Journal of Criminal Justice and Security year 14 no. 4 pp. 397-421 Fear of Crime in Urban Neighbourhoods: A Comparative Analysis of Six Capitals Gorazd Meško, Ljubo Vošnjak, Elmedin Muratbegovic, Muhamed Budimlic, Matevž Bren, Helmut Kury Purpose: The purpose of this article is to present general findings of a survey on fear of crime in a sample of 2,377 respondents in the capitals of the republics and one autonomous region of the Former Yugoslavia in 2009. Design/Methods/Approach: A survey was conducted in households by trained interviewers. Statistical methods utilized are factor and regression analysis. Statistical tests show that the model used is valid and reliable and the sampling method was adequate as well. Findings: The main findings are consistent with other Western European and American studies on fear of crime. The results imply that fear of crime depends on weak social networks in a neighbourhood, worry about crime, probability of victimization in the next 12 months, severity of consequences of victimization, low ability of self-defence, impact of victimization on one's life, preventative measures (precaution), gender (women), education, low position in a labour market, and the influence of recent victimization on one's fear of crime intensity. Research Implications: The research results have implications for policy making in the fields of crime control and crime prevention, and imply social and situational preventative measures to be undertaken. Practical Implications: The article is also useful for community policing in practice, especially in dealing with the elderly, women and the socially and economically marginalized. Originality/Value: The research presented in this article is the first comparative research using socio-demographic and social psychological model in the region of South Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, it is also a replication and test of models used for fear of crime research in Western Europe. UDC: 343.9(497) 397 Fear of Crime in Urban Neighbourhoods: A Comparative Analysis of Six Capitals Keywords: fear of crime, victimology, comparative research, former Yugoslavia Strah pred kriminaliteto v mestnih soseskah: primerjalna analiza šestih glavnih mest Namen prispevka: Namen prispevka je predstaviti splošne ugotovitve ankete o strahu pred kriminaliteto na vzorcu 2377 izpraševancev v glavnih mestih republik in avtonomne pokrajine nekdanje Jugoslavije v letu 2009. Metode: Zbiranje podatkov je bilo opravljeno z intervjuji v gospodinjstvih. Intervjuje so izvedli usposobljeni anketarji. Uporabljeni statistični metodi sta bili faktorska in regresijska analiza. Statistični testi kažejo, da je uporabljen model veljaven in zanesljiv, prav tako je bilo ustrezno tudi vzorčenje. Ugotovitve: Glavne ugotovitve so podobne kot pri drugih zahodnoevropskih in ameriških študijah o strahu pred kriminaliteto. Rezultati kažejo, da je strah pred kriminaliteto odvisen od šibkih socialnih mrež v soseski, zaskrbljenosti zaradi kriminalitete, verjetnosti viktimizacije v naslednjih 12 mesecih, resnosti posledic viktimizacije, nizki sposobnosti samoobrambe pred napadalcem, vpliva viktimizacije na posameznikovo življenje, preventivnih ukrepov (previdnost), spola (ženske), izobrazbe, nizkega položaja na trgu dela in vpliva nedavne viktimizacije na intenzivnost strahu pred kriminaliteto pri posamezniku. Omejitve/uporabnost raziskave: Rezultati raziskave so uporabni pri oblikovanju politike na področju omejevanja in preprečevanja kriminalitete in še posebej opozarjajo na uporabo socialnih in situacijskih preventivnih ukrepov za njeno zmanjševanje. Praktična uporabnost: Članek je uporaben tudi za izvajalce policijskega dela v skupnosti, še zlasti glede starejših ljudi, žensk in socialno in ekonomsko marginaliziranih posameznikov. Izvirnost/pomembnost prispevka: Raziskovalni projekt predstavljen v tem članku je prva primerjalna raziskava z uporabo sociodemografskega in socialnopsihološkega modela na območju Jugovzhodne Evrope. Kljub temu pa je raziskava tudi replikacija in preizkus že uporabljenih modelov za raziskovanje strahu pred kriminaliteto v Zahodni Evropi. UDK: 343.9(497) Ključne besede: strah pred kriminaliteto, viktimologija, primerjalna raziskava, nekdanja Jugoslavija 398 Gorazd Meško, Ljubo Vošnjak, Elmedin Muratbegovic, Muhamed Budimlic, Matevž Bren, Helmut Kury 1 INTRODUCTION Fear of crime, or measures of people's perceptions of insecurity, is not a simple phenomenon that follows a linear path (Bilsky & Weteels, 1997). Many criminologists have argued that the discourse on crime and fear of crime is more of a problem in people's everyday lives than actual crime itself (Ewald, 2000). It is a multi-dimensional issue that has been divided into categories of fear, anxiety, vulnerability, risk assessment, concerns, and perceptions of safety/ insecurity (see Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987; Gibson, Zhao, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2002; Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). Fear of crime is also a very complex and not clearly defined concept. What we measure with instruments regarding fear of crime is a combination of different "fears"; only one part might be fear of crime (Sessar, 2010; Kury, Lichtblau, Neumaier, & Obergfell-Fuchs, 2004). Fear of crime as measured by standardised instruments, usually questionnaires, is more fear of social change than fear of crime. Crime surveys have expanded rapidly since the late 1960s in the United States of America and also the United Kingdom, shed some light on attitudes toward policing, victimization, perceptions of risk, and people's fear of crime. A plethora of studies have concluded that fear of crime impinges upon the wellbeing of a large proportion of the population. Some have even gone as far as to suggest that the fear of crime is now a larger problem than crime itself (Warr, 1984; Bennett, 1990; Hale, 1992; Hale, 1996; Beckett & Sasson, 2004). Especially in the United States, the problem of fear of crime found in victim surveys started a debate of this problem on a political level. Politicians discovered that crime and especially fear of crime can be a means to win elections (Lee, 2001). Longitudinal Surveys in Germany show clearly that since the beginnings of the 1990s fear of crime became less important than fears of unemployment, money shortage to pay everyday costs or having incompetent governments to solve economic problems (Kury & Obergfell-Fuchs, 2008). As Beckett and Sasson (2004: 47) point out, "the construction of the crime issue as a consequence of excessive permissiveness has been extraordinarily useful to conservative opponents of civil rights and the welfare state". Chambers and Tombs (1984), in reviewing the 1982 British Crime Survey (Scotland), reported that "more than half of the respondents (58%) said that at some time in the past, they had been concerned about the possibility of being a victim of crime". A consistent finding in research on fear of crime and perceptions of insecurity is that women fear crime more than men (Lira & Andradepalos, 1993; Carcach, Frampton, Thomas, & Cranich, 1995; Bilsky & Weteels, 1997; Mesch, 2000; Pantazis, 2000; Saltijeral, Lira, & Hernandez, 1996). A second important and consistent factor found to affect people's perceptions of insecurity and/or fear of crime is age (Carcach et al., 1995; Pain, 1995; Pantazis, 2000; Zedner, 2002), and a third variable that is regularly found to be associated with fear of crime and lack of security is social class (Vold, Bernard, & Snipes, 2002). Crime surveys are conducted not only in Western European countries but also the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (Zvekic, 1998; Hatalak, del Frate, & Zvekic, 1998; Kury, 2001; Umek, 2004). Research in Western Europe, and Central and Eastern Europe, does not show major differences in fear of crime based on 399 Fear of Crime in Urban Neighbourhoods: A Comparative Analysis of Six Capitals demographic, sociological, and/or social psychological factors. Across the region, results show higher-level fear of crime in women, people who perceive themselves as not being physically fit, the unemployed, those who expose themselves by walking alone in the dark, and those who perceive streets and woods as sources of danger (Mesko, Petrovec, Areh, Muratbegovic, & Rep, 2006). In addition, higher-levels fear of crime can be attributed to respondents who consider themselves potential victims due to the jealousy of others or as being attractive to a potential criminal in other ways, incapable of chasing off a potential assailant, and perceiving places as dangerous (Mesko, Fallshore, Muratbegovic, & Fields, 2008). Fear of crime is not only drawing attention at the empirical level of study, as many have also attempted to explain it theoretically. These efforts tend to be dominated by researchers influenced by social psychological insights (Umek, 2004), though models of explaining fear of crime have recently been expanded with social-psychological and psychological factors (Van der Wurff, Stringer, & Timmer, 1988; Van der Wurff, Staalduinen, & Stringer, 1989; Mesko & Farrall, 1999; Farrall, Bannister, Ditton, & Gilchrist, 2000; Mesko, Areh, & Kury, 2004; Kury, 2008; Mesko, Hirtenlehner, & Vosnjak, 2009). In this way, processes occurring at the individual level are taken into account. Van der Wurff et al., (1989) and Farrall, Bannister, Ditton, and Gilchrist (1997, 2000) developed a model to attempt to explain fear of crime on an individual level. However, individual-level explanations do not take into account factors that can influence social and psychological factors. Research in Western Europe, and Central and Eastern Europe, show quite similar results of factors of fear of crime (Mesko & Farrall, 1999; Mesko et al., 2006; Mesko, Kovco Vukadin, & Muratbegovic, 2008). The studies imply that the use of socio-demographic and social psychological models explain up to 50% of variance of fear of crime. The links between perceived neighbourhood social disorder and attitudes toward reporting fear of crime are positively related to levels of social integration in a community setting (Rountree & Land, 1996; Gibson et al., 2002; Lee & Earnest, 2003) and also to involvement in formal and informal organizations (Austin, Woolever, & Baba, 1994; Walklate, 1998). The neighbourhood disorder perspective broadens the scope of the social integration model by incorporating the social and physical characteristics of the neighbourhood. Social factors include drunken people, rowdy teenagers, incivilities and drug users (Kanan & Pruitt, 2002; McGarrell, Giacomazzi, & Thurman, 1997; Ross & Mirowsky, 1999; Kaal, Vanderveen, & van Oeveren, 2008). Physical factors include the visible features of these neighbourhoods such as vandalism, rubbish and litter, and graffiti (Ross & Jang, 2000; Ross & Mirowsky, 1999; Ross, Mirowsky, & Pribesh, 2001). Both social and physical signs of disorder have been shown to be negatively related to levels of security among residents who live in disorganized neighbourhoods (Ross & Mirowsky, 1999; Kanan & Pruitt, 2002). Disadvantage and disorder in neighbourhoods has been linked to the lack of social control in the community (Taylor & Shumaker, 1990; Perkings, Meeks, & Taylor, 1992; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Ross & Jang, 2000). Social disorder refers to people and can be exemplified by the presence of people engaged in drug dealing, fighting on street corners, crime, the physical environment and local demography 400 Gorazd Meško, Ljubo Vošnjak, Elmedin Muratbegovic, Muhamed Budimlic, Matevž Bren, Helmut Kury or other activities that create a sense of danger that are perceived by residents as signs of the breakdown of social control (Skogan & Maxfield, 1981; Wilson & Kelling, 1982; Taylor & Shumaker, 1990; Ross & Jang, 2000; Ross & Mirowsky, 2001; Hirtenlehner, 2008). As Ross et al. (2001) found, perceived neighbourhood disorder, common in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, influences mistrust by increasing residents' perceptions of powerlessness. Therefore, the willingness to get involved in other residents' lives or to intervene in neighbourhood problems may be affected by the levels of mistrust. Residents may also fear retaliation if they intervene in neighbourhood problems (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993). Finally, as research from social disorganization theory suggests, crime and disorder lead to fear, which weakens neighbourhood cohesion and facilitates more crime and disorder (Markowite, Bellair, Liska, & Liu, 2001). Due to the reduced use of public places, informal social control crime loses its power in such spaces. Some criminologists wrote about problems related to the conceptualization of collective efficacy (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). In their conceptualization of collective efficacy, Sampson et al. (1997) link residents' perceptions of their communities with their tendency to intervene in problems and supervise residents to maintain public order. These neighbourhood conditions may negatively influence attitudes to intervene and, as a consequence, attitudes toward reporting crime. As they suggest, one is unlikely to take action in a neighbourhood context where people mistrust one another, and where neighbourhood residents share a sense of powerlessness, it is difficult to bring about collective action. From this perspective, attitudes toward reporting fear of crime or insecurity would also be affected by community-level factors such as neighbourhood social disorder, diminished collective efficacy, and low social control in the community (Garcia & Herrero, 2007). Wealthy people move from such communities to "gated" communities which increases the underlying problem and brings the effect of physically separated social classes. Empirical studies show different results regarding the relationship between individual criminal victimization and fear of crime. In a survey on fear of crime conducted in urban and rural communities in Slovenia, respondents show that the fear of crime is negatively correlated to victimization. Those who have been victimized previously, express less fear of crime. This finding is statistically significant only for respondents in urban areas, and the authors of this survey concluded that the respondents from urban neighbourhoods were mainly victims of petty crimes (Mesko, Sifrer, & Vosnjak, 2012). 2 ABOUT SIX CAPITALS 2.1 Ljubljana - Slovenia Ljubljana is the capital of Slovenia and its largest city (Statistical Office of the RS, 2010). It is the centre of the City Municipality of Ljubljana, and is located in the centre of the country in the Ljubljana Basin. Throughout its history, it has been influenced by its geographic position at the crossroads of the Slavic world with 401 Fear of Crime in Urban Neighbourhoods: A Comparative Analysis of Six Capitals the Germanic and Latin cultures. As of of January 1 2011, Ljubljana had 280,140 inhabitants (Mestna občina Ljubljana, 2011c) and 38,650 students in 2009/2010 (ibid.). The 2002 census reported that 39.2% of Ljubljana residents were Roman Catholic; 30.4% were believers who did not belong to a particular religion, unknown or did not reply; 19.2% were atheist; 5.5% were Eastern Orthodox; 5.0% were Muslim; and the remaining 0.7% were Protestant or belonged to other religions (Statistical office of the RS, 2002). Approximately 84% of the population speaks Slovene as their native language; the second most-spoken language is Bosnian, with Serbian holding third place (ibid.). Industry remains the city's most important employer, notably in the pharmaceutical, petrochemical and food processing industries. Other fields include banking, finance, transport, construction, skilled trades and services and tourism. The public sector provides jobs in education, culture, health care, state and local administration. The number of unemployed in July 2011 was 13,765 (Mestna občina Ljubljana, 2011a) and the average net salary in June 2011 was € 1,119.57 (Statistical Office of the RS, 2011). Ljubljana and Slovenia do not have a high crime rate. With approximately 45,000 recorded criminal offences in 2007, the Police Directorate Ljubljana alone accounts for over 50% of the country's crimes (Ministry of the Interior, Police, 2007). Reported crime in Slovenia (450/10,000) and Ljubljana (1,600/10,000) show that Ljubljana is far above the Slovenian average. Slovenia and in particular Ljubljana have a quiet and secure reputation (Mestna občina Ljubljana, 2011b). In 2010, the GDP per capita was 17,602 EUR (Ljubljanski univerzitetni inkubator, 2012). 2.2 Zagreb - Croatia Zagreb is the capital of the Republic of Croatia, and is in the northwest part of the country, along the Sava river, at the southern slopes of Medvednica mountain. Zagreb lies at an elevation of approximately 122 m (400 ft) above sea level. According to the last official census, Zagreb's city population in 2011 was 686,568 (Croatian Bureau of Statistics, 2011) while its municipal population was 792,875 (ibid.). According to the same census, the wider Zagreb metropolitan area, which includes the City of Zagreb and Zagreb County (also known as the 'Zagreb ring'), has a population of 1,110,517 people and is the only metropolitan area in Croatia with a population of over one million (ibid.). The majority of its citizens are Croats, which make up 92% of the city's population (ibid.). The same census records 60,066 residents belonging to ethnic minorities comprise: 18,811 Serbs (2.41%), 6,204 Bosniaks (0.80%), 8,030 Muslims by nationality (1.02%), 6,389 Albanians (0.83%), 3,225 Slovenes (0.41%), 3,946 Roma (0.55%), 2,131 Montenegrins (0.27%), 2,315 Macedonians (0.27%), together with other smaller minor ethnic communities, especially the historically present Germans (Ibid). The most important industries are: production of electric machines and devices, chemical, pharmaceutical, textile, food and drink processing. Zagreb is international trade and business centre, and the transport crossroad of Central Europe (Službene stranice grada Zagreba, 2012). The GDP in 2010 was $17,500 (Regional Secretariat for Parliamentary Cooperation 402 Gorazd Meško, Ljubo Vošnjak, Elmedin Muratbegovic, Muhamed Budimlic, Matevž Bren, Helmut Kury in South-East Europe, 2012). The crime rate in 2009 was 251.5/10,000 (NationMaster, 2012). 2.3 Sarajevo - Bosnia and Herzegovina Sarajevo is the capital and largest city of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with an estimated population of over 311,161 people within its administrative limits. It is also the capital of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina entity, as well as the centre of the Sarajevo Canton, which has a population of 440,744 (Saopcenje, priopcenje, 2012). Sarajevo is located in the Sarajevo valley of Bosnia, surrounded by the mountains (Igman, Bjelasnica, Jahorina, Trebevic, Romanija, Treskavica) and situated along the Miljacka River in the heart of Southeastern Europe and the Balkans. Sarajevo is the leading business and cultural centre of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and its influences on politics, education, entertainment, media, fashion, science, and the arts contribute to its status as Bosnia and Herzegovina's major economic centre (City of Sarajevo, 2012). The city is historically famous for its traditional religious diversity, with adherents of Islam, Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Judaism coexisting there for centuries (Malcolm, 1996). Due to this long and rich history of religious diversity, Sarajevo is often called the "Jerusalem of Europe" (In Europe's Jerusalem, 2002) or "Jerusalem of the Balkans" (ibid.). In 1914, it was the site of the assassination of the Archduke of Austria that sparked World War I. Seventy years later, it hosted the 1984 Winter Olympics. For nearly four years, from 1992-1996, the city was under siege during the Bosnian War for independence. Sarajevo industries now include tobacco products, furniture, hosiery, automobiles, and communication equipment (Tianjin Sister-City Council for the Promotion of Enterprises, 2012). The GDP per capita in 2010 in Bosnia and Herzegovina was 6,600 USD (USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service, 2011). The overall crime rate in Bosnia-Herzegovina (BIH) remains high, with the greatest concentration of incidents in Sarajevo (189.2/10,000) and other urban areas. Crime statistics for 2009 indicate that there were 8,015 criminal offenses reported in Sarajevo, which is 9.2% less than in 2008 (United State department of State Bureau of Diplomatic Security, 2010). 2.4 Belgrade - Serbia Belgrade is the capital and largest city of Serbia, and is located at the confluence of the Sava and Danube rivers, where the Pannonian Plain meets the Balkans (Beograd, 2012). The city proper has a population of 1.2 million, while the official metropolitan area has about 1.7 million, and is one of the largest cities in Southeastern Europe. In English it translates to White city. Belgrade has a special administrative status within Serbia (ibid.), and its metropolitan territory is divided into 17 municipalities, each with its own local council (ibid.). It covers 3.6% of Serbia's territory, and 22.5% of the country's population lives in the city (ibid.). Belgrade was the capital of Yugoslavia from 1918 to 1989, and, according to the 2002 census, the major population groups according to nationality in Belgrade 403 Fear of Crime in Urban Neighbourhoods: A Comparative Analysis of Six Capitals are: Serbs (1,417,187), Yugoslavs (22,161), Montenegrins (21,190), Roma (19,191), Croats (10,381), Macedonians (8,372), and Muslims by nationality (4,617) (ibid.). Belgrade is the financial centre of Serbia, and is home to the country's National Bank, and New Belgrade is the main business district in the city. As of 2009, over 40% of Serbia's GDP is generated by the city, which also has 31.4% of Serbia's employed population (Ibid). In December 2010, the average monthly net salary in Belgrade was 50,000 RSD (€490, $680) (Abramovic, 2011). Serbia-wide figures showed 100,401 recorded offences in 2010 in comparison to 101,514 in 2009. Within Belgrade, there were 33,764 recorded offences in comparison to 34,051 in 2009 (United State department of State Bureau of diplomatic Security, 2011). 2.5 Skopje - Macedonia Skopje or Skoplje (1994 pop. 444,760), the capital of Macedonia, lies on the banks of the Vardar River, and is an important transportation and trade centre as well as an industrial hub where chemicals, cement, machinery, and diverse light manufactured goods are produced. The city is also the seat of an Orthodox Eastern archbishop and a Macedonian university (founded 1949) (Skopje, 2012). It is the country's political, cultural, economic, and academic centre, and was known in the Roman period under the name Scupi. The total budget of Skopje in 2010 was 4,143,357,000 denars, or about € 67 million. Of these 4 billion denars, about 2 billion were from direct taxes and 1 billion was in the form of an endowment from the state. The remainder came from indirect taxes or transfers and various donations (Blackhat, 2012). Although Skopje had hosted economic plans since the nineteenth century, the Yugoslav communist regime allowed the transformation of the city into a major industrial centre. It has been the largest economic and industrial centre of Macedonia (Official portal of city of Skopje, 2011). Skopje has many factories, and the most important activities are the processing of metals, chemicals, textiles, printing and others. Skopje is the most populous Macedonian city and according to the 2002 census, the population of was 506,926. According to a more recent official estimate from 2006, it has 668,518 inhabitants (State Statistical Office, 2002). FYR Macedonia GDP - per capita: $9,700 (2010 est.) (Nation Branding & Investment, 2010). The City of Skopje's GDP per Capita in 2008 was 5,077 € (Idom Consulting, 2011). Over one half of criminal offences registered in FYROM in the first half of 2009 took place in Skopje municipal area. Crime rate in Skopje was 230/10,000 (Skopje with highest crime rate, 2009). 2.6 Pristine - Kosovo Pristine is the capital and the largest city of Kosovo, which including its suburbs, has a total population of over 400,000. It is the administrative, economic, and cultural centre of Kosovo. The area of Pristine has a long history; in its vicinity archaeological discoveries have been found which date back to the early neolithic area. The city has a majority Albanian population, with smaller communities 404 Gorazd Meško, Ljubo Vošnjak, Elmedin Muratbegovic, Muhamed Budimlic, Matevž Bren, Helmut Kury including Bosniaks, Roma and others. It is the administrative, educational, and cultural centre of Kosovo. Pristine is the most significant higher education centre of Kosovo, and the University of Pristine, founded in 1970, is located here with its 13 faculties (colleges). Pristine is also home to the Academy of Arts and Sciences of Kosovo (Zysman & Hoxha, 2011), which gathers Kosovo's most prominent intellectuals, the Institute of Albanology, and the Institute of History. Kosovo GDP per capita: 2594 Eur (Annual report on Donnor Activities, 2011). In the Pristine Municipality around 13,306 businesses are operating, with the largest number of these businesses oriented towards commercial activity. Based on data from the Ministry of Trade and Industry, about 54% of businesses engaged in commerce and tourism, transport 15%, 8% real estate and only 4% with processing activities (European Centre for Minority Issues Kosovo, 2012). Crime rates in Kosovo are similar to the rest of Europe; urban Mitrovica has more than its share of offences, the rural municipalities much less (Kern, 2011). Kosovo is very safe for international visitors, and while it always pays to take care of your belongings, street crime and petty theft in Kosovo are low and violent crime rates are much lower than in many Western cities. Most internationals, especially women, not only are very safe but also feel very safe in Kosovo (Warrander & Knaus, 2008). 3 METHOD 3.1 Instrument For the purpose of this study, a 106 item questionnaire was used. The original questionnaire was in German (Hirtenlehner, Mesko, & Vosnjak, 2009), and the questionnaire was translated to the native languages and for the improved accuracy, translated back into German. Researchers from the participating universities also thoroughly compared the translated questionnaire regarding denotative and connotative meanings of questions and statements. The questionnaire consisted of questions and statements about fear of crime, neighbourly relations, perception of the quality of life in the city among citizens of the studied capitals, as well as questions about their social networks and their trust for the people who live in their neighbourhood. In order to obtain a more complete answer about subjective feelings such as fear, we also asked respondents how they would feel if they were to become victims of different sorts of crime, that is, what measures they are taking to prevent becoming a victim of crime. 3.2 Data Collection Interviews were conducted in the households of the interviewees, with the population consisting of the adult (18 years old and older) inhabitants of urban areas of Ljubljana, Zagreb, Sarajevo, Belgrade, Skopje and Pristine - capitals of five republics (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia) and_ 405 Fear of Crime in Urban Neighbourhoods: A Comparative Analysis of Six Capitals one autonomous region (Kosovo) of former Yugoslavia. The exercised sampling procedure was a multi-stage random probability method and was carried out through four stages. In the first stage, primary sampling units were defined as city areas (neighbourhoods) in which the research would be conducted, and as all capitals are urban and suburban, we focused on urban neighbourhoods only. When the map of primary sampling units was constructed, the proportionate participation of each segment in the sample was defined. The second step in designing the sample consisted of precisely defining the sampling points, i.e. the streets or parts of the streets inside the primary sampling units in which the polls would be conducted. Each sampling point was defined as a path with a specific starting point and given the direction of the pollsters' movement. In that way, we obtained a list of 40 precisely defined paths for each city (from point A towards point B) where the pollsters would move and in such designed areas find their interviewees. Inside each sampling point, 10 interviews were conducted. The next step involved specifying the procedure for finding of convenient households in which the poll or interview would be conducted. The selection of households was carried out using the random-route technique, and the disposition of households was defined according to the city size and the type of settlement. The pollsters were instructed to walk on the left hand side of the street. The final step in sample design consisted of defining the procedure for the choice of the interviewees inside the previously correctly chosen household. The selection of one respondent per household was on the 'next birthday' selection-key. The procedure prescribed that the pollster should knock on the door of the correctly chosen household, state his/her name and ask for cooperation in the survey, asking how many members of that household are adults (18 years or older), and then pick one whose birthday falls next (chronologically). Changing such designated respondents was allowed only if after three attempts (one initial visit and two call-backs), the pollster could not conduct the interview. In case it was impossible to find the correctly chosen interviewee or if he refused to participate in the poll, the pollsters continued the interviewing according to the plan of movement in that sampling point. The polling was conducted in April - June 2009 by the trained students under the supervision of senior researchers from the University of Maribor1, University of Zagreb2 , University of Sarajevo3, University of Belgrade4, University of Ohrid5, and AAB University in Pristine6, who had received precise instructions about the procedure for polling and keeping the research documentation. The interviewing process was supervised by senior researchers and research assistants from the participating universities. Apart from the permanent supervision of the interviewing process by the staff of the universities, and in accordance with international research 1 Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Maribor, Ljubljana, Slovenia 2 Faculty of Education and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Zagreb, Croatia. 3 Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. 4 Faculty of Security, University of Belgrade, Serbia. 5 Faculty of Security, University St. Kliment Ohridski, Bitola, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. 6 Faculty of Criminal Justice and Security, AAB-Riinvest University, Prishtine, Kosovo. 406 Ljubljana Zagreb Sarajevo Belgrade Skopje Pristine N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Age 18-29 795 33.69 105 26.58 87 23.32 162 40.50 91 22.75 132 33.67 218 54.50 30-39 340 14.41 65 16.46 60 16.09 37 9.25 51 12.75 39 9.95 88 22.00 40-49 284 12.03 46 11.65 54 14.48 57 14.25 55 13.75 46 11.73 26 6.50 50-59 321 13.60 46 11.65 47 12.60 51 12.75 76 19.00 62 15.82 39 9.75 60-69 320 13.56 60 15.19 64 17.16 49 12.25 71 17.75 57 14.54 19 4.75 70 + 300 12.71 73 18.48 61 16.35 44 11.00 56 14.00 56 14.29 10 2.50 Gender Male 1048 44.44 149 38.60 159 41.95 204 51.00 165 41.25 202 51.40 169 42.25 Female 1310 55.56 237 61.40 220 58.05 196 49.00 235 58.75 191 48.60 231 57.75 Marital status Single 769 32.49 103 26.08 102 26.98 162 40.50 107 26.75 134 34.01 161 40.25 Married 1111 46.94 152 38.48 186 49.21 184 46.00 185 46.25 200 50.76 204 51.00 Cohabitation 150 6.34 69 17.47 25 6.61 10 2.50 19 4.75 8 2.03 19 4.75 Divorced 118 4.99 25 6.33 15 3.97 14 3.50 39 9.75 12 3.05 13 3.25 Widowed 219 9.25 46 11.65 50 13.23 30 7.50 50 12.50 40 10.15 3 0.75 Level of education Incomplete primary school 35 1.48 2 0.51 6 1.58 6 1.50 3 0.75 3 0.76 15 3.75 Primary school 132 5.57 27 6.82 24 6.33 29 7.25 17 4.25 15 3.81 20 5.00 Vocational school (3yrs) 284 11.99 46 11.62 52 13.72 52 13.00 59 14.75 40 10.15 35 8.75 High school (4 yrs) 924 39.00 164 41.41 137 36.15 175 43.75 138 34.50 173 43.91 137 34.25 Diploma degree (2yrs) 276 11.65 42 10.61 51 13.46 38 9.50 69 17.25 21 5.33 55 13.75 University degree 644 27.18 93 23.48 97 25.59 95 23.75 98 24.50 130 32.99 131 32.75 Graduate degree 74 3.12 22 5.56 12 3.17 5 1.25 16 4.00 12 3.05 7 1.75 9 s N a £