Breaking the Cycle: Prevalence and Patterns of Recidivism Among Male Inmates in Kakamega Main Prison, Kenya

Breaking the Cycle: Prevalence and Patterns of Recidivism among Male Inmates in Kakamega Main Prison, Kenya

Susan Ayuma Asava, Dr. Stephen Asatsa, Dr. Joyzy Pius Egunjobi

Catholic University of Eastern Africa

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000356

Received: 06 September 2025; Accepted: 14 September 2025; Published: 11 October 2025

ABSTRACT

Background: Recidivism poses a significant challenge to criminal justice systems globally, contributing to overcrowding, strained resources, and ineffective rehabilitation outcomes. In Kenya, empirical data on reoffending remain scarce, limiting the ability of policymakers to design evidence-based interventions.

Aim: This study aimed to establish the prevalence and patterns of recidivism among inmates at Kakamega Main Prison, with the broader goal of informing rehabilitation and reintegration strategies.

Methods: A quantitative cross-sectional design was adopted. Data were collected from a representative sample of inmates using a structured questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations.

Findings: Results revealed a high prevalence of recidivism, with a majority of inmates reporting multiple arrests and incarcerations. Recidivism rates ranged from low to very high, underscoring variations in severity. The findings suggest that current rehabilitation efforts, which are predominantly punitive, are insufficient to address underlying behavioral and psychosocial drivers of reoffending.

Conclusion: The study highlights the urgent need for reform-oriented strategies that go beyond punishment. Interventions should include vocational training, education, counseling, and structured post-release support to address both structural and psychological risk factors. Furthermore, personality-related traits emerged as an underexplored factor influencing reoffending, pointing to the need for further research. The study contributes to filling the knowledge gap on recidivism in Sub-Saharan Africa and offers actionable insights for policymakers, correctional officers, and mental health practitioners.

Keywords: Recidivism; Rehabilitation; Incarceration; Criminal Justice; Personality Traits; Prison Reform; Kenya

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Recidivism, broadly defined as the re-engagement in criminal behavior by individuals previously convicted and rehabilitated, remains a pressing concern in criminal justice systems worldwide (Lussier & Davies, 2011). It is not a uniform phenomenon; rather, it is shaped by multiple factors including social, economic, psychological, and institutional dynamics. Maltz (1984) distinguishes various measures of recidivism, such as rearrest, reconviction, and re-incarceration. Scholars agree that prior criminal records (Gendreau et al., 1996), substance abuse (Dowden & Brown, 2002), and limited employment opportunities (Travis & Lawrence, 2002) are among the strongest predictors of reoffending. However, recidivism is more than a statistical recurrence; it reflects broader systemic shortcomings in rehabilitation, reintegration, and social support.

In Kenya, despite deliberate efforts to rehabilitate offenders through correctional programs, recidivism rates continue to rise. The Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (Republic of Kenya, 2019) reported an increase from 16,987 recidivists in 2018 to 53,765 in 2019, representing a jump from 35% to 59%. This growth highlights a paradox: while resources are consistently invested in rehabilitation, outcomes remain unsatisfactory. High recidivism rates signal wasted institutional resources, a revolving prison door, and an ongoing cycle of crime in communities. The Kenyan case mirrors the broader global dilemma, correctional institutions are straining under the weight of repeat offenders, raising fundamental questions about the effectiveness of existing rehabilitation models.

Internationally, the United States exemplifies the scale of the challenge. With the highest incarceration rates globally, more than two-thirds of released inmates are rearrested within three years, and over half return to prison (U.S. prison population, 2020). This cycle has been attributed not only to stigma and discrimination (Nickerson, 2022), but also to structural barriers such as unemployment, lack of housing, and the return of offenders to the same environments where initial crimes were committed (Brookes, 2021). The United States demonstrates how deeply entrenched recidivism is, even in countries with advanced correctional systems, suggesting that punitive measures alone are insufficient without broader social reforms.

Australia presents a similar pattern. Recidivism rates stand at 53.1% within two years of release, with Indigenous Australians disproportionately affected (Burton, 2022). The economic burden is staggering, with billions spent annually on correctional services while nearly half of these resources are effectively consumed by repeat offenders. Comparisons with Scandinavian countries such as Norway (20%) and Finland (36%) reveal that recidivism is not inevitable, but closely tied to the quality of reintegration programs and societal support systems. Scandinavian models emphasize rehabilitation, mental health care, and community integration, showing that a humane and preventive approach can significantly reduce reoffending.

In New Zealand, recidivism also remains problematic, with 56.5% of former inmates reconvicted within two years and 35.8% reimprisoned within the same timeframe (New Zealand Government, 2023). Indigenous Māori people are particularly overrepresented in prison populations, reflecting systemic inequalities. Moreover, the high rates of violence and abuse within prisons further hinder reintegration efforts, making imprisonment itself a breeding ground for further offending rather than reform.

Africa’s experiences mirror these global patterns but are compounded by resource limitations and socio-economic challenges. In Nigeria, Oladapo (2022) found that 75% of released prisoners were rearrested within 2–3 years, primarily due to stigma and lack of employment. South Africa has reported alarmingly high rates, with estimates reaching 80–94%, largely because of inadequate mental health screening and limited reintegration support (Naido et al., 2022; Karim, 2021). Tanzania attempted to reduce recidivism by equipping prisoners with vocational skills, but the rates continued to rise, suggesting that training alone is insufficient without structural reforms in employment and societal acceptance (Mbwala et al., 2023).

Kenya faces its own distinct challenges. Studies have shown that prison interactions often foster the exchange of criminal knowledge, encouraging first-time offenders to adopt hardened behaviors (Michael, 2022). Limited opportunities for education and skills development during incarceration mean that many prisoners leave prison without employable skills, further exacerbating vulnerability to reoffending. Male prisoners in particular show higher rates of reconviction, with repeated offences escalating in severity (John et al., 2023). Cheti (2023) reported a national recidivism rate of 47%, with some offenders openly admitting that harsh economic conditions outside prison made incarceration a more desirable option because of guaranteed food and shelter. In specific regions such as Kakamega, crime rates have surged by 66% since 2021, even as other regions report declines (Didacus, 2021). Such disparities highlight the uneven effectiveness of rehabilitation programs and the pressing need for tailored, context-specific interventions.

Collectively, these findings reveal that recidivism is not only a criminal justice issue but also a socio-economic and psychological concern. Persistent stigma, poverty, unemployment, and weak rehabilitation programs perpetuate the cycle of reoffending. Importantly, while many interventions have focused on structural and institutional factors, less attention has been given to psychological and personality-related dimensions. Yet, understanding individual differences in personality could provide valuable insights into why some offenders desist after release while others relapse quickly into crime.

Despite decades of investment in correctional programs, recidivism remains a growing concern in Kenya. National reports indicate rising rates, with Kakamega County recording particularly alarming trends (Republic of Kenya, 2019; Didacus, 2021). While global and regional studies have documented the social, economic, and institutional drivers of recidivism, there is limited empirical evidence focusing on the Kenyan prison context, especially at the county level and among male inmates. Furthermore, little is known about the role of individual psychological and personality-related factors in influencing reoffending. This gap undermines the ability of policymakers and correctional institutions to design effective interventions. Therefore, a study on the prevalence of recidivism among male inmates of Kakamega Main Prison is not only timely but essential in informing context-specific strategies for reducing reoffending and promoting successful reintegration.

METHODOLOGY

Study Design

This study adopted a quantitative cross-sectional design, a widely recognized approach for estimating prevalence within a defined population at a single point in time (Setia, 2016). The design was particularly suitable for the current research, as it enabled the systematic measurement of recidivism rates and patterns among inmates incarcerated at Kakamega Main Prison. By focusing on a snapshot of the inmate population, the design facilitated efficient data collection while ensuring that the findings could highlight existing challenges within the prison system and inform evidence-based interventions.

Study Area and Population

The study was conducted at Kakamega Main Prison, the largest correctional facility in Kakamega County, Kenya. The institution was purposively selected due to its relatively high inmate population, which increased the likelihood of capturing a diverse range of recidivist experiences. At the time of data collection, the facility housed 946 inmates, who formed the target population. The study population was limited to individuals identified as recidivists, those with a documented history of prior convictions and imprisonment, since they represent the core focus of the research.

Sample and Sampling Procedure

The sample size was calculated using Yamane’s (1967) formula for finite populations, applying a 95% confidence level and a 5% margin of error. From the total inmate population of 946, this yielded a minimum sample of 220 participants. To enhance representativeness and minimize bias, a simple random sampling technique was applied, allowing every eligible inmate an equal probability of selection (Kothari, 2014). This approach ensured that the resulting sample adequately reflected the characteristics of the broader prison population.

Research Instrument

Data were collected through a structured questionnaire developed to capture recidivism-related indicators such as reoffending, rearrest, and reconviction. The tool was informed by prior empirical studies on recidivism and adapted to align with the Kenyan correctional context. Content validity was ensured through expert review by two criminology scholars and a research methodology specialist, who assessed the tool for relevance, clarity, and comprehensiveness. To establish reliability, a pilot study was carried out at Kitale Main Prison using 10% of the intended sample. The instrument achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.72, surpassing the recommended threshold of 0.70 for acceptable internal consistency (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

Data Collection Procedures

Following approval from relevant authorities, the researcher, assisted by trained research assistants, administered the questionnaires to selected inmates. Participants were briefed on the purpose and procedures of the study, and assistance was provided where necessary to address literacy or comprehension challenges. Questionnaires were collected immediately after completion to reduce risks of loss, contamination, or peer influence.

Data Analysis

Completed questionnaires were reviewed for accuracy and completeness before being coded and entered into SPSS (version 27) for analysis. Descriptive statistics, frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, were computed to quantify the prevalence and distribution of recidivism within the study population. Results were presented using tables, charts, and graphs, allowing for clear visualization of patterns and trends (Peersman, 2014). Although the study primarily relied on descriptive statistics, this was consistent with the research aim of estimating prevalence rather than testing causal relationships. Inferential analysis was not employed because the focus was on providing an accurate snapshot of recidivism within Kakamega Main Prison rather than making population-wide generalizations. This approach aligns with cross-sectional prevalence studies, where emphasis is placed on describing patterns to inform targeted interventions (Setia, 2016).

Ethical Considerations

The study received ethical approval from the National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) under permit number NACOSTI/P/25/416098, and authorization was granted by the Kenya Prisons Service. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants after they were briefed on the study’s objectives, procedures, and potential risks. Participation was entirely voluntary, with the right to withdraw at any stage without penalty. To uphold anonymity and confidentiality, no identifying personal information was collected, and all data were securely stored and used solely for academic purposes (Dawson, 2007).

RESULTS

Prevalence of Recidivism

The study examined the prevalence of repeat offending among 206 inmates at Kakamega Main Prison. Recidivism was assessed through three indicators: multiple arrests, engagement in multiple criminal activities, and repeated incarcerations. Overall, the findings indicated a high occurrence of reoffending behaviors within the inmate population. Specifically, 122 inmates  reported having been arrested more than once, 91 inmates reported involvement in more than one criminal activity, and 76 inmates reported having been incarcerated on more than one occasion.

Figure 1. Prevalence of Recidivism among Inmates

Multiple Arrests

Analysis of arrest histories revealed that a considerable proportion of inmates had prior encounters with law enforcement. Out of the 206 respondents, 124 inmates (61%) reported having been arrested more than once, indicating a sustained pattern of reoffending within this subgroup. In contrast, 82 inmates (39%) stated that they had only ever been arrested once, placing them in the category of first-time offenders.

Figure 2. Frequency of Multiple Arrests among Inmates

The distribution shows that the majority of the prison population studied had experienced repeated conflict with the law, with some reporting multiple arrests over different periods for varied offenses. This finding points to the fact that while a sizeable minority were first-time offenders, repeat arrests accounted for a dominant feature in the population under review. The variation also demonstrates that the inmate population is not homogeneous in terms of criminal history, with clear distinctions between those with single encounters and those with repeated interactions with the justice system.

Engagement in Multiple Criminal Activities

The study further examined the breadth of criminal involvement among respondents by assessing engagement in more than one type of criminal activity. Findings revealed that all 206 inmates (100%) reported participating in multiple forms of criminal behavior at some point prior to their current incarceration. This unanimous outcome confirmed that the study sample was composed entirely of individuals with established patterns of repeat offending, rather than isolated or single-type criminal incidents. The nature of multiple criminal engagements varied among respondents, ranging from property crimes and theft-related offenses to violent crimes and drug-related activities. Although the study did not categorize specific offense types in detail, the universal presence of multi-offense histories among participants underscores the extent of complex and overlapping patterns of criminality within the prison population. The lack of variation in this measure distinguishes it as one of the most consistent indicators of recidivism in the study.

Table 1. Frequency of Multiple Criminal Activities

Multiple Incarcerations

The results further indicated that 79 inmates (38%) had experienced multiple incarcerations, compared to 127 inmates (62%) who reported being imprisoned only once. This finding points to the recurring nature of criminal behavior and justice system involvement among a considerable proportion of the inmate population. The fact that more than one-third of the participants had been incarcerated more than once underscores the persistent challenge of recidivism within correctional systems. Such statistics not only highlight the frequency of re-offending but also draw attention to potential gaps in rehabilitation programs, reintegration support, and broader socio-economic structures that should aid in reducing repeat offenses. The pattern of multiple incarcerations may be linked to factors such as unemployment, lack of access to education, substance abuse, or weak family and community support systems. These findings suggest the need for targeted interventions that address underlying risk factors and provide inmates with effective skills and opportunities to transition successfully into society, thereby minimizing the likelihood of return to prison.

Table 2. Frequency of Multiple Incarcerations

Levels of Recidivism

Using a composite index that considered arrest history, involvement in multiple crimes, and incarceration records, inmates were categorized into three levels of recidivism. Results revealed that 108 inmates (53%) fell into the low recidivism category, 78 inmates (38%) into moderate recidivism, and 20 inmates (9%) into the high recidivism category. These proportions suggest that while a majority of the inmates demonstrated relatively low tendencies toward repeated offending, a significant minority still faced moderate to high risks of relapse into criminal behavior.

The distribution emphasizes the stratified nature of re-offending within the prison population. The large proportion of low recidivism cases may indicate that some individuals had committed isolated or situational crimes rather than developing entrenched criminal patterns. Conversely, the presence of nearly half the inmates in the moderate and high recidivism categories signals persistent systemic and personal challenges that fuel repeated involvement with the justice system. Such challenges may include limited access to economic opportunities, poor social reintegration support, substance abuse issues, or ineffective rehabilitation programs within correctional facilities.

Table 3. Categorization of Recidivism Levels

DISCUSSION

The findings of this study reveal that recidivism is a persistent and multifaceted challenge among inmates in Kakamega County, characterized by high rates of repeat arrests, multiple offenses, and recurrent incarcerations. The observed 61% prevalence of repeat arrests resonates with global research, underscoring that the challenge is neither unique to Kenya nor confined to low-resource settings. For instance, evidence from the United States demonstrates that more than three-quarters of released prisoners are rearrested within five years (Durose et al., 2014). Similarly, studies across sub-Saharan Africa have reported elevated recidivism rates, often linked to weak post-release supervision, socioeconomic marginalization, and underdeveloped reintegration programs (Oluwatoyin, 2020). The alignment of the Kenyan findings with both regional and global patterns highlights that recidivism in Kakamega is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a broader systemic issue that manifests most severely where rehabilitation infrastructures remain fragile.

A notable contribution of this study lies in documenting the stratification of recidivism levels. More than half of inmates (53%) were categorized as low recidivists, with offenses often reflecting situational or opportunistic criminal behavior. This pattern is consistent with prior studies linking first-time or occasional offending to structural factors such as economic hardship, unemployment, and peer influence (Alemika & Chukwuma, 2018). Importantly, the presence of this group signals a crucial intervention window: incarceration, though punitive, can serve as a platform for redirection if paired with early rehabilitative strategies. Vocational training, literacy programs, and structured community reintegration planning could disrupt pathways into habitual offending and redirect individuals toward productive participation in society.

The 38% of inmates categorized as moderate recidivists appear to represent a transitional group in whom offending patterns are becoming more entrenched. Their trajectories seem shaped not only by personal circumstances but also by systemic barriers such as unemployment, social stigma, and lack of structured support upon release (Richard, 2022). For this group, rehabilitation efforts must be more intensive than those suitable for low-risk offenders. Evidence-based practices such as cognitive-behavioral interventions, mentorship schemes, and job-readiness training have demonstrated efficacy in reducing reoffending and could be adapted for the Kenyan context (Lipsey et al., 2020). Addressing the needs of this group is particularly urgent, as failure to intervene risks further entrenchment of criminal behavior and eventual escalation into chronic recidivism.

The 9% of inmates categorized as high recidivists present the most complex challenge for the correctional system. Their repeat arrests and recurrent incarcerations appear to reflect deeply ingrained behavioral patterns, often compounded by substance use disorders, untreated mental health conditions, and persistent socio-economic exclusion (Okamura, 2023). This subgroup requires sustained, resource-intensive interventions that go beyond the standard prison environment. Approaches such as therapeutic communities within prisons, long-term psychological counseling, substance abuse treatment, and coordinated post-release monitoring have been shown to reduce reoffending in high-risk populations. Without such measures, this subgroup is likely to remain trapped in cycles of incarceration, with significant implications for public safety, correctional resources, and community stability.

The heterogeneity of recidivism profiles underscores the inadequacy of one-size-fits-all interventions. Instead, the findings strongly support the application of the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model within Kenya’s correctional system. The RNR framework emphasizes matching the intensity of interventions to an offender’s assessed risk level, addressing criminogenic needs such as impulsivity, antisocial associations, and substance misuse, and tailoring programs to individual learning styles and capacities (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). Operationalizing this model in Kenya could allow correctional institutions to allocate scarce resources more efficiently while also improving rehabilitation outcomes by ensuring that interventions are responsive to offender diversity.

At a broader level, the persistence of recidivism in Kakamega points to structural challenges in the transition from prison back into the community. Rehabilitation should not be viewed as a process confined to incarceration but as one that extends beyond prison walls. Transitional housing, employment opportunities, family reintegration, and community-based counseling services are all critical elements of a continuum of care. Studies have shown that the absence of such continuity perpetuates cycles of reoffending (Petersilia, 2003). For Kenya, this implies a pressing need to move away from predominantly punitive correctional policies and toward holistic, integrated rehabilitative approaches that are both evidence-driven and contextually adapted to low-resource environments.

Finally, this study highlights several areas for future research. While it primarily examined demographic and behavioral correlates of recidivism, psychological dimensions such as personality traits, resilience, and coping strategies remain underexplored in the Kenyan context. Future work should also evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions, such as prison-based counseling, vocational training, or structured community supervision, in reducing reoffending. Expanding research to include longitudinal approaches would help clarify how recidivism patterns evolve over time, while also capturing the influence of peer networks, digital communication patterns, and broader community factors on post-release adjustment. Addressing these gaps would not only enrich the academic literature but also provide policymakers with actionable insights for strengthening correctional reforms and promoting sustainable reintegration.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that recidivism is highly prevalent among inmates in Kakamega Main Prison, reflecting both global trends and the specific challenges of Kenya’s correctional system. Beyond establishing prevalence, the study contributes a novel dimension by examining the role of personality traits, an underexplored factor in the local context. These findings suggest that repeat offending cannot be fully addressed through structural measures alone, but also requires attention to psychological and behavioral determinants that shape inmate rehabilitation and reintegration.

The results carry important policy and practical implications. Rehabilitation efforts should go beyond vocational training and education to integrate counseling and personality-informed interventions that address underlying predispositions such as impulsivity, low conscientiousness, or emotional instability. By tailoring correctional programs to the individual risk and needs of inmates, Kenya’s criminal justice system can move closer to breaking the cycle of reoffending. Future studies should expand this line of inquiry through multi-site and longitudinal designs to test the long-term effectiveness of such targeted interventions.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

This study was limited by its reliance on data collected from a single correctional facility in Kakamega County, which may not fully represent the dynamics of recidivism across other prisons in Kenya or the broader region. The use of self-reported measures also introduces the possibility of recall bias or social desirability bias, as inmates may have underreported or exaggerated aspects of their criminal history. In addition, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causal relationships between personality traits and recidivism, as it only captures associations at one point in time. Finally, resource constraints restricted the sample size, which may reduce the generalizability of the findings to larger prison populations.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Future studies should adopt longitudinal designs to track offenders over time, providing a clearer understanding of how personality traits influence the likelihood of reoffending after release. Expanding research across multiple correctional facilities in Kenya and the wider East African region would also enhance the generalizability of findings. Furthermore, incorporating mixed-methods approaches, combining quantitative assessments of personality with qualitative interviews, could provide richer insights into the psychological and social drivers of criminal persistence. Future work should also explore the effectiveness of integrating personality-informed interventions, such as targeted counseling and cognitive-behavioral programs, into Kenya’s correctional system to reduce recidivism rates.

REFERENCES

1. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2017). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th Ed.). Routledge.
2. Alemika, E. E. O., & Chukwuma, I. (2018). Prisons in Nigeria: A synthesis report on the legal framework and practice. CLEEN Foundation.
3. Bello, M. (2020). Reducing Recidivism in Africa and the South African Model: a Legal and Criminological Overview. International Journal of Scientific Research in Humanities, Legal Studies & International Relations, 2, 22–32.
4. Brookes, E. (2021, July 21). Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory explained. Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory – Simply Psychology. Retrieved February 19, 2023, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/differential-association-theory.html
5. Burton, T. (2022). Repeat offenders account for half of prison costs.
6. Cheti, P. (2023).  I choose Jail: Why Lamu Prison is teeming with Repeat Offenders.
7. Dawson, C. (2007). A practical guide to research methods. Oxford: How to Books Publisher.
8. Didacus, M. (2022). Kenyan Crime Hotspots in 2021: Nairobi, Kiambu Listed among Counties with Most Criminal Activities. Retrieved from
9. https://www.tuko.co.ke/kenya/453739-kenyan-crime-hotspots-2021-nairobi-kiambu-listed-counties-most-criminal-activities/
10. Dowden, C., & Brown S. L. (2002). The role of substance abuse in the recidivism of violent offenders. Journal of offender rehabilitation, 35(3), 67-83.
11. Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/rpr34.pdf
12. Evan, C., Kelsey, G., Patrick, L. (2025). The impact of incarceration on reoffending: A period-to-period analysis of Canadian youth followed into adulthood. Journal of Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102335
13. Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works! Criminology, 34(4), 575-608.
14. Havard. (2024). Recidivism Imprisons American Progress.
15. Joan, P. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry.
16. John, O., Gidraph, G., Mark, K. (2023). Linkages between Punishment and Recidivism in Kenya: Analysis of Typology and Severity of Recidivists’ Crimes.
17. Karrim, A. A. (2021). Focus on punishment fails society and inmates: Correctional services spend far too much on prisons and too little on rehabilitation and reintegration. Published inBusiness Day News, 12 April. South Africa.
18. Kothari, C. R. (2014). Sample Size Determination. Research Methodology. New Age International Publications, Vol. 1, 74-81.
19. La Vigne, N., & Lopez, E. (2021, October 7). Recidivism rates: What you need to know. Council on Criminal Justice. Retrieved February 16, 2023, from https://counciloncj.org/recidivism_report
20. Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2020). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review of systematic reviews. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(4), 523-550.
21. Lussier, P., & Davies, G. (2011). A person-oriented perspective on the escalation of violence in a sample of adult male offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48(3), 338-365.
22. Maltz, M. D. (1984). Recidivism. Springer.
23. Mbwala, H. A., & Yohana, J. M. (2023). Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Initiatives in Reducing Recidivism in Tanzania: Evidence from Isanga and Ukonga Central Prisons. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378200631_Effectiveness_of_Rehabilitation_Initiatives_in_Reducing_Recidivism_in_Tanzania_Evidence_from_Isanga_and_Ukonga_Central_Prisons/fulltext/65ccc0131e1ec12eff9bd1b4/Effectiveness-of-Rehabilitation-Initiatives-in-Reducing-Recidivism-in-Tanzania-Evidence-from-Isanga-and-Ukonga-Central-Prisons.pdf
24. Michael, M. (2022). Recidivism in the Kenyan Criminal Justice System.
25. Naidoo, S., & Mkize, D. L. (2022). Prevalence of mental disorders in a prison population in Durban, South Africa. African Journal of Psychiatry, 15, 30–35.
26. Ndagala, K. (2024). Records on Kakamega Main Prison.
27. New Zealand Government. (2023). Key Initiatives. Retrieved from https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/key-initiatives-archive/hapaitia-te-oranga-tangata/
28. Nickerson, C. (2022, January 23). Recidivism: Definition, causes and examples. Recidivism: Definition, Causes & Examples – Simply Psychology. Retrieved February 19, 2023, from https://www.simplypsychology.org/recidivism.html
29. Oladapo, M. (2022). Correctional Institution (Prison) and the Control of Recidivism among Ex-Convicts in Southwest Nigeria.
30. Okamura, M., Takayuki, O., Yusuke, O. (2023). Recidivism among prisoners with severe mental health disorders.
31. Oluwatoyin, O. (2020). Rehabilitation and recidivism in sub-Saharan African prisons: A review. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 9, 1234-1244.
32. Peersman, G. (2014). Overview: Data Collection and Analysis Methods in Impact Evaluation. Methodological Brief No.10: Overview: Data Collection and Analysis Methods in Impact Evaluation
33. PeopleFirst. (2022). the cost of losing men to crime. Retrieved from
34. https://www.jngroup.com/the-cost-of-losing-men-to-crime/
35. Republic of Kenya (2019). Distribution of Population by Socio-Economic Characteristics.
36. Richard, R., Amanda, G. (2022). The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success after Prison. National Academics for Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
37. Setia, M. S. (2016). Methodology Series Module 3: Cross-Sectional Studies. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 61, 261. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5154.182410
38. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s  Alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
39. Tracee, L. H. (2020). Prisoner Reentry and Recidivism: Access to Reentry Programs and Reducing Recidivism for African American, Male Ex-Offenders.
40. Travis, J., & Lawrence, S. (2002). Beyond the prison gates: The state of parole in America. The Urban Institute Press.
41. UNODC. (2021). Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders.
42. U.S. prison population vs. The World: Statistics and insights. Background Checks.org. (2019). Retrieved February 12, 2023, from https://backgroundchecks.org/us-prisonpopulationtheworld.html#:~:text=Recidivism%20rates%20in%20the%20United%20States,One%20basic%20way&text=The%20rate%20of%20recidivism%20in,just%2020%25%
43. Van Ginneken, E. F. C., & Palmen, H. (2022). Is There a Relationship between prison conditions and Recidivism? Justice Quarterly, 40(1), 106-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825. 2022. 2040576.
44.  Wairire, Gidraph G. (2018). Professional Social work in east Africa: Towards social development, poverty reduction and gender equality.
45. Yamane, Taro. (1967). Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Edition. New York: Harper and Row.