The success of the civilization offensive: societal adaptation of reformed boys in the early twentieth century in the Netherlands.
|Abstract:||Societal adaptation after reform school was studied for almost 200 men born around 1900 in the Netherlands. The men came mostly from disadvantaged backgrounds: parents were ill-equipped to raise them, alcoholics, criminal or extremely poor. The men held significantly higher occupations than their father, and outperformed general upward social mobility. Their marriage chances were approximately normative; divorce chances were much increased. Almost half were delinquent and one in six was either a chronic or a serious criminal. Marriage and employment patterns were associated and were associated with childhood risk factors as well. Delinquency was predicted only by having a convicted father. We conclude that the civilization offensive was partly successful in that it mainly equipped these men for better than expected employment careers.|
Social sciences and history
van Poppel, Frans
|Publication:||Name: Journal of Social History Publisher: Journal of Social History Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: History; Sociology and social work Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2011 Journal of Social History ISSN: 0022-4529|
|Issue:||Date: Summer, 2011 Source Volume: 44 Source Issue: 4|
|Product:||Product Code: E121920 Children|
|Geographic:||Geographic Scope: Netherlands Geographic Code: 4EUNE Netherlands|
The reform of criminals and potential digressors has been the object of politicians' and policy makers' concern for over a century. Interventions and preventative efforts to achieve this, are these days scrutinized by committees of learned men and women for their 'evidence-based' effectiveness. This article will attempt to analyse the effectiveness of one such early intervention effort in the Netherlands, where from the start of the 20th century onwards children were re-educated in steeply increasing numbers with the aim of preventing them from falling prey to lives of crime and vice.
About a century ago, around 1900, civilians and politicians in numerous European countries noted that crime had increased and had become one of the most pressing societal problems. While current debates on crime and crime control stress the protection of victims from crime and criminals, risk assessment and exclusion of potential norm violators, around 1900 the policy focus was diametrically different. Then, crime control policy had become focused on spiritual and moral re-education and on the reshaping of potential misfits, particularly children, into productive citizens. Instead of the shielding of society from the dangers of crime, crime was to be controlled through inclusion of (potentially) dangerous citizens into society, a civilisation offensive.
From the mid 19th century onwards, many social organizations had attempted to improve the lot of prisoners and criminals. For the Netherlands, the country in which the study that we will report on took place, these were primarily the 'Genootschap tot Zedelijke Verbetering der Gevangenen' [Society for the Moral Betterment of Prisoners] and the 'Maatschappij tot Nut van 't Algemeen' [Society for the General Good]. Established in the first half of the 19th century, in which poverty was bitter and widely prevalent, these societies aimed at the poor and the misfortunate, out of philantropical interest on the one hand and fear of the threat that emanated from the lower echelons of society on the other hand. These movements were dominated by well-intending citizens from the nobility and patricians--mainly from the Protestant part of the nation. After Catholics had been granted the same political and religious rights as Protestants in 1848, also Catholic foundations established themselves in this area of care. From the mid 19th century the number of care-homes for juveniles grew strongly. Until that time, much of the care that was provided for children outside of their family home, had been for orphans. But now, such homes were increasingly set up for children who still had both parents.
The number of vulnerable children decreased considerably from the last decades of the 19th century. After mortality declined significantly in the second part of the 19th century, the economic climate improved strongly by the end of that century as well, and structural unemployment became much lower. After the general compulsory education law in 1901, only 5% of children did not attend school anymore. This means that those who remained on the fringes of society, the poor, the begging and stealing children, became also more marked and as a consequence the focus of more singular attention. These children were increasingly seen as contributing to general criminality in society. And it was now generally perceived as useless to lock up young norm violators for one or two days in a police cell, as had until then been customary.
Concurrent with these changing perceptions, numerous studies were being published on pressing social issues such as care for the poor, crime, unemployment and the prison system. Most of these, written by liberal advocates, concluded that the state should guarantee education for all, and should re-educate rather than punish those who transgressed its norms. The central idea had become that through better education crime could be prevented. Regarding criminal children, the conclusion was that protection should be called for. Protection, firstly, of society against criminality and disorder generated by these children. Protection, secondly, of the children against their immoral, irresponsible parents who neglected their children, as well as against the consequences of their own immoral deeds. The solution was found in residential re-education of these children so that they could become "useful forces of society." (1)
In the Netherlands, the so-called 'Kinderwetten' [Child laws] gave the legal basis for this residential re-education. The criminal part of the Child laws determined that criminal children would receive a combination of punishment and reeducation. The civil part of the laws made it possible to remove parental custody from the parents, or relieve parents from parental custodianship at their request, as a child protection measure. In that case a guardian organization would become the legal guardian. A third part of the Child laws contained the basic rules for re-education. If the child had committed an offence, it could be placed for reeducation by the state. Children could also be placed by guardian organizations. Parents could also voluntarily place their children for re-education.
Against this background, residential re-education grew at amazing speed in the Netherlands in the beginning of the 20th century. Re-education within the confines of a regular family was the preferred choice. (2) For those for whom that was not an option, an institution was the second resort. When the Child Laws came into force, a number of RijksOpvoedingsgestichten (State Re-education Facilities - in Alkmaar, Avereest, Doetinchem, Leiden and for girls in Montfoort) were operational as well as about 10 smaller existing private facilities. In 1912 almost 8,000 children were being re-educated. By 1915, a total of 106 re-education facilities was operational, that housed 12,000 children. With the total population aged 10-18 (as an approximation of the ages at which children were most often admitted to institutions) in 1915 equalling 1,236,517, this means that roughly one in 100 children spent part of their childhood institutionalized. The total institutional capacity had grown, from 1850 to the start of WW I, by 60% - the growth attributable for a large part to a growth in Catholic facilities. (3) Private facilities were eligible for state subsidy; many confessional ones additionally had support from wealthy church members, and from fund raising activities.
Within this revival, schooling and formal vocational training assumed an important place. However, with the growth of initiatives for re-education by the Protestant as well as increasingly the Catholic part of the nation, religious education grew in importance as well. Quite soon, many of these endeavours became scientifically grounded, leading Gunning to write of the growth of a secular as well as a confessional pedagogy. (4)
Numerous studies have shown that this changing manner in which juvenile delinquency was managed--alongside which not only dangerous children but also children in danger were reformed--was not something uniquely Dutch. Similar reform movements took place in, a.o., Belgium, England, Germany, Spain and Canada. The manner in which this was bureaucratically achieved, the philosophy and scientific bearings of the new approach, the background of the reform subjects as well as the conditions in reform institutions have received ample attention in the academic literature. (5) However, the extent to which these reforms were successful in meeting their aims--i.e. reforming children to become useful forces of society--has hardly been adressed in the international literature. We were able to trace only one article that described the societal adaptation of re-educated girls in Norway. (6) This is remarkable, as many more boys were re-educated than girls. As girls were supposed to (and did) re-integrate very differently into society, the Norway study has little bearing on our study that focuses on men. Some studies on the Netherlands could be traced, that we will describe below.
Previous Studies on the Efficacy of Residential Re-education in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands, increasing numbers of boys and girls at danger of straying or having already strayed were re-educated along the new optimistic lines. Klootse-ma, who was the director of the Rijksopvoedingsgesticht in Alkmaar, recommended in his study 'Misdeelde kinderen' [Unfortunate children] that statistics should be kept of the number of re-educated youngsters who remained employed in the profession for which they had been trained. (7) He stressed that such a study should span several years, as complications usually arose after age 23 when resilience must be shown against developments such as marriage, pay and service issues.
This does not imply that the institutions did not attempt to keep track of their former pupils. From the 19th century onwards, the Rijksopvoedingsgesticht in Alkmaar had registered the farings of its former pupils. For those discharged from Alkmaar between 1883 and 1887, 61% (of about 100 boys) were employed immediately upon discharge, of which 35% in a profession matching that of the re-education, 43% non matching; 22% was unknown. For about half of the boys, it was reported that their behaviour was 'good'. Also about half were able to make a living for themselves. (8) However, the manner in which these data were collected prompted Van der Aa to state that these measurements could not be assumed to be objective: a category 'unfavourable' did not even exist for the registration of the ex-pupil's behaviour. A very 'soft' inspection was probably what was aimed at. (9) In addition, statistics were kept for only a small number of years.
For Mettray, a Protestant agricultural colony close to Zutphen modeled on a French example, half of the boys on whom data were available, behaved 'well' after discharge. (10) However, also these statistics painted a fairly rosy picture: former pupils generally found a position in their profession immediately upon discharge but the data did not stretch much longer, and reported only on the probably select part of former pupils that the staff was able to stay in contact with.
De Vries Feyens investigated the societal re-integration of 109 boys who had left the Leiden Rijksopvoedingsgesticht between 1910 and 1912; the period over which these boys were followed was 5 years. There were data on 96 boys; 25 did not fare well, in most of such cases these boys had been convicted. Less than a third remained in the profession they had been taught." The fact that so few stuck to the profession they had been educated for was explained by Dekker (12) who reports that education for an agricultural occupation had become increasingly unpopular at Mettray: the pupils did not like the work and it would provide only a meagre living as a farm-hand. The same goes for the agricultural colony the Heibloem, a private institution run by the Catholic congregation Onze Lieve Vrouw van Zeven Smarten [Our Lady of Seven Sorrows]: most boys came from the larger cities, did not fancy the hard labour in the fields, while at the same time agricultural labour was becoming increasingly mechanized. After 1890, a craft offered much more attractive career prospects. In 1919 the Heibloem was officially designated a technical school.
The head of the department of legal and pauper care statistics of the Central Bureau of Statistics investigated new convictions in a cohort of re-educated children who had turned 21 between 1 January 1913 and 1 January 1919. (13) A total of 1,363 men and 210 women had been placed for re-education by the state; 52% of the men had not been convicted after discharge, against 84% of the women. Of 1,405 men and 1,769 women who had been referred by guardian organizations, 80% of the men and 95% of the women had stayed clear of the criminal justice authorities. The author firstly noted that these results were less favourable than findings from previous studies; next, he stressed that further research into the occupation, living standards and career of these ex-pupils was important as well.
Kruyswijk-Hamburger investigated, for a memorial publication of the Netherlands Society for the Protection of Children, the whereabouts of almost 5,000 re-educated children. She noted that--although data could be obtained for less than half of cases - 64% did well. (14)
The (Protestant) society 'Zoekt het verlorene!' ['Seeketh the lost!'] published a study in 1951 on the societal success of 178 male ex-pupils who had been re-educated in one particular home in Rotterdam. (15) Of the men 25 years or older, a little over half were married, one in five either insane or deceased, and the others--apart from those on which no information could be found--unmarried. At age 30, a little over 60% were married or cohabiting--the latter a rare and definitely not accepted mode of living in those days. Societal success was assessed as well although it is not clear what was meant by that. The ex-pupil's behaviour had to be 'good', which appears to imply staying away from crime, having adapted to the mores of society and being able to make a living. (16) Also, marital relations had to be 'good'. All in all a fairly stringent measure, to which approximately two thirds complied.
Den Otter investigated a group of children in Rotterdam whose guardian measure had ended between 1948 and 1955; the children had been born between 1928 and 1934. Over 300 could be traced; a number could not be found or did so badly that they could not be interviewed. Again, the group on which data was available is in all likelihood a group that fared relatively better than the total cohort. As these are all children who had been re-educated within the confines of a foster family, one may expect that they had fewer behavioural problems to start with and would thus also do better later in life. The study showed that these children were social climbers: 40% had improved upon the profession of the father, almost a third had remained at the same level, and another third had moved down. At age 26, approximately 30% had committed an offence (some of which were misdemeanours); a little over half of the men were married. (17)
All in all, we conclude that there has been only incidental research into the social re-integration of children re-educated since the end of the 19th century. This is remarkable, as there was such a surge in the numbers that were committed to institutions, and as such high hopes were attached to the effect that could be expected from the new pedagogical approach. In addition, those studies that were conducted offer very little insight into the societal re-adaptation of these young men and women. Most studies suffer from selection bias: apart from the study by Suermondt, no efforts were made to systematically search for the whereabouts, doings and well-being of former pupils. Also, there may have been a bias in the sense that often those involved in the actual re-education conducted the studies. Lastly, most studies investigated the lives of the former pupils over a fairly short period only, and none investigated the entire life course. The studies did show that definitely not all men and women re-integrated to become model or normative citizens. As measures had been obtained with more objective methods, and as the time-span over which the lives were examined increased, the findings were less positive.
For a cohort of men placed in residential care between 1911 and 1915 we will investigate later societal re-integration and success. We will investigate this by looking at marriage, delinquency and employment. Thus, for the total group, we will investigate how many of them married and at what ages, and to what extent this was normative for men of their ages in the Netherlands in that period. Secondly, we will investigate delinquency. We will assess how many men were (ever) convicted, how often, for what offences. Also, we will investigate how many of them were ever incarcerated. Thirdly, we will investigate the occupations these men had. We will classify these into occupational levels, and will compare the men's occupational level with that of their fathers. We will also assess whether their social mobility was comparable to average social mobility in that period in the Netherlands. For each of these three domains, employment, delinquency and marriage, we will inspect whether any childhood risk factors predict negative outcomes. Lastly, we will investigate interrelations between these three domains, for instance whether married men had a smaller likelihood to commit offences, or whether unemployed men had smaller likelihood to marry.
Sample. Our sample consist of 198 men who had been placed in their youth at the reform school 'Harreveld' in the east of the Netherlands, in a little village of the same name. Harreveld was one of several institutions run by the Catholic congregation 'Our Lady of Seven Sorrows', a congregation established in the middle of the 19th century that had as its overarching aim the betterment of the underprivileged part of Catholic citizens in the Netherlands. The congregation ran several houses in larger cities in the Netherlands as well as institutions in the countryside. The philosophy of the congregation here was that through schooling, vocational training and (religious) education, the endangered lives of troubled youth that were placed under the congregation's care could be bent in the right direction. The aims of the congregation in the re-education of such youth were threefold: to ensure that all youth would be able as adults to lead productive lives as law abiding citizens and to start a family.
Boys could be placed in Harreveld by the parents (a so-called voluntary placement), at the referral of a guardian organization (a civil law placement), or by the state (a criminal law placement). While the legal paths of these various placements were fundamentally different, the background of these youths did not vary a lot in practice, as parents and guardian organizations sometimes opted for a criminal law placement when parents could not afford the fees associated with a non-criminal law placement.
The 198 men were selected as they were the first men placed at the institution for whom in the archives not only demographic information was present, but also information on their behavioural problems and family circumstances. The congregation's archives listed only for the first 198 whether their fathers were drunkards, their mothers dead or prostitutes, etc., as well as any behavioural problems of the juvenile himself. This information was not systematic. We can therefore only assume that the most prominent issues were listed. The 198 men were placed in the Harreveld reform school because of concern about their character and behaviour (including some petty delinquency) or because their parents were unable to take proper care of them according to guardian organizations. Given the fact that they were placed outside of their family home for re-education in combination with their behavioural problems, this group of boys constitutes what in current criminological literature is phrased a high-risk group.
All men were traced in various historical archives in the Netherlands. They had been born in areas all over the country; relatively more came from Rotterdam as one guardian organization from Rotterdam had been quite active in referring boys to the Harreveld reform school. All men could be traced, a retrieval rate of 100%. On average, the men had been born in 1899. All have died.
As we are interested not only in the men, but also in their background and in whether they were able to start a family, and in explaining any patterns we find, we traced the (step-)fathers and mothers of all men--all in all 367 persons--these we call 'generation 1' or G1, and gathered information on them too. The 198 males are now generation 2, or G2. The G2 married a total of 207 partners, and had a total of 621 descendants, these are the G3. Sample members who emigrated (mostly to Belgium, Germany, Canada, Australia and the USA) were considered lost to follow-up. Our total sample thus consists of 367 + 198 + 207 + 621 = 1,393 persons.
Permission for the study was obtained from the legal successor of the Harreveld institution, the Frentrop foundation, as well the Netherlands Minister of Justice.
Variables. Demographic information was traced in Dutch municipal and administrative records. For all men, we first searched Genlias, an internet application that contains information from the vital registration system (birth, death and marriage records) from many municipal archives. Next we searched municipal archives from larger towns not covered by Genlias, such as Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Eindhoven, as well as a number of smaller archives. After thus identifying the exact names of all boys (there were some misspellings in the Harreveld archives), we traced for all boys their gezinskaarten ('family cards') a family-based registration system operational from the first decades of the 20th century until just before WW II. In this system all family members residing at one address were registered on one card. This gave us the family composition, and information on other family members, such as the professions of the various family members. In some cases, we could also see that fathers or brothers had been temporarily removed from the gezinskaart when they were sent to prison. The gezinskaarten thus gave us information on the G1 and G2.
One boy had died while at Harreveld. For the remaining 197 boys we screened their persoonskaart (personal card). Personal cards were introduced just before WW 11 and constituted a shift from the family-based registration to an individualized person-based system. Personal cards, which are available only for deceased individuals, give the name and occupation of the person, religion, his father and mother, spouse, date of marriage and divorce, and (step)children. Children were normally registered on the personal card of the father only; in case his spouse became head of the family they were transferred to the wife's personal card. For complete coverage we therefore also screened the personal cards of all 207 spouses: this generated an additional 10% children.
In this manner, 165 men could be traced into adulthood. The missing 32 had either died before 1939, or had emigrated. Screening the central emigration archives (Bureau Vestigingsregister) revealed that 8 men had emigrated. For 23 men all their consecutive registrations of residence through municipalities in the Netherlands were traced so that we found at the last abode his date of death. For one person we assumed that he had died in the hospital in Arnhem as he had been moved there while at Harreveld because of lung disease, which was often fatal in those days.
Information on the professions of the 196 men who had not died early was next supplemented by screening the non-medical part of the Ministry of Defence DARIC archives: from birth year 1930 onwards, all men in the Netherlands were screened for military service, that contained a 'family interview' too in which the father's profession was listed. The screening records of any sons of the 196 men also contain information on the profession of the G2. Permission was obtained from the Netherlands Ministry of Defense for this part of the data collection.
Next, in order to investigate delinquency, we searched for each sample member from Generation 1 and 2 born before 1916 court archives, police archives ('Algemeen Politieblad', that covers the Netherlands entirely from 1852 - 1940), a main prison archive as well as beggars' colonies for records of delinquency. For G2, we excluded delinquency for which the juvenile had been placed in the Harreveld reform school. We covered the years 1852-1940 for G1 and G2. We used prevailing definitions of the period under investigation to define acts as delinquent (for instance, brotheling used to constitute an offence in the Netherlands, but does not do so anymore). We were not able to search all archives nor had all archives been conserved. We were however able to search all main jurisdictions and their court and prosecution archives that contained the big cities to which most respondents moved after leaving the reform school as well as the jurisdictions from which sample members originated.
For G1 as well as G2, we counted only those offence registrations that resulted in a conviction. This means that acquittals and so-called 'technical dismissals' (i.e. dismissals of the case by the public prosecutor because there is insufficient evidence and the case is expected to result in acquittal) were not counted. Cases that were never dispositioned or that resulted in a policy dismissal (i.e. a dismissal of the case because the prosecutor deems it not feasible to prosecute, for instance because the perpetrator has already paid damages) were included by us in the manner in which they had been registered by the judicial authorities. If no prosecution had been started, we count the offence in as the police had registered it. Following these rules, we therefore always classify offences in the manner in which the last criminal justice institution that dealt with the case classified it.
We time delinquency to the date the offence was committed. If no date was known, we estimated it as date of conviction minus the average duration of disposition, set at one year. If no disposition date was known we estimated it at 1 July of the year of registration.
For G1 and G2 we are bound to have missed some delinquency, although it is probably not much given that we blanketed the most important jurisdictions and periods of the life-course. All in all, given also that we study convictions and not self-reported delinquency, our delinquency measures constitute the lower limit of the sample's actual delinquent behaviour.
Analytic strategy. For analysis of our results, we use simple frequency counts, as well as crosstabulations. To investigate intergenerational mobility, we calculate the upward mobility index, as well as structural and circular mobility. We use nonparametric tests to test for differences. We use odds ratios to evaluate the association between delinquency, risk factors and family formation and employment.
The 198 adolescent men had different backgrounds, with different problems. Boys had been placed in the reform school for their own problematic behaviour, such as stealing, fighting, "reading too many romantic novels," roaming the streets, running away from home. Some were placed because their parents did not take good care of them: parents either did not feed them, the parents were alcoholics (often the father), the parents were delinquent, sent the children out to beg, mother had "married a Protestant" (which was regarded as a sign of neglect of the Catholic faith and imminent derailing), the parents ran a brothel in which case the mother was often a prostitute, or the parents ran an inn, synonymous for many those days with dealing in stolen goods. Often accumulations of such problems were listed in the archival records.
Almost one in three boys had lost one or both parents. Eight percent of the boys had divorced parents. Even though this figure refers to children and not to marriages, it does appear substantially higher than the divorce rate in the Dutch population in those years: around the time that the parents of the 198 Harreveld men married, 2 to 3% of all marriages ended in divorce. (18) Seven boys had an unmarried mother, this is slightly higher (3.5%) than the rate for the corresponding birth cohort (2.5% of all live births) (19). More than a third therefore grew up in an incomplete family; this is about twice as high as the rate in the birth cohort, where 83% grew up with both biological parents. (20)
Poverty was hardly ever mentioned in the archival record of the boys. Probably this must be understood to mean that all families were characterized by poverty, and that only extreme poverty was so remarkable as to warrant special recording. For one in four boys, the archive said that the boys' parents had low social and /or moral status. More than one in five boys had at least one delinquent parent, mostly the father. One mother was a chronic public drunkard, one mother an abortionist (for which she had been imprisoned). A number of mothers dealt in stolen goods, sometimes their sons stole the goods for them.
In the early 20th century, scholars also recognized risk factors for delinquency and social maladaptation. The most prominent of such factors were alcohol abuse by the parents, neglect, no school attendance, and insufficient religious education. (21) While these were not labeled risk factors, they are often of striking resemblance to risk factors identified in current criminological research. (22) See Table 1 for a list of risk factors that we extracted from the Harreveld archives.
Looking at combinations of risk factors, we can distinguish a number of different risk profiles. Firstly there were the boys with behavioural problems only, and whose parents seemed decent and well-willing but incapable of turning the unruly lad's behaviour for the good. On the other hand there were parents simply not educating their children at all: these parents would not correct their children's behaviour, let them run loose if they wanted, and generally gave them too much freedom according to the archival remarks (these days referred to as pedagogical neglect). Thirdly we saw a group of probably bitterly poor parents, who neglected their children, probably lived on the streets themselves with or without their children and were hardly ever at home. Fourthly there were families where crime was endemic: fathers, brothers, uncles were delinquent, spent periods in prison. A last category is formed by families in which the mother had died, and where the father was unable to raise the children. These children were sometimes turned out on the street to beg, were not fed. These profiles are fuzzy and not sharply demarcated.
Six boys were placed at Harreveld voluntarily, that is: by the parents. Forty-one percent were referred by a guardian association, orphanage, or an association for the poor. Most boys (56%) were placed under a criminal law title, in which case they had committed an offence. One boy had been convicted of stealing a cat with a co-offender, and then selling it. One had stolen a harmonica. The channel through which boys were placed at Harreveld is not a good indicator of the youth's problems: a placement under criminal law implied that the government paid for the boy's stay. It is reported that in cases where the parents were too poor or would refuse to pay, boys were asked to say whether they had ever stolen something, in which case the financial issues were in a sense solved. (23)
No dossiers have survived of the 198 boys. The information we have on their stay thus derives from the general reports of routine inspections by the Dutch government as well as from the archive of the Congregation Our Lady of Seven Sorrows that holds minutes of meetings, yearly reports, and the like.
The pedagogical principles as officially employed at Harreveld appear pretty much in line with prevailing principles at the beginning of the 20th century in the Netherlands. (24) Disciplinary and pedagogical sanctions were distinguished, where the latter was the default intervention and disciplinary sanctions were to be used only when necessary. The yearly reports state that punishments were meted out with restraint, and could only be handed down after consulting the Superior of the institution. (25) From the yearly reports it can be deduced that from 1911 to 1920 a total of 585 days were spent by boys (in this period 395 boys had lived at Harreveld) in confinement in the 'Police chamber' (the severest punishment). This seems indeed like a low incidence (with an average stay of almost 5 years amounting to 7 hours per boy per year).
Inspection reports (26) note that boys were not punished for bedwetting or masturbation, which was an unusually mild policy for that era. While in the 1912 inspection the infrastructure was judged as primitive, the pedagogical climate and general organization were considered so much up to standard that for 10 years no further inspection visits were deemed necessary.
These comforting reports stand somewhat in contrast with reminisces from a small number of children and relatives of the 198 men; these mention 'endless praying', a harsh pedagogical climate and severe punishments. (27) With due caution therefore regarding the actual treatment by the Harreveld brothers the boys received, we can conclude that the pedagogical vision at Harreveld was for those days if not enlightened at least modem, and in principle mild.
Parents were allowed to visit twice a year. All boys were enrolled in school. They received regular education until 12 years of age, which was in those years the age up to which all children had to be enrolled in school. After that age they all received vocational training. They could choose from the following professions: farmer, carpenter, shoe-maker, tailor, housepainter, electrician, baker, smith and brick worker. In principle, all boys left Harreveld with a completed professional education, and an accredited diploma. Religious education assumed an important role, as it was regarded as an important protective factor against later societal maladjustment. (28)
On average, the boys were 13 years and 2 months old when they were placed at Harreveld. On average they stayed 4 years and 8 months, with a range of 2 days to 10 years. This is a fairly common length of stay at reform schools in those days in the Netherlands. (29) Afterwards, some boys returned to their parents. Many were however placed with a so-called 'patron': an employer where the now young men worked in a semi-sheltered environment. While in the employment of the patron, the institution regularly checked up on the re-integration of its former pupil. Some, however, fled Harreveld, often to be returned there in due time. Some were regarded incorrigible and left Harreveld to be sent on to the more 'penitentiary' type of re-education facility, the 'RijksOpvoedingsgesticht'.
Re-integration and Societal Success
As reported above, the men had been born on average in 1899, with a range from late 1894 to early 1906. Eight emigrated, so that we do not know their date of death. Of the remaining 190, 9 died young, before age 21. Figure 1 gives the distribution of the year of death. The figure shows a sudden peak in mortality between 1916-1920, the period when the Spanish flu took many victims, also in the Netherlands. Before and after WW II mortality appears increased as well. One man was probably murdered in 1943 by the Nazi occupiers at camp Vught, he was spastic and mentally retarded.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The average age of death is 63 years; one man died at 98 years of age. The 190 men died younger than their birth cohort: the average age of death for men who reached 13 years of age (the average age when the men had been placed at Harreveld) was 70 years of age. (30) Given their lower class background, this is to be expected, although there are no data on class-specific mortality to gauge this against.
Delinquency. In determining whether our 198 ever offended, we do not count delinquency committed during their childhood years as we are interested in any delinquency after discharge from the reform school. Ten men died too young for us to be able to trace them in the archives. A total of 86 men, or 46%, was ever registered for an offence. This 46% is in all likelihood an underestimate, although we suppose that to be small as we examined virtually all searchable sources that have almost complete coverage over the Netherlands for the relevant years. Obviously, we are measuring only those offences that were discovered and registered by the criminal justice authorities. Almost certainly, the 46% is an underestimate of the true extent of offending.
Of these 86 men, 56 were detained at least once in life; over the entire sample this amounts to a lifetime incarceration chance of 30%. There is no statistical data to gauge this against, but it appears high. From our records we see that for begging or vagabondry one could easily be dispatched for 1 or 2 years to 'Norg', a detention-like beggars' colony in the north east of the Netherlands where such societal drop outs lived banished in very sober facilities and tilled the land. Of the 56 men who were ever detained, 46 had at least one sentence of 3 months or longer. For stealing a chicken, one man was sentenced to 1 month, another was sentenced to 6 months for stealing 150 eggs together with his brother. For hitting his wife with an irod rod, one man was sentenced to 10 days imprisonment. Theft carried particularly heavy sentences.
About half of all offences were minor: traffic offences, begging and the like. Only 4% of all criminal acts were violent offences. About two thirds of the delinquent men committed at least one serious offence; about half committed offences frequently. Combining these, we find that about a third of all men (60 of the 188 men) were either frequent or serious offenders; one sixth were incidental offenders.
Employment. A total of 6 men were never employed, some because they were handicapped or chronically hospitalized. Eight men had according to their personal card been unemployed for a certain period. Thirty men had been incarcerated for more than 6 months; this means that during that period they were also unemployed. We conclude that a little over 80% of the Harreveld men did not witness unemployment spells and thus were able to lead productive lives. If we count sentences of 3 months and over as unemployment, the percentage decreases to 75%. It is possible that we have missed periods of unemployment and that in reality the situation for these men was less positive.
Professions. For 18 men we could not determine a profession. This was either because they died young, emigrated early, died before they were listed on a personal card, or were classified all their lives as 'without profession'. This means that we could determine the profession of 180 men.
Not many men were listed with the profession for which they had been schooled at Harreveld. Many worked at times as unskilled labourers. However, many were registered with skilled, artisanal or managerial professions. We classified the professions according to a historical classification of professions. (31) This classification is an ordinal variable that reflects the social status of the profession. We classified the 180 men according to the highest professional level they attained in their lives. Table 2 lists the classifications.
Thus we see that quite many (48%) assumed higher-level positions. The interesting question is, whether these men improved upon the social status of their father's profession. On the one hand, one might expect that they performed as badly or even worse given their behavioural and childhood difficulties. Also, many grew up and had to find labour market positions in times of economic hardship, and given their reform-school background not facing an easy start. On the other hand, they might have performed better than their fathers: all had completed vocational training of some sort and held a diploma, something not common in the Netherlands in those days. We were able to determine the profession for 165 out of 181 fathers; also here we chose the highest professional level attained. We found these professions mainly from the family cards, from the marriage certificates of their sons, from the birth certificates of the son and from the marriage certificates of the father. The fathers' professions were classified into the ordinal scale just like the sons. The fathers' ordinally classified professions are in Table 3. Table 3 shows that fathers generally assumed substantially lower social positions than the Harreveld men: almost three quarters were in lower professions.
Next, for investigating whether this average mobility from father to son also holds at the individual level, we crosstabulate the father and son professions; 163 father-son pairs were identified. Table 4 lists the frequencies of the various combinations; for ease of inspection and because frequencies were fairly low, we combined the two highest levels. In the diagonal we find fathers and sons with professions at the same level. These sons were immobile. Above the diagonal we find the sons who climbed the societal ladder, below the diagonal we find the sons who had professional levels lower than their father.
There are 89 climbers (55% of cases), and 33 men (20%) moved down. The upward mobility index (the number moving up divided by the number moving down) is 2.70, meaning that more than two-and-a-half times as many men moved up as moved down. Relatively few men are immobile. Structural mobility was 3732; its complement circular mobility was 85. As structural mobility reflects mobility due to the opportunity structure of the labour market, we see that more than twice as many men were mobile regardless of this opportunity structure. The group of Harreveld men is therefore highly mobile.
Mobility does not imply improvement. Also, while the Harreveld men did better than their fathers on average, differences may be too small to be regarded as significant. We tested whether the Harreveld men's ordinally ranked professions were significantly higher than those of their father; this turned out to be the case (Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test for independent variables: z = -4.379, p<.001). We conclude that, professionally speaking, the Harreveld men did significantly better in their lives than their fathers.
However, in the period that we are studying, social mobility was generally upward. Therefore we will attempt to gauge the social climbing of the Harreveld men against the generally favourable economic climate. For doing so, we use data from the Genlias project (33) that have father-son professions retrieved from marriage certificates in 1922 in the provinces Zeeland, Limburg, Gelderland, Overijssel, and Groningen. (34) The Genlias cohort is not entirely appropriate as it was slightly younger and stepped into the labour market just before the economic crisis; to this our Harreveld men would compare unfavourably. On the other hand the sons were measured at younger ages than their father, which is unfavourable for assessing progress on the professional ladder; to this our Harreveld men would compare positively. The ordinal ranking of professions in Genlias uses a different number of categories but that doesn't bother us severely for comparing mobility. (35)
The Genlias men performed worse than their father in 18% of cases; 40% were immobile and 42% rose. The Harreveld men thus clearly did better (56% rose, and only 24% was immobile)--although because of the different samples and different categorizations it is hard to perform an exact statistical test here. The higher mobility can be retraced to the small number of immobiles: the Harreveld men were more mobile and the mobile men more often climbed up. Close inspection of Table 4 shows that mobility mainly occurred in the transition from unskilled and skilled labour to lower and higher level businesses: twothirds of the upward mobility is concentrated in these cells. One may speculate whether the education received at Harreveld could have been crucial here: the general level of schooling, and secondly the vocational training, which generated a diploma and may have oriented and equipped the men for running a business of their own. We found partial evidence for this: those who had been trained as a baker, house painter, tailor or carpenter started businesses in their field of expertise in about half of cases; many others however did not. The placement with a 'patron' may also have eased the way. (36)
Family formation. Three men died before they could legally have wed and 5 men emigrated; 6 men died before they were 21, we assume that they were unmarried. Of the remaining 184 men, 84% married. This is normative for Catholic men in those days. (37) The 155 ever-married men were married at an average 27,6 years; again this appears average for the Dutch population. (38)
More than one in four marriages had a first child born within 7 months of the date of the marriage registration, indicating that the partners may have been forced to marry or they may have pressured parents into granting permission. The percentage of women pregnant before marriage is elevated as compared to the Dutch population. (39) Almost 25% of all marriages ended in divorce; this appears substantially elevated as compared to the Dutch population (compared to a cohort of Dutch men with the same average year of first marriage). (40) More than half of divorced men remarried (58%). Many divorces took place, as generally in the Netherlands, during and right after WW II. (41)
The 155 ever-married men were father to 547 children and 74 stepchildren. This amounts to an average of about 4 children per marriage, which appears somewhat lower than expected for Catholic families, but, gauged against the 1947 census, fairly average for the Dutch population. (42)
Of all children of the Harreveld men for whom we have information (some emigrated), 8% died before age 18. Particularly during WW II, infant and child mortality was high, possibly also influenced by the by then already relatively older ages of the spouses of the Harreveld men.
We conclude that marriage patterns appear fairly average, but that the divorce rate is elevated for our Harreveld men. Fertility appears average; during WW II child mortality was elevated.
On the Association between Risk Factors, Delinquency, Employment and Family Formation.
After Harreveld, 75-80% of the men under study were employed. They held significantly higher professions than their fathers, and their upward mobility was higher than that of average Dutch men. Family formation and fertility patterns were average, the divorce rate was elevated compared to the Dutch male population. Half committed one offence, two thirds of whom offended either seriously or frequently. An obvious question is whether there was an association between men's adaptation in these domains: did married men offend less? Did unemployment affect marital chances? Was there any association with the childhood risk factors?
The odds to get married were associated firstly with behavioural problems in adolescence: OR = 4.14 ([CI.sub.95%] = 1.09 - 15.87): men with behavioural problems in their youth had a lower chance to get married. Men who had ever been unemployed also had significantly lower odds of ever marrying: OR = 4-12 ([CI.sub.95%] = 1.12-15.13); it is however hard to understand the direction of this association as we do not always know when men were unemployed. The odds for divorce were increased when the boy's family had been rated as of very low social status (OR = 2.28, [CI.sub.95%] = 1.04 - 4.97), as well as when men were delinquent (3.11, [CI.sub.95%] = 1.47 - 6.59), or had even been detained (OR = 3.42, [CI.sub.95%] = 1.60 - 7.31). Begging increased the chances most: of all 9 men detained for begging 5 divorced at least once (begging often carried the hefty penalty of three years labour in Norg). Also here the directionality is unclear: it might be so that men started offending after divorce, or their offending and detention might have led to a divorce. Comparing the timing of delinquency/detention and divorce, we see both sequences occurring.
Delinquency itself was associated only with having a delinquent father (OR = 2.57, CL = 1.16 - 5.74).
Our study is one of the few to examine the societal adaptation over the life course after a youth spent institutionalized. We used a prospective design and inspected societal adaptation in terms of family formation, employment and delinquency. Through municipal, archival, and ministry of Defence records, all men could be traced. While our historical data of necessity have gaps, the combination of archival records and official registrations paints a picture of the re-education and later lives of these men.
Many boys came from (extremely) disadvantaged backgrounds. Many more than average in the Dutch population in those days were raised in single-parent families or were orphans. Although there are no data to gauge against, parents were presumably much more often than average delinquent--mostly the father, and many were drunkards. The risk profile of the 198 men showed that most were referred for re-education not so much for their own behavioural transgressions as for their parents' presumed incapacity to raise them properly. Behavioural problems of the pupil were registered for only one in 16 boys. Neglect, as an empirically established manifestation of inadequate education, occurred in 10% of cases. On the other hand, one in five had a delinquent parent, one in four a parent of dubious moral and social standing, and one in four parents abused alcohol. Thus, the risks of wrongful education were more often signalled than were clear indications that education had gone wrong. Thus, we may tentatively conclude that the re-education may have been geared more towards prevention than towards redress.
This might lead one to assume that the reform school Harreveld in those days perhaps accepted the less serious cases from the lower classes at risk of mal-adaptation. While certainly the more serious and incorrigible cases were placed at or were transferred to the RijksOpvoedingsgestichten, it is generally assumed that Harreveld in fact accepted fairly serious cases, to such an extent that ex-pupils had to combat a 'reputation' later in life, having been one of the 'Harreveld'-bunch. (43) The congregation itself was known not to accept boys from Harreveld to enter as a brother, while it did accept boys from its other reform schools and institutions.
Our findings on delinquency later in life of these boys approach those by Suermondt most. (44) This is not surprising, as we used the same objective methods and studied about the same period. About one in three were non-trivial offenders later in life in the sense that they either committed serious offences or committed offences repeatedly. Offending disrupted life much more than it does nowadays: offences sooner carried--what we consider these days--hefty prison sentences, that must have disrupted the family lives and professional careers of these men considerably. The life-time incarceration chances were a little under one in three. Sentences were (much) longer than they are nowadays in the Netherlands. In that sense it is remarkable that the 198 institutionalized men did so much better professionally than their fathers. They climbed the societal ladder much more than similar groups of ex-pupils or average Dutch men in that period. Against the light of the economic crisis in which these men had to find a livelihood and raise families, this finding is even more striking. It is likely that the strong emphasis on professional training at Harreveld as well as the supervised and secluded placement with a patron may have played a beneficial role here. Our findings may, however, have been positively inflated in the sense that we counted always the most highly ranked profession of a man to compare against his father's profession. Many men held different professions over their life course; on their personal cards we see some of them 'hop' in a sense: from street corner musician, to painter, to concrete worker, to baker, to acrobat, to chimney-sweeper, to cook. Selecting the highest ranked profession from the list, we disregard the negative aspects of such restless, humped and non-linear careers.
While family formation in our men was normative for Dutch Catholic men around that time, relatively many marriages ended up in divorce (perhaps tying in with the fact that our 198 men had fewer children than expected for Catholic men in that period). Also in that sense, this group emerges as restless.
All in all, the ex-Harreveld pupils appear to have fared better than was to be expected in terms of employment outcomes. In terms of delinquency and family stability, they fared less well. While not always at the individual level, for the group as a whole we see that a number of negative properties of the generation of their parents are repeated: we see much divorce, and much delinquency.
The (un)interrelatedness of some of these domains was unexpected in a sense. Delinquency itself seemed to be manifested as virtually self-standing: it was associated only with having a delinquent father. It was not associated with unemployment, marriage prospects, or any other childhood risk factors. As such, delinquent behaviour appears to be almost unaffected by other life domains and vice versa not to affect these life domains in turn.
Marriage chances were affected by early behavioural problems and by unemployment. Men behaving badly and men who were unreliable breadwinners were apparently less attractive marriage partners. Marriages broke up more often when the man came from a family of dubious standing, and in case of delinquency or detention. In the latter case the directionality of this association could not be unestablished, perhaps because underlying behavioural traits were a causal factor in both outcomes.
Such traits, these days recognized as risk factors for delinquency, such as low self-control, callousness, and hyperactivity, were not recognized as such then--at least not under such labels--and were definitely not assessed for our group. In that sense, it is remarkable how the personality problems and the psychological make-up of these boys are so absent in the picture of their lives. For some boys, it had been noted in the registration files that they had become "all worked up by reading novels," or that they were 'careless'--from which one can deduce that such inner traits were probably not considered irrelevant. The relatively high incidence of marriages while the female was already pregnant may in fact in some be a marker of such carelessness or low self-control, as may be the high incidence of divorce and many job changes. However, in the reports and reflections on the problems of these boys, such traits did not by any means assume the central role that they assume nowadays in the treatment of children re-educated under judicial titles. Also in that sense, the context of the pupil was more prominent then.
The question is whether our findings can be generalized to all re-educational interventions in the period studied. Most urgently, our study would need replication for females. Given that their lives, and especially those of the poor, were so differently constrained, re-education probably had a different focus and would have been considered successful on different criteria (less focus on schooling and vocational training, more stress on 'decent' behaviour and the prevention of extramarital sex and pregnancies, a stronger focus on finding a husband). Secondly, while not all our men stayed devout Catholics all their lives, they almost all had a Catholic background. Catholics generally assumed lower positions in society, were on average less well educated in and many lived in rural less developed areas in the south of the Netherlands. Replication over children from other denominations (most prominently Protestants) would be desirable too.
Since 1911, when the reform school Harreveld was established, many more children have been residentially re-educated, and many still are. More than a century has elapsed. This raises the question whether the problems of the children admitted to Harreveld these days are any different from the problems of Harreveld pupils over 100 years ago. It also raises the question whether current re-education efforts (presumably along more scientific 'evidence-based' principles) generate similar or different outcomes. Van der Geest and his colleagues45 studied a group of men released from Harreveld between 1989 and 1996. Obviously, while findings are hard to compare--society has changed, delinquency levels have changed, incarceration chances have much decreased--their findings show a striking number of similarities and differences. Firstly the risk profiles of the two groups bear clear resemblances: many boys these days also come from disadvantaged families, neglect and maltreatment is (more often) noted, and they have (more often) already committed offences at admission. Far fewer parents have died, but many more have divorced, leaving about equal percentages of boys growing up in incomplete households. Parental alcohol abuse is less often noted, but parental (hard) drug use more. Parental delinquency is also prevalent, although not noted that often in the treatment files. Post-release delinquency appears, however, much higher than in the historic sample: over a period of just 12,5 years after release about 85% had re-offended; almost two-thirds were incarcerated in times with much lower a priori incarceration chances. It appears thus, as if the societal adaptation of current groups of re-educated youths from Harreveld is--in terms of delinquency--much worse than that of the older cohort studied here. The reasons for that are the object of further study.
A final question for further study is how the children--and particularly the sons--of the men studied here did. Given that our men's children--on average--were raised in better socio-economic circumstances, did they offend less? Did they occupy the same position on the ladder of professions that their father did? Did they advance even further? Or did they relapse? Ultimately the civilization offensive can only be considered to have been truly succesful if the cycle of poverty, alcohol abuse, poor parental skills and other negative environmental circumstances was broken.
Postbus 71304, 1008 EH
Postbus 11650, 2502 AR
The authors acknowledge financial support from Stichting Pro Musis, Hesseveld Stichting, Broeder-scongregatie Onze Lieve Vrouw van Zeven Smarten, Aloysius Stichting and Expertisecentrum Re-chtshandhaving Ministry of Justice.
(1.) A.D.W. de Vries, A.D.W. and F.J.G. van Tricht, Geschiedenis van de wet op de ouderlijke macht en de voogdij (6 februari 1901, Staatsblad no. 62). Verzameling van regeringsontwerpen, gewisselde stukken, gevoerde beraadslagingen enz., met enkele korte kanttekeningen en register (Groningen, 1903, deel I; 1905, deel II; Haarlem, 1910, deel III).
(2.) J. Klootsema, Misdeelde kinderen. Inleiding tot de paedagogische pathologie en therapie (Zutphen, 1903).
(3.) J.J.H. Dekker, Straffen, redden en opvoeden (Utrecht, 1985) 441.
(4.) J.H. Gunning Wzn., De studie der paedagogiek in Nederland gedurende de jaren 1898-1938. Een schets (Amsterdam, 1938).
(5.) See e.g. J. Christiaens, "A history of Belgium's Child Protection Act of 1912. The redefinition of the juvenile offender and his punishment," European journal of crime, criminal law and criminal justice 7 (1999): 5-21; D. Oberwittler, "The decline of correctional education, ca. 1900-1920. England and Germany compared," European journal of crime, criminal law and criminal justice 7 (1999): 22-40; B. Godfrey and D.J. Cox, "'The last fleet': Crime, reformation, and punishment in Western Australia after 1868," The Australian and New Zealand journal of criminology 41 (2008): 236-258.
(6.) A. Andresen, "Gender, after-care and reform in inter-war Norway," in P. Cox and H. Shore eds., Becoming delinquent: British and European Youth, 1650-1950 (Hampshire, 2002) 123-140.
(7.) Klootsema, Misdeelde kinderen 138.
(8.) C.G.T.M. Leonards, De ontdekking van het onschuldige criminele kind. Bestraffing en opvoeding van criminele kinderen in jeugdgevangenis en opvoedingsgesticht 18334886 (Hilversum, 1995) 246-248.
(9.) J.S. van der Aa, De Rijksopvoedingsgestichten in Nederland (Amsterdam, 1890) 98-99, note 1.
(10. Dekker, Straffen, redden en opvoeden.
(11.) G.L. de Vries Feyens, "De historie van 109 rijksopvoedelingen," Tijdschrift voor strafrecht 28 (1917): 473-485.
(12.) Dekker, Straffen, redden en opvoeden.
(13.) G.L. Suermondt, "De resultaten van het rijksopvoedingswezen," Tijdschrift voor strafrecht XXXV (1925): 299-346.
(14.) R.C.S. Kruyswijk-Hamburger, De resultaten van de opvoeding ingevolge de kinderwetten. Mededeelin-gen van den Nederlandschen Bond tot kinderbescherming (Den Haag, 1927).
(15.) K. De Bloois, Veertig jaar "Zoekt het verlorene!" (Rotterdam, 1951).
(16.) De Bloois, Veertig jaar 71
(17.) G.H.J. den Otter, Voogdijkinderen ('s-Gravenhage, 1963).
(18.) F.W.A. van Poppel, Trouwen in Nederland. Een historisch-demografische analyse van de 19e en vroeg-20ste eeuw, AAG-bijdragen 33 (Wageningen, 1992) 280-281.
(19.) Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Buitenechtelijke geboorten 1840-1973 ('s-Gravenhage, 1975).
(20.) R. van Gaalen and F.W.A. van Poppel, "Long-term changes in the living arrangements of children in the Netherlands," Journal of family issues 30 (2009): 653-669.
(21.) K. Geertsema, Het leven van probleemjongens vroeger en nu. Een historisch vergelijkend onder-zoek naar het leven van probleemjongens, Master thesis VU University (Amsterdam, 2006).
(22.) See e.g. R. Loeber, "Development and risk factors of juvenile antisocial behavior and delinquency," Clinical psychology review 10 (1990): 1-41.
(23.) Personal communication, br. Dalmatius van Heel. (24.) Klootsema, Misdeelde kinderen.
(25.) Centrale Vereeniging voor Kinderbescherming, Systeem van Opvoeding ('s-Gravenhage, 1918); Centrale Vereeniging voor Kinderbescherming, Yearly reports ('s-Gravenhage, 1911-1920).
(26.) Algemeen College van Toezicht, Bijstand en Advies voor het Rijkstucht- en Opvoedingswezen, Inspection reports ('s-Gravenhage, 1912).
(27.) Reported on by C.C.J.H. Bijleveld, M.D.S. Wijkman and J.A.M. Stuifbergen, 198 boefjes? De maatschappelijke integratie van moeilijk opvoedbare jongens 100 jaar geleden (Leiden, 2007).
(28.) Centrale Vereeniging voor Kinderbescherming, Yearly report ('s-Gravenhage, 1915).
(29.) Dekker, Straffen, redden en opvoeden.
(30.) Unpublished generation-mortality tabulations
(31.) Developed by Van Tulder, see K. Mandemakers, "Negen classificaties voor [19.sup.e] en [20.sup.e] eeuwse beroepstitels," International Institute for Social History (IISH) research papers 19 (1995): 1-42.
(32.) Structural mobility is computed as |12-4| + |69-42| + |54-52| + |17-43| + |11-22| /2 = 37.
(33.) GENLIAS beta-version release September 2006
(34.) F.W.A. van Poppel, H.P. van Dalen and E. Walhout, "Diffusion of a social norm: Tracing the emergence of the housewife in the Netherlands, 1812-1922," The Economic History Review 62 (2009): 99-127.
(35.) M.H.D. van Leeuwen and I. Maas, I. "HISCLASS A historical social class scheme for occupational tides in the past," Paper presented at the XVIth International Conference of the Association for History and Computing (Amsterdam, 2005); M.H.D. van Leeuwen, I. Maas and A. Miles, HISCO: Historical international standard classification of occupations (Leuven, 2002).
(36.) See also Dekker, Straffen, redden en opvoeden.
(37.) G.A.B. Frinking and F.W.A. van Poppel, with J.G.M. Assen and A. Janssen, Een sociaal-demo-grafische analyse van de huwelijkssluiting in Nederland. Monografieen volkstelling 1971 ('s-Gravenhage, 1979) 56.
(38.) Van Poppel, Trouwen in Nederland, 22.
(39.) Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Buitenechtelijke geboorten.
(40.) Van Poppel, Trouwen in Nederland.
(41.) Van Poppel, Trouwen in Nederland 279.
(42.) Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 14e Algemene Volkstelling annex woningtelling. 28 februari 1971. Serie A. Deel 2. Bestaande huwelijken en vruchtbaarheid van gehuwde en gehuwd geweest zijnde vrouwen ('s-Gravenhage, Staatsuitgeverij, 1981).
(43.) Personal communication, br. Dalmatius van Heel.
(44.) Suermondt, De resultaten van het rijksopvoedingswezen.
(45.) V.R. van der Geest and C.C.J.H. Bijleveld, "Personal, background and treatment characteristics associated with offending after residential treatment: A 13-year follow up in adolescent males," Psychology, crime & law 14 (2008): 159-176; V.R. van der Geest, A.A.J. Blokland and C.C.J.H. Bijleveld, "Delinquent development in a sample of high-risk youth: Shape, content and predictors of delinquent trajectories from age 12 to 32," Journal of research in crime and delinquency 46 (2009): 111-143.
By Catrien Bijleveld
Frans van Poppel
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement
Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute
Table 1 Risk factors as registered in the Harreveld archive Delinquent parent 22% Death of (a) parent(s) 29% Parental alcohol abuse 26% Poverty 4% Neglect 10% Behavioural problems 6% Behavioural problems sibling(s) 11% Social status/morality parents 24% Divorced parents 8%
Table 2 Social status of professions of Harreveld men (N = 180) Independent and academic professions 1 1% Higher level, directors small firms 14 8% Larger old and new middle level businesses 71 39% Smaller old and new middle level businesses 63 35% Skilled labourers, lower level civil servants 20 11% Unskilled labourers 11 6%
Table 3 Social status of professions of fathers of Harreveld men (N = 165) Higher level, directors small firms 4 (2 %) Larger old and new middle level businesses 41 (25 %) Smaller old and new middle level businesses 54 (33 %) Skilled labourers, lower level civil servants 44 (27 %) Unskilled labourers 22 (13 %)
Table 4 Professions of Harreveld men crosstabulated with fathers' professions father [right arrow] higher level, upper level middle level directors businesses businesses son [down arrow] higher level, directors 0 3 4 upper level businesses 2 21 22 middle level businesses 1 8 16 skilled labourers 1 5 5 unskilled labourers 0 5 5 4 42 52 father [right arrow] skilled labourers unskilled labourers son [down arrow] higher level, directors 4 1 12 upper level businesses 17 7 69 middle level businesses 17 12 54 skilled labourers 4 2 17 unskilled labourers 1 0 11 43 22 163
|Gale Copyright:||Copyright 2011 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.|