.
5. Some theoretical background factors
Ethnicity is not a relevant variable in the Portuguese ISRD, since only 2% of the Portuguese population is foreign. Four of the respondents belonged to different ethnic groups, and we did not conduct any analyses on this sub ject.
On the following pages we will discuss the relationship between self-re ported juvenile delinquency and the socia1-cutural variables usually linked to it. In order to measure the association of the variables, we will use row and column percentages, cross-tabulation and
x2
tests*,**.A preliminary global analysis of the
x2
values suggests various levels of association between several types of offenses and the independent vanalles. Some resuits are clearly higher than the cnitical values of the test.
Moreover, as most variables were measured with nominal scales***, it is not possiMe to use the correlation analysis to indicate the direction of the relationship. However, whenever higher measures of association are found, we will try to identify the direction through cross-tabulation per centages.
5.1 Schoot commitment
Fifty-seven percent of the respondents enjoyed school ‘always’ and ‘most of
the time’. Liking school is to some extent inversely related to delinquency,
mainly to property and violent offenses (see Appendix, Table VI). Generally,
the lower the school enjoyment, the higher the delinquency prevalence rates.
Of the respondents, 95.7% believed in the importance of working hard
at school in order to get a qualification. The opinions on this subject were
only related to ‘problem’ behavior.# A scale for the level of school commit
ment was devised. A close relationship to all types of behavior was re
*In 105 tests of significance, 24 are not significant, 9 are significant at
p<O.05
and 72 at p<O.Ol.**Cramer V was also used, even if the resuits are not given here. The values were quite low (<0.5), which suggests a weak connection between the vanous categories of delinquency and the independent variables.
Given that practically all the variables were nominal, it was only possible to apply non arametric tests.
224
vealed, mainly to violent and property offenses*. In the case of violent offenses, the higher the school commitment level, the lower the prevalence rates.
5.2 Schoot performance
In general, the school performance of the respondents was not very high (60.8% had already repeated at least one class). Nevertheless, to have re peated classes, as well as the number of failures, was related to property, violent and drug offenses (see Appendix, Table VII). Both indicators were strongly related to ‘problem’ behavior**, reported by 79.4% of the juveniles who had already repeated classes. Moreover, the greater the number of fail ures, the higher the ‘problem’ behavior prevalence rates.
5.3 Work commitment
Only 22.5% of the respondents had ajob. Most of them (73.3%) admitted to liking it ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’. These juveniles reported less offenses than those admitting to liking their job ‘sometimes’ or ‘never’. The differ ence between the prevalence rates found in these two groups particularly concerns ‘problem’ behavior *, although it can also be observed, to a lesser extent, for drug and violent offenses#
The opinion on the importance of working hard in order to achieve something in life — 97.9% of the juveniles answered ‘yes’ to the question — does not show any connection with delinquent or ‘problem’ behavior.
5.4 Work performance
Both having a job and a job change are only related to ‘problem’ behavior, drug offenses and violent offenses. However, whereas the first two are more related to job change, the third is more (and inversely) related to the fact of having ajob.
5.5 Famity attachment
The
x2
resuits show that the relationship with the father and mother is related to all categories of offenses (see Appendix, Table X). A family rela*Violent offenses:
x2
=61.3; property offenses: X2=27.5 (p<0.01).**
x2
=64.9 in ‘repeat classes’ and 84.8 in ‘how many times’ (p<0.01).=48.4 (p<0.01).
Dmg offenses:
x2
=36.6 (p<O.Ol); violent offenses:x2
=16.7 (p<0.01). SeeAppendix, Tablewil.
Index devised on the combination of the values of the relationship with father and the values of the relationship with mother (seeAppendix, Table DC).
225
tionship index was also used, and its resuits confirm this finding, although in the case of violent offenses the connection is more tenuous*.
Nevertheless even juveniles considering the relationship with their par ents to 5e good (47.5%), showed a high delinquency rate (in all cases above 33%, except in drug offenses, in which the rate was 15%).
In drug, violent and ‘status’ offenses, the following trend could be seen:
the Setter the relationship with the parents, the lower the percentage of
juveniles involved in these offenses.
When comparing the values concerning the father and mother, it can be seen that the connection between delinquent behavior and the relation ship with the mother is more significant than with the father (except in the case of drug- and youth-related offenses).
In a more detailed analysis, it appears that ‘problem’ behavior and property offenses show the strongest association with the relationship with the parents. However, the former is linked slightly more witli the fa
ther and the latter with the mother. In the other categories of offenses,
drug offenses are more related to the relationship with the father and vio
lent offenses to the relationship with the mother**.
With regard to the direction of the association: whenever juveniles Te-port offenses and admit to a bad relationship with their parents, the rates concerning the father (between 22% and 24%) are higher than those con cerning the mother (between 14% and 19%)***. However, it is not possible to conciude that the kind of relationship with the parents can 5e seen as a ‘cause’ of delinquency. When comparing the rates concerning the father and mother in the group of young people who answered ‘always’ to the question about getting along with their parents, the rates concerning the mother are higher (always above 50.0%). Another trend is that the Setter the relationship with the mother, the lower the percentage of juveniles re porting violent offenses#.
5.6 Supervision
All the offenses show a significant relationship with the indicators for pa
rental supervision (parents know where you are when you are going out and
with whom). Parental control is inversely related to delinquency (see Ap pendix, Table XI).
Through the combined parental control index the significant values of
*2
= 10.9 at
p<O.05,
**Drug offenses:x2
=13.3 (p <0.01) in the ‘relationship with father’ and 11.8 (p <0.05) in the ‘relationship with mother’. Violent offenses:x2
= 14.3 (p< 0.01) in the relationship with mother’ and 12.4 (p<0.01) in the ‘relationship with father’.***
The percentages of youths who considered getting along well with the father ‘sometimes’ or ‘never’, were 24.3% in property offenses, 24.9% in violent offenses, 22.9% in drug offenses, 21.9% in the other youth-related offenses and 22.5% in the ‘problem’ behavior. In the case of the mother, the percentages were 18.8%, 18.8%, 17.2%, 14.0% and 17.8%.
#Mways—39.8%; most of the time
—42.0%; sometimes—57.3 %; never—50.0%.
Based on the values of ‘parents know were they are going’ and ‘parents know whom they are goingOutwith’ (see Appendix, Table XI).
226
the
x2
for all behaviors can 5e noted. ‘Problem’ behavior, drug offenses and property offenses show the highest values.Comparing the two control indicators, we find a strong connection be tween ‘parents know where they are going’ and drug offenses and between ‘parents know whom they are going out with’ and ‘problem’ behavior. For drug offenses, the resuits show that, as parental control diminishes, the prevalence rate goes up*. The percentage of respondents with strong pa rental control was relatively high (78%).
5.7 Invotvement with famity
Family involvement is related only to property offenses, drug offenses, ‘problem’ behavior and, to a lesser extent, violent offenses (see Appendix, Table XII).
The respondents rarely go out witli their family (53.3% only 0-1 times a month). Yet, as the frequency of going out with the family increases, the percentage of those who report property, drug and ‘status’ offenses de creases**.
5.8 Invotvement with friends
The involvement with friends is only slightly related to delinquency. This is visible in the ‘help from friends when in trouble’ indicator, where the X2 values are below the minimum required to be considered significant (see Appendix, Table XIII).
In the ‘with whom do you spend your free time’ indicator, ‘problem’ be havior, drug offenses and youth-related offenses are significant. The most common answer to the question on the way of spending free time was ‘with friends’ (44.3%). Among juveniles who gave this answer, the percentage of those who report drug offenses is clearly lower than the percentage of those who do not report these offenses (21.3% and 78.7% respectively). A different situation can lie seen in ‘problem’ behavior. Here, the non-offender percent age surpasses the offender percentage only when the answer about the way of spending leisure time is ‘with family’ (60.3% versus 39.7%).
5.9 Invotvement with boy/girtfriend
Regarding involvement with a boy/girlfriend, the two indicators (do you have a boyfgirifriend, do you wish this to be a lasting relationship) are sig nificantly associated with delinquent and ‘problem’ behavior***. On a
de-*Low control
—36.3%; medium control—30.5%; high control—15.3%.
**For instance, concerning drug offenses: 0 time.- 35.9%; 1 time—20.4%; 2 times -13.1%; 3
times—9.9%; 4 times—17.9%; more than 4 times—0.0%.
227
creasing scale, the strongest relationships for both indicators concern ‘prob lem’ behavior, drug offenses, youth-related offenses and property offenses.
It can be noted that, among the respondents who wish the relationship to
last, the percentage of those who do not report property and drug offenses exceeds that of those who do report these offenses (55.0% versus 45.0% in the first case and 76.6% versus 23.4% in the second).
5.10 Summary
Despite the heterogeneity of the previously discussed associations, there are some similarities which we will now briefly discuss.
Of all the independent variables used, those that were most frequently
related to delinquent behavior are family attachment, parental control
and, to a lesser degree, involvement with friends and a steady boy/girl friend. Among these variables, those concerning the family deserve special
attention, as they are linked to most categories of offenses. Different links
can be seen, for instance: the higher the family attachment, the lower the percentage of youths who admit having done drug, violent and ‘status’ offenses; the better the relationship with the mother, the lower the violent offense rates; as parental control decreases, drug offenses become more prevalent; the more frequently the youths go out with the family, the less they report property, drug and ‘status’ offenses.
With the other variables, there are always indicators or offenses for which there is no significant association. Even so, ‘liking school’ and ‘lik-ing work’ are noteworthy as they are significantly related to mest delin
quent behavior. In general, juveniles who got more pleasure from school
or work reported less offenses.
Strong correlations were found only between property offenses and rela tionship with the parents, especially with the mother, drug offenses and the parental control (‘parents know where they are going’ indicator) and violent offenses and school commitment. On the other hand, ‘problem’ behavior, which involves less serious offenses, such as truancy, running away from home and alcohol use, shows a high level of association with
nearly all the social-cultural variables.
In other words, everything indicates that, in the case of Portugal, only the less serieus offenses are significantly related to the social-cultural variables usually linked to juvenile delinquency. The more serieus offenses show different levels of association with the various independent variables.
6. Conciusions
Delinquent behavior among young people is rather frequent regardless of age, gender, social class and educational status. In spite of this, the Portu guese situation does not have to be considered a serieus one. Prevalence
rates are not very high, especially for the more severe offenses.
228
On the one hand, the country’s return to democracy in 1974 improved the social conditions for young people. There was more openness and de mocratization of the institutions with which they are more closely con nected, mainly family and school, major investment was made in educa tional and professional training; the financial and social circumstances of the lower classes improved. In recent years, young people’s socioeconomic conditions have been further improved by funds resulting from Portugal’s joining the European Union.
On the other hand, despite the changes, the Portuguese have main tained certain traditional traits which might also help in preventing de linquency. There is a fairly high degree of unity and solidarity in families. Moreover, parents generally maintain a high level of supervisioa on their children. This might have contributed to preventing delinquency to some extent. As we have seen through the research, family attachment and su pervision are sigaiflcantly related to delinquent behavior.
Acknowledgment
We would liketo thank Helena Parada Coelho, Carlos Sebastiâo e Silva and Edgar
Vigârio, from the Center for Judiciary Studies, for their cooperation.
229 AFPENDIX
Tabte 1. Sampte (by distriets)
Total Interviews Male Interviews Female Interviews
TOTAL 1312.0 1000 670.4 509 641.6 491 Aveiro 96.2 73 49.0 37 47.2 36 Beja 19.8 15 10.3 8 9.5 7 Braga 126.0 96 64.4 49 61.6 47 Bragança 25.7 20 13.4 10 12.3 10 C.Branco 24.6 19 13.0 10 11.6 9 Coimbra 55.6 42 28.4 21 27.2 21 Evora 21.2 16 11.8 9 9.4 7 Faro 39.2 30 20.1 15 19.1 15 Guarda 23.6 18 12.3 9 11.3 9 Leina 56.4 43 28.9 22 27.5 21 Lisbon 263.2 201 132.1 101 131.1 100 Portalegre 13.7 10 7.5 5 6.2 5 Porto 254.3 187 124.8 95 120.5 92 Santarém 55.0 42 28.3 22 26.7 20 Setiibal 106.1 81 53.6 41 52.5 40 VCastelo 39.2 30 20.1 15 19.1 15 Vjla Real 39.9 30 20.7 16 19.2 14 Viseu 61.3 47 31.7 24 29.6 23
Source Instituto Nacional de Estatistica (Estimated population in 3 1.12.1989) PROPORTION IN EACH SIZE OF TOWNS AND VILLAGES
Less than 10000 inhabitants -650 interviews
More than 10000 inhabitants -200 interviews
Lisbon -100 interviews
Oporto -50 interviews
Tabte II. Prevalence of delinquent behavior ‘ever’ and ‘last year’
T’pe Ever Last year
n % n %
Stealing from telephone booths/automata 49 4.9 16 1.6
Shoplifting 161 16.1 45 4.5
Stealing at school 38 3.8 15 1.5
Stealing at home 201 20.1 84 8.4
Stealing from work 17 1.7 11 1.1
Stealing bike/moped!motorbike 35 3.5 9 0.9
Stealing car 13 1.3 6 0.6
Stealing from car 49 4.9 19 1.9
Pickpocketing 9 0.9 1 0.1
Snatchingpurse/bag 4 0.4 1 0.1
Burglary 156 15.6 49 4.9
Stealingotherthing 48 4.8 20 2.0
Buyingstolengoods 103 10.3 48 4.8
230
Tabte II. Cont.’d
Type E ver Last year
n % n %
Average prevalence property offenses 436 43.6 214 21.4
Graffiti 169 16.9 70 7.0 Vandalism 402 40.2 161 16.1 Carrying a weapon 201 20.1 108 10.8 Threateningsomeone 7 0.7 3 0.3 Engagementinriots 223 22.3 111 11.1 Arson 8 0.8 2 0.2 Beatingupfamily 18 1.8 4 0.4 Beating up non-family 60 6.0 25 2.5
Hurting with weapons 25 2.5 8 0.8
Average prevalence violent offenses 552 55.2 295 29.5
Soft drugs use 182 18.2 110 11.0
Hard drugs use 42 4.2 27 2.7
Soft drugs selling 31 3.1 17 1.7
Hard drugs selling 5 0.5 3 0.3
Average prevalence drug offenses 190 19.0 113 11.3
Fare dodging tram/bus /metro 350 35.0 153 15.3
Faredodgingtrain 253 25.3 100 10.0
Driving without license / insurance 452 45.2 283 28.3
Average prevalence other youth-related offenses 641 64.1 406 40.6
‘Ibtal prevalence delinquent behavïor 815 81.5 572 57.2
Truancy 496 49.6 311 31.1
Running away 75 7.5 23 2.3
559 55.9 397 39.7
Alcohol use
Average prevalence ‘problem’ behavior
without alcohol use 508 50.8 321 32.1
Average prevalence ‘problem’ behavior
Table III. Categonzed frequency of delinquent behavior ‘last year’ Stealing from telephone booths/
automata Shoplifting Stealing
at school Stealing at home Stealing from work Stealing bike/moped!motorbike Stealing car Stealing from car Pickpocketing Snatching purse/bag Burgiary Stealing other thing Buying stolen goods Selling stolen goods 29 2.9 13 115 fl.5 33 21 2.1 6 111 11.1 22 6 0.6 4 24 2.4 7 7 0.7 4 30 3.0 13 8 0.8 0 3 0.3 1 106 10.6 33 26 2.6 11 51 5.1 35 24 2.4 11 1.3 1 3.3 8 0.6 4 2.2 25 0.4 3 0.7 1 0.4 1 1.3 3 -0 0.1 0 3.3 5 1.1 6 3.5 8 1.1 5 Type Not 1-2 times 3-5 times 6-10 times 11-50 times 51+ times t’ % n % n % t’ % n % n % 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 -0.8 3 0.3 1 0.1 0 -0.4 0 -4 0.4 1 -2.5 17 1.7 12 1.2 8 0.8 0.3 2 0.2 2 0.2 0 -0.1 1 0.1 0 -0 -0.1 1 0.1 0 -0 -0.3 3 0.3 0 -0 -1 0.1 0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0.5 2 0.2 3 0.3 6 0.6 0.6 0 -3 0.3 0 -0.8 3 0.3 1 0.1 1 0.1 0.5 3 0.3 1 0.1 0 -Average frequency property offenses 222 22.2 91 9.1 45 4.5 34 3.4 30 3.0 14 1.4 Graffiti 97 9.7 27 2.7 22 2.2 10 1.0 7 0.7 4 0.4 Vandalism 241 24.1 82 8.2 30 3.0 28 2.8 10 1.0 11 1.1 Carryingaweapon 93 9.3 24 2.4 18 1.8 12 1.2 7 0.7 47 4.7 Threatening someone 4 0.4 0 -0 -1 0.1 0 -2 0.2 Engagementinriots 112 11.2 69 6.9 28 2.8 10 1.0 4 0.4 0 -Arson 6 0.6 2 0.2 0 -0 -0 -0 -Beating up family 12 1.2 4 0.4 0 -0 -0 -0 -Beatingupnon-famïly 35 3.5 22 2.2 1 0.1 2 0.2 0 -0 -Hurtingwithweapons 17 1.7 7 0.7 1 0.1 0 -0 -0 -Average frequency violent offenses 257 25.7 102 10.2 62 6.2 29 2.9 40 4.0 62 6.2
Table III. Cont.’d Type Not 1-2 times 3-5 times 6-10 times 11-50 times 51+ times n % fl % n % n % fl % n % Soft drugs use 69 6.9 37 3.7 22 2.2 13 1.3 9 0.9 29 2.9 Hard drugs use 13 1.3 5 0.5 5 0.5 1 0.1 5 0.5 11 1.1 Soft drugs selling 14 1.4 7 0.7 2 0.2 4 0.4 2 0.2 2 0.2 Hard drugs selling 2 0.2 2 0.2 1 0.1 0 -0 -0 -Average frequency drug offenses 77 7.7 37 3.7 24 2.4 11 1.1 10 1.0 31 3.1 Fare dodging tram/bus /metro 193 19.3 83 8.3 34 3.4 18 1.8 8 0.8 10 1.0 Faredodgingtrain 151 15.1 57 5.7 26 2.6 6 0.6 7 0.7 4 0.4 Driving without license /insurance 164 16.4 92 9.2 61 6.1 49 4.9 36 3.6 45 4.5 Average frequency other youth-related offenses 235 23.5 129 12.9 104 10.4 67 6.7 47 4.7 61 Total frequency delinquent behavior 243 24.3 136 13.6 108 10.8 80 8.0 110 11.0 138 13.8 Truancy 177 17.7 95 9.5 83 8.3 54 5.4 44 4.4 35 3.5 Running away 50 5.0 16 1.6 3 0.3 2 0.2 2 0.2 0 -Alcohol use 159 15.9 142 14.2 143 14.3 55 5.5 40 4.0 17 1.7 Average frequency ‘problem’ behavior without alcohol use 187 18.7 108 10.8 83 8.3 52 5.2 48 4.8 30 3.0 Average frequency ‘problem’ behavior with alcohol use 175 17.5 202 20.2 103 10.3 78 7.8 90 9.0 52 5.2 In a few cases respondents answered ‘yes’ to the general questions about delinquent/ ‘problem’ behavior but did not answer the specific questions about ‘how often this last year ?‘ This explains the difference between the rates given in this Table and those presented in Table II in rel ation to ‘ever’. 6.1 L3
233
Tabte IV Gender and prevalence of delinquent behavior ‘last year’
Type Male Female
n % n %
525 52 .5 475 47.5
Stealing from telephone booths/automata 10 1.9 6 1.3
Shoplifting 21 4.0 24 5.1
Stealingatschool 10 1.9 5 1.1
Stealing at home 46 8.8 38 8.0
Stealing from work 9 1.7 2 0.4
Stealing bike/mopedlmotorbike 6 1.1 3 0.6
Stealing car 4 0.8 2 0.4
Stealing from car 18 3.4 1 0.2
Pickpocketing 1 0.2 0
-Snatching purse/bag 1 0.2 0
-Burgiary 38 7.2 11 2.3
Stealing other thing 16 3.0 4 0.8
Buyingstolengoods 38 7.2 10 2.1
Selling stolen goods 18 3.4 2 0.4
Average prevalence property offenses 135 25.7 79 16.6
Graffiti 45 8.6 25 5.3 Vandalism 107 20.4 54 11.4 Carryingaweapon 91 17.3 17 3.6 Threatening someone 3 0.6 0 -Engagement in riots 88 16.8 23 4.8 Arson 2 0.4 0 -Beating up family 2 0.4 2 0.4 Beating up non-family 23 4.4 2 0.4 Hurtingwithweapons 6 1.1 2 0.4
Average prevalence violent offenses 197 37.5 98 20.6
Soft drugs use 76 14.5 34 7.2
Hard drugs use 19 3.6 8 1.7
Soft drugs selling 15 2.9 2 0.4
Hard drugs selling 1 0.2 2 0.4
Average prevalence drug offenses 79 15.0 34 7.2
Fare dodging tram /bus /metro 92 17.5 61 12.8
Fare dodging train 65 12.4 35 7.4
Driving without license / insurance 186 35.4 97 20.4
Average prevalence other youth-related offenses 253 48.2 153 32.2 Total prevalence delinquent behavior 335 63.8 237 49.9
Truancy 158 30.1 153 32.2
Running away 14 2.7 9 1.9
Alcohol use 277 52.8 156 32.8
Average prevalence ‘problem’ behavior
without alcohol use 164 31.2 157 33.1
Average prevalence ‘problem’ behavior
234
Table VAge and prevalence of delinquent behavior ‘last year’
Type 14-15 16-17 18-19 20-21
n % n n % n %
264 26.4 321 32.1 253 25.3 162 16.2
Stealing from telephone booths
fautomata 4
Shoplifting 15
Stealing at school 4
Stealing at home 22
Stealing from work 0
Stealing bike/mopedlmotorbike 3
Stealing car 1
Stealing from car 9
Pickpocketing 0
Snatching purse/bag 0
Burglary 16
Stealing other thixig Buying stolen goods Selling stolen goods
Average prevalence property offenses Graffiti Vandalism S 2.5 17 5.3 6 1.9 32 10.0 3 0.9 5 1.6 5 1.6 3 0.9 1 0.3 1 0.3 17 5.3 5 1.6 8 2.5 5 1.6 72 22.4 20 6.2 49 15.3 27 8.4 3 0.9 35 10.9 1 0.3 4 1.2 5 1.6 2 0.6 88 27.4 33 10.3 4 1.2 9 2.8 2 0.6 36 11.2 4€ 15.0 33 10.3 112 34.9 1.5 5.7 1.5 8.3
ii
0.4 3.4 6.1 4 1.5 10 3.8 4 1.5 60 22.7 27 10.2 60 22.7 Can-ying a weapon 40 15.2 Threatening someone 0 -Engagement in riots 36 13.6 Arson 2 0.2 Beating up family 0 -Beating up non-family 9 3.4Hurting with weapons 2 0.8
Average prevalence violent offenses 97 36.7
Soft drugs use 14 4.9
Hard drugs use 0
-Soft drugs selling 0
-Hard drugs selling 0
-Average prevalence drug offenses 13 4.9 Fare dodging tram/bus /metro 33 12.5
Fare dodging train 32 12.1
Driving without license /insurance 82 31.1 Average prevalence other
youth-related offenses 106 40.2
lbtal prevalence delinquent behavior 151 57.2 56 21.2 4 1.5 65 24.6 3 1.2 11 4.3 4 1.6 17 6.7 5 2.0 1 0.4 0 -5 2.0 0 -0 -9 3.6 6 2.4 16 6.3 9 3.6 46 18.2 18 7.1 43 17.0 28 11.1 0 -20 7.9 0 -0 -6 2.4 3 1.2 75 29.6 41 16.2 14 5.5 S 3.2 1 0.4 41 16.2 45 17.8 25 9.9 63 24.9 1 0.6 2 1.2 1 0.6 13 8.0 3 1.9 0 -0 -2 1.2 0 -0 -7 4.3 5 3.1 14 8.6 2 1.2 36 22.2 5 3.1 9 5.6 13 8.0 0 -20 12.3 0 -0 -5 3.1 1 0.6 35 21.6 23 14.2 9 5.6 0 -0 -23 14.2 27 16.7 10 6.2 26 16.0 148 46.1 102 40.3 50 30.9 192 59.8 143 56.5 86 53.1 95 29.6 87 34.4 73 45.1 S 2.5 9 3.6 2 1.2 145 45.2 130 51.4 93 57.4 Truancy Running away Alcohol use
Average prevalence ‘problem’
behavior without alcohol use 58 22.0 97 30.2 92 36.4 74 45.6
Average prevalence ‘problem’
235
Table VI. Commitment to school(x1)
Type Lildng Importance of Level of school
school working at school commitment*
Property offenses 22.2 (-)0.0 27.5
Violent offenses 73.9 (-)0.2 61.3
Drug offenses 14.8 (-)1.6 19.8
Other youth-related offenses 7.8 (-)0.0 22.4
‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol 12.8 8.2 18.3
(-)non-significant; in the other cases, p<0.01
Based on previous variables (scale 2-6)
Table VII. School performance (x2
Type Repeat classes How many times
Property offenses 5.6*
13.6
Violent offenses 14.9 27.8
Drug offeases 12.8 35.7
Other youth-related offenses 0.3 (-)6.2
‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol 64.9 84.8
(-)non-significant; in the other cases, p<0.01
Table VIIL Work commitment (x2)
Type Liking work Importance of
working hard
Property offenses (-)9.4 (-)0.2
Violent offenses 16.7 (-)1.1
Drug offenses 36.6 (-)1.5
Other youth-related offenses 13.3 (-)2.2
‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol 48.4 (-)0.2
(-)non-significant; in the other cases, p<0.01
Table IX. Work performance (x2)
Type ¶b have a job Job change
Property offenses (-)7.8 (-)6.9
Violent offenses 21.5 12.6
Drug offenses 29.1 34.7
Other youth-related offenses (-)0.7 (-)2.2
‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol 31.2 47.3
236
Table X. Attachment to family
(x2)
Type Relationship Relationship Family
with father with mother relationship
index
Property offenses 21.7 28.4 35.3
Violent offenses 12.4 14.3 10.9
Drug offenses 13.3 11.$ 16.9
Other youth-related offenses 16.8 16.4 26.2
‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol 22.9 28.2 35.3
p<0.05; in the other cases, p<0.01
Based on previous variables
Tabte XI. Supervision
(x2)
Type Parents know Parents know Index of parental
where they with whom they control**
are going are going out
Property offenses 14.7 22.9 38.2
Violent offenses 10.6 17.9 20.4
Drug offenses 28.7 25.9 36.7
Other youth-related offenses 6.4* 11.4 12.0
‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol 23.5 38.5 41.5
p<0.05; in the other cases, p<0.01
“‘Based on previous variables
Tabte XII. Involvement with family
(x2)
Type Monthly frequency of goingOutwith family
Property offenses 30.8
Violent offenses 12.3*
Drugoffenses 41.1
Other youth-related offenses (-)3.7
‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol 32.5
(-)non-significant;*p<0.05;in the other cases, p<0.01
Tabte XIII. Involvement with friends
(x2)
Type With whom they Help from friends
spend their free time when in trouble
Property offenses 11.5* (-)2.6
Violent offenses 12.3 t-) 3.5
Drug offenses 26.9 (-)7.3
Other youth-related offenses 24.5 (-)2.1
‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol 62.5 (-)3.9
237
Tabte XIV Involvement steady boy/girlfriend
(x2)
Type To have a Want relationship to
boy/girlfriend last
Property offenses 9.6 15.3
Violent offenses 47* 10.8*
Drug offenses 27.3 39.3
Other youth-related offenses 24.4 27.9
‘Problem’ behavior with alcohol 41.1 43.9
SELF-REPORTED JUVENILE
DELINQUENCY IN SPAIN
Rosemary Barberet, Cristina Rechea-Mberola and Juan Montaüés-Rodrfguez
1. Introduction
This chapter details the resuits of Spain’s participation in the international project on self-reported delinquency (ISRD). This is the first national-level self-report delinquency study that has been conducted in Spain, although regional level research using the self-report method has taken place in Navarra (Hualde, 1986), Galicia (Luengo et al., 1993) and Palma de Mallorca (Calafat, 1993). As such, the results from this research are useful not only for the purpose of international comparison, but also as an initial measure of the juvenile delinquency problem in Spain.
As a prelude to the ISRD project in Spain, the ISRD questionnaire, originally drafted in English, was translated and adapted to the Spanish cultural context. A pilot study was conducted in the city of Albacete, Spain (Rechea-Alberola et al., 1992)*. The resuits of this pilot study dem onstrated that the questionnaire and self-report method worked well with Spanish youths; furthermore, this experience served as a guide for plan ning fleidwork at the national level.
1.1 A geographical, political and social description of Spain
Spain is located in Southern Europe on the Iberian Peninsula, surrounded largely by the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea but also bordering Portugal and France. Since 1978, Spain has been a parliamentary monar chy in which the King functions as arbiter and moderator. Executive power resides in the hands of the President whose role is equivalent to that of prime minister in some European countries. Politics revolve around the Parliament, a bicameral system with a Congress of Deputies and a Senate. Both houses hold the legislative power of the state. The judicial power is represented by the General Council of the Judiciary.
Spain, in turn, is organized into 17 autonomous communities with the authority to manage some of their own affairs. Their union, along with the districts of Ceuta and Melilla in North Africa, forms the Spanish State.
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Justice of Spain for the funding ofthis
project
*The pilot study was funded by the City ofMbacete
Address for correspondence:Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Facultad de Derecho, Campus Universitario, 02071 Albacete, Spain
239
Although the population density in Spain is 77 inhabitants per square kilometer, the distribution of population is not homogeneous and is grouped in coastal areas and in large cities in the interior. $lightly over
half (54.2%) the population lives in cities of 50,000 or more inhabitants.
According to the 1991 Census, 28.4% of the population are aged 0-19 years, 36.2% are aged 20-44 years, and the remaining 35.4% are aged 45 years and older. Those aged 14-2 1 years, the age group of our sample, con
stitute 13.6% of the total population.
The following information regarding the level of educational achieve ment of those aged ten years or more is also according to the 1991 Census: 23.8% have not finished elementary studies; 34.7% have finished five years of elementary education; 33.7% have finished secondary schooling (inciuding vocational education and pre-university studies); 6.8% have
university degrees; and for 2% of this population data are not available.
Despite its historical tradition of ethnic and cultural heterogeneity, Spain is at present a generally homogeneous population. The most sub
stantial ethnic minority are gypsies. However, estimating the size of the
gypsy population in Spain is a complicated task. Given that it is unconsti
tutional to ask for ethnic or racial background in the Census, there are no
official, national level figures on this issue. Nevertheless, estimates are available from different authors who have studied the gypsy population and from various gypsy associations. These range from 238,000 in 1978 (Asociacién Secretarial de Gitanos) to 1,200,000 in 1993. In 1985, an inter
nal report from the Ministry of the Interior provided an estimate of
280,000. In 1991, the Minister of Social Affairs (the Ministry that man ages the Program for Gypsy Development) cited an estimate of 500,000. According to the Program for Gypsy Development, the current estimate is 700,000, which is equal to 1.8% of the total Spanish population.
The 1991 census does note that the proportion of foreigners in Spain is 1% of the total population, with non-EC residents constituting 0.4% (165,000) and EC residents 0.6% (231,000).
The distribution of the population over industry, agriculture and serv ices, according to the Survey of Active Population, Fourth Trimester, 1992, includes 10.1% in agriculture, 22.2% in industry, 9.6% in construc tion and 58.0% in services, and the mean income level (available family income per capita) is 1,107,812 pesetas per capita. Unemployment in Spain was 20.05% at the end of 1992. Nearly a fifth of the Spanish popula tion (19.6%) receives some kind of public financial assistance, including unemployment and social security pensions.
The Spanish household continues to lie very traditional. The proportion of the population that was divorced or separated in 1990 was 11.5 per 1000 population (294,633 separated, 152,540 divorced). Nearly one-half (43.9%) of all Spanish househoids is composed of four or more members (1991 Census). The proportion of women who vork over the total active population was 36.5% at the end of 1992. 1984 data show that 73.9% of all mothers are housewives (Ferné.ndez Méndez de Andrés, 1987).
According to Prieto Lacaci (1991, 1992), the proportion of young persons affiliated with voluntary associations was 34% in 1992 (Informe Juventud en Espafla), with young men more likely to lie affiliated than young
240
women (40.5% versus 28.2%). The participation of young persons in organ ized leisure activities is concentrated in organizations relating to sports (16.8%), cultural (6.3%) and religious (4.7%) activities. Youth participation in organized leisure activities is more a feature of urban areas than rural ones. An important factor that explains this is the longer process of eman cipation that rural youth experience. No matter what the environment— rural or urban — the participation of youth in organized activities dimin
ishes with age.
1.2 Alcohol and drug legislation policy
In Spain the sale of alcohol to minors (those under 16 years of age) and drug trafficking are illicit activities, but the consumption of alcohol by minors and drug consumption in general are not criminally sanctioned. However, the 1992 Citizen Safety Law declared that drug consumption and its illicit possession in public places, even if not for the purposes of trafficking, con stitutes a serious administrative violation, as well as the abandonment in public places of utensils or instruments used for its consumption.
2. Study design 2.1 Sampting method
The population for this study comprised individuals aged 14-2 1 years resid ing in Spain. The sample consisted of 2100 interviews conducted at seven interview sites. Two hundred and fifty of these interviews were conducted in marginalized neighborhoods as defined and identified by local law en forcement and social services agencies.
The geographical distribution of the sample was as follows (Table 1, see also Appendix, Fig. 1):
Multi-staged cluster sampling was used with stratification in the first stage by census sections. These census sections were selected at random, while the sampling method for marginalized areas was purposive. Thijs, marginalized neigborhoods could also be included in the base random sample. Individuals were finally selected via age and sex quotas.
It is important to note that the Spanish sample is not a nationally rep resentative sample as it is missing sampling sites from the rural areas of the country (those of fewer than 50,000 inhabitants); additionally, the rep resentativeness of Badajoz as the only city in the sample for the 100,000 to 300,000 inhabitants category, is questionable. With this in mmd, read ers should interpret the resuits with caution. The Spanish sample was de signed so as to increase comparability with the other countries participat ing in the ISRD project.
241
Table 1.Geographical distribution of the sample
Strata Interview site Total n Marginal n
>1,000,000 Madrid 500 (60) 300,000-1,000,000 Valencia 400 (48) 100,000-300,000 Badajoz 400 (48) 50,000-100,000 Dos Herman as 200 (24) Cornellé, 200 (23) Portugalete 200 (23) Guadalajara 200 (24) TOTAL 2,100 (250)
Table 2.Weighting matrix
Sampling site Base sample Marginalized area sample
Madrid 20.4 2.8
Valencia 20.6 2.0
Badajoz 33.7 2.5
All others 15.5 2.5
2.2 Weighting
The two criteria for sample stratification were the size of place of residence (four strata: more than 1,000,000 inhabitants; 300,000 to 1,000,000; 100,000 to 300,000; and 50,000 to 100,000); and the type of sample, base or marginalized. Sampling was not proportional within these strata in order to obtain sufficient sample size in each stratum. Weighting the sample was
thus necessary. Table 2 shows the weighting matrix, based on the popula
tion aged 14-21 years in each stratum’.
2.3 Data collection
Fieldwork was carried out by the survey research company Cuanter, S.A., based in Madrid and with prior experience in research on hard-to-reach populations.
Once the househoids that feli into each census section were identified, the interviewee was located at his or her home. The interview could be conducted in the home as well as outside the home, in order to avoid re fusals or the possible bias introduced by presence of the family. At the same time, locating the subject in his or her home was intended to avoid the presence of any conflict that might be present in situations outside the home, such as group meeting places like bars, game rooms, etc.
The interview was both self-administered (in the case of the yes-no prevalence questions) and administered by the interviewer (in the case of
*Due to weighting and to subsequent rounding that occurred in calculations, figures may be
242
all other questions, inciuding demographic and social information). On average, an interview lasted 22 minutes, ranging from 10—91 minutes. The majority of interviews took place in the home of the respondent (79.3%). Other interview sites inciuded the street (9.0%), a café, bar or
restaurant (4.5%), the respondent’s building or on the steps (2.9%), a
friend’s house (0.9%), or the respondent’s workpiace (0.1%).
2.4 Non-response
The response rate obtained was 66.6% of all the addresses where a young person of the targeted age group (14-21 years old) who met the age and sex quota requirements resided. An additional 919 young people from the base sample and 113 young people from the marginalized sample were not inter viewed due to the fact that the quota for their age or sex had already been fîlled. The overall refusal rate was 22.9%; curiously, refusals were more of a problem in the base sample (24%) than in the marginalized sample (15.3%). However, marginalized sample respondents were slightly more difficult to locate, as evidenced by the 4.3% who were absent for more than a month at the time of the interview (as opposed to 1.1% in the base sample), and 9.4% who were impossible to locate (as opposed to 8.1% in the base sample; Table 3).
x
2
tests of the distribution between successful and unsuccessful interviews on aspects such as street maintenance, the number of vacant build ings, the number of vandalized objects and the subjective interviewer rat-ing of social class reached significance at p <0.05. Lower class respondents were more likely to refuse to be interviewed, while middie and middle-up per class interviewees were more likely to acquiesce to the interview. Thus, the sample appears to be biased towards middle class respondents in this subjective rating. Nevertheless, on the other aspects previously mentioned regarding the built environment of the interviewee, interview ees whose street maintenance was mediocre or bad or with some vandal ized objects were more likely to complete the interview. A possible expla nation would be that, at bast in Spain, measures of neighborhood decay are not synonymous with subjective ratings of social class.
Table 3.Proportion of non-response
Incom- Refusal Absent Moved Impos- Success- Total
plete >1 sible to ful contacts
month locate inter
views Base sample 11 668 32 14 228 1,850 2,803 (0.4%) (24%) (1.1%) (0.5%) (8.1%) (66.0%) Marginalized sample 0 54 15 0 33 250 352 (15.3%) (4.3%) (9.4%) (71.0%) Total sample 11 722 47 14 261 2,100 3,155 (0.35%) (22.9%) (1.5%) (0.4%) (8.3%) (66.6%)
243
Table 4. Consistency of responses to selected self-report delinquency items
Item Consistent responses Inconsistent responses
Truancy 93.5% 6.5%
Damage or destroying telephone booth 84.1% 15.9%
Shoplifting 94.6% 5.4%
Snatching purse/bag 98.8% 1.2%
Hurting with weapons 98.2% 1.8%
Soft drug use 97.6% 2.4%
2.5 Reliability
Reliability was measured using a series of repeated questions at the end of the qiiestionnaire, by comparing the answers to these questions with the answers given when the item was originally asked. These items roughly
represent the offense categories in the questionnaire. Reliability indices
varied between 84.1% (damaging or destroying a telephone booth) and 98.8% (snatching a purse or bag). The resuits appear in Table 4 and show generally high levels of reliability. Although not a consistent pattern, the behaviors with the two highest levels of reliability (snatching purse/bag and
hurting with weapons) were the items least reported (their prevalence rates were 0.1% and 1.1%, respectively).
2.6 Validity
Although other self-report delinquency studies have been conducted in Spain (Hualde, 1986; Calafat, 1993; and Luengo et al., 1993), comparison of our resuits with other resuits is problematic for a number of reasons. First, these other studies were conducted in limited geographical areas: Pamplona, Mallorca, and Galicia— three areas which happened not to be
inciuded as sites for our interviews. Second, the samples do not coincide in age; whereas their samples cover young people from 14-18 years, ours in clude young people from 14-2 1 years. Third, most of the other studies use school-based samples. And fourth, there are virtually no comparable items between studies, even though the same types of behaviors are asked about. No validity check was inciuded within the ISRD questionnaire itself, and police and court records checking was impossible due to the anonymity
guaranteed the respondents. Validity is of interest, however, to the Spanish
criminological community; the comparability and the homogeneization of self-report studies was discussed at the first workshop held on the self-re port method in Spain, co-sponsored by the Ministry of Justice and the Uni versity of Castilla-La Mancha, in June, 1993.
244
3. Resuits
3.1 Sample description and socioeconomic variables
The sample is composed of half males, half females (51% versus 49%), with equal parts in each age group (14-15, 16-17, 18-19, 20-21). As would be ex pected given the age range in our sample, the middle level (secondary level education) predominates (47%); the other two levels are about equal, with 27% for the lower level, and 26% for the higher level. The results for social class show a concentration of lower middie class interviewees (47%). This distribution approximates other social research surveys conducted in Spain. Both genders are represented homogeneously across levels of educa tional achievement and socioeconomic status. Logically, education in creases with age. Regarding socioeconomic status and age, the only sub-group that is under-represented is upper middie class 14 to 15 year olds; otherwise, the distribution is fairly homogeneous.
More males than females work (13.2% versus 9.1%). The fact that 69% of the sample is in school reflects the social reality of the age group sam pled. Younger respondents are most likely to be in school, whereas older youths increasingly work, combine school with work, or are unemployed. Not surprisingly, then, younger subjects depend on their families as a source of income compared to older subjects, whose sources inciude work and others.
Dictated by sampling design, we find a homogeneous distribution of size of place of residence according to gender and age.
3.2 Delinquency and pro blem behavior
Tables 5 and 6 show categorized prevalence levels and categorized fre quency levels, respectively. The majority of respondents (81.1%) admitted to at least one act of delinquency (not including alcohol consumption and problem behavior) in their lifetime, and over half (57.8%) in the last year. The category of offenses that was most often self-reported was violent offenses (the combined total of violent offenses against objects and against persons) at 62.6% for ‘ever’ and 34.5% for the last year. The behavior least self-reported was drug offenses, at 21.5% ‘ever’ and 15.4% for the last year. Table 6 shows that overall, when delinquent acts are admitted by youths (without inciuding alcohol consumption and problem behavior), they are admitted at all kinds of frequencies. That is, young people may admit engaging in them once or twice in the last year (13.5%), from three to five times (10.5%), from six to ten times (8.7%), from 11 to 50 times (12.5%) and more than 50 times (9.9%). Thus, there does not seem to be a concentration in favor of either one-timers or career delinquents for the overall delinquency measure.
A look at individual categories of offenses shows that those behaviors most frequently engaged in (11 or more times in the last year, which would amount to at least one act a month) are other youth-related offenses and overall violent offenses. Generally, the pattern is for a dimin
245
Table 5. Categorized prevalence of delinquent behaviors ‘ever’ and ‘last year’ (n=2100)
Type Ever Last year
n % n %
Property offenses 1024 48.7 423 20.1
Overall violent offenses 1314 62.6 724 34.5
Violence against objects 1152 54.8 461 21.9
Violence against persons 814 38.8 476 22.7
Drug offenses 452 21.5 323 15.4
Other youth-related offenses 1266 60.3 712 33.9
Overall delinquency without alcohol and
problem behavior 1704 81.1 1214 57.8
‘Problem’ behavior without alcohol use 1019 48.5 448 21.3
ishing number of respondents admitting to increasingly frequent acts. This pattern does not hold, however, for violent offenses against persons and drug offenses, where there is a slight upsurge in the proportion of re spondents admitting to having engaged in those behaviors 51 or more times over the last year.
Tables T and II (Appendix) show the rank ordering of self-reported de
linquent behavior (ever) and the rank ordering of self-reported delinquent
behavior (last year), respectively.
Alcohol consumption tops the list of those behaviors engaged in ever and over the last year. The five most frequent behaviors during the last
year are alcohol consumption, driving without a license or insurance, tru
ancy, fights or riots and vandalism. The Live least behaviors during the
last year are threatening someone, hard drug selling, stealing a car,
snatching a purse or bag and pickpocketing.
Table IV (Appendix) shows the prevalence of self-reported delinquent behavior (ever and last year) per item and Table V (Appendix) the fre quency of self-reported delinquent behavior (last year) per item.
Table IV (Appendix) shows that the most commonly admitted property offenses are shoplifting (23.2% ever, 6.6% last year) and burglary (21.7% ever, 6.9% last year). It also demonstrates the preponderance of violent offenses against objects versus violent offenses against persons. Violent offenses against objects (an average of 54.8% ever, 21.9% last year) are more prevalent than are property offenses (48.7% ever, 20.1% last year). Of the violent offenses against persons, fights or riots are the most com monly admitted (30% ever, 17.2% last year). The youth in our sample have a preference for soft drugs (21.2% ever, 15.0% last year) over hard drugs (4.5% ever, 2.5% last year), and show very low levels of admitted drug trafficking (all rates at about 1%). Furthermore, Table IV (Appendix) shows the preponderance of driving without a license or insurance (42.2% ever, 22.5% last year) among ‘other youth-related offenses’. Alcohol con sumption and truancy are important problem behaviors. Rates of admit ted alcohol use are similar for the ‘ever’ and last year categories (85.7% and 79.3%, respectively). Truancy was admitted ‘ever’ by about half the sample (47.8%) and during the last year by a fifth (20.5%).
Table 6. Categorized frequency of delinquent behaviors ‘last year’ (n=2100) Type 0 times 1-2 times 3-5 times 6-10 times 11-50 times 51+ times n % fl % n % n % fl % n % Property offenses 1678 79.9 232 11.0 84 4.0 45 2.1 44 2.1 19 0.9 Overall violent offenses 1377 65.5 284 13.5 169 8.0 97 4.6 101 4.8 73 3.5 Violence against objects 1640 78.1 222 10.6 105 5.0 61 2.9 62 2.9 10 0.5 Violence against persons 1624 77.3 250 11.9 95 4.5 29 1.4 41 1.9 61 2.9 Drugoffenses 1778 84.6 85 4.1 64 3.1 44 2.1 60 2.9 69 3.3 Other youth-related offenses 1388 66.1 227 10.8 153 7.3 119 5.6 147 7.0 66 3.2 Overall delinquency without alcohol and ‘problem’ behavior 942 44.9 284 13.5 221 10.5 183 8.7 262 12.5 207 9.9 ‘Problem ‘behavior without alcohol use 1652 78.7 195 9.3 94 4.5 65 3.1 75 3.6 20 1.0
