Breaking the Criminogenic Cycle: Exploring Parental Influences on Juvenile Delinquency in Nairobi and Mombasa Counties, Kenya

Breaking the Criminogenic Cycle: Exploring Parental Influences on Juvenile Delinquency in Nairobi and Mombasa Counties, Kenya

¹Lumadede Japheth., ¹Dr. Charles Mwirigi., ²Dr. Nyachoti W. Otiso,

¹Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Tharaka University

²School of Law, Chuka University, Kenya.

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.807200

Received: 01 July 2024; Revised: 13 July 2024; Accepted: 17 July 2024; Published: 17 August 2024

ABSTRACT

There has been a rise in juvenile delinquency worldwide, particularly in developing countries such as Kenya. Failures in interventions point to the possible inefficacy of the measures, misdiagnosis, or scanty analysis of the security problem. This was precipitated by mixed results and insufficient documented research. There has been therefore a need to comprehensively confirm, analyze, and document the relationships between various criminogenic situational predictors and juvenile delinquency in Kenya. The purpose of this study thus was to examine the relationship between parental characteristics and juvenile delinquency in Nairobi and Mombasa counties in Kenya. For this purpose, the researcher hypothesized that there is no statistically significant predictive relationship between parental characteristics and juvenile delinquency in Nairobi and Mombasa counties. This was both evaluated on both non-delinquents and delinquents to establish clear relations. The study was anchored on Social Learning theory. The study adopted a Concurrent Nested mixed-method Research approach with a qualitative component being embedded in a quantitative Causal-Comparative Research Design. The target population of the study was 2,908,950 juveniles in the two counties. The accessible population was 235,861 respondents, out of which a sample of 400 was drawn, from which the researcher got 360, a response rate of 90%. The researcher drew the sample using a disproportionate stratified random sampling thus ensuring representation of both delinquents and non-delinquents in each county. The delinquent population entailed both delinquents who had committed minor violations and delinquents who had committed serious violations. Delinquents who had committed serious violations were drawn from borstal institutions, while those who had committed minor violations were drawn from the Probation Department. The non-delinquents were drawn from county secondary schools in each of the counties. Random sampling was done using the Excel data analysis tool pack. In addition, 12 respondents were selected purposively from the authorities dealing with children matters, 6 from each county. The total sample size attained was thus 372 respondents. A face-to-face interview questionnaire and an in-depth key informant interview schedule were the main instruments of data collection. Binary logistic regression was conducted on the quantitative data at a 95% confidence interval (CI) and a p-value < 0.05 considered significant with the help of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0 software. Thematic content analysis was conducted on the qualitative data with the help of Max. Qda software. The odds ratio indicates that when holding all other variables constant, a child is 7.2 times more likely to turn out delinquent with poor parental characteristics than turn out non-delinquent. Therefore, employing a .05 criterion of statistical significance, the null hypothesis was thus rejected because the findings show a statistically significant predictive relationship between parental characteristics and juvenile delinquency. The findings of this study will be useful to the government, academia, policy actors as well as parents in developing crime prevention policies, contributing to theory and literature, informing on better family management practices, and informing effective tailoring of relevant social policies respectively.

Keywords: Parental Characteristics, Parental Criminality, Parental Attitudes, Juvenile Delinquency, Criminogenic 

INTRODUCTION

Juvenile delinquency, defined as illegal acts committed by individuals under the age of 18, represents a significant societal concern with far-reaching consequences (Young, Greer, & Church, 2017). Understanding the factors contributing to juvenile delinquency is paramount for effective intervention and prevention strategies. Parental influences have been identified as critical in shaping youth behaviour and involvement in delinquent activities (Frías-Armenta & Corral-Verdugo, 2013). However, limited research has delved into the specific role of parental characteristics, particularly in the context of Nairobi and Mombasa counties in Kenya.

Global trends indicate a concerning rise in juvenile delinquency rates, prompting heightened attention to this issue (Field, 2019). In Africa, the problem of juvenile delinquency has garnered increasing interest, with studies revealing a notable uptick in delinquent behavior (Walker & Maddan, 2019). Despite this, comprehensive investigations into the predictive relationship between parental attributes and juvenile delinquency remain scarce, particularly in the Kenyan context.

This study sought to address this gap by examining the criminogenic potential of parental characteristics on juvenile delinquency in Nairobi and Mombasa counties. Drawing on theoretical frameworks highlighting the significance of family influences, this research explored various aspects of parental behavior, including criminality and attitudes favoring antisocial behavior, and their impact on youth involvement in delinquency. By comprehensively analyzing the nuances of parental influences, this study contributes valuable insights to the understanding and mitigation of juvenile delinquency in urban Kenyan settings.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature on the relationship between parental characteristics and juvenile delinquency underscores the significance of understanding familial influences on delinquent behavior. Studies conducted over the past two decades, such as those by Vieno et al. (2009) and Cardona-Isaza and Trujillo-Cano (2023), have examined various parental features and their association with juvenile delinquency across different socio-economic backgrounds and geographical locations.

For instance, Cardona-Isaza and Trujillo-Cano (2023) investigated recidivism among Colombian juvenile offenders, focusing on parental criminality, parenting skills, and parental attitudes toward drug and antisocial behavior. Their findings highlighted a significant link between parental criminality, poor parenting skills, and parental attitudes, and higher rates of recidivism among juvenile offenders. However, it’s important to note that this study’s sample size was limited to youths aged 17 to 21 admitted to the Medellin Family and Minors Court House, which may not fully represent the broader Colombian population.

In a Kenyan context, Mwanza (2022) explored pupil characteristics associated with adolescent delinquency using qualitative methods at Kabete Rehabilitation School in Nairobi. The study identified parental criminality, parental attitudes toward drugs and antisocial behavior, and parental supervision as familial factors influencing juvenile delinquency. Notably, the incidence of delinquency was notably higher among children from families characterized by criminal behavior. However, this study’s scope was limited to a single rehabilitation school in Nairobi, which may limit the generalizability of its findings.

Moreover, research by Beelmann and Klahr (2022) conducted a meta-analysis of parental training programs’ effectiveness in preventing juvenile delinquency. Their findings indicated that such programs, particularly those focused on structural parenting, demonstrated significant reductions in delinquent behavior. Additionally, Ferencz, Kinderman, and Libby (2022) examined the influence of sibling relationship quality and parental rearing style on the development of Dark Triad traits, finding significant associations between parental favoritism and certain antisocial behaviors.

While existing literature has primarily focused on parenting styles and disciplinary practices, there’s a growing need to explore the influence of parental criminality and attitudes favoring antisocial behavior on juvenile delinquency outcomes. Understanding these factors comprehensively can inform the development of more effective prevention strategies and interventions tailored to address the underlying familial influences on delinquent behavior. Therefore, further research is warranted to investigate the predictive role of parental characteristics in juvenile delinquency within diverse cultural and geographical contexts.

METHODOLOGY

This study utilized a concurrent-nested mixed-method research design, where quantitative methods took precedence while qualitative components were embedded within. The quantitative aspect employed a causal-comparative research design to examine the correlation between independent and dependent variables, focusing particularly on parental influences on youth delinquency.

The research was conducted in Nairobi and Mombasa Counties, Kenya, chosen for their high crime rates and representation of areas impacted by juvenile delinquency. The target population consisted of children aged 15-17 years in these counties, totaling around 2,908,950. Stratified random sampling ensured diverse representation from both delinquent and non-delinquent groups. Sampling procedures targeted 400 juveniles for questionnaires and 12 for key informant interviews, though the final sample size reached 372 participants. To determine the sample, a formula proposed by Israel (2009) was adopted:

where:

n= sample size,

N=Target population

e= The error term (0.05).

The sample size of 400 juveniles is distributed as shown in Table 1

Table 1: Showing the Sample size distribution

The researcher employed disproportionate stratified sampling in order to get the sample. Data collection utilized structured face-to-face interview questionnaires and in-depth key informant interview schedules, focusing on various aspects of parental influences on youth delinquency. Piloting was conducted in Kakamega County to refine research instruments, and ethical approval and considerations were observed throughout the process.

Data analysis encompassed descriptive and inferential statistics, including binary logistic regression for quantitative data and thematic content analysis for qualitative insights. These methods ensured a comprehensive exploration of the relationship between parental influences and youth delinquency.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The relationship between the parental influences and delinquency was tested using Binary logistic regression at α =0.05 level of significance.

Qualitative data analysis was also conducted. A total of 12 Key Informant Interviews were conducted, 6 in each respective region. The data gathered from key informant interviews were analyzed through a thematic approach by the help of Max QDA Software.

Response Rate

A total of 360 responses were recorded for the interview questionnaires representing a response rate of 90%. This percentage was within the required standard criterion of between 80% and 100% used in research (Morton, 2012). This information is presented in the table 3 below.

Table 4: Respondents Response Rate

In addition to the number of children interviewed, all the 12 respondents identified by the researcher for the purpose of Key informant interviews participated in the study producing 100% response rate.

Bio data

This subsection discusses the respondent’s bio data such as county, delinquency done, education background, with whom the child is living with, type of family, number of siblings and birth order. Crosstabulations were also done against delinquency where necessary to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study. These data made it possible to understand the composition of the sample for drawing meaningful conclusions and generalizing findings.

Distribution of Respondents by County

Of the 360 respondents who responded to the interview questionnaires, 55.6% were from Mombasa, while 44.4% were from Nairobi. This points to a higher representation from Mombasa in the complete response rate. This distribution is as shown in the Table 4 below;

Table 5: Distribution of Respondents by County

Distribution of Respondents by Gender

The analysis of gender distribution of the respondents shows that the number of male respondents was 200 which forms approximately 55.6% of the total number of respondents in both sub counties. This means that there was slightly high male response rate in the study compared to the female respondents. The numbers of girls in conflict with the law is lower than number of boys as shown in table 4. This might imply that there are fewer females who violate the law compared to males which agrees with crime reports (National Crime Research Centre, 2018). This distribution is shown in the Table 6 below;

Table 6: Distribution of Respondents by Gender

Distribution of Respondents by Education Level

Majority of the respondents, 76.9%, have completed their education at the high school level. The cumulative percent also indicates that 12.8% of respondents have no formal schooling, thus 22.8% (rounded up to 23%) have either no formal schooling or primary education.

Figure 3: Distribution of Respondents by Education Level

This finding is still reflected per county since 70.0% of the respondents in Mombasa and 86.3% in Nairobi have completed their education at the high school level. Table 6 presents this information.

Table 7: Distribution of Respondents by Education Level

Distribution of Respondents by Whom the Children are living with

The largest percentage indicating that a significant portion of the children (60.0%) live with both their mother and father. This implies a situation where the parents are together and jointly responsible for the care and upbringing of the children. A smaller percentage of children (10.6%) live with their fathers alone. This could indicate situations where the mother is not present in the household, and the father has primary custody or is the sole caregiver. Mother (16.7%): A substantial percentage of children (16.7%) live with their mothers alone. Some children (6.9%) live with a guardian, indicating a scenario where someone other than the biological parents has assumed the responsibility for their care. Another group of children (5.6%) live with their grandparents.

Table 8: Distribution of Respondents by Whom the Children are living with

In regard to living arrangements of delinquents and non-delinquents, non-delinquents seem to have a slightly higher percentage of living with both parents compared to delinquents. This might suggest a potential correlation between intact family structures and reduced likelihood of delinquency. Non-delinquents also had a higher percentage of living with their mothers compared to delinquents. This could indicate a potential protective factor associated with maternal presence. Delinquents show a significantly higher percentage of living with their fathers compared to non-delinquents. These findings align with a 2022 Swedish study, which revealed that, in comparison to adolescents residing with both a mother and father, delinquent behavior was more prevalent among those living with a single father (incident rate ratio [IRR] 1.898), compared to those living with a single mother (IRR 1.661), a father and stepmother (IRR 1.606), or a mother and stepfather (IRR 2.044) (PLOS, 2022). The data suggests that family structure and living arrangements play a role in juvenile delinquency. Living with both parents appears to be associated with lower delinquency rates, while living with the father or grand parents may contribute to an increased likelihood of delinquency. Figure 5 below presents this information clearly.

Figure 4: Distribution of Respondents by Whom the Children are living with

Distribution of Respondents by Family Structure

In regard to whether the children come from Polygamous or monogamous families, slightly over half of the children (53.10%) come from monogamous family structures while (46.90%) come from polygamous family structures.

Figure 5: Distribution of Respondents by Family Structure

The get more insights into the family structures, specifically comparing whether delinquents and non-delinquents come from monogamous or polygamous families, a cros stabulation was done. Delinquents showed a significantly higher percentage (62.70%) of coming from polygamous families compared to non-delinquents (37.30%). This points towards a potential association between polygamous family structures and a higher likelihood of juvenile delinquency. This is in agreement with research conducted by Denga (1981) involving 100 families and 200 delinquents, the findings revealed a higher incidence of juvenile delinquency in polygamous families compared to monogamous ones.

Figure 6: Distribution of Respondents by Family Structure

Distribution of Respondents by Birth Order

The respondents’ birth order distribution revealed that 24.90% identified as first-born, 38.10% as mid-born, and 37.00% as last-born. Non-delinquents had a higher representation among first-born individuals (31.00%) compared to delinquents (18.80%). This suggests a potential association between being a first-born and a reduced likelihood of engaging in delinquent behavior. Notably, the last-born individuals are more prevalent among delinquents (44.40%) compared to non-delinquents (29.50%). This suggests a potential association between being the last-born and an increased likelihood of engaging in delinquent behavior. These results partly agree with common claims that propose a 33% to 33% higher likelihood of delinquent behaviors among ‘middle children’ compared to first-borns and a 20% higher likelihood of such behaviors among last-born children compared to first-borns, and also partly contradict common claims that ‘middle children’ are the most likely to be delinquent (Breining, 2020).

Figure 7: Distribution of Respondents by Birth Order

Normality Test

To test the normality of the variables the Kolmogorov-Smirnov^a   was used and the p-values (Sig.) were very low (0.00) which is less that the critical value of 0.05, which typically indicates that the data significantly deviates from a normal distribution. The table 6 below summarizes this information.

Table 9: Tests of Normality for Variables

H01: There is No Statistically Significant Predictive Relationship Between Parental Characteristics and Juvenile Delinquency in Nairobi and Mombasa Counties.

The researcher tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant predictive relationship between parental characteristics and juvenile delinquency in Nairobi and Mombasa counties. Respondents were asked to fill a questionnaire regarding the relationship between Parental Characteristics and juvenile delinquency. Questions regarding parental criminality were asked for instance, how often parent/caregiver (s) use drugs, how often their parent/caregiver (s) have been arrested and convicted, as well as how often their parent/caregiver (s) have been violent. Questions regarding parental attitudes towards criminality were asked for instance, whether parent/caregiver (s) encourages the abuse of drugs or encourages the use of violence when wronged, as well as whether their parent/caregiver (s) warned them about misbehavior.

The majority of respondents (65.30%) reported that their parents or caregivers never used alcohol, while a few (3.10%) did use alcohol. The majority (82.50%) reported that their parents never used marijuana. However, a small percentage (3.90%) of the respondents’ parents used bhang. For both khat/miraa and cocaine, the majority reported never witnessing parental use (88.90% and 93.30%, respectively). However, some respondents reported occasional use of these substances (3.1% in either).

Table 10: Relationship between parental characteristics and juvenile delinquency.

To get a clearer understanding the researcher cross-tabulated delinquency versus non-delinquent against their parental use of drugs. Interestingly, delinquents exhibited a higher frequency of parental drug use (alcohol, bhang, khat), especially for those who reported that their parents use drugs “Frequently” and “Always” suggesting a potential correlation between the frequency of parental drug use and juvenile delinquency.

Table 11: Cross-tabulated delinquency versus non-delinquent against their parental use of drugs

When asked whether their parents or caregivers had been arrested, a significant portion of respondents (76.70%) reported that their parents or caregivers had never been arrested. However, a few respondents, (1.90%) reported that their parents/caregivers had been arrested. Most respondents (83.60%) also reported that their parents or caregivers had never been convicted while a few (3.30%) reported their parents or caregivers were being convicted always. A majority of respondents (66.90%) reported never witnessing violence from their parents or caregivers. However, a small percentage (3.60%) witnessed violence from their parents or caregivers.

Table 12: Whether their parents or caregivers had been arrested

A crosstabulation of delinquents versus non-delinquents indicates that most delinquents (85.7%) and (75.0%) exhibited a higher prevalence of parental arrest and conviction respectively, indicating a potential correlation between parental arrest, conviction and juvenile delinquency. Delinquents also exhibited a higher frequency (92.3%) of witnessing parental violence suggesting a potential association between parental violence and juvenile delinquency.

Table 13: Crosstabulation of delinquents versus non-delinquents

To be sure that the differences in the findings observed on parental criminality are not just by chance, the researcher tested the hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference on the parental criminality score between delinquents and non-delinquents. A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between the score of parental criminality between delinquents and non-delinquents. Results of the analysis indicated that there was a difference U=11865, z = -4.661, p < .05, with a small effect of r = 0.246 with delinquents scoring higher in parental criminality (median=1.25, N=160), compared to non-delinquents (median=1.00, N=200). The comparative analysis thus highlights distinct differences in parental criminality between delinquents and non-delinquents.

In seeking to unravel the intricate relationship between parental characteristics and juvenile delinquency, insights were garnered from stakeholders deeply involved in matters concerning children. A unanimous consensus among these stakeholders emphasized that parental characteristics assume a foundational role in shaping a child’s behavioral trajectory, particularly within the realm of criminality. The stakeholders lending perspectives through interviews, shed light on the multifaceted ways in which parental characteristics wield influence over juvenile delinquency.

One paramount revelation arising from the analysis is the critical link between parental criminality and the predisposition of children toward antisocial behavior with stakeholders mentioning the higher probabilities of a child turning out delinquent when the parents exhibit criminal tendencies. Stakeholders underscored the generational transmission of criminal tendencies within families, thereby establishing an environment where delinquency becomes normalized. To delve deeper, they said that specific types of criminal activities engaged in by parents such as robbing, conning, or assaulting others intricately shape the development of antisocial behavior in their children. Some respondents reported that they are aware of instances where parents of some of the children were involved in illicit activities such as organized crimes and white-collar offenses, which may have contributed to the manifestation of delinquent behaviors in their offspring because the children were arrested engaging in similar activities. This they said, points to a generational transmission of criminal tendencies within families, creating an environment where delinquency becomes normalized.

A salient finding from the responses also underscored the explicit correlation between parental drug use and juvenile delinquency. The stakeholders accentuated that parents using drugs, such as illicit alcohol and bhang, were more prone to raising delinquent children. This correlation is especially pronounced in situations where children either witness or are directly involved in the sale of drugs by their parents or caregivers. For instance, a child regularly exposed to their parent’s drug activities, perhaps involved in packaging or distribution, may internalize and replicate such behaviors, perpetuating the cycle of drug-related delinquency. The stakeholders from the borstal institutions asserted that there exists a strong correlation between parental use of drugs and delinquency since most delinquents acquire criminal behaviors from situations of having parents who use drugs. Furthermore, parental substance abuse emerges as a significant criminogenic contributor because substance-abusing parents may at times exhibit impaired judgment, leading to neglect and an environment conducive to criminal activities. They reported that the ramifications of parental drug abuse on behavior, akin to other behaviors, hinge heavily on the frequency of drug use and the subsequent level of exposure experienced by children. Consider, for instance, a scenario where parents regularly engage in drug use within the household. The constant exposure to such behavior not only normalizes substance abuse for the child but also significantly increases the likelihood of them adopting similar practices as they mature. Beyond the direct impact on the child’s behavior, the analysis underscores that parental drug use creates a ripple effect by contributing to a deficiency in supervision, and guidance, and fostering a permissive attitude towards delinquent behavior. This lack of structure and authority can pave the way for adolescents to explore risky behaviors without adequate guidance, further amplifying the risk of juvenile delinquency within the familial context.

Furthermore, the frequency of arrests and convictions emerged as a critical aspect of parental criminality. Delving into the legal challenges faced by families with a history of criminality, particularly concerning substance abuse-related offenses, the respondents provided insights into the disruptions and uncertainties experienced by the children involved. For instance, a child growing up in an environment marked by frequent parental arrests may grapple with instability, potentially contributing to a heightened vulnerability to delinquency and criminal behavior.

Stakeholders also highlighted the role of violence within the family as a significant criminogenic contributor to juvenile delinquency. The observation that juveniles who witness familial violence often exhibit similar behaviors emphasizes the potential transmission of violent conduct across generations. Frequent bouts of violence within families are crucial for understanding the emotional and psychological impact on children, who may subsequently engage in violent activities outside the home. The stakeholders reported that witnessing violence may desensitize juveniles to aggressive behavior, increasing the likelihood of their involvement in violent activities outside the home.  For example, a child exposed to domestic violence may internalize aggression as a coping mechanism, reflecting such behaviors in their interactions outside the family sphere.

Furthermore, the stakeholders underscored the intertwining of parental criminality with broader economic and societal challenges in the family’s environment. Economic hardships were identified as contributors to a lack of resources for proper child rearing, amplifying the risk of criminal behavior. Respondents noted that parental drug use, often fueled by economic hardships, becomes a means of financial survival and influences the child’s trajectory toward delinquency. One respondent mentioned that parental drug use is often fueled by economic hardships, with parents resorting to illicit activities as a means of financial survival, and in turn influences the child. This complex interplay between economic challenges and parental criminality underscores the need for holistic interventions that address both the root causes and consequences of juvenile delinquency within affected families.

In conclusion, this multifaceted analysis contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the complex interplay between parental characteristics and juvenile delinquency. These insights inform the development of targeted interventions and support systems tailored to address the intricate challenges faced by families affected by parental criminality. Such nuanced approaches are crucial for breaking the cycle of delinquency and fostering positive outcomes for the affected children. The following statements from the stakeholders illustrate these assertions:

A parent’s job is to provide guidance. Therefore, whatever he does matters. Youngsters learn more from observation than from instruction. Think about the situation when a young person’s father is a drug dealer. During this crucial developmental stage, the youngster unknowingly becomes an apprentice, learning not just the surface-level details but also the intricate ways of the illegal trade. The father’s activities work as an unintentional curriculum, teaching drug-dealing techniques without any official educational intention. The youngster is exposed to a world of illegal activity through this implicit mentorship within the family, which affects how they perceive right and wrong.

(Stakeholder 2, Mombasa)

Parental criminality affects children in negative ways. The blurred lines between legality and criminality in the parent’s actions can expose the child to the risks associated with substance abuse. This early exposure, even if concealed, can set the stage for the child to engage in substance abuse themselves, further perpetuating the cycle of delinquency.

(Stakeholder 4, Nairobi)

If the parent is a criminal, the child may adopt the criminal activities. For example, a parent who engages in violence at will influence the child to sell, hence involving them in crimes

(Stakeholder 2, Mombasa)

These results are in agreement with the findings from a study by Khan, Alkazemi, & Almekhlafi (2017), examined the connection between adolescent delinquency and parental criminality in Morocco. The study by Khan et.al indicated that parental criminality significantly affected the chance of adolescent delinquency using data from the World Bank’s “Demographic and Health Surveys.” In particular, the study discovered that parental crime was linked to a higher risk of juvenile delinquency, particularly for young males. The authors had hypothesized that this would be because male children are more likely to be exposed to criminal behavior and peers at home. This study had sampled 477 urban Moroccan households and used a cross-sectional methodology. Parental criminality, parent-child interactions, parental supervision, and socioeconomic level were all used as the study’s metrics. The findings just like findings from this study clearly showed that a higher risk of adolescent delinquency is linked to parental criminality. The authors came to the conclusion that parental crime is a significant contributor to juvenile delinquency and should be considered when determining the risk of juvenile delinquency.

Zou, Li, Chen & Wu (2018), also investigated how the parental crime affected juvenile delinquency in China. Parental criminality had a considerable impact on adolescent delinquency, according to the study, which used data from the “China Family Panel Survey.” In particular, the study discovered that parental crime was linked to a higher risk of child delinquency, especially for females. The authors hypothesized that this would be because young women are more likely to grow up in homes where they are exposed to criminal activity and peers. A sample of 4,054 homes, from both urban and rural China, was included in the cross-sectional study. In the study, measures such as parental crime, parental marital status, parental education, parental supervision, and family structure were used. The findings showed that a higher risk of adolescent delinquency was linked to parental criminality. The authors came to the conclusion that parental crime is a significant contributor to juvenile delinquency and should be considered when determining the risk of juvenile delinquency.

Similarly, Yüksek, Tuncer & Arslan (2020) investigated the link between adolescent delinquency and parental criminality in Turkey. Parental criminality had a large impact on child delinquency, according to the study, which used data from the “Turkish Family Health Survey.” In particular, the study discovered that parental crime was linked to a higher risk of juvenile delinquency, particularly for young males. The authors had hypothesized that this would be because male children are more likely to be exposed to criminal behavior and peers at home. A sample of 1,737 households in urban Turkey were used in the study’s cross-sectional methodology. In the study, measures such as parental crime, parental marital status, parental education, parental supervision, and family structure were used. The findings showed that a higher risk of adolescent delinquency was linked to parental criminality. The authors came to the conclusion that parental crime is a significant contributor to juvenile delinquency and should be considered when determining the risk of juvenile delinquency.

Zhang, Johnson, Laub & Holleran (2021) also looked at the connection between parental criminality and child delinquency in the US. The study demonstrated a substantial relationship between parental criminality and child delinquency using data from the “National Longitudinal Survey of Youth.” In particular, the study discovered that parental crime was linked to a higher risk of juvenile delinquency, particularly for young males. The authors hypothesized that this would be because male children are more likely to be exposed to criminal behavior and peers at home. A sample of 1,788 American households from the study’s cross-sectional methodology was used. In the study, measures such as parental crime, parental marital status, parental education, parental supervision, and family structure were used. The findings showed that a higher risk of adolescent delinquency was linked to parental criminality. The authors came to the conclusion that parental crime is a significant contributor to juvenile delinquency and should be considered when determining the risk of juvenile delinquency.

The relationship between parental crime and child delinquency was also the subject of a study by Farrington (2017). The parental crime was found to be a significant predictor of adolescent delinquency in the study, which examined data from a sample of 5,392 British boys and girls. According to the study, the probability of juvenile delinquency was 2-3 times higher in children who had criminal parents. Additionally, the study found that parental criminality was a stronger predictor of delinquency than any other aspect of the family background.

In regard to parental attitudes towards criminality, a high percentage (83.3%) of the children reported that their parents do not encourage the use of drugs compared to those who receive their encouragement (3.1%). The children also reported significantly higher percentages (52.5%) for parental warnings about misbehavior compared to those who do not receive warnings (14.7%). A high percentage (73.9%) of the children reported that their parents do not encourage the use of violence when wronged.

Table 14: Parental attitudes towards criminality

Further analysis by crosstabulation revealed that delinquents report significantly higher percentages in the “Always” and “Frequently” categories for parental encouragement of drug abuse compared to non-delinquents. Non-delinquents, on the other hand, predominantly indicate lower levels of parental encouragement of drug abuse, with the majority marking “Never” or “Rarely.” The data suggests a potential correlation between parental encouragement of drug abuse and juvenile delinquency. Delinquents appear to experience a higher degree of exposure to such attitudes, emphasizing the role of familial influences in shaping behavior. Delinquents exhibit lower percentages in the “Always” and “Frequently” categories for parental warning about misbehavior compared to non-delinquents who showed higher percentages in these categories. There was a significant proportion of delinquents who marked “Never” or “Rarely,” for parental warning about misbehavior compared to non-delinquents suggesting a potential lack of effective guidance or communication about misbehavior in their families. The data implies that non-delinquents perceive higher levels of parental guidance and warnings about misbehavior. In contrast, delinquents experience a potential deficit in such communication, indicating a gap in familial guidance and disciplinary measures. Delinquents also reported higher percentages in the “Always” category for parental encouragement of violence when wronged compared to non-delinquents. Non-delinquents, in contrast, display lower percentages in the “Always” category, with a notable portion marking “Never.” The data suggests a potential association between parental encouragement of violence and juvenile delinquency. Delinquents seem to experience higher levels of such encouragement, indicating a criminogenic influence within the family environment.

Table 15: Further crosstabulation

To be sure that the differences in the findings observed on parental attitudes towards criminality are not just by chance, the researcher tested the hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference on the parental attitudes towards criminality score between delinquents and non-delinquents. A Mann-Whitney U test was conducted to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between the score of parental attitudes towards criminality between delinquents and non-delinquents. Results of the analysis indicated that there was a difference U=8972.5, z = -7.486, p < .05, with a medium effect of r = 0.39 with delinquents scoring higher in parental attitudes towards criminality (median=2.33, N=160), compared to non-delinquents (median=1.00, N=200). The comparative analysis thus highlights distinct differences in parental attitudes towards criminality between delinquents and non-delinquents.

To get a better understanding of the relationship between parental attitudes towards criminality and juvenile delinquency, the researcher sought answers from the relevant stakeholders dealing with children. They all agreed to that parental attitudes towards criminality are foundational in shaping a child’s behavioral trajectory, especially in the context of criminality. The nuanced perspectives provided by the stakeholders interviewed shed light on the multifaceted ways in which parental attributes influence juvenile delinquency. The respondents introduced a notion that children, perceiving approval for delinquent actions from their parents, may be inclined to engage in unlawful activities. This underscored the significance of the parent-child dynamic and the role of parental influence in shaping moral perspectives. They reported that the nature of parental attitudes, whether lenient, indifferent, or actively encouraging antisocial behavior, influences the behavior of the children. A parent’s attitude was described as establishing boundaries that dictate the extent to which a child should proceed while engaging in their activities. When the parent doesn’t react to negative actions of the child, the child ends up normalizing the acts which could be wrong. Positive attitude from a parent towards good acts of a child motivates them to even do better.

Several respondents highlighted instances where parents or caregivers were indifferent about their children in engaging drug-related activities, exposing them to a crime-conducive attitude and environment from a young age. The stakeholders also mentioned that parents or caregivers with attitudes favoring antisocial behavior are also likely to encourage their children to abuse drugs or commit other delinquent acts such as shoplifting or stealing. This offers insights into family dynamics contributing to delinquent behavior as it sheds light on the normalization of drug use within these families.

The stakeholders also mentioned how often parents warn their children about misbehavior, coupled with an investigation into the nature of these warnings, as valuable determinants of children’s behavior. Inconsistent warnings, and warnings that are either too harsh or too lenient are a pivotal factor in shaping juvenile behavior.  The counsellors mentioned that communication dynamics within families which is depicted by the attitudes the parents have affects the effectiveness of parental guidance and its potential impact on juvenile delinquency. Effective communication emphasizing that the consequences of misbehavior can serve as a deterrence, while inconsistent or ineffective warnings may contribute to a lack of guidance, potentially increasing the risk of delinquent behavior.

The endorsement of violence within the family represents another critical aspect of parental attitudes towards criminality. Insights gained from interviews reveal the dynamics of power and control within these families, providing a nuanced understanding of the link between parental encouragement of violence and juvenile delinquency. For instance, a scenario where a parent actively supports or engages in domestic violence. In such cases, the child not only witnesses aggressive behaviors but is also likely to internalize these patterns as acceptable forms of conflict resolution. This normalization of violence within the family can contribute significantly to the child’s likelihood of engaging in delinquent behaviors outside the home. Moreover, the perpetuation of violence across generations, as observed in such environments, underscores the need for targeted interventions addressing both parental behaviors and the impact on the developing psyche of the child. The comprehensive analysis of parental attitudes towards violence within the family is instrumental in formulating strategies aimed at breaking the cycle of intergenerational transmission of criminal tendencies and fostering healthier family dynamics.

Additionally, the analysis from the respondents unveiled a link between cultural norms and societal expectations of various local contexts which in one way or another influence these attitudes. They said parental attitudes towards criminality is intricately woven into broader cultural and societal fabrics. The respondents also mentioned that economic strain contributes to a permissive attitude towards drug use among children, which in turn perpetuates a cycle of delinquency. The following statements from the stakeholders illustrate these assertions:

Even in households where parents themselves are not directly involved in criminal activities, the attitudes they exhibit, especially noticeable in single mothers facing various challenges, can significantly influence a child’s perception of anti-social behavior. For instance, an uneasy single mother’s subtle tolerance towards certain deviant activities may indirectly communicate to the child that such behavior is not always unequivocally wrong.

(Stakeholder 1, Mombasa)

Parents who do not show their dissatisfaction on small issues done by the children, indirectly encourage the children to do the same over and over again. When these issues escalate, the parent will lack the moral authority to tell the child that it was wrong to do that. On the other hand, some parents might exhibit an overly strict approach, pushing their children to conform excessively to societal expectations. This can create an environment where the child feels compelled to meet unrealistic standards, potentially leading to frustration and a rebellious response. A scenario where a parent consistently emphasizes the importance of impeccable behavior without allowing room for the child to navigate and learn from their own experiences may inadvertently foster a sense of rebellion, as the child seeks autonomy in response to the perceived pressure to conform.

(Stakeholder 4, Mombasa)

Some parents do appreciate and support their children for things like bringing money home, bullying fellow students in school as revenge despite the fact that they are encouraging the child to continue practicing delinquent acts. The parents attitude becomes a confirmation to this child that whatever thing they are doing is right. This is still the same acts that will escalate to serious criminal acts we are dealing with today like robbery with violence.

(Stakeholder 4, Nairobi)

These findings are in agreement with the findings from a study by Moore, Rothwela & Segrott (2010) who conducted a study to establish the relationship between parental attitudes and behavior, and young people’s consumption of alcohol after considering the increased consumption of alcohol among the youth in the UK. The study used a cross-sectional design, involving secondary analyses of self-completion questionnaire responses from 6,628 secondary school children who were aged 11-16 years), from 12 schools within an urban location in Wales. The study included questions that related to family functioning and perceived parental attitudes that were used for factor analysis. The study established that closed-knit families had lower prevalence cases of alcohol consumption among the youth in the UK. The family factors associated with such behaviors as alcohol consumption included families with a history of violence, conflicts, and emerging liberal attitudes among parents, petty crime.

To ascertain the predictive effects of parantal characteristics (combination of parental criminality and parental attitudes towards criminality or antisocial behavior) on the likelihood that a child will be delinquent versus not be delinquent a logistic regression was performed. The researcher tested the null hypothesis that there is no statistically significant predictive relationship between parental characteristics and juvenile delinquency in Nairobi and Mombasa counties. The logistic regression model was statistically significant, X2 (1, N = 360) = 84.80, p = .000. The model explained 28.1% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in delinquency. The model was able to correctly classify 63.8% of those who would turn out delinquent and 82% of those who would not, for an overall success rate of 73.9%. Table 2 shows the logistic regression coefficient, Wald test, and odds ratio for each of the predictors. The odds ratio for parental characteristics indicates that when holding all other variables constant, a child is 7.2 times more likely to turn out delinquent than non-delinquent with poor parental characteristics. Therefore, employing a .05 criterion of statistical significance, null hypothesis was thus rejected because the findings show a statistically significant predictive relationship between family management practices and juvenile delinquency. Parental characteristics has significant partial predictive effects on juvenile delinquency at 0.00 which is less than the threshold of 0.05.

Table 16: Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients

Table 17: Model Summary and Hosmer and Leme show Test

Table 18: Classification Table

Table 19: Variables in the Equation

It is therefore evident from both quantitative and qualitative analysis that parental characteristics are linked to juvenile delinquency. The generational transmission of criminal tendencies within families normalizes delinquency, while specific types of criminal activities engaged in by parents contribute uniquely to the development of antisocial behavior in their children. Additionally, parental attitudes towards criminality, including the endorsement of violence within the family, are identified as crucial factors influencing juvenile delinquency.

Other than parental characteristics persistent themes according to the findings from the interview also revealed parental education level is another significant characteristic that correlates with a child’s academic achievements and, subsequently, their involvement in delinquent activities. Higher parental education is associated with increased supervision, better communication skills, and a conducive environment for a child’s development. Initiatives that promote adult education, provide resources for parental education, and implement school-based programs can positively impact both parents and children, contributing to a healthier family environment.

Parenting styles was also been mentioned as a predictor of delinquency. One respondent mentioned that parenting styles yield varied impacts on juvenile delinquency. Authoritarian parenting, characterized by strict rules and harsh discipline, may lead to rebellion and increased delinquency. On the contrary, authoritative parenting, combining warmth and clear expectations, fosters a healthy environment, reducing the risk of juvenile delinquency.

Parental mental health significantly influences the family environment, impacting a child’s daily routines, parenting consistency, and overall stability. Children in households with parents experiencing mental health issues face an increased risk of developing behavioral problems and engaging in delinquent activities.

In light of these findings, several recommendations emerge as imperative for addressing the complex issue of parental criminality and parental attitudes and their contribution to juvenile delinquency. Given the link between parental drug use and juvenile delinquency, substance abuse treatment and prevention programs are crucial. Suggested interventions should focus on providing support for parents struggling with addiction, as well as educational programs aimed at preventing substance abuse within families. Collaborative efforts between healthcare providers, social services, and community organizations can address the multifaceted nature of this issue.

Addressing the impact of violence within families requires family counseling and support services. Interventions should focus on providing resources for families to break the cycle of violence, promoting healthy communication, and offering mental health support. Family-centered programs can contribute to creating a nurturing environment that reduces the risk of juvenile delinquency.

The interviewees mentioned that interventions should also address the broader economic and societal factors contributing to juvenile delinquency. Educational and economic empowerment programs can provide families with the tools and resources needed to overcome the challenges associated with poverty. Creating opportunities for education, skill development, and employment can empower families to break free from the cycle of criminality. By adopting a comprehensive approach that considers the interplay of familial, economic, and societal factors, intervention strategies can effectively mitigate the impact of parental criminality on juvenile delinquency, fostering a healthier and more resilient community.

Additionally, addressing the impact of violence within families requires family counseling and support services. Interventions should focus on providing resources for families to break the cycle of violence, promoting healthy communication, and offering mental health support. Family-centered programs can contribute to creating a nurturing environment that reduces the risk of juvenile delinquency.

To address broader cultural and societal factors contributing to juvenile delinquency, educational and economic empowerment programs are thus imperative. These initiatives can provide families with the tools and resources needed to overcome the challenges associated with poverty, thereby breaking free from the cycle of criminality. Creating opportunities for education, skill development, and employment can empower families to navigate societal expectations and cultural norms, fostering healthier attitudes towards criminality. By adopting a comprehensive approach that considers the interplay of familial, economic, and societal factors, intervention strategies can effectively mitigate the impact of parental attitudes towards criminality on juvenile delinquency, contributing to the development of a resilient and thriving community.

Mental health awareness campaigns, accessible mental health services, and community-based support networks are vital in controlling the influence of mentally unhealthy adult negatively influencing the child. Authoritative parenting can also be advocated, combining warmth and clear expectations, thus fostering a healthy environment, reducing the risk of juvenile delinquency. Parenting education programs, support groups, and community workshops can help parents adopt more effective parenting styles.

Consistency in disciplinary practices is crucial for creating a stable and predictable environment. Inconsistent discipline may lead to confusion and resentment, contributing to delinquent behaviors. Parental training programs, counseling services, and community initiatives can help parents establish and maintain consistent disciplinary practices, fostering a more secure environment.

Effective communication and conflict resolution within the family are critical for a healthy and supportive environment. Poor communication and unresolved conflicts may contribute to stress for children, potentially leading to delinquent activities as a coping mechanism. Family counseling services, conflict resolution workshops, and community-based initiatives can help improve communication within families, reducing the risk of juvenile delinquency.

In conclusion, the comprehensive analysis of parental characteristics and their impact on juvenile delinquency underscores the multifaceted nature of the issue. The findings highlight the need for targeted interventions addressing various aspects of parental characteristics, as well as socioeconomic disparities, and parental behaviors. By adopting a holistic approach, incorporating economic empowerment, educational initiatives, substance abuse treatment, mental health support, and effective parenting strategies, stakeholders can formulate comprehensive and practical action plans to mitigate the risk of juvenile delinquency and contribute to the overall well-being of families and communities.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a statistically significant differences in scores of parental criminality and attitudes towards criminality between delinquents and non-delinquents, emphasizing the association. Parental characteristics, particularly parental criminality and attitudes towards criminality, demonstrate significant predictive effects on juvenile delinquency. Correlations are observed between parental characteristics and juvenile delinquency, indicating a potential influence of parental factors on delinquent behavior.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The policy recommendations from this study include:

Implementing targeted parent education programs focusing on reducing criminality and promoting positive attitudes towards law-abiding behaviour. This could encompass developing community-based initiatives and support systems to mitigate the impact of adverse parental characteristics on juvenile delinquency. Adopting a holistic and multifaceted approach to preventing and addressing juvenile delinquency would prove effective since it recognizes the pivotal role of parental characteristics in shaping outcomes for at-risk youth.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The first limitation is that the study was conducted using a cross-sectional strategy which fails to fully capture the trends and clear effects. i.  There is need for further research to explore the nuanced interplay between various parental characteristics and their specific impacts on different types of delinquent behaviors through longitudinal studies. Longitudinal studies as opposed to cross-sectional studies may provide valuable insights into the developmental trajectories of juvenile offenders in relation to parental influences allowing for a deeper analysis.

REFERENCES

1. Beelmann, A., & Klahr, A. (2022). The Moderating Role of Parental Training on Delinquency, Conduct, and Defiant Disorders: A Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1753.
2. Besemer, S., Ahmad, S. I., Hinshaw, S. P., & Farrington, D. P. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the intergenerational transmission of criminal behavior. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 37, 161-178.
3. Cardona-Isaza, M., & Trujillo-Cano, D. (2023). Risk and Protective Factors of Recidivism in Colombian Juvenile Offenders. Acta Colombiana de Psicología, 26(1), 61-72.
4. Ferencz, A.J., Kinderman, P., Libby, J. (2022). Examining the Influence of Sibling Relationship Quality and Parental Rearing Style on the Development of Dark Triad Traits: A Longitudinal Study. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 12(8), 1125-1136.
5. Field, B. C. (2019). The evolution of the juvenile court: Race, politics, and the criminalizing of juvenile justice (Vol. 4). NYU Press.
6. Frías-Armenta, M. & Corral-Verdugo, V. (2013). Environmental and Individual Factors in Adolescent Antisociality: A Structural Model of Mexican Teenagers. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences (IJCJS), 8 (2): 198–214.
7. Khan, A., Alkazemi, M., & Almekhlafi, M. (2017). Parental criminality and juvenile delinquency in Morocco. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 12(1), 1-12.
8. Li, G., Gao, Y., & Wang, H. (2023). Differences in Parenting Styles and Their Relationships with Juvenile Delinquency: Comparison Between China and the United States. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.643265
9. Moore, G. F., Rothwell, H., & Segrott, J. (2010). An exploratory study of the relationship between parental attitudes and behavior and young people’s consumption of alcohol. Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy, 5(1), 1-14.
10. Mwangangi, R. (2019) The Role of Family in Dealing with Juvenile Delinquency. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7, 52-63. doi: 10.4236/jss.2019.73004.
11. Mwanza, D. (2022). Familial Factors Influencing Juvenile Delinquency: A Study of 300 Juveniles at Kabete Rehabilitation School in Nairobi, Kenya. Journal of Comparative Social Work, 3(3), 647-656.
12. Vaughan, E. P., Speck, J. S., Frick, P. J., Robertson, E. L., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Cauffman, E. (2022). Longitudinal associations of parental monitoring and delinquent peer affiliation: The potential influence of parental solicitation and monitoring rules. Journal of Adolescence, 94(4), 656-666.
13. Vieno, A., Nation, M., Pastore, M., & Santinello, M. (2009). Parenting and antisocial behavior: a model of the relationship between adolescent self-disclosure, parental closeness, parental control, and adolescent antisocial behavior. Developmental psychology, 45(6), 1509.
14. Walker, J. T., & Maddan, S. (2019). Statistics in criminology and criminal justice. Jones & Bartlett Learning.