BACK TO INDEX
TOP OF PAGE
Variations in Youth Offending:
Although, today I will be looking in detail at some of the research and it's statistical basis on Youth Offending, especially in relation to the influence of location, ethnicity, gender and class, caution should be used in accepting statistics as "facts". It is fairly widely accepted that statistics relating to offending that are based on recorded crime tend to tell as much about elements within the Criminal Justice system as they do about the reality of crime. Recorded crime statistics display expectations by victims as to the behaviour of the system and the behaviour of those within the system., and this is particularly the case with offending behaviour by young people. Even the Government establishment and its servants have spent a great deal of time searching for alternative measures of offending than the recorded data. Recorded data on crime is heavily influenced by social, procedural and attitudinal factors. Many , if not most, victims of "minor offences" such a petty theft of criminal damage, most often carried out by young offenders, do not report the offence believing, largely correctly that no action will be taken. Some petty theft, indeed, remains undiscovered for long periods of time. Violence, where it occurs between young men in particular, will only be reported if the consequences are so serious as to lead to hospitalisation.
The Police force itself , and even the individual officer , have considerable discretion in recording criminal acts. The service has come under considerable political pressure, which has resulted in a reluctance to report incidents that are unlikely to be successfully processed through the Criminal Justice system. Criminal damage in particular is very severely underreported. Losses due to shoplifting, except when discovered in the process of the commission of the act, are an accepted business expense.
As would be expected the quest for accuracy in describing crime has lead to the use of different approaches in attempting to quantify it. The most respected of these methodologies is the use of "Self Report" both for the British crime survey, which has a concentration on victim reports and the Youth Lifestyles Survey, the most recent available carried out in 1998/9.
It is undoubtedly the case that "a number of self studies conducted since the 1950s that have made a significant contribution to our knowledge of crime. They have indicated that delinquency is much more widely spread in the population than is suggested by official figures. They also show that self reported offending at one age can predict future official convictions independently of other factors (Farrington, 1989). Self reported data shows that class differences in offending are much less than is suggested by official statistics (Gold, 1970, Riley and Shaw, 1985). Similarly, differences between males and females in relation to offending are less than is suggested by criminal statistics (Jensen and Eve, 1976; Hindelang et al., 1981).
However, there are limitations to the self-report methodology, just as there are limitations to relying on official statistics. It is difficult for a self-report survey to include respondents who may be higher rate offenders, for example the homeless, prisoners or those in residential care. There are also problems associated with people who are contacted but refuse to co-operate. This can result in the situation where those people most likely to co-operate with the survey are the least deviant.
Another issue relates to the accuracy of the responses given. Some young people may over exaggerate their offending behaviour, whereas others may play their offending down. Over time people may also forget offences, particularly those considered trivial or commonplace. Self-report studies also differ in the types of crimes they include. Some include 'low-level' incidents such as not paying a bus fare or stealing a milk bottle, which are technically crimes but are unlikely to attract a formal response from the criminal justice system. Other studies may fail to differentiate between one-off, petty offenders and those who admit serious or persistent offending."(Home Office "Aspects of Crime- Young Offenders 1999", East & Campbell downloadable at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/aspects-youngoffs.pdf)
Whilst these limitations cannot be totally eliminated the impact of them can be limited by, for example careful interview techniques, limiting the time period being reported, using a very large sample, or specifying the type of offences to be included. The major contribution that these studies can make however, is to clarify the social, ethnic and gender pressures that may structure the statistical information based on the figures for recorded crime by young people.
The causation for these variations is not consensually agreed within the Political establishment, indeed at the policy level, although self report studies have been widely used, little consideration is given to why such discrepancies occur.
According to East and Campbell's analysis of the Youth Lifestyles Survey: "Almost a fifth (19%) of 12- to 30 year-olds admitted at least one offence in the last 12 months. Women were less likely to have offended (11% had done so) than men (26%). When they offended, about half (48% of men and 59% of women) had committed only one or two offences. Taking all offences, those aged 14 to 21 were most likely to commit an offence whereas those in the youngest (12 to 13) and oldest (25 to 30) age groups were least likely (Figure 2.1). Rates of offending are highest amongst men aged 18 the peak age of offending. This falls to 15 if those who only committed fraud or workplace theft (generally considered older crimes) are excluded.
Among women, the peak age of offending is 14, irrespective of whether fraud and workplace theft is included. The average age at which offending began was 13 for males and 14 for females." (Home Office 1999).
How then can we explain differential offending rates in each case based on gender, ethnicity, location and most importantly class, since the reported offending statistics show a much higher of crime rates by males from disadvantaged backgrounds?
All young people offend - male and female rich and poor and from all ethnic origins. There is in the case of gender a marked difference between offending rates between young men and young women and also in the type of crime committed. Part of the causation for the difference between reported crime rates by all women and the self reported data is undeniably due to a bias within the whole criminal and youth justice system that operates to their favour, at least in so far as the decision to proceed with the case. Patronising it may be, but the Police undoubtedly treat "girls" much more sympathetically than "boys", and are far less likely to proceed with processing minor offences . In addition the type of crime that young women commit is less likely to be discovered. Conversely when young women have a history offending, or commit violent crimes, their sentencing is likely be just as harsh as anything applied to young men, since more than the law has been transgressed- social expectations of femininity have been challenged.
Higher rates of recorded crimes within ethnic minority groups, in particular African and Afro Caribbean communities, which is still evident, in particular in London, indicate no more than a lingering institutionalised racism throughout the CJS, not just the Police. Examinations of sentencing analysed by ethnicity continue to show a much greater willingness to apply custodial sentences to back people than white.
To examine social class and location together, the same discrepancies appear and largely for the same set of reasons, with additional factors. As long ago as 1937 the American criminologists looked patterns of recorded youth crime in Chicago. Using Burgess zones they plotted delinquency in relation to urban zone from the Central Business District outwards to the leafy suburbs. They indicated that offending rates were evident in the "zone of transition" the residential area close to the CBD. In Bradford this transitional area would be identified as the ring around the city centre along Barkerend Road, Leeds Road, Manchester Road and Manningham Lane. These are areas of multiple deprivation and municipal neglect as well as highly multi cultural.
These areas show poor housing stocks, vandalism, and groups of young people with very little facillites. This culture of neglect undoubtedly can contribute to hopelessness, social disintegration and criminal behaviour, especially by the young. As the recent report of the inquiry headed by Sir Herman Ouseley into the causal factors leading to the last Bradford riot states much of the responsibility for this neglect must be placed firmly with community leaders who are seen as self serving and particularly with the Local Authority which systematically neglected these areas for decades. Indeed in many of these areas even the most basic Local authority services have to be begged for. In major incidents of civil disturbance or crime these areas also show that the Police respond only when it is deemed absolutely needed.
All of that having been said in the case of the young offender, the transitional zone is policed quite differently from the suburbs. Crimes here are far more likely to be recorded and processed through the whole system. As I have argued elsewhere, what is delinquency in Manningham or Leeds Road is merely high spirits in Cottingley or Nab Wood.
Brian Mulrine ©2002