How are victimization and delinquency related?

Warning View the most recent version.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.

In Model 3, we added five variables to the demographic model measuring youth victimization. The different forms of victimization included discrimination (i.e., being treated badly because of religion, language or skin colour), bullying (i.e., being humiliated, hit or kicked, or excluded from a group) and being hit, stolen from and threatened.

The results show that certain types of victimization were associated with delinquency while others were not. The odds of reporting involvement in property delinquency more than doubled for youth who had been stolen from or threatened to give up property in the last year (Table 1). In contrast, there was no evidence that being hit, bullied or discriminated against significantly influenced the chances of youth reporting involvement in property delinquency.

The odds of reporting involvement in violent delinquency were over two and one-half times higher for youth who had been threatened to give up their property, and over two times higher for those who had been hit and for those who had been stolen from (Table 2). Being discriminated against was also associated with greater chances of youth reporting involvement in violent delinquency. Notably, being bullied at school was the only type of victimization that did not have a significant association with committing violent delinquency as reported by youth.

Adding the five victimization variables modestly reduced the effects of sex and age on both types of delinquency, while having no effect or slightly decreasing the odds ratio for family composition. On the other hand, controlling for victimization strengthened the relationship between immigrant status and property delinquency. In particular, the compensatory effect of being a recent immigrant (i.e., arriving after the age of 5 years) increased in the property (13%) delinquency model after controlling for victimization, and became a significant compensatory effect in the violent delinquency model. Thus, given similar levels of victimization, recent immigrant youth were less likely than native-born youth to report property and violent delinquency. In addition, being a second generation immigrant became a significant compensatory effect in the property-related delinquency model. Thus, given similar levels of victimization to native-born youth, second generation youth were less likely to report property delinquency.

Text box 2

Who is more likely to report victimization?

Results from the IYS showed that the most commonly reported form of victimization for Toronto youth was theft (27%)1. Another sizable proportion of youth (21%) reported that they had been bullied in the last year, while a small proportion of youth reported other forms of victimization: 5% of youth reported that they had been threatened, while 3% reported that they had been hit or hurt so much that they needed to see a doctor.

Are there youth who are more at risk of being victimized? In Table 3, the associations between the two most commonly reported forms of victimization (theft and bullying) and the demographic, school-related and peer and family variables are reported.

Table 3 Adjusted odds ratios for self-reported victimization in the previous year among youth by demographic, school, peer and family characteristics, 2006.

Table 3
Adjusted odds ratios for self-reported victimization in the previous year among youth by demographic, school, peer and family characteristics, 2006

Notably, these factors do not explain a large amount of the variation in reporting bullying (R-squared = 3%). Age was associated with a lower likelihood of being bullied, with younger youth more likely than older youth to report that they had been bullied, and youth who perceived their school as an unsafe place more likely to report having been bullied or stolen from in the last year.

Younger youth were also more likely than older youth to report having been the victim of theft. There were more risk factors for this type of victimization. Second generation and recent immigrant youth, youth who reported skipping school and going out at night without their parents and youth with delinquent peers were more likely than other youth to report having been the victim of theft in the last year. Youth who reported a positive relationship with their mother were less likely to report this type of victimization.

Who reports discrimination?

In the IYS, youth reported whether or not they had ever been discriminated against because of their religion, race or spoken language. One-third (34%) of youth reported that they had been discriminated against at least once in their lifetime. Associations between this form of victimization and the demographic, school, and peer and family variables are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Adjusted odds ratios for self-reported lifetime discrimination among youth by demographic, school, peer and family characteristics, 2006.

Table 4
Adjusted odds ratios for self-reported lifetime discrimination among youth by demographic, school, peer and family characteristics, 2006

All three generational status groups (i.e., second generation youth, earlier and recent immigrant youth) were more likely than native-born youth to report discrimination. Furthermore, the odds ratio for a recent immigrant youth was higher than that for both earlier immigrant and second generation youth – meaning that recent immigrant youth were more likely than the two other groups to report discrimination.

There was also an association between school attitudes and discrimination: Youth who felt more negatively about school and youth who perceived their school as unsafe were more likely to report discrimination. As well, youth who reported going out at night without their parents were more likely to report discrimination, while youth who reported a positive relationship with their father were less likely to report discrimination.

Note

  1. Discrimination is not included in this figure as it is reported over the lifetime, as opposed to within the last year. As well, figures are slightly different from those reported in Savoie (2007) because the current sample is slightly different (i.e., it excludes cases that are missing the variables of interest).