During the past decades, an increase in victimisation studies can be observed. Research predominantly reveals that not all segments of population share the same risk of becoming a victim. The risk of becoming a victim differs by background characteristics, such as gender, ethnic background, status and age (Hindelang et al., 1978; Garofalo, Siegel & Laub, 1987; Davies et al., 2003; van Noije & Wittebrood, 2007; Walklate, 2007a). Although studies have been fostering, there is surprisingly little known about the causes of individual level variation in the risk of becoming a victim. Victimisation seems to vary by background variables that are also related to self-reported offending
(Pauwels & Pleysier, 2008). What is known about the prevalence of victimisation among minors, is mostly derived from studies in which the extent of victimisation is only a restricted part (for example Smith et al., 2001; MORI, 2004; Armstrong et al., 2005; Vettenburg et al., 2007). Surveys on victimisation among young adolescents reflect surveys which measure victimisation among adults (for example Aye Maung, 1995; Wood, 2005). In contrast to e.g. the Netherlands, where there has been some independent studies on the prevalence of victimisation of adolescents at school (Mooij, 1994 & 2001; Debarbieux & Blaya, 2001; Lawrence, 2007), in Belgium, levels of victimisation are not studied as extensively. However, also in Belgium we have a partial picture of victimisation levels of adolescents: the federal victim survey, which is known as the ‘Security Monitor’, draws a picture of personal and household victimisation among Belgian citizens aged 15 years or older2. Besides that, the ‘Jop-monitor’ gives an idea of victimisation among 14-25 year olds3. Nevertheless, information on levels of victimisation among young adolescents (aged 12-13 years old) is seriously lacking. Based on data drawn from a school survey in Sint-Niklaas among 1554 pupils of the first grade of the secondary compulsory educational system in Belgium, this study aims at partially filling this gap. As the school context is very important for adolescents from a contextual perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), this study emphasises personal victimisation at school. As victimisation surveys and self reports are helpful in learning about the experiences of students in and around schools (Gottfredson, 2001), we
present bivariate contingency tables and describe levels of victimisation at school by levels of self-reported offending and further analyse these bivariate relationships by using three-way tables, i.e. by studying these bivariate relationships by different categories of lifestyles. In the explanatory part of this contribution, the applicability of an integrated self-control/lifestyle-exposure model of victimisation is carefully assessed. Often, it has been assumed that there exists an overlap between victimisation and offending, and that theories of victimisation therefore partially “mirror” or reflect theories of offending. The extent in which this really is the case, is assessed in the explanatory part of this study. We try to achieve this goal by answering the following research questions: 1) How strong are the effects of concepts derived from theories of victimisation and offending, such as exposure to offending at school, propensity to offend and lifestyle risk, on victimisation and offending? 2) How strong is the bivariate and partial correlation between victimisation and offending? 3) How strong is the independent effect of offending on victimisation and the independent effect of victimisation on offending, controlling for exposure to offending at school, propensity to offend and lifestyle risk? By answering these questions the results contribute to knowledge on victimisation and offending of young adolescents and the empirical assessment of theories of victimisation as a mirror of theories of offending. Theories
on lifestyle (Hindelang, Gottfredson & Garofalo, 1978) and routine activity (Cohen & Felson, 1979) were originally developed to explain victimisation. In short, in this study we question to what extent such theories can really explain individual differences in victimisation of young adolescents in a similar way as they can explain individual differences in offending while further fuelling the discussion on the study of association between victimisation and offending.