Content uploaded by James Bill Ouda
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James Bill Ouda on Oct 21, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) |Volume III, Issue XI, November 2019|ISSN 2454-6186
www.rsisinternational.org Page 203
Etiology of Crime: An Analysis of How Schooling in
Kenya Breeds Offending and Criminal Behavior
Atieno Rose Opiyo1, Ouda James Bill2* & Jared Mudanya3
1, 3 Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology, Kenya
2 University of Venda, South Africa
*Corresponding author
Abstract:- It is impossible to explain predictors of juvenile
offending and criminal behavior development using one single
theory, but it is possible to recognize possible risk factors that
can be directly associated to juvenile offending tendencies among
children and young people. Child and youth risk factors to
juvenile offending and criminalitylies within five key pillars of a
child’s life: family, school, peers, neighborhood and the media.
School is the second socializing agent and perhaps, the most
important for a child of the 21st century, who spends substantial
amount of time in this setting. Popularly known, schools are
contexts where children are universally cared for supported and
nurtured in tandem with societal ideals. Thus, schools are
unanimously eyed as a protective agent for preventing offending
and criminal behavior development. Unfortunately, many
schools in Kenya have never lived up to the realization that
nurturing a criminal free society is one of their critical mandates.
More often than not, schools refer to criminality as a society-
created problem. In separate instances, societies and schools
label each as incompetent in molding morally upright citizens.
Meanwhile, compelling evidence ranks schooling and education
as one of the greatest criminogenic factors. Based on the
sociological theory, this paper review explored school policies,
public policies related to education as well as specific flows in
curriculum and student management practices that could be
precursors to juvenile offending and criminality. Findings
revealed that schools are not any longer safe heavens. A lot of
violence experienced by children occurs in this setting. The paper
documents education related risk factors of antisocial, violent
behavior and criminal tendencies. It urges attention in creation
of safe schools, change in students discipline and curriculum
management practices in order to nurture a criminal free
society.
Key Words: Etiology, Juvenile, Delinquency, Criminal behaviour
I. INTRODUCTION
rime, violence and disruptive behavior are widely
documented as old age problems whose control,
reduction and prevention have been a major challenge in
many societies. They range from mental/psychological to
physical forms of violence, hazing or initiation, assault,
robberies, rape, murder, sexual harassment, intimidation,
bullying, shootings, stabbings, gangsterism, drug trafficking
and related violence,theft of property and vandalism,racially
motivated violence and student protests that turn violent
(Burton, 2008; Jefthas & Artz, 2007). These inhuman acts
pose devastating effects to individuals, ravish communities,
significantly harm the confidence and lives of individuals and,
seriously compromise development (Human Rights Watch,
2001). However the good news is that, any society with
effective, responsible crime prevention mechanisms enhance
the quality of life of its citizens, gains significant long-term
benefits by reducing costs associated with the formal criminal
justice system, as well as other social costs that result from
crime. Put succinctly, in a paper, Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC) of 2013 “crime prevention and reduction
pay significant dividends by decreasing crime-related
expenditures of tax dollars, prevent victimization, promote
community safety and contribute to sustainable development
of countries.
In support of this view, United Nations Human Rights
Commission (1989) acknowledges that human fundamental
rights cannot be achieved unless crime is reduced and even
prevented. In part, the report states “one of the most
fundamental values is that men and women have the right to
live their lives and raise their children in dignity, free from
hunger and from the fear of violence, oppression or injustice
Pp. 89”. Pursuant to this call, world nations have expressed
resolutions on “action to promote effective crime prevention.”
There is renewed focus in preventing delinquency early in a
child’s life and enhancing chances of young people living
law-abiding and productive lives (WHO 1999). Promoting
civil and law abiding behavior have been prioritized as
paramount goals for all social systems, and in particular
education settings. Schools are entrusted with responsibility of
ensuring a safe effective learning environment, meaningful
formal and informal curriculum management and civic
development of youths (Richards, 2011). School’s wider role
of integrating children and youth into the society as citizens
with a sense of achievement, is a crucial theme in every
education discourse.
Placing this in context, the Center on Crime, Communities &
Culture (1997), opined that quality educational interventions
may be the most desirable and economical protective factor
against delinquency and a determinate of a person’s success.
Schools are believed to be perfectly positioned to play a key
role in the identification, prevention and treatment of at-risk
juveniles (Farmer et al., 2001). As pointed out by Loeber &
Farrington (2000), schools enable students to develop
resiliency by providing protective factors such as a positive
and safe learning environment, trains children to set
achievable academic and social expectations and facilitates
C
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) |Volume III, Issue XI, November 2019|ISSN 2454-6186
www.rsisinternational.org Page 204
academic and social success. Education imbues young people
with social skills that can deter criminal engagement, stress
behaviors that are not useful in the criminal world
(e.g.honesty, hard work, and respect for rule of law), causes
students to contemplate on the consequences of criminal
activity and gives students a future-driven outlook on life
(Furlong & Morrison, 2000). Other school protective factors
include: relevant curricula for academic, technical and life
skills, access to positive peer groups and activities for social
development. When these factors are present, even the most at
risk child do not develop antisocial and violent patterns of
behavior. These protective factors acts as buffers to young
people vulnerable to developing antisocial and violent
behavior (Henry, 2000)
Several school/classroom programs such as peer relations
training, teaching reading skills to juveniles, alternative
educational programs (for example individualized instruction,
rewards for positive behavior, goal-oriented work, small
student populations) have also shown considerable promise in
reducing recidivism and dropout rates in many communities
(Tobin & Sprague, 2000). Tobin and colleague opine that
educational programs are the foundation of effective crime
prevention because protective factors can be best learned,
performed, and maintained when they are ingrained in youth’s
daily routines. For example, teaching basic literacy skills,
problem-solving, social skills, and rules to all students
encourages academic success and discourages the
development of antisocial and violent behaviors
Based on the foregoing, it is reasonable to conclude that
children spend a substantial amount of time in school. Schools
are sites where pro-social attitudes are reinforced and
individuals prepared for the role they are to play in society at
large. Schools have great potential as a locus for crime
prevention. They provide regular access to students
throughout the developmental years, and perhaps the only
consistent access to large numbers of the most crime-prone
young children in the early school years. Schools are staffed
with individuals paid to help youth develop as healthy, happy,
productive citizens. This explains why communities usually
support schools’ efforts to socialize youth arguing that many
of the precursors of delinquent behavior are school-related
and therefore likely to be amenable to change through school-
based intervention. (Burton, 2008).
Surprisingly, empirical and media reports seem to invert this
popular discourse. There is a chain of shocking youth-related
crime often provoking ugly thoughts about the state of today’s
young people. Questions abound: How could a teenager
become so angry, violent and antisocial in just a few years of
life? The rare but devastatingly violent crimes committed by
youth at school seem to suggest that schools are in fact the
sites of violence (Jefthas & Artz, 2007; Burton, 2008). Burton
(2008) in his report “Dealing with school violence in South
Africa” reiterates that although the school has been
constructed as a space in which children can come and learn
in a safe and protected environment, schools have become one
of the most dangerous settings. Violence among children and
youth across age, gender, race and school categories has
become a pervasive problem and a grave national concern in
many world states, for instance in Kenya.
A report by Kaufman et al., (2000), confirmed that in the US,
50-60 school-associated violent deaths occurred nationally
during the complete 1997-99 school year , 42 involved student
homicides or suicides. This report revealed that more serious
types of school crime (for example, aggravated assault, sexual
violence, suicide, physical attack, fight with a weapon,
robbery, rape, murder, violence with a weapon) are relatively
rare. On the other hand, the less serious types of crime (e.g.,
theft, intimidation, bullying, rioting and physical fights
without weapons) which later on led to chronic crimes were
much more rampant (Snyder, 2000). Garth (2004) identified
violence and crime among school age-going children as a
significant health concern in South Africa reported cases of
rape, assault, battery increased drastically from 10,288 in
1997 to 13,401 cases in 2003. In Uganda and Sierra Leone
students identified gender based violence, consumption of
drugs and sexual immorality as the most common types of
crimes in schools. Separately, Naker (2005) study across five
districts in Uganda painted a similar picture noting that 98%
of students in high schools had experienced some form of
physical violence in schools.
Bullying, aggression, sexual harassment, drug abuse and
intimidation of junior students have been highly reported in
high schools in Kenya (Poipoi, 2011; Oloo, 2003; Ochieng,
2005; Daily Nation 23rd November, 1996). Specifically, Oloo
(2003) established that in many high schools, girls experience
sexual harassment but most of these go unnoticed or
unreported as they took the form of comments, teases and
obscene gestures. The worst case of student’s unrest and
violence in Kenyan history occurred in 1997 at St Kizito
Mixed Secondary School where boys invaded girls’ dormitory
and raped them, leaving 19 girls dead. Shortly after, similar
incidences of violent unrest were reported in Nyeri, Vihiga
and Nairobi among other schools across different parts of the
country. These incidents often leave scores of students
injured, maimed, suffer permanent deformities, buildings
burnt and several students dead. Violence in Kenya has not
only been associated to truancy, chronic absenteeism, and
student dropout but also equally responsible for disruption of
learning and compromised students’ physical, emotional
security and performance. Undoubtedly, the scenario
necessitates a sense of great urgency in ensuring school
safety. As such this extensive review, explored education
created risk and protective factors as this has not been given
priority by the researcher.
Objectives of the Review
The paper sought
i. To account for the wide range of education created
risk factors of offending and criminal behavior
among children and young persons;
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) |Volume III, Issue XI, November 2019|ISSN 2454-6186
www.rsisinternational.org Page 205
ii. To identify specific flows in educational
management systems and practices that could
predispose learners to offending behaviour and
criminality;
iii. To provide knowledge on effective education related
strategies for preventing child delinquency and its
escalation into serious and violent juvenile offending
behaviour.
II. METHODOLOGY
A search of the published literature for this review included
several steps. First, personal inquiries and consultations were
made with professionals with relevant research and practice
interests, which resulted in identification of several previous
and current sources of literature. Second, journals were
reviewed, focusing on preventive intervention and
criminological articles based on longitudinal, cross-sectional,
comparative studies and meta-analyses. Third, relevant texts
were searched for applicable information. Finally, a site
search was conducted on the World Wide Web of
organizations, databases, references, and on-line publications
on the subject of criminal behaviour in secondary schools
across the globe. Data was collected and synthesized from
these sources pertaining to risk factors, including
developmental pathways and contextual variables, resiliency
factors, and empirically validated programs for preventing
youth antisocial and violent behavior. Discussion of issues
was bound within the theoretical understanding thatcriminal
behavior is the product of a complex interaction between
biology and environmental or social condition. However, a
sociological theory of crime causation that assumes that a
criminal’s behavior is determined by his or her social
environment and rejects the notion of the born criminal was
the focus. Specifically the theory of social disorganization to
explain how some schools are potential risk agents to
offending and criminality. The presentation was dome
thematically.
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework of School Related Predictors of Problem Behavior
Figure 1 above demonstrates the possibility of influence
between the variables. It draws attention to fact that schools
operate in larger contexts which influence their functioning as
well as their outcomes. While illuminating several precursors
to delinquency, the review attention was drawn towards
school-related factors to delinquency. These factors include
characteristics of school and classroom environments as well
as individual-level school-related experiences and attitudes,
peer group experiences, and personal values, attitudes, and
beliefs. School environment factors related to delinquency
include availability of drugs, alcohol, and other criminogenic
commodities such as weapons; characteristics of the
classroom and school social organization such as strong
academic mission and administrative leadership; and a climate
of emotional support. School-related experiences and attitudes
which often precede delinquency include poor school
performance and attendance, low attachment to school and
low commitment to schooling. Peer-related experiences, many
of which are school-centered, include rejection by peers and
association with delinquent peers. What learners bring in
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) |Volume III, Issue XI, November 2019|ISSN 2454-6186
www.rsisinternational.org Page 206
school (individual factors) are also highlighted but not the
center of focus although we are aware that such problems like
impulsiveness or low levels of self-control, rebellious
attitudes, beliefs favoring law violation, and low levels of
social competency skills (for example identifying likely
consequences of actions and alternative solutions to problems,
taking the perspective of others, and correctly interpreting
social cues) are also linked to offending behavior and
criminality (Gottfredson, Sealock, &Koper, 1996). Although
schools cannot be expected to reverse their
communities’problems, they can influence their own rates of
disorder and this explains significant amounts of variation in
school rates of disorderly behavior (Gottfredson &
Gottfredson, 1985).
III. EDUCATIONAL RELATED RISK FACTORS
Risk factors are conditions empirically related to particular
outcomes (Reddy et al., 2001). A variety of antecedents may
precede deviant behavior, and multiple risk factors are
associated with antisocial and violent behavior. The
combinations and the complex relationship of these risks
within certain developmental stages can increase chances for
antisocial and violent behavior (Furlong & Morrison, 2000).
Risk factors that contribute to youth antisocial and violent
behavior can be categorized as internal (individual) or
external (family, school, community and peer relations)
(Catalano, Loeber, & McKinney, 1999). Educational created
risk factors can be placed into seven categories:academic
transitional bonding failure, unhealthy school climate and
relationships between peers and school
personnel,disorganized school environment, poor rule
enforcement policies and school policy abuse, lack of
stakeholders’ commitment, age of convergence at school and
lastly, lack of skills and motivation among school personnel.
(a) Poor Academic Performance among students
A specific school risk factor for delinquency is poor academic
performance. A meta-analysis of more than 100 studies
examined the relationship between poor academic
performance and delinquency and found that poor academic
performance is related to the prevalence, onset, frequency, and
seriousness of delinquency even when individual intelligence
and attention problems are taken into account (Loeber et al.,
2000). Inability to excel in school evokes negative responses,
carries with it a lot of psychological and emotional problems,
reduces a child’s self-esteem, and leads rejection (e.g. peer,
teacher and school) and frustration. These reactions solidify
feelings of inadequacy and leading to a pattern of chronic
delinquency. On the other hand, when young people realize
that they will never achieve success through conventional
means, low achievers seek like-minded companions (whom
they get access to due to numbers present in school) and
together engages in antisocial behavior. In most school in
Kenya there limited opportunities for student to achieve due to
high student teacher ratio, poor literacy development in early
grades, poor involvement of students and teachers in school
activities (absenteeism) and a narrow range of elective courses
in the curriculum. These and others add to a disconnect with
school and subsequent school failure or dropping out.
(b) Schools’ Contribution to Academic Failure
Longitudinal studies demonstrate that children who are
struggling academically are more likely to turn to crime than
those who are performing adequately or well (Dishion et al.,
1991; Flannery 2000). This is supported by evidence that the
intellectual functioning of young offenders is at the low-
average to average range and that they have significant
deficits in reading, mathematics, written and oral language
compared to their non-offending peers (Leone et al. 2003).
Studies have established a relationship between students’ lack
of interest in certain subjects, academic failure with certain
school factors (e.g. inappropriate teaching methods, poor
teaching styles, lack of resources). Further, school personnel’s
belief that students from lower socio-economic, disadvantaged
families and minority groups have only limited potential and
may not make it even with extensive remediation (Macfarlane
2004), has also been noted to jeopardize efforts to remediate
academic deficits of low achievers. It has also been argued
that examinations, testing and class grouping are biased, with
children from lower socio-economic homes being less likely
to be placed into classes that will lead them to university, and
that some schools have obviously discriminated students on
the basis of academic achievement. A child from a poor
family in Kenya is likely not to participate in preschool
education, join primary and school of low quality and the
cycle of academic disadvantage continues. This has led to
serious concerns whether education still is a social equalizing
tool in Kenya (Poipoi, 2011).
(c) Inadequate Transition in School, and from Primary to
Secondary School
All school transitions from one level to the next, present
developmental challenges and unique risk factors (Kellam et
al., 1998). This situation is worse during the stormy period of
adolescence. Smooth school transition require adapting to a
range of new demands and expectations by previously
unknown adults, negotiating new roles, reconstruction of the
peer groups, forming new relationships, adapting to unfamiliar
classroom environment and incorporating new dimensions
into their self-evaluations (Reinke & Herman 2002).
Specifically, lower to middle primary transition is challenging
because it involves the movement from one teacher to
multiple teachers, a few subjects taught in one classroom by
one teacher to multiple subjects taught by a number of
teachers in different classrooms with differing teacher styles.
In secondary school, greater and more complex academic
demands, and greater demands for self-monitoring and self-
reliance, need to move around several classrooms, laboratories
and libraries as well as ability to shun peer pressure can be
overwhelming (Kellam et al. 1998). This transition period is
twice as risky for girls, who are more likely than boys to
experience pubertal maturity at the same time as they
experience the transition from primary to secondary school
(Poipoi, 2011).
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) |Volume III, Issue XI, November 2019|ISSN 2454-6186
www.rsisinternational.org Page 207
(d) An Unhealthy School Climate
An unhealthy school climate is linked with a poorly
organized, malfunctioning school that has a prevalent sense of
despondency among students and staff, accompanying high
rates of teacher and student absenteeism, and a higher
incidence of school mobility (McEvoy & Welker 2001). Such
schools are characterized by teachers who are routinely late to
class and students being left unsupervised and vulnerable;
cramped classrooms and overcrowding; poor physical
condition and appearance of school buildings and grounds;
high student-teacher ratios; and insufficient teacher training
on effective behaviour management (Leone et al. 2003). An
unhealthy school climate not only contributes to academic
failure, leading to a lack of school attachment, school drop-out
and criminal offending, but can also contribute to aggressive
students’ violent behaviour (Reinke & Herman 2002).
(e) Mistreatment by School Personnel
Halkias et al., (2003) identify two categories in the student-
school personnel relationship that traumatize students:
deliberate versus unintentional maltreatment. Deliberate
maltreatment involves punitive disciplinary strategies and
control techniques that are based on fear and intimidation.
These include but not limited to verbal assaults, sarcasm and
ridicule, isolating a student from his or her peers, allowing or
ignoring peer humiliation, sexual harassment, humiliating in
front of peers in relation to their learning difficulties, calling
them liars and criminals, and personal attacks regarding their
appearance, family and choice of friends. Unintentional
maltreatment is demonstrated by involuntary provision of a
low quantity and quality of human interaction, and providing
limited opportunities for students to develop self-worth. At the
extreme end of teacher abuse is the use of corporal
punishment, the purposeful infliction of pain or confinement
as a penalty for an offence (Halkias et al., 2003), and other
forms of prejudice directed at students who are already
marginalized within the school setting (Cunningham 2003).
These forms of intentional and unintentional maltreatment
have been widely noted to occur in Kenya schools where not
only corporal punishment is rampant leading to physical and
emotional abuse of boys and girls, but also sexual abuse with
those whom are trusted to create a safe environment- the
teachers and other care-givers in the schools.
(f) Poor Bonding in School, Poor Teacher- Child
Relationship and Social Interaction
Academic achievement and school bonding are, in many
ways, interdependent. Poor performers fail to develop strong
bonds to school and exhibit lower expectations of success.
Weak bonds (low commitment) to school, low educational
aspirations, and poor motivation are risks for general
offending and for child delinquency (Hawkins et al., 1998).
According to Oloo, (2003), boys who engage in delinquency
are less committed to school and more likely to have “shorter
plans” for their schooling. These boys described themselves as
bad students. Failure to bond to school during childhood
together with early neurological deficiencies when combined
with the failure of family, school, and community to provide
adequate socialization, lead to early-onset offending that
persists throughout life. (Richards, 2011). Research also has
provided some insights into the types of social interactions
that occur in classrooms for students who exhibit problem
behavior. In many instances teachers rarely use positive
statements in many classrooms and in particular to deviant
students (Wehby et al., 1993). This strains students and
teacher relationship (Farmer et al., 2001). The outcome of
these patterns of coercive social interactions in schools is a
cycle of academic failure, detachment from the school,
behavior problems, low school attendance, suspension, and
dropping out of school which are strong predictors of
delinquency and violence.
Evidence verifies that a teacher’s teaching style, attitude and
expectations can adversely affect students’ educational and
social outcomes (Kennedy & Kennedy 2004, McEvoy &
Welker 2001). For instance, when teacher-student relationship
is characterized by high levels of conflict and negative
interactions, a vicious cycle can be set in motion in which
there is an escalation in the student’s antisocial responses to
the teacher’s requests, a punitive reaction to this response
from the teacher, and an intensification of negative behavior
as a reply from the student. When teachers cannot cope with
the stress and frustration associated with working with these
difficult students, they react to minor problems with
irritability, fear, counter-aggression and negative thinking,
which often escalate the frequency and severity of the child's
aggressive behaviors Church (2003). Studies by Church
(2003) attribute the ambivalence to working with difficult,
time-consuming children to the teachers’ lack of knowledge
about how to work with defiant and antisocial students. Poipoi
(2011), informs that students in one of the boys’ schools in
Western Kenya burned one of their dormitories after being
denied a chance to watch a football match. This was not one
of the days designated for entertainment, but due to
misunderstanding and lack of consensus between teachers and
students, the students wanted their way while the teachers
were firm on the school routine. Hence the standoff ended up
with a case of arson.
(g) Anti-Social Peer Relationships formed at School
Schools assemble together large numbers of at-risk youth thus
can become breeding grounds for discontented, embittered
and alienated students to mix with like-minded peers,
especially where there is little adult supervision (Farmer et al.,
20001). Both inside and outside the classroom, students
develop social hierarchies and groups that have a significant
influence on their performance and play a large role in
shaping both their appropriate and inappropriate behaviors
(Reinke & Herman 2002). Particularly at risk are children
who exhibit verbally and physically aggressive behaviors,
display non-normative forms of aggression such as
relationally aggressive boys and overtly aggressive girls
(Bloomquist & Schnell 2002) may be rejected by them, may
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) |Volume III, Issue XI, November 2019|ISSN 2454-6186
www.rsisinternational.org Page 208
find acceptance only in antisocial or delinquent peer groups.
In effect, Farmer and Cadwallader (2000) points out that they
go through a process of deviancy training, in which their peers
teach them deviant norms and values. These relationships
become stronger and more reinforcing over the years and the
antisocial patterns and beliefs become more resistant to
change (Henry, 2000). Studies equally reveal that once these
children are rejected, they will remain isolated from ‘normal’
peers, even after interventions have been implemented to
improve their social behavior. Peer rejection deprives a child
of the socializing experiences that s/he may obtain from pro-
social peers and sets the stage for him or her to become
involved with an antisocial peer group (Church 2003, Gardner
et al. 2004). This process of peer rejection spiraling to
disruptive behaviors and youth offending begins in the
primary school years and accelerates during the intermediate
and high school years, becoming more serious, more frequent
and more covert as the children mature (Church 2003; Reinke
& Herman 2002).
(h) Disorganized Schools
When schools are poorly organized and operated, children are
less likely to value their education and do well on academic
tasks. They are more likely to experience peer influences that
promote delinquency and opportunities for antisocial behavior
(Gottfredson et al., 1996). For example, schools with fewer
teacher resources and large enrollments of students have
higher levels of teacher victimization by pupils. Teacher
victimization is also higher in schools with lower cooperation
between teachers and administrators and with poor rule
enforcement. Equally, disorganization may take the form of
physical characteristics found in schools, contributing to
youth antisocial behavior and violence. Overcrowding, poor
building design, and portable buildings hamper
communication and increase isolation (Flannery, 2000). Over-
reliance on physical security measures (metal detectors, locker
searches, surveillance cameras) appears to increase the risk of
school disorder (Henry, 2000). A school that appears unkempt
adds to the general perception of a lack of order and safety
(Garth, 2004).
(i) Poorly Defined Rules and Expectations for Appropriate
Conduct
Schools are places where appropriate and inappropriate social
behaviors may be learned or reinforced. However, poor rule
enforcement within schools or absence of clear rules and
school policies governing student behavior has been
associated with higher levels of student victimization. When
teachers or school personnel take a “hands-off” approach and
ignore such infractions as name-calling, fighting, and
harassment, they inadvertently condone such behaviors
(Furlong & Morrison, 2000). This promotes a cycle that leads
to increasing aggression in which lack of adult intervention
allows the students to retaliate against aggressive peers with
more aggression and violence. In effect, teachers who ignore
students’ harassment of other students send a message that
students are on their own to solve their interpersonal safety
issues (Furlong & Morrison, 2000). Equally, when educators
fail to establish clear rules or provide inconsistent
consequences to pupils who break rules, students may develop
disrespect for school rules and learn to manipulate them to
their own advantage (Snyder, 2000). Zero tolerance policies
and an authoritarian discipline style that engages staff in
power struggles exacerbate disruptions (Skiba & Peterson,
2000). Studies have noted that when learners are involved in
making schools rules they tend to self-check themselves
against the standards set
(j) Lack of Training and Poor Morale among Teachers
Schools that lack staff trained to address diverse and multi-
need student populations may experience higher levels of
youth antisocial and violent behavior. Although, both general
and special education teachers rate effective behavior
management techniques among the most important teaching
skills, classroom teachers report being most unprepared in this
area (Skiba & Peterson, 2000). Studies indicate that many
teachers do not feel prepared to address school violence issues
(Furlong & Morrison, 2000) and are not able to effectively
manage students with emotional and behavioral disorders,
who are placed in their classrooms without appropriate
support. These school risk factors ultimately aggravate
existing individual and family risk factors, increasing the
likelihood that youth will develop antisocial and violent
behavior.
(k) Limited Allowance for Individual Differences in the
School.
When academic curriculum and mode of instruction do not
match a student’s ability level, s/he may become frustrated or
bored and less attached to the school altogether (Jefthas &
Artz, 2007). This relationship is evident in many students with
emotional and behavioral problems, who exhibit patterns of
academic underachievement in reading. Difficulties in reading
also have been found to be extremely prevalent among
children and youth who exhibit conduct disorder and
delinquent behavior (Coleman & Vaughn, 2000). To some
extent, the relationship between behavior and academic
problems may be due to differences in the amount of
instructional interaction time with teachers that students who
exhibit problem behavior experience compared with their
typical peers. Teachers tend to interact less often with
disruptive students. In a study of high-risk first graders,
Wehby et al., (1993) found that teachers used twice as many
negative commands with the high-risk group than they gave to
a group of low-risk peers. Teachers also are more likely to
exclude students with problem behavior from the classroom
for disciplinary measures (Skiba & Peterson, 2000).
(l) School Policy Abuse
Senior management in schools, supported by their board of
trustees, can victimize students by using legitimized but
inappropriate punitive disciplinary practices to deter students’
behaviors (Morrison & Skiba 2001). Intolerant or zero-
tolerance policies such as school stand-downs, suspension,
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) |Volume III, Issue XI, November 2019|ISSN 2454-6186
www.rsisinternational.org Page 209
exclusion and early school exemptions provide opportunities
for at-risk, alienated youth to associate, unsupervised, with
deviant peers (Leone et al., 2003; Morrison & Skiba 2001). In
general, zero-tolerance practices are only effective in
immediately stopping undesirable behaviour in the school
setting simply because the antisocial student is removed from
the school grounds and transferred out into the community
(Skiba & Peterson, 2000). This does not help but to
exacerbate the problem.
(m) Age Group of Convergence at Schools
The relationship between age and crime is widely accepted
among criminologists and appears to hold true across race,
gender, society, and time (Halkias et al., 2003). High schools
and to a lesser degree, middle schools, therefore, bring
together large groups of individuals from age groups that are
characterized by higher offending and victimization rates,
likely to be offenders than individuals in any other age group.
These motivated offenders gather in and around schools,
engaged in routine activities on a daily basis. According to
Catalano (2007), when teacher student ratios in schools are
such that capable guardianship is often absent, as is in Kenya
in schools with large student populations, there will be
increase crime and victimization at or near schools. From a
social disorganization perspective, these schools might
actually be thought to increase the social disorganization of
school.
(n) Poor Parental Involvement
Schools and their related activities, organizations, and events
facilitate social ties among both adults and adolescents
through local organizations, like Parent Teacher Associations
(PTAs) that add on supervisory structure to the juvenile
population, both through the process of schooling and through
associated extracurricular clubs and activities. Social
disorganization theorists have argued that the local
organizations and youth supervision are important aspects of
maintaining community organization (Poipoi, 2011). Effective
supervision can be realized in smaller and a more close knit
school community (Hill & Taylor, 2004). This also goes with
age of child. For instance studies (Broidy, Willits, & Denman,
2009; Murray & Swatt, 2010) have noted that high school,
parents are less involved in their children’s education as
compared to elementary school students.
At this stage, adolescents are becoming more autonomous and
the school curriculum becomes more advanced, so students
are less likely to seek parental involvement and parents feel
less qualified to offer academic help (Church, 2003). Kennedy
and Kennedy (2004) noted that among the characteristics of
socially disorganized areas is the presence of groups of
unsupervised adolescents. In that sense, high schools and
middle schools may actually contribute to a neighborhood’s
social disorganization. The routine activity and social
disorganization perspectives overlap considerably on this
issue, as both traditions argue that groups of un- (or under-)
supervised youths are a criminogenic risk factor for
neighborhoods. Research on schools and neighborhood crime
equally support these arguments, as a number of studies have
found that neighborhoods with middle schools (Roman, 2004;
Broidy, Willits, & Denman, 2009) and high schools have
higher crime rates than neighborhoods without middle or high
schools.
IV. THE WAY FORWARD
Is now clear that just enrolling children in school is not
sufficient, what happens in school setting is relevant and
meaningfully enhancing young person’s productive living.
The following education related measures can help reduce the
rise in the number of the young people involved in criminal
activities.
Professional Guidance and Counseling Services
should be enhanced in schools by training teachers to
deal with defiant adolescence. Adolescence is a
stormy period when young people encounter the evil
impact of the peer pressure, try drugs, disengagement
with adults and experience turbulence emotions.
Besides providing children with essential needs,
moral guidance and close supervision should be
embraced by those who work with this group.
Education and training have a role in youth
criminality hence the Kenyan government deserves
enormous support in implementing its social policies
for low income families and in realizing quality
Education for All (EFA). This would lead to
reduction of dropout rate, absenteeism, truancy and
all factors that are highly linked to delinquency
It is important that schools implement a balanced
curriculum. There is urgent need to reduce the
overemphasis on academic components only.Idleness
is not just a devils’ workshop: it is to man what rust
is to iron.Schools should engage young person’s in
sports and other extra -curricular activities bearing in
mind that these activities not only allow adolescents
to expend built up energy that invokes emotions that
may lead to antisocial tendencies but are also
avenues to reinforce conformity since they are rule
oriented.
Schools should develop more direct work with
children and young people to enhance their
participation in formulating and implementing rule
enforcement policies. Parental involvement in this is
key, particularly on supervision
Teachers should be offered training in participative
approaches to working with children and young
people as part of their initial and in-service training.
Efforts used by schools to prevent problem behavior
and the quality of their implementation. These
efforts include formal curricular programs (formal,
informal and extra-curriculum) as well as
disciplinary practices and policies, and security
measures with regards to physical, emotionally and
psychologically safety of all children.
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) |Volume III, Issue XI, November 2019|ISSN 2454-6186
www.rsisinternational.org Page 210
REFERENCES
[1]. Aluanga L. (2008)July 26 th) What is ailing Schools ? The
Standard on Saturday P 16.
[2]. Bursik, R. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime
and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519–
552.
[3]. Burton, P. (2007). Someone stole my smile. An exploration into the
causes of youth violence in South Africa Centre for Justice and
Crime prevention, Monograph Series, No 3.
[4]. Burton, P. (2008). Merchants, skollies and stone Experience of
school violence in South Africa. Centre for Justice and Crime
Prevention, Monograph Series, No 4.
[5]. Catalano, Richard F.; Loeber, Rolf; McKinney, Kay C.(1999).
School and Community Interventions To Prevent Serious and
Violent Offending. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquent Prevention (Dept. of Justice), Washington,
DC
[6]. Dishion, T. J., Patterson, G. R., Stoolmiller, M., & Skinner, M. L.
(1991). Family, school, and behavioral antecedents to early
adolescent involvement with antisocial peers. Developmental
Psychology, 27(1), 172-180.
[7]. D Jefthas, L Artz (2007). Someone stole my smile: An Exploration
into the Causes of Youth Violence in South Africa.
[8]. Dale Willits, Lisa Broidy et.al.(2011), Place and Neighborhood
Crime: Examining the Relationship between Schools, Churches,
and Alcohol Related Establishments and Crime, New Mexico
Statistical Analysis Center
[9]. David Kennedy (2004), Automatically Parcellating the Human
Cerebral Cortex, Cerebral Cortex, Volume 14, Issue 1, January
2004, Pages 11–22, https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhg087
[10].
Edwards, C.H. (2001) "Student violence and the moral
dimensions of education"
Psychology in the Schools
, 38(3):249-
257.
[11]. Farrington DP & Welsh BC (2003) Family-based prevention of
offending: A meta analysis, Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Criminology 36, 127-15
[12]. Furlong & Morrison. (2000). The School in School Violence:
Definitions and Facts, Hammill Institute on Disability,
https://doi.org/10.1177/106342660000800203
[13].
Flannery Jr., R.B. (2000)
Preventing Youth Violence
,
Continuum, New York.
[14].
Gottfredson, D.C. (2001)
Schools and Delinquency
, Cambridge
University Press, New York
[15].
Garth S. (2004). School based violence and Injury Prevention
Lessons from South Africa and Implications from Africa
UNISA institute of social and health Sciences for Peace Action.
Johannesburg.
[16].
Hann, D.M. and N. Boek (2001)
Taking Stock of Risk Factors
for Child/youth Externalizing Behavior Problems
, National
Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD
[17]. Hirschi, T.and Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of
crimeAmericanJournal of Sociology 89, 552-584
[18].
Human Rights Watch (2001) Scared at School Sexual Violence
Against Girls In Forth African Schools Human Rights Watch.
[19]. JD Hawkins, T Herrenkohl, DP Farrington, D Brewer (1998) A
review of predictors of youth violence. psycnet.apa.org
[20].
Kadzamira E (2000 November 11 th)Sexual Harassment in
Schools East Africa Standard P 13
[21].
Kafu ,PA (1998)Adhoc committee on cause of students’ riots in
Moi University Eldoret. Moi Univeristy Press
[22]. Kaufman, Phillip; Chen, Xianglei; Choy, Susan P, et.al..(2000),
Indicators of School Crime Safety, National Center for Education
Statistics (ED), Washington, DC.; Department of Justice,
Washington, DC. Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCES-2001-017;
NCJ-184176
[23].
Kangare(2006 Sexual Violence in Kenya naorobi Nairobi
Publishers
[24].
Kellam, S., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C., & Ialongo, N.
(1998). The effect of the level of aggression in the first grade
classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive behavior
into middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10(2),
165-185. doi:10.1017/S0954579498001564
[25].
Kuchio T and NjagiE(2008July 31 st)Cental Province schools
hit hard by strikes Education Nairobi Shred Publishers and
Supopliers Ltd Pg11
[26].
Lashlie, C. (2002)
The Journey to Prison
, HarperCollins,
Auckland.
[27].
Loeber, R. and Farrington D., P. (2000). “Young children who
commit crime: Epidemiology, developmental origins, risk
factors, early interventions, and policy implications”
Development and Psychopathology,
12(4):737-762.
[28].
Loeber, R., and Farrington, D.P., eds. (2001).
Child
Delinquents: Development, Intervention, and Service Needs.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
[29].
Macfarlane, A. (2004).
Getting them Early,
University of
Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
[30].
Makokha C. M. (2008) “
Factors Influencing Male Delinquents
to Commit Capital Offences: A case study of inmates in Kamiti
Prison
” – Unpublished University of Nairobi MA Project Paper.
[31].
Maseko, J.S.(2009) Socialisation of children and youth: Role of
the home and the school
uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/2134/02
[32].
Maren Roman, William T. Winter (2004).Effect of Sulfate Groups
from Sulfuric Acid Hydrolysis on the Thermal Degradation
Behavior of Bacterial Cellulose, Biomacromolecules 2004551671-
1677
[33].
Maughan, B. (1994) "School influences" in M. Rutter and D.F.
Hay (eds.)
Development Through Life: A Handbook for
Clinicians
(pp. 134-158), Blackwell Scientific Publications,
London
[34].
Naker D (2005 ). Violence Against Children and Adults
Kampala Uganda Raising Voices and Saving ChildrenUganda
Government Press
[35].
Odegi-Awuondo C. (1993)
Introduction to Sociology.
Nairobi:
Basic Book Limited.
[36].
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Bulletin
(2003)
Child Delinquency Risks and protective factors of
Delinquency
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice
Programm; OJJDP;Retrieved on 12 October 2015 publications
online at
ojjdp.ncjrs.org
[37].
Ojo, M.O.D. (2012) A Sociological Review of Issues on
Juvenile Delinquency
The Journal of International Social
Research
Volume: 5 Issue: 21pp 465- 482
[38].
Omboto O.J., Ondiek, G.A, Odhiambo O., Ayugi M.E.( 2013)
Factors Influencing Youth Crime and Juvenile Delinquency
.
International Journal of Research In Social Sciences Vol. 1,
No.2
[39].
Poipoi, W. M. (2011).
Teachers’andstudents’perceptionofthepsycho-
physiologicalcausesofbullyingamongpublicsecondaryschoolstud
entsinWesternKenya
International journal of current research
[40].
Reinke, W.M. and K.C. Herman (2002).
“Creating school
environments that deter antisocial behaviors in youth”
Psychology in the Schools
, 39(5):549-559.
[41]. Reinke, W. M., & Herman, K. C. (2002). A research agenda for
school violence prevention. American Psychologist, 57(10), 796-
797. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.10.796
[42]. Rolf Loeber.Jeffrey D.Burkeph.D. et al. (2000). Oppositional
Defiant and Conduct Disorder: A Review of the Past 10 Years,
Part I, Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, Volume 39, Issue 12,1468-1484
[43]. Roman, C.G. (2004). Schools, neighborhoods, and violence:
Crime within the dailyroutines of youth. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
[44].
South African Council of Educators (2011).
School Based
Violence Report An Overview of School Based Violence and
South Africa
. SACE Publishers.
[45]. Sutherland, A., (2011).The relationship between school and youth
offending Ministry of Justice Social Policy Journal of New
Zealand: Issue 37
International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) |Volume III, Issue XI, November 2019|ISSN 2454-6186
www.rsisinternational.org Page 211
[46].
Snyder, C.R., Feldman, D.B., Taylor, J.D., et.al,
(2000),The
roles of hopeful thinking in preventing problems and enhancing
strengths,
Applied and Preventive Psychology Volume 9, Issue
4, Autumn 2000, 249-269
[47]. The Daily Nation Newspaper of 26/1/2004.
[48]. Tobin & Sprague. (2000). Alternative Education Strategies:
Reducing Violence in School and the Community, Journal of
Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
https://doi.org/10.1177/106342660000800305
[49]. UN (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child
Online]http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm
[Accessedon15-05-2012]
[50]. World Health Organization (1999) Violence Prevention: An
Important Element of a Health-Promoting School,
[51]. UNICEF (n.d.) Child Friendly Schools
[Online]http://www.unicef.org/lifeskills/index_7260
[Accessedon12-10-2015]
[52]. U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, (2000) Annual Report
on School Safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of
Education and Justice.
.
