Attitudes Towards Youth Crime and Willingness to Intervene: Findings from the 2006 Scottish Social Attitudes Survey

CHAPTER THREE VIEWS OF YOUNG PEOPLE AND YOUTH CRIME

Introduction

It was argued in the conclusion to the report on the 2004 module that public attitudes towards young people and youth crime should be seen as not simply reflecting, but helping to constitute the problem of 'youth crime'. With that in mind, the 2006 module revisited a number of measures of public attitudes in this area. General attitudes towards young people were again documented, since these both shape and are shaped by the on-going public, political and media concern with young people and anti-social behaviour. Perceptions of the prevalence of youth crime were also examined, as an indicator of what people hear and believe to be happening in their own neighbourhoods. Finally, questions were asked about the direct impact on respondents of the same range of youth crime-related behaviours.

General attitudes towards young people

3.1 As in the 2004 survey, respondents were presented with a series of attitude statements relating to young people:

• The behaviour of young people today is no worse than it was in the past
• Most young people are responsible and well-behaved
• Young people today have no respect for older people
• Most young people are helpful and friendly
• Young people are more likely than older people to be the victims of crime.

Table 5 - Agreement/disagreement with statements about young people (%)

	Agree/agree strongly	Neither	Disagree/ disagree strongly	Sample size
	%	%	%
The behaviour of young people today is no worse than it was in the past	28	11	62	1575
Most young people are responsible and well-behaved	53	19	28	1588
Young people today have no respect for older people	45	21	34	1588
Most young people are helpful and friendly	50	29	21	1581

3.2 The pattern of results is extremely close to that obtained in 2004 - indeed there is no statistically significant variation in results between the two years - and suggests a continuing ambivalence in adult attitudes towards young people. While 62% disagree that the behaviour of young people is no worse than in the past and 45% agree that young people today have no respect for older people, more than half also agree that most people are helpful and friendly and a similar proportion that most are responsible and well-behaved.

3.3 Of course, this ambivalence exists at the level of the sample as a whole, rather than necessarily being present within the views of individuals. For example, 79% of those who agree that young people have no respect for older people disagree that most young people are helpful and friendly; while 77% of those who disagree that young people have no respect for older people agree that most young people are helpful and friendly. In other words, there is a tension between the views of different sets of adults, some of whom are broadly positive and others broadly negative in their attitudes towards young people.

3.4 In order to facilitate an analysis of the key drivers of positive and negative perceptions of young people in general, the four items were scaled to create a single index with a minimum score of 4 (indicating the most positive end of the spectrum) and a maximum score of 16 (indicating the least positive). By assigning cases to tertiles, it was possible to categorise individuals as belonging to the 'most positive', 'least positive' or 'intermediate' groups. On the basis of a logistic regression model, the following variables were shown to have the strongest independent association with more positive attitudes.

Table 6 - General attitudes towards young people by key variables (row percentages)

	Most positive group	Intermediate group	Least positive group	Sample size
	%	%	%
All	34	32	34	1594
Perceptions of youth crime problems
Most common	17	29	55	464
Least common	49	30	20	489
Highest educational qualification
Degree/Higher Education	46	30	25	479
None	21	34	45	394
Social trust
Most can be trusted	46	32	22	831
Can't be too careful	21	31	48	702
Age
18-24	23	24	53	108
25-34	29	31	40	222
35-44	35	32	33	325
45-54	42	30	28	270
55-64	35	37	28	270
65+	34	34	32	396
Contact with 16 to 24 year-olds in area
Know none	27	37	36	362
Know some/all	36	30	34	1232

3.5 As in 2004, what is most striking is that those in the youngest age group (18 to 24 year-olds) hold the least positive views of young people, while those aged 65 and over hold much more positive views. Positive views of young people are also independently associated with lower levels of perceived youth crime problems (see below), lower levels of contact with young people aged 16 to 24, higher levels of educational attainment and higher levels of social trust.

Perceptions of prevalence of local youth crime problems

3.6 We turn now from general attitudes towards young people to adult views and experiences of youth crime and disorder. Respondents were asked how common they felt a range of specific youth-crime related problems were in their own area. As the following table shows, the proportion saying each was either very or fairly common ranged from around a fifth to a half of those interviewed (in relation to young people using drugs in public and being noisy in the street, respectively).

Table 7 - Perceptions of prevalence of local youth crime problems (%)

	Young people being noisy in the street	Vandalism or graffiti caused by young people	Young people being drunk in public	Young people using drugs in public	Young people behaving in a threatening way
	%	%	%	%	%
Very common	17	11	16	7	7
Fairly common	32	25	31	12	18
Not very common	36	44	34	37	47
Not at all common	15	20	17	36	27
(Don't know)	*	*	2	7	1
Sample size	1594	1594	1594	1594	1594

3.7 Again, these variables were combined into a scale to facilitate analysis of the key factors associated with perceptions of local youth crime problems as being very common. By far the most powerful predictor of belonging to the 'most common' group was area deprivation. As might be expected, youth crime was much more likely to be seen as common in areas of greater deprivation, a relationship summarised in the following graph.

Figure 6 - Perceptions of prevalence of youth crime by area deprivation (%)

Sample size: 1594

3.8 Other variables independently associated with seeing youth crime problems as more common included being in the social rented sector, being directly affected by youth crime and having less positive views of young people in general. Interestingly, a higher level of contact with 16 to 24 year-olds is associated with seeing youth crime problems as more common - perhaps reflecting the fact that the group most likely to experience victimisation are young people themselves.

Table 8 - Perceptions of prevalence of youth crime problems by key variables (row percentages)

	Most common	Intermediate	Least common	Sample size
	%	%	%
All	32	35	33	1594
Directly affected by youth crime
Most affected	66	32	2	516
Least affected	10	26	64	468
Contact with 16 to 24 year-olds in area
Know most	37	28	28	241
Know none	31	35	41	631
General attitudes towards young people
Most positive	16	37	47	531
Least positive	52	30	18	517
Area deprivation
Most deprived	59	31	10	281
Least deprived	11	36	53	291
Tenure
Owner-occupier	26	36	38	983
Social renter	52	29	19	343

Direct experience of local youth crime problems

3.9 While perceptions of the prevalence of particular types of crime and disorder undoubtedly reflect something important about the 'problem of youth crime', they should not necessarily be read as straightforward reflections of crime reality. Individuals and neighbourhoods may be differentially sensitised to such issues, with the result that the same objective level of behaviour in one area may be seen as much more prevalent or problematic than in another. Factors shaping this will include the architecture and geography of different communities (in some areas, for example, vandalism and graffiti may be much more visible than in others) and tolerance of particular types of disturbance ( e.g. noise from teenagers hanging around in the street).

3.10 Consequently it was also decided to ask respondents about the extent to which they had been directly affected by each of the youth crime-related problems discussed above. While this concept is itself problematic - e.g. what exactly does it mean to be 'directly affected'? - it was hoped that this would at least help to distinguish beliefs or sensitivities relating to youth crime from its actual consequences.

3.11 What is immediately clear is that this measure suggests a less dramatic problem than does the measure of perceived prevalence. For all five types of behaviour, the vast majority of those interviewed say that they have been directly affected either 'not very much' or 'not at all'.

Table 9 - Extent to which 'directly affected' by local youth crime problems (%)

	Young people being noisy in the street	Vandalism or graffiti caused by young people	Young people being drunk in public	Young people using drugs in public	Young people behaving in a threatening way
	%	%	%	%	%
A great deal	3	2	3	1	2
Quite a lot	13	9	14	5	6
Not very much	41	29	31	21	25
Not at all	43	60	52	73	67
(Don't know)	0	*	0	*	0
Sample size	1594	1594	1594	1594	1594

3.12 That is not to say that there is no association between perceptions of the prevalence of specific problems and being directly affected by them - indeed the two are very strongly correlated - but, on all five measures, the proportion of respondents saying they had been directly affected 'quite a lot' or 'a great deal' was markedly smaller than that saying the problem was 'very common' in their area.

Figure 7 - Perceived prevalence versus direct effects of youth crime-related problems (%)

Sample size: 1594

3.13 When the various items are scaled, and respondents are assigned to tertiles according to their responses across the five measures, a handful of significant and independent associations emerge from a logistic regression. It is notable, for example, that those living in remote and rural communities are less likely than those in urban areas and, especially, accessible small towns to fall into the 'most directly affected' category. ³ It is also striking that the proportion of older people falling into the 'least directly affected' group is higher than for other age groups, although this may reflect the fact that they are less likely to use public spaces, especially after dark, perhaps even as a result of crime-related anxiety. ⁴ Less surprising, perhaps, is the finding that those who hold the least positive attitudes towards young people in general are more likely to report having been directly affected by youth crime.

Table 10 - Extent to which 'directly affected' by local youth crime problems by key variables (row percentages)

	Most directly affected	Intermediate	Least directly affected	Sample size
	%	%	%
All	34	33	33	1594
Urban-rural classification
Large urban	39	36	26	508
Other urban	35	35	31	375
Accessible small towns	43	28	30	187
Remote small towns	14	43	43	113
Accessible rural	27	28	45	219
Remote rural	12	25	63	192
General attitudes towards young people
Most positive	22	36	42	531
Least positive	48	29	24	517
Perceptions of youth crime problems
Most common	68	23	10	459
Least common	2	32	66	486
Age group
18-24	39	35	27	108
25-34	40	39	21	222
35-44	35	32	33	325
45-54	37	35	29	270
55-64	34	30	36	270
65+	22	29	49	396

Key points

• General attitudes towards young people appear largely unchanged since 2004 and remain characterised by a tension between sympathy for and concern about 'young people today'.
• Key predictors of a more positive attitude towards young people included higher levels of educational attainment, living in a less deprived area and having at least some contact with young people aged 16 to 24.
• Intriguingly, the most negative attitudes towards 'young people today' were expressed by the youngest age group covered by the survey - those who were themselves aged 18-24 at time of interview. Those aged 55 and over, by contrast, tended to hold much more positive views.
• Between a fifth and a half of those interviewed thought that the five youth crime-related problems asked about were either very or fairly common in their own neighbourhood, but there was wide variation in overall perceptions of prevalence across sub-groups.
• One of the most powerful predictors of seeing youth crime problems as common was area deprivation. Other variables independently associated with perceiving youth crime as common included lack of contact with 16 to 24 year-olds in the neighbourhood, living in social rented housing, being directly affected by youth crime and having less positive views of young people in general.
• A measure of the extent to which individuals have been directly affected by the various types of youth crime-related behaviour suggests a slightly less dramatic picture of the 'problem of youth crime'. Although clearly related to perceived prevalence, for each type of behaviour, the proportion indicating they had been affected a 'great deal' or 'quite a lot' was very much lower than those saying the problem was 'very' or 'fairly common' in their area.