PSYCHO-SOCIO AND RE MAND HOME RELATED FACTORS AS DETERMINANTS OF RECIDIVISM AMONG JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN OYO AND LAGOS STATES, NIGERIA BY Comfort Ogochukwu, OFODILE B.Ed Adult Education, M.Ed Social Welfare (Ibadan) Matric. NO.: 105687 A Thesis in the Department of Adult Education, Submitted to the Faculty of Education in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY of the UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN March, 2017 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY CERTIFICATION I certify that this research was carried out by Comfort Ogochukwu OFODILE (Matric. no.: 105687) in the department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria, under my supervision. ................................................................. Supervisor Dr. Olumide E. Olajide B.Ed (Hons). M.Ed, Ph.D, Ibadan Reader, Department of Adult Education University of Ibadan, Ibadan .............................................................. Date ii UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY DEDICATION This work is dedicated to Almighty God for His grace, mercy and kindness that led to the successful completion of this study. iii UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to Almighty God for His sustaining grace throughout the period of my university education. His mercy and kindness really assisted me to successfully complete this work and I am full of gratitude to Him. My sincere appreciation goes to my supervisor, Dr Olumide E. Olajide, whose guidance and constructive criticism kept me focused till the end of this work. His advice and kindness kept me going in spite of all the challenges I encountered in the course of this work. His patience and understanding led to the successful completion of this work. May the Almighty God bless and keep him and his entire family. I wish to express my gratitude to the Head of Department of Adult Education, Professor Deborah Egunyomi and all the lecturers whose words of encouragement, inputs and contributions led to the successful conclusion of this research. Professor P.B. Abu, who inspired me and ensured that I enrolled for this programme, Drs. Omobola Adelore, Stella Odiaka, Olabisi Oladeji, Agbomehre Momoh, K. O. Kester, C. O. Omorege are sincerely acknowledged. I wish to express my gratitude to lecturers in other departments who contributed immensely to this work, such as Dr Okunlola, R. and Dr Tella, A. God will reward them all. I wish to express my gratitude to my husband for his financial support and encouragement throughout the period of the study; also my children, who were a source of encouragement to me in the course of the study. The Almighty God will bless each and every one of them. Furthermore, I wish to express my profound gratitude to the Head of Service (HOS) Oyo State Secretariat and the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Women Affairs, Community Development, Social Welfare and Poverty Alleviation, Secretariat, Ibadan for granting me the approval to carry out research in institutions under them. Also I sincerely thank the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Youth and Social Development, Secretariat, Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos State for giving me the approval to carry out research in institutions under him. May the Almighty God bless you exceedingly. My thanks goes to all the Directors, and staff in the various correctional homes in Oyo and Lagos states who were of tremendous assistance to me when I went to the field. God bless and reward them accordingly. I sincerely appreciate the Commandant of my school, Major U.B.Ikpekhia, the Vice Principal (Administration) Mrs Fagoyinbo, C. O., the Vice Principal Senior School, iv UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY (Academic) Mrs James, F. and Vice Principal Junior School, Mrs Balogun, O. A., for their understanding and support which led to the successful completion of the research. Thank you very much God bless you all. My sincere gratitude goes to Captain B.J. Gimba for all his assistance to me in the course of this work. May the Almighty God reward him abundantly. Also I appreciate all my colleagues and friends in my place of work who were of tremendous assistance to me in the course of this programme such as Mrs B. F. Agboola, Alabi Tope, Olugunle F., Mr Akinbiyi M.S, Drs Enu V and Kalu Ndukwe, and others. I am indebted to all the members of Full Gospel Business Men‘s Fellowship International, Bodija Chapter for their prayers and support throughout this study especially the President of the chapter, Pastor C. A. Asudemade and K. A. Moronkeji. Finally, I thank the Almighty God for His faithfulness, mercy, love and kindness upon me throughout the period of the study. In spite of all the challenges I encountered He assisted me to complete the programme. Father in heaven I thank and I am grateful unto you. C. O. Ofodile March, 2017 v UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY ABSTRACT Juvenile involvement in antisocial activities after reformation is on the increase in Nigeria, largely due to ineffective rehabilitation. Most juvenile offenders relapse into recidivism as a result of public rejection and realities of meeting up with their daily living, because they are early school leavers who had not learnt any trade before they were sent for correction. Previous studies on juvenile recidivism focused on juvenile justice administration, empowering youths in remand homes against risk taking behaviour with little emphasis on psycho-socio and remand home related factors predisposing them to recidivism. This study, therefore, investigated psycho-(Self-esteem), Socio-(family background, peer influence, media content) and remand home related factors (deviant peers, hard treatment in the correctional centre, lack of care), as determinants of recidivism among juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos states, Nigeria. The study was guided by differential association, strain and labelling theories, while descriptive survey design was adopted. Respondents were: 150, 115 and 192 inmates from Ibadan (Oyo State), Idi Araba and Oregun (Lagos State), making a total of 457 juvenile offenders. Family background (r=0.83); Media contents (r=0.85); Peer influence (r=0.75); Remand home factors (r=0.73); Recidivism (r=0.73); Self-esteem (r=0.82) scales were used. Data collected were analysed using descriptive statistics, Pearson product moment correlation and Multiple regression at 0.05 level of significance. Six sessions of focus group discussion were conducted with juvenile offenders and were content analysed. Sixty-one percent of juvenile offenders were boys, while 39.39% of the juvenile offenders were females. Family background (r=0.45), peer influence (r=0.54), self-esteem (r=-0.05) remand home factors (r=0.13), media content (r=0.65) correlated significantly with recidivism. The F value ratio of the result (F(5.446)= 89.60; p<0.05) shows that there is composite contribution of independent variables on juvenile recidivism and jointly accounted for 49.6% of its variants. The relative contributions of family background to recidivism was not significant (β=.059) while Peer influence (β=.207), self-esteem (β=- 225); Remand home factors (β=.088); media content (β=.525) significantly predicted recidivism. Juveniles‘ family background, self-esteem, peer influence, remand home factors and media content contributed to juvenile recidivism. Family background, peer influence, media content, self-esteem and remand home factors contributed to juvenile recidivism in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria. Parents and other stake holders should check juveniles‘ exposure to peer pressure and media utilisation to curb juvenile recidivism. Social Welfare officers and correctional psychologists should give priority to these factors while planning intervention and corrective programmes for the juveniles. Keywords: Psycho-socio factors, Remand home factors, Recidivism, Juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos State Word count: 398 vi UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages Title Page ............................................................................................................ i Certification ........................................................................................................ ii Dedication ........................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. iv Abstract .............................................................................................................. vi Table of Contents ............................................................................................... vii List of Tables ...................................................................................................... ix List of Figures .................................................................................................... x CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study ....................................................................... 1 1.2 Statement of the problem ...................................................................... 9 1.3 Objectives of the study ........................................................................ 11 1.4 Research questions ............................................................................... 11 1.5 Significance of the study ..................................................................... 12 1.6 Scope of the study ............................................................................... 13 1.7 Operational definition of terms .......................................................... 13 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Conceptual review ............................................................................. 15 2.1.1 Concept of delinquency ..................................................................... 15 2.1.2 Concept of recidivism ....................................................................... 24 2.1.3 Concept of self-esteem ...................................................................... 31 2.1.4 Concept of adolescence ..................................................................... 32 2.2 Literature review ............................................................................... 39 2.2.1 Delinquency and recidivism ............................................................. 39 2.2.2 Family background, delinquency and recidivism ............................ 42 2.2.3 Media content and recidivism ......................................................... 47 2.2.4 Peer influence and recidivism ........................................................... 51 2.2.5 Peer Relations and recidivism .......................................................... 54 2.2.6 Stigmatization and recidivism ......................................................... 55 2.3 Theoretical framework ..................................................................... 62 2.3.1 Differential Association Theory ....................................................... 62 vii UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 2.3.2 Labelling Theory .............................................................................. 64 2.3.3 Strain Theory .................................................................................... 66 2.4 Conceptual framework.................................................................... 69 2.5 Empirical studies .............................................................................. 71 2.6 Literature appraisal .......................................................................... 73 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research design ............................................................................... 76 3.2 Population ........................................................................................ 76 3.3 Sample and sampling techniques ................................................... 76 3.4 Instruments for data collection ...................................................... 76 3.4.1 The demography scale ...................................................................... 77 3.4.2 Family background scale ................................................................. 77 3.4.3 Media content scale .......................................................................... 77 3.4.4 Peer Influence scale ........................................................................ 77 3.4.5 Self esteem scale ............................................................................. 78 3.4.6 Remand home factors scale ............................................................ 78 3.4.7 Recidivism scale ............................................................................ 78 3.4.8 Focus group discussion (FGD) ..................................................... 78 3.5 Procedure for data collection ........................................................... 79 3.6 Methods of data analysis ............................................................... 80 CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 4.1 Demographic characteristics of the respondents .................................... 81 4.2 Testing of Research Questions ......................................................... 94 4.3 Discussion of findings of focus group discussion (FGD) ................ 121 4.4 Discussion of theoretical frame work in relation to findings ........... 123 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS 5.1 Summary ........................................................................................... 127 5.2 Conclusions ........................................................................................ 128 5.3 Recommendations ............................................................................. 129 5.4 Contributions to knowledge .............................................................. 129 5.5 Limitation to the study ....................................................................... 130 5.6 Suggestions for future research ........................................................ 130 REFERENCES .................................................................................. 131 QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................... 155 viii UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 161 ix UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY LIST OF TABLES Table 2.4 Conceptual Framework 69 Table 3.1: Schedule of FGD for the study 79 Table 4.1.8b: Distribution of respondents‘ mothers by occupation 92 Table 4.1.8c: Distribution of respondents‘ guardians by occupation 93 Table 4.2.9: Family background juvenile offenders 94 Table 4.2.10: Peer influence of juvenile offenders 97 Table 4.2.11: Self-esteem of juvenile offenders 100 Table 4.2.12: Recidivism of juvenile offenders 103 Table 4.2.13: Juvenile offenders‘ remand home factors 106 Table 4.2.14: Media content of juvenile offenders 109 Table 4.2.15: Correlation Matrix of independent variables on recidivism 113 Table 4.2.16: Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis on Composite Contributions of independent variables (media content, remand home, self-esteem, family background and peer influence) to recidivism 116 Table 4.2.17: Summary of multiple regressions showing the relative contribution of the Independent variables to recidivism 118 x UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1.1: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents by Gender 82 Figure 4.1.2b: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents by City and Gender 83 Figure 4.1.3: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents by Age 84 Figure 4.1.4: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents by Class 85 Figure 4.1.5: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents by religion 86 Figure 4.1.6: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents by marital status 87 Figure 4.1.7a: Bar chart showing the distribution of the respondents‘ fathers by education 88 Figure 4.1.7b: Bar chart showing the distribution of the respondents‘ mothers by education 89 Figure 4.1.7c: Bar chart showing the distribution of the respondents‘ guardians by education 90 Figure 4.1.8a: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents‘ fathers by occupation 91 xi UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study Antisocial behaviour and recidivism is a global issue. In the national dailies and on watch television, one encounters different forms of crime committed. This is a serious issue all over the world. The offences committed by juveniles include destruction of lives and property, kidnapping, pickpocket activities and rape. As a global phenomenon, the occurrence antisocial behaviour is felt all over the world. For instance in 2003, more than 2.2 million juveniles (under 18 years) in United States of America were arrested for various antisocial activities such as murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault (Sydner and Sickmund, 2006). Both males and females are involved. Also in 2005, in US, over 7 million people were jailed, imprisoned or on probation or parole (US Census Bureau, 2007). Adults and youths are the ones involved whenever crime is mentioned. That is why the Comptroller General of Nigerian Prison Services in his lecture in 2006 in a workshop organized by presidential commission said that juveniles in prison constitute 30% of the entire prison population. This number is quite alarming and is of great concern to the populace. This problem dates back to the colonial era. According to Alemika and Chukwuma (2001), the advent of colonialism and urbanization created new social problems, such as over-population, resulting from rural urban drift. This, in turn, led to an unconscious creation of urban underclass populace that began to neglect the welfare of their offspring owing to growing poverty in their midst. Most of these poor urban children resorted to violence, delinquency, and other forms of youthful disorder. In response, the colonial government and Christian missionary organisations set up ‗approved schools‘ and remand homes to cater for delinquent juveniles in Nigeria. The growth in the number of juveniles getting involved in antisocial activities continues to be a source of concern to the citizens of Nigeria, the government, youth organizers, non- governmental organisation, missions and so on. In the past, communities had a way of correcting erring children. The issue is not the same again. The Children and Young Persons Act II is the major piece of legislation dealing with matters affecting children and young persons in Nigeria. Its aim is ‗‗to make provision for the welfare of the young and the treatment of young offenders and for the establishment of juvenile court‘‘ (Adam, 2013). The Act was first enacted in 1943 by the British Colonial Government for application in any part of the Protectorate of Nigeria. It was specifically enacted for Lagos in 1946 and was extended to 1 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY the Eastern and Western Regions of Nigeria in the same year. A similar law was enacted for the Northern Region of the country in 1958. Lagos State, in 1946, enacted its own Children and Young Persons Law (CYPL) which is almost identical to the 1943 legislation. Under the terms of the CYPL there are three categories of children who may become involved with the system of juvenile justice: i) children in conflict with the law; ii) children in need of care and protection; iii) children beyond parental control. In Nigeria, the juvenile justice is embedded in the criminal justice of the nation. This criminal justice is responsible for juvenile and adult offenders. The word "juvenile" is not defined in the legislation of Nigeria. The CYPL defines a "child" to mean a person under the age of 14, while a "young person" is defined as a person who has attained the age of 14 and is under the age of 18. Except in respect of some punishments, there is little or no significance to these distinctions. The juvenile justice system is meant to care and reform juvenile offenders. But even with all these laws, children were still deprived from enjoying the full benefits of their basic rights (Adam, 2013). Thereafter, Nigeria became a signatory to the convention on Rights of the Child; and, in 2003, Nigeria adopted the Child Rights Act to domesticate the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Act provides for a Child Justice Administration to replace the Juvenile Justice Administration which had been in existence for several decades in Nigeria. The provisions prohibit the subjection of any child to the criminal justice process, and guarantees that due process be given to any child subjected to the child justice system, at all stages of investigation, adjudication and disposition of any case against such a child. It prohibits the use of capital punishment, use of imprisonment and use of corporal punishment for children less than 18 years of age. These are all novel provisions, as no such prohibition existed under previous legislation on children, the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), (UNICEF, 2011). The Child Rights Act and Child Rights Laws of the various states also made provisions for the establishment of the family court for the purpose of hearing and determining matters relating to children. The magistrates hear cases involving juveniles outside the normal courtrooms or outside normal court session either in the courtrooms or in their chambers (Hakeem, 2009). So much emphasis is placed on the protection of the rights of the child that the Act specifically stipulates that the personnel of the court shall be afforded professional education, in service training, refresher courses, among other 2 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY things, to promote and embrace the necessary professional competence they require (Uwakwe, 2011). Juveniles who committed serious offences are kept in correctional institutions meant to correct, reform and rehabilitate these offenders. This is to ensure that they are reformed to lead a good and useful life when they are released from custody. The institutions are expected to provide vocational training, in tailoring, photography, welding, building (masonry or bricklaying) electrical installation as well as formal educational institution up to General Certificate of Education (Hakeem, 2009). Although the Act protects the child in all areas juvenile offenders are commonly tried in the same courts as adults and are subjected to similar sentencing practices, including incarceration for minor offences, especially the less-privileged ones. Also a large population of juveniles are still detained in adult prisons, with the decrepit state of juvenile facilities across the country (George, 2009). Rather than adopt a single age of criminal responsibility, Nigeria has adopted various age demarcations under which responsibility may or may not be assigned depending on the circumstances or the offence. Thus, a child below the age of 7 is not criminally responsible for any act or omission. Children between the ages of 7-12 will not be held responsible for their actions unless it can be proved that at the time of committing the offence the juvenile had the capacity to know that he ought not to do it. A male child under the age of 12 is always assumed to be incapable of having carnal knowledge and therefore cannot be held responsible for offences requiring that element. A child above 12 is fully responsible for his actions; however, such juvenile remains subject to criminal proceedings in a family court until the age of 18. Juvenile justice therefore emphasises rehabilitation instead of punishment, prevention rather than retribution, as the principal goals of the justice system. Further, it advocates special procedures, distinct correctional facilities for children in conflict with the law and deinstitutionalization for minor offences. The above goals and features are captured in the Children and Young Persons Laws that are applicable in all the states of the Federation. Some states (numbering about 21) have also gone ahead to enact the Child Rights Law based on the Child Rights Act passed by the National Assembly in 2003. The Child Rights Act (Federal) and the Child Rights Laws (states) make elaborate provisions reflecting and reinforcing the unique goals and features of juvenile justice. The juveniles are under the custody of their parents and are expected to be in school between the ages of 6 and 16 years. They are to obey their parents at all times, 3 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY they are forbidden to purchase alcohol or cigarettes, and drive vehicles without parental permission. They are not permitted to vote or be voted for or join the military. Juveniles are involved in different types of antisocial activities, ranging from the most serious violent crimes of murder, forcible rape, and robbery, to status offences, for example running away, truancy, and curfew violations. When police officers come across status offenders, they may release the youth with a reprimand, or take the child to a police station where a ―juvenile card‖ is prepared, which describes his offence briefly. After this the parents will be summoned for a discussion before the juvenile is released. Felony offences, particularly those involving violence, are referred to the family court. When juveniles are tried, their trial is not made public even to the media. It is left for the judge to determine whether the facts of the case and the juvenile behaviour warrant formal hearing by the court. Family court judges have a lot of alternatives in deciding their cases, such as dismiss the case, give the juvenile warning, impose a fine, or order the payment of restitution, require the performance of community service, refer the offender to a community agency or treatment facility, or place the child on probation under the supervision of a family court officer or put the child in a foster home or have the youth committed to a juvenile institution. Juveniles are sent to correctional institutions for correction so that they will stop indulging in antisocial activities. After their release, they still find their way back to the correctional homes again. This is referred to as juvenile recidivism. Antisocial behaviour and recidivism pervade all the societies of the world. The reported ones are the ones recorded and there are some that are not reported and therefore not recorded. Recidivism remains a considerable problem which faces societies and governments throughout the world (Rakis, 2005). Most critics of the penal system use the rate of recidivism to know if they are effective; a high rate of recidivism suggests that they are not efficient on the job. Administrators in the penal system believe that juveniles will not go back to delinquent activities after they have been corrected and they are proved wrong by these juveniles. The reoffending suggests the need for new approaches, such as therapy or programmes designed to prevent juvenile recidivism. There is no standard national definition or measurement of recidivism. The most common measures include: re arrest being found guilty of new offence, reconviction, being found guilty of a new offence in a juvenile court of law, re-incarceration-being sentenced to a secure facility after being found guilty of a new offence. Some people 4 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY exhibit antisocial behaviour for one reason or the other. The adolescent period is a time when children are vulnerable to pressure caused by social problems as well as their own sense of uncertainty and frustration. Some resort to drugs and alcohol and join with other like minded kids in becoming involved in substance abuse. Some indulge in acts of vandalism; while some join teenage peers that provide sense of security and belonging. Although some of the youths drop this antisocial behaviour as they get older, some continue till adulthood. Recidivism is the act of a juvenile repeating an undesirable behaviour after he has either experienced negative consequence of that behaviour or has been treated or trained to extinguish that behaviour (Tenibiaje, 2013). It is the act of repeating an antisocial behaviour after undergoing some correction that ought to prevent further involvement in such activity. Recidivism is on the increase and the rate of involvement of the juvenile is of great concern to the Nigerian society. This is supported by Animasahaun‘s (2006) assertion that delinquency and recidivism in Nigeria is on an astronomical increase, happening in every sector of human endeavour and being perpetrated by both young and old, male and female, literate and illiterate, religious and atheists. In essence, antisocial activities permeate every aspect of society. There are lots of idle youths who are either not employed, or have dropped out of school as a result of reoffending and re-arrest. During correction, they are kept with adult offenders thereby exposing them to antisocial behaviour and, after release they are not rehabilitated. Recidivism refers to repetition of an undesirable behaviour or relapse of an individual to an undesirable behaviour. It is used to describe an unacceptable behaviour when it is repeated by an individual after training the person to drop that behaviour. Thus, recidivism is a relapse into antisocial activity by an individual after receiving adequate correction to drop that behaviour. This term is used to refer to juveniles who indulge in antisocial activities, and receive correction in order to desist from the attitude; but after some time these juveniles still indulge in the same activity. This can be attributed to the level of difficulty they experience to integrate back into society because people discriminate against them. This problem is not peculiar to Nigeria; it is seen all over the world. This difficulty brings about reoffending. Recidivism is not peculiar to juveniles alone; adult offenders are also guilty of it. A major concern in the area of juvenile offenders is the repeated arrests and correction of young offenders. Thompson and Morris (2013) argue that recidivism rate amongst juvenile offenders has remained high and stable with estimates of re-offending ranging 5 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY from 30 to 90%. In most cases, deviance could be traced to high unemployment rate, urban drift, large youth population, wide gap between the rich and the poor, broken homes, poverty, lack of education, different types of family structures, and absence of social control which communities put in place to check delinquent behaviours. Rapid urbanization, high unemployment, a large youth population, rising industrialization and corruption have all contributed to the problem rising crime in Nigeria (Bamgbose, 2002). Also, there appears to be a wide gap between the rich and the poor in Nigeria and this gap has contributed to increase in antisocial behaviour. Since Nigeria became more industrialised and urban, many of the past informal social control mechanisms are losing their power, thereby giving room for antisocial activities by juveniles. However, most youths in Nigeria are still law-abiding. The effect of juvenile recidivism is that a lot of youths are involved. Their education is interrupted as a result of involvement in antisocial activities. And if adequate intervention is not provided, they may end up becoming adult offenders. This problem is not peculiar to Nigeria. It is seen all over the world, Mendel (2011) notes that 81 per cent of males and 45 percent of female children were rearrested within 36 months after release from the South Africa Division for youths. In fact it is a serious problem all over the world though its intensity and gravity are determined by the social, economic and cultural conditions in each country. These juveniles, after correction, ought to be deterred from antisocial behaviour, but they persist. Recidivism has profound effect on juveniles, because they suffer stigmatization from people around them. They face the problem of employment, as no employer would want to employ them, and the disruption they face as a result of going in and out of correctional centres makes it difficult for them to go back to school. Also because of incessant involvement in antisocial life, they cannot contribute effectively to national development as a result of their misconduct. Recidivism has not only been on the increase in Nigeria, but has also become a major social problem affecting society, governments, multinationals, humanitarian organisations all over the world (Osayi, 2013). Juveniles, after correction, find it difficult to be integrated into society as a result of social and cultural factors, which deter them from effective adjustment. This brings about reoffending. As averred by Animasahun (2011), all efforts to combat antisocial activities and address challenges of recidivism have not really yielded any positive result, probably because the root cause of delinquent activities have not been properly addressed. There are some factors that cannot be 6 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY ignored whenever we talk about juvenile recidivism. Some of these factors include: family background of the offender, media content, peer influence, self-esteem and remand home related factors. The family background of the juvenile plays a vital role in the life of the child because it is where the primary socialization of the child starts. The most intense learning and primary socialisation occur from birth through adolescence (Teppermar, Curtis, and Albanese, 2008). The family is the most important agent of primary socialization. It teaches the child acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, to delay gratification as well as respect the rights of others. A lot of family structures as well as different parenting styles have emerged as a result of industrialization and urbanization. There is increase in the rate of divorce, single parenting, and parental separation. Also a large number of youths grow up in poverty while some grew up in affluence. Some of these juveniles grow up in areas characterised by poverty and deviance and these impose stress on their existence. Their activities are not well supervised as a result of this. What goes on around the children influences them positively or negatively. One cannot talk about recidivism of the juvenile without talking about the content of media which the juvenile is exposed to. Juveniles, on daily basis, are constantly exposed to media contents that impact positively or negatively on them. They watch violent movies and the characters in these movies steal, smoke and drink alcohol. On television they watch violent films, theft, assaults and, over time, they imitate what they saw. The rock music and rap songs they listen to portray most widely shared images of juvenile crime (Regoli, Hewitt, and Delisi, 2014). Some of the songs they listen to are songs of sexual exploitation, rape, murder, robbery, and drugs and they are songs attacking the police and politicians. These songs are associated with crime and youth gangs. The advent of technology has made it possible for everybody to be accessible to information at all times. According to Udomisor (2013) the media is very vital because the majority of the people get their information, education, and entertainment through the media. Both young and old people are not left out of this. The media content the youth are exposed to has a lot of influence on their well-being. The effect could be positive or negative, positive when they utilize it for the benefit of humanity and negative when it has damaging effect on their well-being. Peer group is another factor associated with recidivism of the juvenile. A peer group is a group of youths of similar ages and interest. It empowers them in their sense of feeling worthwhile and important. The social world of adolescents revolves around their closest friends. They search for acceptance status, identity and meaning through 7 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY interactions with others. Harsh discipline and rejection from parents, teachers, and neighbours further aggravate the condition of the youth. Their performance in school will be affected and this results in withdrawal from school. They join their peers for emotional support; when they feel bad, their peers assist them overcome rejection at home, school and society, at large. Peer groups have their norms and values and can instil negative tendencies in the child. Self-esteem is another factor that cannot be ignored when considering the recidivism of the youth. The juvenile is stigmatised as a result of his indolent behaviour at home by his parents, and siblings and this brings about harsh treatment from parents. In the school, his classmates will not want to interact with him, even teachers who know him for some delinquent activities will always be harsh on him. This brings about low performance as well as drop out from school. In their neighbourhood, they suffer rejection; parents will not want their children to interact with a deviant. Derogatory terms are used on them and these follow them through life. Such person does not see anything good again in himself. Self-esteem is a measure of one‘s sense of self-worth based on perceived success and achievements, as well as a perception of how much one is perceived by peers, family members, teachers and society in general (Sadock, Sadock, and Kaplan, 2008). Children may be stressed up after a history of devaluing social feedback which has produced negative self-esteem. Self-esteem is vital in the life of the juvenile. Juveniles are also influenced by some factors in the correctional homes. In these homes, they come in contact with other juvenile offenders who are worse and, as a result of label in society, these juveniles will become intimate with them. Also in the correctional home they are equally exposed to the media both good and bad. Some of the workers care for them, while some are hostile calling them names. Some of these juveniles are also kept in the same place with adult offenders, thereby getting exposed to more to criminality. Some of these offenders feel more comfortable in these homes just to avoid hostility in society and lack of rehabilitation, which results in difficulty in adjusting to society after correction. This increases juveniles‘ chances of getting involved in antisocial activities after correction. Juvenile recidivism is on the increase in the nation and Oyo and Lagos States are not left out of it. Aremu (2007) asserts that rarely does an evening pass in which the locally televised news does not provide coverage of at least one shocking and disturbing act of violence involving juveniles/youths. Nigeria has a population of one hundred and 8 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY forty million people (NPC, 2006), which makes her one of the most populated nations in Africa. One third of her population constitutes young people between the ages of 10 and 24 years. If juvenile antisocial behaviour is not brought under control, it is capable of posing security threat to the nation, increasing the number of dropouts. Productivity will also be affected as no employer will be ready to employ adjudicated adolescents. Besides, increased rate of juvenile recidivism suggests that Nigeria will face increased levels of serious violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and armed robbery) in the hand of delinquent individuals when they reach their mid-to-late teenage years (Salaam, 1990). A lot of research has been carried out on different forms of juvenile antisocial behaviours in Nigeria. These studies have looked at various family variables that predict juvenile antisocial activities. For example Alemika and Chukwuma (2001) explored juvenile justice administration in Nigeria. They provide insight into the juvenile justice system in Nigeria. Busari and Ojo (2011) examined empowering youths in remand homes against risk-taking behaviours. Abrifor, Atere and Muoghalu (2012) examined gender differences trend and pattern in recidivism among inmates in selected prisons. Tenibiaje in (2013) explored educational attainment and peer group influence as predictor of adult recidivism. Oluyemi and Norma (2014) investigated recidivism and emotional intelligence of male recidivists in Lagos State, Nigeria. Although different studies have been carried out in different forms of juvenile antisocial activities in Nigeria and in other places, the menace of antisocial activities still persists. This study, therefore, examined psycho-socio and remand home related-factors (self-esteem, family background, media content, peer influence, remand home related factors) as determinants of recidivism among juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria. 1.2 Statement of the problem There is an increase in the rate of juvenile involvement in antisocial activities and recidivism in recent times. Society is concerned and worried because people experience this ugly incident daily and antisocial activity adversely affects the socioeconomic development of the nation, poses threat to the security of the nation, and reduces the juvenile academic attainment and chances of being employed. The government has put in place some measures, such as community service, fine, and probation, to curb this trend. These juveniles after undergoing this correction, still continue to indulge in antisocial activities instead of refraining from the act. 9 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY These juveniles are involved in violent activities, such as rape, murder, arson, theft, burglary. They are apprehended and corrected to deter them from being involved in such activities again. After their release, they do not refrain from such act; rather, after sometimes, they find their way back to antisocial activities. While in the remand home, these juveniles are constantly exposed to hard measures as a result of inadequate funding of the home by the government. They are also exposed to some factors that promote offending in the home, such as other juveniles who are in custody that are worse than they, and workers in the home. Some of these young ones are also kept in the same place with adult offenders after apprehension, which exposes them more to adult criminality. Even after release from the home, there is this problem of adjusting in society as a result of lack of rehabilitation. Several factors, such as family background, media content, peer influence and self-esteem and remand home-related factors have exposed the juveniles to various forms of antisocial activities like rape, theft, burglary, drugs, alcohol, stealing, and truancy. These juveniles are apprehended and corrected but they would not desist from this act. A lot of studies have been carried out on different types of factors that predict juvenile antisocial activities. For example Busari and Ojo (2011) examined empowering youths in remand home against risk taking behaviours for effective transition to independence in Ibadan, Oyo State. They identify the symptoms of risk behaviours among delinquent children in remand homes in Ibadan as contributor to increase in the rate of recidivism. Abrifor, Atere and Muoghalu (2012) examined gender differences trend and pattern in recidivism among inmates in selected prisons in Nigeria. They expose some predisposing factors which increase recidivism among male offenders in Nigeria, such as gender, marital status, number of siblings, family background, imprisonment terms and types of crime. Tenibiaje (2013) explored educational attainment and peer group influence as predictor of adult recidivism. He maintains that educational attainment and peer influence are predictors of increase in the rate of adult recidivism. Oluyemi and Norma (2014) explored recidivism and emotional intelligence of male recidivist in Lagos State, Nigeria. They give insights into emotional intelligence level of male recidivists as predictor of adult recidivist in Nigerian prisons. There is also a dearth of empirical studies on psycho- socio and remand home-related factors as determinants of recidivism among juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria. Although there have been increase in the number of studies on various factors that predict recidivism these studies mainly focused on physical factors that cause recidivism 10 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY with little emphasis on social, psychological and remand home-related factors that predispose them to recidivism. It is against this background that this study examined psycho- socio and remand home related factors (self-esteem, family background, media content, peer influence and remand home-related factors) as determinants of recidivism among juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria. 1.3 Objectives of the study The study examined psycho-socio and remand home-related factors as determinants of recidivism among juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria. The specific objectives were to: i) examine if family background, media content, peer influence, self-esteem, and remand home factors cause recidivism among offenders in Oyo and Lagos States; ii) establish the causes of recidivism among juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria; iii) assess the extent to which family background would contribute to juvenile recidivism in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria; iv) assess the extent which media content would influence juvenile recidivism in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria; v) assess the extent to which peer relationships could influence juvenile recidivism in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria; vi) examine the extent to which self-esteem influences recidivism among juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria; and vii) examine the extent to which remand home-related factors contribute to recidivism among offenders in Oyo and Lagos States Nigeria. 1.4 Research questions To achieve the objectives stated above, the following research questions were formulated; RQ1: What is the level of family background of juvenile offenders? RQ2: What is the level of peer influence of juvenile offenders? RQ3: What is the level of self-esteem of juvenile offenders? RQ4: What is the level of recidivism of juvenile offenders? RQ5: What is the level of juvenile offenders‘ remand home-related factor? 11 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY RQ6: What is the level of media content of juvenile offenders? RQ7: What is the relationship between the independent variables (media content, remand home factor, self-esteem, family background, and peer influence) and recidivism? RQ8: What is the composite contribution of the independent variables (media content, remand home, self-esteem, family background and peer influence) to recidivism? RQ9: What is the relative contribution of the independent variables (media content, remand home, self esteem, family background and peer influence) to recidivism? RQ10: Which of the independent variables most predict recidivism? 1.5 Significance of the study This study is significant because it looked into various factors that are associated with the recidivism of juveniles such as psycho-socio and remand home related factors. This would give insight into various causes of juvenile recidivism and proffer solutions on how it would be avoided because it has great effect on the existence of the child. It hampers his academic life, chances of being employed as well as the socioeconomic development of the nation. This study should also contribute to the body of knowledge by being a source of literature to other researchers. It would also be a basis for further research in this area. The study equally brought to the limelight various difficulties the juvenile recidivists are going through, such as harsh treatment in the remand home, poor funding by the government and lack of rehabilitation of these young ones after release. The outcome of the study will assist stakeholders and policy makers to attend to the needs of these juveniles promptly. This should ameliorate their condition and reduce juvenile recidivism to the barest minimum. When this is done, the huge amount of money the government is spending in taking care of these erring youths would be utilized for the socioeconomic development of the nation and other vital needs of society. It would also ameliorate the security challenges the society is facing as a result of juvenile recidivism. The findings of the study would also assist authorities, policy makers and stakeholders in juvenile justice administration to understand the effect of these factors on the recidivism of juveniles. Penal administrators, law enforcement agencies, counsellors, and other stakeholders in related fields would be equipped with better strategies, through the findings of this study when faced with the problem of juvenile recidivism in their organizations. The study would assist the organizers of youth programmes to put in place 12 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY programmes that could help to reduce youth involvement in antisocial activities. The outcome of the study would also help the government to put in place policies affecting the young ones which could reduce juvenile recidivism in Nigeria. This study would also help in theory formulation and model construction. 1.6 Scope of the study This study covered all juvenile offenders who have been in and out of correctional homes at least once in the listed correctional homes in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria. The correctional homes selected for this study are listed below: 1 Juvenile Correctional Home and Child care Unit Eleyele, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria. 2 Special Correctional Centre for Boys, Oregun, Lagos State Nigeria. 3 Special Correctional Centre for Girls Idi Araba Lagos State Nigeria. 1.7 Operational definitions of terms Family background: The social context within which a child is brought up. It is a primary social group whose members assumes certain obligations for each other and generally shared common residence. Juvenile: A juvenile is a young person who is above 12 years and is below 18 years. Such people have not reached the age at which the criminal justice system should treat them as offenders. Media: The mass media, including newspapers, magazines, television, radio, films and the Internet, are sources of entertainment or information. They are influential agents of socialization. The media are instrumental in transmitting and reinforcing certain values and social behaviour. Self-esteem: Self-esteem is a person‘s overall subjective emotional evaluation of his or her own worth. It is a perception of oneself as well as an attitude toward the self. Juvenile offender: A juvenile offender is a young person who is above 12 years and is below18 years who has indulged in antisocial activities. Juvenile delinquent: A juvenile delinquent is a young person who is above 12 years that has committed an offence that would be a crime if it is committed by an adult. Such children are usually in need of supervision by adults or an institution meant for such purpose. 13 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Juvenile delinquency: This refers to any act in violation of criminal law, committed by a person defined under law as a juvenile, which if committed by an adult will be treated as crime or criminal conduct. Stigmatization: This refers to the segregation and rejection the juvenile suffers as a result of involvement in antisocial behaviours. Peer influence: Peer influence is the social influence a peer group exerts on individual members as each member attempts to conform to the expectations of the group. Peer group: Peer group is a group of youths of similar ages and interests, background, and social status with whom the youth associates. The members of this group are likely to influence the person‘s belief and behaviour.. Recidivism: Recidivism is the act of a reversion of an individual to antisocial behaviour after he or she has been corrected at least once of a prior offence, sentenced, and (presumably) corrected. Child/youth: Child or youth is a young person who is above 12 years and is below 18 years. Child and youth are used interchangeably in this work. 14 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This chapter presents the review of relevant literature on the variables being investigated, empirical studies as well as theories that served as anchor to this study. This chapter is presented under the following headings: 2.1 Conceptual Review 2.1.1 Concept of Delinquency 2.1.2 Concept of Recidivism 2.1.3 Concept of Self-Esteem 2.1.4 Concept of Adolescence 2.2 Literature Review 2.2.1 Delinquency and Recidivism 2.2.2 Family Background, Delinquency and Recidivism 2.2.3 Media Content and Recidivism 2.2.4 Peer Influence and Recidivism 2.2.5 Stigmatization and Recidivism 2.3 Theoretical Framework 2.3.1 Differential Association Theory 2.3.2 Labelling Theory 2.3.3 Strain Theory 2.4 Conceptual Framework 2.5 Empirical Studies 2.6 Literature Appraisal 2.1 Conceptual review 2.1.1 Concept of delinquency Delinquency is difficult to define. Criminologists, policy makers and social reformers have all struggled to identify those behaviours that qualify as ‗‗delinquency‘‘ and determine exactly who is a delinquent. What defines delinquency in a legal sense may be very different from how delinquency and the delinquent are defined by the general public. Juvenile delinquency is a broad, generic term that includes diverse forms of antisocial behaviour by a child. It is defined as behaviour that is violation of the criminal code and committed by a youth who has not reached adult age, which typically is 15 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY age 18 (Regoli, Hewitt and Delisi, 2014). One definition of juvenile delinquency that is widely accepted by criminologists is: Juvenile delinquency cases are...acts defined in the state law or municipal ordinance by children...of juvenile court age, or for conduct so seriously antisocial as to interfere with the rights of others or to menace the welfare of the delinquent himself/herself or of the community (Roberts, 2004). A juvenile delinquent is a young person below 18 years who repeatedly commits antisocial activity. Karen (2010) claims that juveniles from virtually any racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic background can and do participate in antisocial behaviour. The juveniles in Nigeria are not free from delinquency; they also indulge in delinquent activities, such as theft, burglary, assault, rape, murder, violence, and kidnapping. Tenibiaje (2000) also points out that delinquency and criminal behaviours are common phenomena in our society, and the high rate of occurrence in recent times is of great concern to society. Historical evidence and information gathered indicated that antisocial activities in Nigeria have now reached a great height. The high rate of deviant act is not peculiar to the male, but also females participate in antisocial activities. This has been a source of worry to every Nigerian because the increase in severe juvenile delinquency has another serious implication for the nation. This suggests that Nigeria will face increased levels of serious violent crimes (murder, rape, assault and armed robbery) in the hand of delinquent individuals when they reach their mid-to-late teenage years (Salaam, 1990). That a juvenile is delinquent does not mean it will affect him throughout his life time. Some change, while others continue till adulthood. Offending typically increases from adolescence until early adulthood and then decreases. Some of these juveniles drop the attitude later in life while some continue till adulthood. Offending typically increases from adolescence until early adulthood and then decreases. According to Fagan and Western (2005) and McVie, (2009) this is one of the most generally accepted tenets of criminology and the relationship between age and crime has been found to hold, independent of other variables (Farrington, 1986). In addition, ‗‗juvenile delinquents tend to be a population that strongly resists change‘‘ (Cecile & Born, 2009). The label juvenile delinquency is applied to an adolescent who breaks law or engages in antisocial behaviour that is considered illegal, like other categories of disturbance. Juvenile delinquency is a broad concept; it ranges from littering to murder. Because the youth technically becomes a juvenile delinquent only after judged 16 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY guilty of a crime by a court of law, official records do not actually record the number of illegal acts committed. Nevertheless, there is still every indication that in the last 10 or 15 years, juvenile delinquency has increased in relation to the number of crimes committed by adults (Santrock , 1990). Some experts on delinquency believe that, in defining delinquency, it is misleading to refer only to delinquency rates based on arrests. For example one recently devised definition of delinquency is behaviour by a juvenile that is a deliberate violation of the law and is believed by the juvenile to make him or her liable to adjudication if it comes to the attention of a law-enforcement agency (Gold and Petrono, 1980). Browning, and Loeber (1999) also observe that delinquent behaviour, such as frequent fighting, hitting, stealing, and destroying of property are the strongest predictors of chronic delinquency. Hence, they refer to delinquency as behaviour that would be criminal if the child were an adult. Unhappy family life, parents who are involved in criminal behaviour and are living in foster homes, poverty status, and family size have been identified as some of the factors that may increase the risk of disorderliness in a child. (Snyder and Patterson, 1989). Measuring the pervasiveness of delinquency in adolescence is not as easy as it might seem. First what constitutes a delinquent act must be defined. Not everyone would agree with the definition we have chosen for example some might argue that the individual is not delinquent until proven so in a court of law. Adolescents have usually measured delinquent behaviour through self-reports. In most cases, care is taken to inform adolescents that their reports are completely confidential. This is very important because adolescents are not going to report that they recently committed a delinquent act if they think their parents, school, or the legal authorities will find out (Santrock, 1990). Barbaree and Marshall (2008) claim that juveniles contribute to the majority of sex crimes, with 2-4% of adolescent males having reported committing sexually assaultive behaviour, and 20% of all rapes and 30-50% of all child molestation is perpetrated by adolescent males. It is clear that males are over-represented in this population. This is consistent with Ryan and Lane‘s (1997) research indicating that males account for 91-93% of the reported juvenile sex offences. Righthand and Welch (2004) reported that females account for an estimated 2-11% of incidents of sexual offending. In addition, it is reported by The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention that in the juvenile arrests during 2006, African American male youth were disproportionately arrested (34%) for forcible rape (Sydner, 2008). 17 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY According to Busari and Ojo (2011), delinquency affects boys and girls in different ways. Girls are not likely to show the effects in external behaviour, but instead will have problems of low self-esteem, depression, anxiety, somatic complaints, mood swings and lower levels of social skills. Boys suffer both internalizing and externalizing problems (such as looting, cruelty to others, truancy, lying, stealing, and skipping school, destroying things and associating with bad friends who get into similar trouble) as well as lower levels of social skills (Stevenson and Larson, 1996). Juvenile delinquency is prevalent in communities of abuse characterized by the absence of marriage, prevalence of drug and alcohol abuse, and a primary dependence on welfare. Children who grow up in these ―communities‖ show signs of permanent damage. Moreover, as statistics reveal over time, many prove to have been damaged for life. From these communities of delinquents come society‘s ―super predators‖ (the psychopathic criminals of tomorrow), violent gang members, and other hostile, depressed and even frequently suicidal young people (Pew Partnership, 2002). Huston and Barton (2005) define juvenile delinquents as any individual between the age of 7 and 18 years old that has committed a criminal act. Delinquent behaviour develops and is maintained within the family social context (Leber and Farrinton, 1998). Bischof, Urlaub, Kruft and Wittman-Liebold (1995) found that juvenile delinquents with sexual criminal behaviour compared to non-delinquent adolescents were lower in terms of their perception of their family cohesion. Similarly, Kim and Kim‘s (2005) findings indicated that delinquent adolescents showed more dysfunctional parental partner dynamics, poorer family functioning and higher levels of family violence compared to non-delinquent adolescents. What they found in Korea were consistent with those reported in other countries. Huey Jr and Antonio‘s (2000) study indicated that family relationship, such as family functioning, family cohesion and parental control, were predictors to lower delinquent behaviour among juvenile delinquents. Clarks and Shields (1997) found that good communication was related to lower delinquent behaviour. Indeed, family, particularly family functioning was significantly related to delinquent behaviour (Fortin 2003; Wiium and Wold 2006; Smith and Hall, 2008). Farrington and Loeber, (2000) explored the etiology, origins, risk factors, and proposed policy recommendations for young children who commit crimes. They found that the earlier delinquency begins in children, the more likely it is that they will escalate and become chronic violent offenders. Their research supports Nee and Ellis (2005), who recognise that criminality that begins early is generally an element of those who are 18 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY serious and chronic offenders. Nee and Ellis (2005) identify serious disruptive behaviour that they term antisocial trending in children as young as two and three years old. A critical issue that both articles recognize is that funding for youth offenders is usually directed towards adolescents. It is clear that funding commitments would be more effective if channelled towards earlier assessment and prevention to target younger at risk children. Juveniles who commit crimes have a very high rate of mental health needs. As noted by Pullmann, Derbs, Koroloff, Veach-White, Gaylor, and Sieler (2006), the percentages of those youth with a mental health diagnosis range from 20% to 83%, depending on what and how the diagnoses are constructed. As an example, the 20% figure is determined by youth who have a serious mental health disorder. Liaudinskiene (2005) differentiates between levels of delinquency in youth and suggests that some behaviour is a part of the developmental process of ageing. Most juveniles will violate different elements of law and this is normal. As a youth matures many of the issues are resolved and it is only when the behaviours persist and gets elevated that problems escalate. In his article regarding re-socialization barriers of juveniles, he describes four levels that affect the youth‘s socialization. These are the family, the youth‘s personality, the educational organization, and policy of the state and country. Liaudinskiene, (2005) describes re-socialization as needed when a person‘s behaviours are socially undesirable. His approach is novel and integrates all levels and the interface between the youth and their environment. In their article about predicting violence and homicide in young men, Loeber, Pardini, Hamish, Crawford and Farrington (2005) identify a number of risk factors that were predicative. These included (a) carrying a weapon, (b) a diagnosis of conduct disorder, (c) selling drugs, (d) gang affiliation and fighting, (e) use of illicit substances, (f) being around delinquent peers, (g) failing and repeating classes in school, (h) a family that is on welfare, and (i) African American ethnicity. Loeber and his associates (2005) found that boys with four or more risk factors were more likely to commit violence. These authors state that violence appears to be connected to a number of risk factors and that their results must be further evaluated for validity and refinement. Juvenile crime remains a serious problem in the United States and continues to affect millions of people despite a downward trend in recent years. In 2003, more than 2.2 million juveniles (under age 18) in the U.S. were arrested for various crimes, including 92,300 arrested for violent crimes, such as murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). According to Paternoster, Brame, and 19 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Farrington (2001), documentation shows a strong association between involvement in adolescent delinquency and involvement in adult criminality. In fact, many hardened criminals and serial offenders began their criminal careers as juveniles (Farrington, 1992). To alleviate adult criminal activity, society may first have to address juvenile crime. The literature indicates that various exposures to violence within the family or outside the family are important sources of delinquencies. In other words, if violence encompasses all emotional environmental aspects of the juvenile‘s life, he is more likely to engage in delinquent activities (Hagan and Foster, 2001). Family behaviours particularly parental monitoring and disciplining seem to influence association with delinquent peers throughout the juvenile period (Cashwell and Vacc, 1996). A long history of research has further linked family dysfunction with future criminal offending, in part because parents monitor and provide nurturance to children. It is thought that the loosening of bonds among family members may result in more criminal involvement. The researchers suggest that higher levels of delinquency among children residing with their fathers were due mainly to inadequate parental involvement in a teenager‘s life. Demuth and Brown (2004) claim that overall, the lack of supervision and the absence of close relationships between the teenager and his parents are factors that influence delinquency. Hoffman and Johnson‘s (1998) findings corroborate Demuth and Brown‘s (2004) suggestion that a broken home is associated with juvenile delinquency. However, these researchers did not find any significant evidence of increased juvenile delinquency associated with whether the child resided with the father or mother. Other researchers have found that many family characteristics and family environment influence juvenile delinquent behaviour. Examples the number of people in a family, inconsistent parenting, familial problems, child neglect, and the children‘s attachment to parents (Derzon and Lipsey, 2000; Wasserman and Seracini, 2001). Changes in family arrangements emerge for reasons including separation, divorce, and sudden death of a parent, unemployment, and sequel of substance abuse (Demuth and Brown, 2004). Currently, at least five different family arrangements are recognized in the literature. These include: two-parent arrangements, single parent arrangements, extended family member arrangements, and adoptive/foster family arrangements. In a study conducted by Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Ashili, and David (2001) data showed that children are more likely to resort to violence if there is violence within the relationships that they may share with their family. Thornberry, Smith, Rivera, and Huzinga (1999) found that children who live in homes with only one parent or in which 20 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY marital relationships have been disrupted by divorce or separation are more likely to display a range of behavioural problems than children who are from two parent families. Wright and Wright‘s (1994) argue that single parent families produce more delinquent children than two-parent families. In consonance with this, Muehlenberg (2002) note that the very absence of intact families makes gang membership more appealing. According to Wright and Wright (1994), two-parent families provide increase supervision and surveillance on property, while single-parenthood increases the likelihood of delinquency and victimization simply by the fact that there is one less person to supervise adolescents‘ behaviour. Experts in the fields of child development, psychology, and criminology agree that family system variables play a key role in the development of delinquent and other deviant behaviours. Many studies (Hindelang 1973; Yablonsky and Haskel, 1988) have documented the relationships between being raised in disturbed environment and a variety of emotional and deviant characteristics. These individuals have been found to suffer from low self-esteem, depression, anger, and a variety of acting-out behaviours. Significant differences were found in the areas of family violence, abuse, runaway, and self-reported substance abuse (Yablonsky and Haskel, 1988). Research suggests that antisocial behaviour is manifested by low self-esteem, poor peer and adult relationships, and instability in the home life (Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, and Silva, 1999). According to Brook,Whiteman, Balka and Cohen, (1997) associating with delinquent peers is due to low social control, poor self-concept, and interpersonal inadequacy. Poor or ineffective parenting will produce children who lack self-control (Lerner and Galambos, 1998).Associating with antisocial peers occurs through modelling of antisocial behaviour and attitudes. Youth who see antisocial behaviours are more likely to act on them than peers who just talk about such behaviours (Mills, Kroner, Mongrain, and Sylvain 2005). Youths who engage in risky behaviours are also at risk for delinquency (Blaske, Borduin, Henggeler and Mann, 1989). Another factor that leads youths to delinquency is living in poverty (Lerner and Galambos, 1998). Social learning of antisocial behaviour can be used to explain an increase of antisocial behaviour during the adolescent years (Corbett and Petersilia, 1994). Exposure to delinquent peers can increase rapidly from the pre-teen years through adolescence and into the late teenage years. It should also be noted that antisocial behaviour can be changed by exposure to positive influences. A study by Demuth and Brown (2004) argued that broken homes are associated with juvenile delinquency and that family arrangements are not just a broken home issue. 21 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Specifically, the researchers found that levels of juvenile delinquency were much higher in teenagers residing with single fathers and lowest among teenagers who were part of a two-parent household. The researchers suggested that higher levels of delinquency among children residing with their fathers were due mainly to inadequate parental involvement in a teenager‘s life. Demuth and Brown concluded that, overall, the lack of supervision and the absence of close relationships between the teenager and his or her parents are factors that influence delinquency. Geismar and Wood (1986), examined two types of family variables, structural and functional. They divided the variables into several sub-categories, with structural factors including the number of people in the family, family arrangements, and the employment status of the mother; functional categories include the nature of family interactions and relationships, familial problems, parental monitoring of children, and consistency of discipline. These researchers concluded that there is a slight positive correlation between juvenile delinquency and both structural and functional variables. Residing in a positive atmosphere is likely to have positive effects on the child which, in turn, reduces the likelihood of juvenile delinquent behaviour (Geismar and Wood, 1986). Other researchers have found that many family characteristics and family environments influence juvenile delinquent behaviour, for example, the number of people in a family, inconsistent parenting, familial problems, child neglect, and the children‘s attachment to parents (West and Farrington, 1973; Derzon and Lipsey, 2000; Wasserman and Seracini, 2001). Thornberry (1987) suggests that children‘s attachment to their parents influences youths more when they are younger primarily because children, as opposed to teenagers, are monitored more closely. Many different types of child rearing methods predict delinquency. The most important dimensions of child rearing are supervision or monitoring of children, discipline or parental reinforcement, warmth, or coldness of emotional relationship and parental involvement with children. Rothbaum and Weisz (1994) found that the strength of the association between parents and children measures was greater when parenting was measured by observation or interview than when it was measured by using questionnaire. Parental supervision refers to the degree of monitoring of the child‘s activities by parents and the degree of watchfulness or vigilance of all these child rearing methods. Poor parental supervision is usually the strongest and most replicable predictor of offending (Smith and Stern, 1997; Farrington and Loeber, 1999). 22 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Many studies showed that parents who do not know where their children are when they are out and parents who allow their children roam the streets unsupervised from an early age tend to have delinquent children. Parental discipline refers to how parents react to a child‘s behaviour. It is evident that harsh or punitive discipline (involving physical punishment) predicts a child‘s delinquency (Haapasalo and Pokela, 1999). Prevention of juvenile delinquency Delinquency prevention is the broad term for all efforts aimed at preventing youths from becoming involved in criminal or other antisocial activity. Governments are recognizing the importance of allocating resources for the prevention of delinquency. Because it is often difficult for states to provide the fiscal resources necessary for good prevention, organizations, communities, and governments are working more in collaboration with one another to prevent juvenile delinquency. With the development of delinquency in youth being influenced by numerous factors, prevention efforts are comprehensive in scope. Prevention services include activities such as substance abuse education and treatment, family counselling, youth mentoring, parenting education, educational support, and youth sheltering. Seigel and Senna (1994), writing on individual perspectives on delinquency, suggests that prevention efforts should be directed at strengthening a youth‘s home life and personal relationships. The child‘s home life is a key factor in delinquent behaviour. If parents cannot supply proper nurturing love, care, discipline, nutrition, and so on, the child cannot develop properly. Whether one believes that delinquency has a biosocial basis, a psychological basis, or a combination of both, it is evident that delinquency prevention efforts should be oriented to reaching children early in their development. The welfare agencies and privately funded treatment centres should provide counselling and other mental health services to families referred by schools, welfare agents and juvenile court authorities. In some instances, intervention is focused on a particular family problem that has the potential for producing delinquent behaviour, for example alcohol and drug problems, and child abuse. In other situations, interventions are more generalized and oriented towards developing the self-image of parents and children or improving discipline in the family. According to Seigel and Senna (1994), individual‘s approaches have been used to prevent court-adjudicated youth from engaging in further criminal activities. This is sometimes referred to as secondary or special prevention. It has become almost universal 23 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY for incarcerated and court-adjudicated youths to be given some sort of mental and physical evaluation before they begin their term of correctional treatment. Such rehabilitation methods as psychological counselling and psychotropic, medication (involving such drugs as Valium or Ritalin) are often prescribed. In some instances rehabilitation programmes are provided through ―drop in‖ centres that service youths who are able to remain in their homes, while more intensive programmes require residential care and treatment. This illustrates how agents of the juvenile justice system believe that many delinquent youths and status offenders have psychological or physical problems and that their successful ―cure‖ can reduce repeat criminal behaviour. 2.1.2 Concept of recidivism The term recidivism originates from the Latin recidere, which means to ‗‗fall back‘; the term is often used interchangeably with ‗‗repeat offending‘‘ or ‗‗reoffending‘‘ (Payne, 2007). Maltz (cited in Ellermann, Sullo and Tien, 1992) defines recidivism as ‗‗the reversion of an individual to antisocial behaviour after he or she has been corrected of a prior offence, sentenced, and (presumably) corrected‘‘. Repeat offending by those who have been in remand homes before are disturbingly high (Gidden, 2006). Whenever an individual repeats an undesirable behaviour after having experienced negative consequences of that behaviour, or treated or trained to extinguish that behaviour, recidivism is in existence. It is also known as the percentage of former offenders who are rearrested (Henslin, 2008). The term is most frequently used in conjunction with substance abuse and antisocial behaviour. For example, the scientific literature may refer to the recidivism of sexual offenders, meaning the frequency with which they are detected or apprehended committing additional sexual crimes after being released from correctional homes for similar offences. The Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) (2014) defines recidivism as a return to antisocial behaviour within three years of the juvenile‘s date of release from a state correctional institution. Recidivism is understood to be a falling back or relapse into prior delinquent habits, especially after correction. In other words, recidivism is the return of probationers to illegal activity after release from reformation. Recidivism is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behaviour after they have either experienced negative consequence of that behaviour or have been treated or trained to extinguish that behaviour (Tenibiaje, 2013). Recidivism is a tendency to relapse into a previous pattern of behaviour especially a pattern of antisocial habits (Rahim, 1984). Recidivism means the 24 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY re-arrest, reconviction, or re-incarceration of former inmates (Schmallenger and Smykla, 2005). Recidivism has not occurred where the relapse did not occur within a specific period. Recidivism rates vary greatly from place to place depending on the amount and quality of intervention, surveillance and enforcement (Schmallenger and Smykla, 2005). Recidivist is a person who repeats an unwanted behaviour even after experiencing its negative consequences. Recidivist is related to habitual crimes, such as sexual offences and substance abuse. There are certain factors contributing to recidivism. According to Gondles (2003), these are the time offenders reach probation, other institutions of social control, offending behaviour, families, neighbourhoods and scholars. Alberts (2000) gives reasons for getting in and going back (recidivism) which is referred to as ―risk factors‖ ―predictors‖ or ―correlates‖. They are present in an individual who has not yet committed a crime; they may be considered predictive of criminal involvement. They include aspects of a person‘s character and life experiences which have been identified as being strongly associated with criminal behaviours. It is important to note those situational, circumstantial, personal, interpersonal, familial, structural, cultural and economic factors that are related to involvement in criminal conduct which allow certain individuals to get into the antisocial activity. There are also factors which predict the eventual re-entry into antisocial life. Gendreau, Goggin and Little (1996) identify dynamic risk factors and static risk factors as the predictors of recidivism through the use of meta-analytic technique. The dynamic risk factors fluctuate more rapidly over time and reflect internal states or temporary circumstances of an individual‘s such as attitudes and cognition. The static risk factor is the demographic or criminal-history variables which are determined beforehand, like gender, age when first convicted of an offence, having a parent with a criminal record, present age, and types of offences committed. They emphasized that the strongest predictors of recidivism are dynamic risk factors and criminogenic needs which are referred to as cluster of factors. These include criminal peers, criminal history of antisocial behaviour, social achievement, and family factor. All these have impact on the likelihood of reoffending, while the weaker predictors include intellectual functioning, personal distress and social class of origin. Hanson and Harris (1998) argue that dynamic factors predict general recidivism as well but dynamic factors are better than static risk factors. Brown (2002) opine that criminal companion, antisocial attitudes, current 25 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY employment/education problems are among the strongest recidivism predictors (average correlations). According to Mbuba (2004), recidivism is widely used to refer to reoffending within a specified period of time after release from a correctional facility. The duration taken between the time of discharge and reoffending is not constant, but has to be specified, depending on the needs, constraints, or other circumstances of the research in question. Maltz (1984) identifies at least fourteen definitions, with the most common ones being re-arrest, reconviction, resentence, and any type of return to correctional home with or without a new sentence. Arrests and convictions have been the most widely used measures. The main reason for this is their relative ease of measurement because they require no active cooperation of subjects (Greenwood, Deschenes and Adams, 1993). However, many studies have used all four measurements in combinations (Klein and Caggiano, 1986; Langan and Levin, 2002). Whatever the measure that is ultimately chosen, it has been shown that recidivism is not a chance event, but can be predicted using certain variables (Klein & Caggiano, 1986; Florida Department of Corrections, 2003). Recidivism is a technical term which, if construed narrowly, bypasses the important problem it represents, that is the problem of persistency in antisocial behaviour. Recidivism has variously been defined to mean return to custody for any reason, including technical violations (Verbrugge, Nunes, Johnson and Taylor, 2002). Others see it as re-arrest (Benda, 2005), reconviction (Law, 2004), and re-incarceration (Deschenes, Owen, and Crow, 2006). Maltz (1981) also states that recidivism in a criminal justice context could be defined as the reversion of an individual to criminal behaviour after he or she has been convicted of a prior offence, sentenced and presumably corrected (http://books.google.com). Similarly, the duration of incarceration has emerged in the literature as an essential factor in juvenile recidivism; the longer the current duration, the higher the likelihood of recidivism, and vice versa (Sabol, Adams, Parthasarathy, and Yuan 2000; Langan and Levin, 2002; Miner, 2002; Seabloom, Seabloom, Seabloom, Barron, Hendricksonet, 2003). Furthermore, juveniles who have a prior history of offending are more likely to return to the correctional system after release than those who are first-time offenders (; Minor, Wells, Soderstorm, Bingham, and Williamson 1999; Corrado, Cohen, Glackman and Dodgers, 2003). It has also been argued that prior criminal involvement weakens conventional social bonds thereby damaging those relationships that once helped 26 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY deter criminal behaviour (Hagan, 1993; Sampson and Laub, 1997). But it has also been found that whether or not prior offence will determine reoffending largely depends on the number and severity of previous offences, often in the region of five or more times (Snyder, 1998). But whether they are first-time or repeat offenders, those who commit serious and violent offences are more likely than minor and property offenders to commit additional offences upon release (Duncan, Kennedy and Patrick 1995; Sabol, Adams, Parthasarathy and Yuanet 2000; Bondeson, 2002). This situation becomes complicated by drug use prior adjudication, increasing the chances of recidivism (Grenier and Roundtree, 1987; Benda, 2001). Some of the more enduring predictors of recidivism include such variables as age, gender, race, incarceration time, offence type, peer influence and substance abuse. An inverse relationship has been found to exist between age of the offender at first adjudication and the likelihood of recidivism: the younger the person is at first contact with law, the more likely it is that the person will commit further offences upon release (Miner, 2002; Puzzanchera, Stahl, Finnegan, Tierney and Snyder, 2003). A similar relationship was shown between age at release from custody and recidivism; the younger the person is at the time of release, the more likely it is that the person will return to offending behaviour (Benda, 2001; Harrison, Maupin and Mays, 2001; Harms, 2003). The literature also yields a general consensus that males are not only more represented than females in the general phenomenon of crime, but also, they are overly represented in recidivism rates (Greenwood, Deschenes and Adams, 1993; DeComo, 1998; Quist and Matshazi, 2000). Such consensus is, however, largely lacking regarding the role of the offender‘s racial background in the likelihood to get involved in recidivism. Apparently, there is a rift with two discernible camps, one in support of a correlation between race and the pattern of offending (Strom, 2000; Benda, 2001; Harms, 2003; Pope and Snyder, 2003; Stahl, 2003), and the other that points to stereotypes as the main factor in the common conception that black people are more criminogenic and get involved in recidivism at a higher rate than white people (Peterson and Hagan, 1984; Bridges and Steen, 1998). In an evaluation of the role of race in the recidivism of juvenile offenders, race failed to rise to the level of statistical significance as a predictor of recidivism (Mbuba, 2005). Specific deterrence models posit that, as the severity, certainty, and swiftness of sanctions increases, the perceived risk of detection and punishment for future offences increases, which, in turn, reduces reoffending (Gibbs, 1978). In Thailand, approximately 27 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 26.8 million of Thai children and youths are more than one quarter of the Thai population. Nearly 1% of these groups are juvenile delinquents; characteristically, more than 12% of the incarcerated juveniles committed repeated mistake or recidivism; therefore, an indicator of recidivism rate of Thai juveniles is higher than the universal standard. Moreover, from 1996 to 2006, juvenile recidivism increased by approximately 1.6 times, and youth recidivism with violence increased by 4.7 times. According to a national study, within 3 years, almost 7 out of 10 released males will find themselves back in the home. The study says this happens due to personal and situation characteristics, including the individual‘s social environment of peers, family, community, and state-level policies (Visher, 2003). Many other things need to be taken into consideration as well, such as the individual‘s circumstances before incarceration, the things that happened while they were incarcerated, and the period after they are released from prison, both immediate and long-term. A variety of factors can contribute to a young person becoming involved in the juvenile justice system; such things include substance abuse, poor parental supervision, problems with school or work, poor personal or social skills, homelessness, and neglect and abuse (Department of Human Services, 2009). One of the main reasons why they find themselves back in correctional homes is because it is difficult for the individual to adjust back to normal life. They have to re-establish ties with their families, return to high-risk places and secure formal identification; they often have a poor work history and now have a criminal record to deal with. Many offenders report being anxious about their release; they are excited about how their lives will be different ―this time,‖ which does not always end up being the case (Visher, 2003). Two studies were done which attempted to provide a ―national‖ recidivism rate for the U.S. One was done in 1983, which included 108,580 offenders from 11 different states. The other study was done in 1994 on 272,111 offenders from 15 states. Both studies represent two-thirds of the overall offenders released in their corresponding years (Bureau of Justice US, 2009). Also a study by the University of Nevada, Reno on recidivism rates across the United States showed that Nevada has one of the lowest rates of recidivism among offenders at only 29.2 percent (Moblyw, 2009). A study conducted in connection to this followed 16,486 offenders for a three-year period to see how many of them would end up going back to remand homes. Results from the study found that about 37% of the offenders were rearrested for a new crime and were sent back to remand homes again within the first three years they were released. Of the 16,486 offenders, about 56% of 28 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY them were convicted of a new crime. In 2001, the Florida Department of Corrections created a graph showing the general recidivism rate of all offenders released from remand homes from July 1993 until six and a half years later. This graph shows that recidivism is much more likely within the first six months after they are released. The longer the offenders stayed out of detention, the less likely they were to return. Although juveniles in Nigeria are involved in crime, it is not easy to determine juvenile crime statistics in Nigeria. The Nigerian government and justice agencies are not concerned with developing reliable delinquency statistics and information management in the country. It is not a surprise that the nation‘s criminal justice agencies are grossly ineffective and inefficient. This is because they simply operate without facts. In such circumstances, prevention and control cannot be meaningful and operations can only be haphazard (Alemika and Chukwuma, 2001). Besides: Nigeria has no meaningful statistics on juvenile antisocial activities police statistics in this respect are very unreliable, because many cases brought to them are informally settled and unrecorded. The police attitude towards antisocial statistics and information management is very poor. In the absence of statistics therefore, it is not surprising that government officials moral entrepreneurs and especially the mass media, decry alarming increasing incidence if juvenile antisocial life nothenless, without facts or reliable evidence‘‘ (Alemika and Chukwuma 2001). It has been suggested that for many decades, correctional observers did not give priority to the reality that offenders who re-enter society face a varied assortment of daunting challenges that predictably lead to high recidivism rates. As Tresidder, Payne and Homel (2009) point out, ‗‗recidivism measures of youth justice clients are calculated for periods when there is likely to be an increase in individual level offending‘‘. Various researchers also note that offenders are stripped of civil rights and are reluctantly absorbed into communities which lead to their further alienation and isolation. Also one other factor when looking at the causes of recidivism is the difficulty of a released offender when faced with finding a job, renting an apartment or getting an education. Studies indicated that the prevalent rate of recidivism appears to be positively influenced by availability of post-release job training programme (Jengeleski, 1981), 29 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY community treatment centre placement (Beck, 1981), and availability of pre and post release education programmes (Rose and Nyer, 1979; Blackburn 1981). The increase in recidivism among juveniles has continued to exist for decades even with prevention interventions, legislative changes, and social reform. Youth recidivism and violence deeply harms not only the victims, but also their families, friends, and communities. The effects of recidivism by death, illness, disability, and loss of property are evidenced by worse as pain, fear, and anguish on those situations, leading to a decrease in safety living and well-being. Each year, more than 1.6 million people worldwide lose their lives and property from violence. The offender also suffers from incarceration and social stigmatization (WHO, 2002). Furthermore, child and youth recidivism does not contribute in creating societal wellness and can become destructive to the individual and society at large. As a result of this growing problem, government policy, school discipline procedure, and juvenile justice practices in many countries, including Thailand, have been formed to predict and explain conditions where youths would be committing violent crimes. According to Abrifor, Atere and Muoghalu (2012), the high prevalence of recidivism has both consequences and implications for social and economic growth and development in Nigeria. Recidivism contributes to high crime rate, which has resulted in loss of lives and property, thereby threatening peace, safety of lives and national cohesion. Antisocial activities by such recidivists have made the country unsafe for economic and commercial activities for both local and foreign investors, sometimes forcing them to relocate to safer countries. With such development, the country has lost billions of naira which would have been invested for developmental projects that would benefit the Nigerian citizenry. One of the indicators employed to assess the quality of life of children and adolescents around the world is that ―recidivism‖ should be less than 12%. Substance use and abuse is a significant predictor of recidivism (Demo, Wansley, and Meyers, 2005; Stoolmiller and Bechman, 2005; Pullmann, Derbs, Koroloff, Veach-White, Gaylor, and Sieler, 2006). In a study that used a multivariate model of 505 juveniles regarding the impact of substance abuse on recidivism, Stoolmiller and Blechman (2005) found a robust significance in juvenile use of substances and re-offending. When juveniles are transferred to an adult court, their chances for reoffending increases and their offences are more likely to be violent (Lanza-Kaduce, Lane, Bishop, and Frazier, 2005). 30 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 2.1.3 Concept of self-esteem In sociology and psychology, self-esteem reflects a person‘s overall subjective emotional evaluation of his or her own worth. It is a judgement of oneself as well as an attitude towards the self. Self-esteem encompasses beliefs and emotions such as triumph, despair, pride, and shame (Hewitt, 2009). Self-esteem may, in fact, be one of the most essential core self-evaluation dimensions because it is the overall value one feels about oneself as a person. One of the most crucial aspects of self-concept is self-esteem, the value or worth that people attach to themselves. A positive self-image is crucial to psychological adjustment in children and adults (Chen, Chen and Kasper, 2001). According to Hickman, Bartholome, and Mckenry (2000), children‘s self esteem actually declines throughout middle childhood, reaching a low point at about age 12 or 13, then it increases during adolescence. Kelly (1978) reported a direct correlation between delinquency, recidivism and low self-esteem. He found evidence of a link between increased self esteem and a reduction of delinquent behaviour. He found that as programmes were implemented to raise the level of self esteem, the incidence of delinquent behaviour was reduced. A study by Ohio State Research News Grabmeier (1988) questioned whether low self-esteem does cause delinquency. The study was conducted to test the hypothesis that those with low self-esteem would engage in more delinquent acts to improve their self esteem. The study found that those with low self-esteem frequently associated with a delinquent support group or gang, but that they did not engage in any more delinquent acts than those with average or above-average self-esteem (Berndt, 1979). Self-esteem is a measure of one‘s sense of self worth based on perceived success and achievements, as well as a perception of how much one is valued by peers, family members, teachers and society, in general (Sadock, Sadock and Kaplan, 2008). Children may turn to delinquency after a history of devaluing social feedback, which has produced negative self-esteem. Delinquent behaviour is then adopted because it inflates self-esteem through behavioural rewards and psychological defences which allow the delinquent to reject general social feedback and to raise his self-perceptions (Tremblay and Craig, 1997). Some scholars have argued that individuals with low self-esteem are prone to real- world externalizing problems, such as delinquency and antisocial behaviour (Fergusson and Horwood, 2002). Several studies have examined the link between self-esteem and adolescent behaviour to see whether certain sorts of experiences contribute either positively or negatively-to adolescents‘ feeling about themselves. Studies have showed 31 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY that self-esteem is enhanced by having the approval of others, especially of parents and peers, and by having success in school (Robinson, 1995). Adolescents whose self-esteem is too wrapped up in the approval of others-especially the approval of peers may be at the risk for developing self-image problems. However peer acceptance may fluctuate over time, leading to temporary drop in self-esteem (Harter, Stocker and Robinson, 1996). Consistent with this, adolescents who derive their self-esteem from peers rather than teachers or parents show more behavioural problems and poorer school achievement (DuBois, Felner, Brand and George, 1999). Children with a favourable self-image tend to have parents who are restrictive, involved and loving. Children with low self-esteem are more likely to have authoritarian or rejecting parents (Rathus, 2006). According to Fenzel (2000), high self-esteem in children is related to their closeness to parents, especially as found in father-son and mother-daughter relationships. Cole, (1991) asserts that peers also play a role in children‘s self-esteem. Social acceptance by peers is related to self-perceived competence in academic, social and athletic domains. Parents and classmates have an equally strong effect on children‘s sense of self-worth in middle years. Close friends and teachers have somewhat less influence in shaping self-esteem (Harter, 1987). Emotional support from parents and peers are important in the development of self esteem during adolescence. Adolescents who feel that they are highly regarded by family and friends are more likely to have positive feelings about themselves than are those who feel they are lacking support (Santos and Lopes, 2003). 2.1.4 Concept of adolescence The word adolescence is Latin in origin, derived from the verb adolescere, which means ‗‗to grow into adulthood‘‘. In all social sciences, adolescence is a time of growing up, of moving from immaturity of childhood to maturity of adulthood of preparation for the future (Steinberge, 2002). Adolescence is a period of transition: biological, psychological, social and economic. It is an exciting time of life. Individuals become interested in sex and become biologically capable of having children. They become wiser, more sophisticated, and better able to make their own decisions. Adolescents are permitted to work, get married, vote and are expected to be able to support themselves financially. At one time adolescence may have been synonymous with the teenage years (from 13-19years). The adolescent period has been lengthened considerably in the past 32 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY century, both because young people mature earlier physically and because many individuals remain economically dependent on their parents well after they are twenty years old. Because of the change, it makes more sense to think of adolescence as beginning from age 10 and ending in early twenties (Steinberge, 2002). Social scientists who study adolescents usually differentiate among early adolescence from age 10 through 13, middle adolescence age 14 through 18; late adolescence (or youth, as it is sometimes known) from about 19-22years (Kagan and Coles 1972; Arnett, 2000). These divisions correspond to the way many societies group young people in educational institutions; they are approximate ages that customarily mark attendance at middle or junior high school, high school and college (Kagan and Coles 1972; Arnett, 2000). According to Hill (1983), there are three features of adolescent development that give the period its special flavour and significance: (a) The onset of puberty (b) The emergence of more thinking abilities (c) The transition into new roles in society These changes are biological, cognitive, and social. They are changes that occur universally virtually without exception, all adolescence in every society go through them (Hill 1983). Correctional treatment for juveniles As averred by Siegel and Senna (1994), nearly all juvenile institutions use some form of treatment programme for the children in custody – counselling on an individual or group basis, vocational and educational training, recreational programmes, and religious counselling. In addition, most institutions provide medical and dental health programmes of some kind, as well as occasional legal service programmes. (i) Individual Treatment One common treatment approach is individual counselling. It is established that over 90 percent of juvenile institutions use this approach to some extent (Vinter, 1976). This is not surprising, since psychological problems such as depression are a real and present problem in juvenile institutions (Sas and Jaffe, 1985). This method of treatment does not change the youth‘s personality. Rather, it attempts to help individuals understand and solve their present adjustment problems. The advantage of individual counselling is that institutions can use it superficially with counsellors who may not be professionally 33 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY qualified. Highly structured counselling can be based on psychotherapy or psychoanalysis. Psychotherapy is an outgrowth of Freudian psychoanalytic technique and requires extensive analysis of the individual‘s past childhood experiences. An effective therapist attempts to help the individual solve conflicts and make a more positive adjustment to society through altering negative behaviour. Although individual counselling and psychotherapy are used extensively in institutions and may work well for certain individuals, there is little indication that these treatments are even marginally effective. (ii) Reality therapy: This is another highly utilized treatment approach for delinquents. Seigel and Senna (1994) asserts that this approach was developed by William Glasser (1965) and it emphasizes the present behaviour of offenders by making them completely responsible for their actions. The psychoanalytical emphasis on the past may lead children to excuse present and future misbehaviour by encouraging them to think of themselves as sick and unable to change their actions. The success of reality therapy depends greatly on the warmth and concern of the individual counsellor. Many institutions rely too much on this type of therapy because they assume that trained professionals are unnecessary. The individual must be knowledgeable about the complexity of personalities and be able to deal with any situation that may come up in the counselling. The aim of Reality therapy is to make individuals more responsible people. This is accomplished by giving them confidence and strength through developing their ability to follow a set of expectations as closely as possible (Seigel and Senna, 1994) (iii) Behaviour modification is another method of treatment, used in almost three quarters of all institutions (Klein, 1977). It is based on the theory that all behaviour is learned and that the present behaviour can be shaped through a system of rewards and punishments. This type of programme is easily used in an institutional setting that offers points and privileges as rewards for such behaviour as work-study, or the development of skills. It is a reasonably effective technique, especially when a construct is formed with the youth to modify certain behaviours. When youths are aware of what is expected of them, they plan their actions to meet these expectations and then experience the anticipated consequences. In this, way they can be motivated to change. Behaviour modification is effective in controlled settings, where a counsellor can manipulate the situation, but once the youth is back in the real world, it becomes difficult to use (Seigei 34 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY and Senna, 1994). In essence, effective individual treatment programmes are built around the following counselling techniques. (i) psychotherapy (ii) reality therapy and (iii) behaviour modification (iv) Group treatment techniques Group Therapy is more economical than individual therapy because one therapist can handle more than one individual at a time. Also, the support of the group is often highly valuable to the individuals in the group, and individuals derive hope from other members of the group who have survived similar experiences. Another advantage of the group therapy is that a group can often solve a problem more effectively than an individual (Yong, 1971). There are some disadvantages to group therapy. It creates no room for individualized attention. Some individuals may be different from other group members and need more highly individualized treatment; others may be shy and afraid to speak out in the group, and thus fail to receive the benefits of the group experience. Some individuals may dominate group interaction, and the leader may be effective in handling this situation. Finally group condemnation may seriously hurt rather than help a child (Seigel and Senna 1994). More than any other treatment technique, group psychotherapy probes the personality and attempts to restructure it. Relationships in these groups tend to be quite intense. The group is used to facilitate expression of feelings, to solve problems, and to teach members to empathize with and care for one another. Unfortunately, the components necessary for an effective group psychotherapy situation, such as personal interaction, cooperation and tolerance are in direct conflict with the antisocial, antagonistic, and exploitive orientation of delinquents. This type of technique is often effective when the members of the group are there voluntarily, but institutionalized delinquents are often forced to attend. (v) Guided group interaction (GGI) is a fairly common method of group treatment. It is based on the theory that, through group interactions, a delinquent can begin to realize and solve personal problems. A group leader facilitates interaction among group members, and a group culture develops. Individual members can be mutually supportive and can help develop more acceptable behaviour. According to Brendtero and Ness 35 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY (1982), in the 1980‘s, a version of GGI called Positive Peer Culture (PPC) became popular in juvenile connections. PPC programmes use groups in which peer leaders get other youths to conform to conventional behaviours. The reasons for PPC is that, if a negative peer influence can encourage youths to participate in delinquent behaviours, then a positive influence can help them conform. Milieu therapy seeks to make all aspects of an inmate‘s environment a part of his or her treatment and to minimize differences between custodial staff and treatment personnel. It also emphasizes peer influence in the formation of constructive values. Milieu therapy attempts to create an environment that encourages meaningful change, increased growth, and satisfactory adjustment. This is often accomplished through peer pressure to conform to group norms (Seigel and Senna, 1994). (vi) Vocational, educational and recreational programmes In addition to individual and group treatment programmes, most institutions use vocational and educational treatment programmes designed to teach juveniles skills that will help them adjust more easily when they are released into the community. Educational programmes for juveniles are required in long-term facilities because children must go to school until they are of a certain age. Since educational programmes are an important part of social development and have therapeutic value in addition to their instructional values, they are an essential part of most treatment programmes. What takes place through education is related to all other aspects of the institutional programme – the work activities, cottage life, recreation, and clinical services (Seigel and Senna, 1994). Educational programmes are mostly, the best staff programmes in training school, but, even at their best, most are inadequate. Training programmes are faced with a lot of problems. Many of the youths coming into these institutions are mentally retarded or have low IQs or learning disabilities. As such, they are educationally handicapped and far behind their grade levels in basic academic areas. Most of these youths dislike school and become bored with any type of educational programmes. Their boredom often leads to acting out and subsequent disciplinary problems. Vocational training has long been used as a treatment technique for juveniles. Early institutions were referred to as industrial schools. Today, vocational programmes in institutions are varied. The programmes offered include auto repair, printing, secretarial training, and data processing. One obvious problem here is sex typing and the recent trend has been to allow equal access to 36 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY all programmes offered in the institutions, because funds often cannot be found to offer all types of training. Vocational programmes for youths that include job placement, vocational training, alone, do not positively affect juvenile delinquency. Youths need skills that will give them hope for advancement (Seigel and Senna, 1994). Recreational activity is also an important way to help relieve adolescent aggressions, as evidenced by the many diversionary and delinquency prevention programmes that focus on these activities as the primary treatment technique. A recreation programmes should include active and sedentary activities, both indoor and outdoor, for teams and individuals. Adequate equipment and supplies should be provided for a comprehensive programme. In the case of insecure facilities, parks, bowling lanes and gymnasiums should be made. (vii) Specialized programmes This type of programme is established to deal with the chronic, violent offender. These efforts have been aided and funded by the Federal Governments. Violent juvenile offender programmes test innovative strategies for reintegrating chronically violent offenders back into the community (Mathias, Demuro and Allinson, 1984). Another approach that seems to show promise is the outdoor education and training programmes (known collectively as outward bound programmes). Two of these programmes are described in the following focus on delinquency. Castellano and Soderstrom (1992) argue that very little is known about the effects of wilderness stress-challenge programmes on juvenile recidivism. In a study of the spectrum wilderness programme in Illinois, they found that successful completion of the programme often resulted in arrest reductions that began immediately and lasted for about one year. While overall results were mixed, the authors conclude that such programmes are promising alternatives to traditional juvenile justice placements (Castellano and Soderstrom 1992). According to Murray and Cox (1979), there is a suppression effect on the future arrests. However, not all research supports this contention. Institutionalized chronic offenders actually increased both arrest probability and the seriousness of future crime (Hamparian, Schuster, Dinitz and Conrad, 1985). Correctional boot camps are also being developed for juvenile offenders. Boot camps combine the ―get tough‖ elements of adult programmes with education, substance abuse treatment and socialization skills training. The American Correctional 37 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Association‘s Juvenile Project studied the concept and sees merit in well-run boot camp programmes, provided they incorporate the following elements: (i) a focus on concrete feelings and increased self esteem (ii) discipline through physical conditioning (iii) programming in literacy, as well as academic and vocational education (Hamparian, Schuster and Conrad 1985). The family and Delinquency prevention Seigel and Senna (1994) noted that since the family is believed to play such an important role in the production of youth crime, it follows that improving family functioning can help prevent delinquency. Counsellors commonly work with the families of antisocial youths as part of a court-ordered treatment strategy. Family counselling and therapy are almost mandatory when the child is acting out behaviour suspected to be the result of family-related problems, such as child abuse or neglect (Edward and Sagatum, 1983). Another approach to involving the family in delinquency prevention is to attack the problem before it occurs. Patterson‘s parenting skills were associated with antisocial behaviour occurring in the home and at school. Family disruption and coercive exchanges between parents and children led to increased family tension, poor academic performance, and negative peer relations. The primary cause of the problem seemed to be that parents did not know how to deal effectively with their children. They sometimes ignored their children‘s behaviour, while at other times; the same childish actions would trigger an explosive rage. Some parents would discipline their children for reasons that have little to do with the children‘s behaviour but rather reflect their own frustrations and conflicts (Seigel and Senna, 1994). The OSLC programme uses the behaviour modification technique to help parents of antisocial children acquire proper care and disciplinary methods. Parents are asked to select several particular behaviours for change. A staff counsellor first analyzes family dynamics and then works with parents to construct a change programme. Parents are asked to closely monitor the particular behaviours and to count the weekly frequency of their occurrence. OSLC personnel teach both social skills to reinforce positive behaviours and constructive disciplinary methods to discourage negative ones. Points can be exchanged for allowance, prizes, or privileges (Seigel and Senna, 1994). Parents are also taught effective disciplinary techniques that stress firmness and consistency. Rather than ―nattering‖ (low intensity, nonverbal, or negative verbal 38 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY behaviours such as scowling or scolding) or explosive discipline, such as hitting, making humiliating remarks, or screaming, parents are taught the importance of setting rules and sticking to them. Ongoing research and evaluation is needed to formulate the best methods of intervening with the family in particular problem areas. What works for 10- year-old kids who steal may not be the best method for assaultive teens. Evidence suggests that early intervention in these cases may be appropriate and that the later the intervention, the more difficult the change processes. Most evaluations indicate that the OLSC methods can be highly successful. In a review of the effect of early childhood intervention programmes, psychologists Zigler, Taussig, and Black (1992) found that early and intensive interventions in family functioning can result in significant improvement in parent-child relations and a consequent reduction in antisocial activities. 2.2 Literature review 2.2.1 Delinquency and recidivism Juvenile crime remains a serious problem in the United States and continues to affect millions of people despite a downward trend in recent years. In 2003, more than 2.2 million juveniles (under age 18) in the U.S. were arrested for various crimes, including 92,300 arrested for violent crimes, such as murder, non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault (Snyder and Sickmund, 2006). According to Paternoster, Brame, and Farrington (2001), documentation shows a strong association between involvement in adolescent delinquency and involvement in adult criminality. In fact, many hardened criminals and serial offenders began their criminal careers as juveniles (Farrington, 1992). To alleviate adult criminal activity, society may first have to address juvenile crime. Family can play a vital part in the recidivism of the adolescents. Studies have shown that children who are provided with adequate parental supervision are less likely to engage in antisocial activity, while children from dysfunctional family settings, such as conflict, inadequate parental control and premature autonomy, are more closely associated with juvenile delinquency (World Youth Report, 2003). Hostility and rejection as well as low child involvement are the most salient predictors of behavioural problems and delinquency (Simons, Simons, Chen, Brody, and Lin, 2007). These lines of study are important, as Gerstien and Briggs (1993) found that 30 percent of the violent offenders in their study were reared in the absence of a father. Also, many studies have shown that parents who do not know where their children are when they are out and parents who let 39 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY their children roam the streets unsupervised from an early age tend to have delinquent children. For example the classic Cambridge Somerville study in Buston (Joan McCord, 1997) found that poor parental supervision in childhood was the best predictor of both violent and property crimes up to age 45 years. Moreover, research indicates that boys and girls may be responsive to different thresholds of juvenile delinquency. For instance, the importance of family dysfunction as a causative factor for delinquency and recidivism is well documented (Cottle, Lee, and Heilbrun, 2001). However, it appears that lower levels of family dysfunction may accelerate rate for girls more rapidly than for boys (Hipwell and Loeber, 2006). Family factors which may have an influence on offending include the level of parental supervision, the way parents discipline a child, parental conflict or separation, criminal parents or siblings, parental abuse or neglect and the quality of the parent-child relationship (Graham and Bowling 1995). Children brought up by lone parents are more likely to start offending than those who live with two natural parents. However once the attachment a child feels towards their parent(s) and the level of parental supervision are taken into account, children in single parent families are more likely to offend than others (Graham and Bowling 1995). Conflict between a child's parents is also much more closely linked to offending than being raised by a lone parent (Walklate, 2003). Adolescents who are antisocial ‗‗often experience coercive family environment in which family members are locked in power struggles, each trying to control the others through negative coercive tactics (Patterson, DeBaryshe, and Ramsey, 1989; Kiesner, Dishion and Poulin, 2001). If a child has low parental supervision, he or she is much more likely to offend (Graham and Bowling, 1995). Many studies have found a strong correlation between a lack of supervision and offending, and it appears to be the most important family influence on offending (Graham and Bowling, 1995; Farrington, 2002). When parents do not know where their children are, what their activities are, or who their friends are, children are more likely to be truant in school and have delinquent friends, each of which is linked to offending (Graham & Bowling 1995). A lack of supervision is connected to poor relationships between children and their parents, as children who are often in conflict with their parents may be less willing to discuss their activities with them (Graham and Bowling, 1995). For many centuries in the West, marriage was regarded as virtually indissoluble. Divorces were granted only in very limited cases, such as consummation of marriage. One or two industrial countries still do not recognize divorce ,yet these are no isolated 40 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY examples. Most countries have moved rapidly towards making divorce more easily available (Giddens, 2006). Also lone parent households have become increasingly common in recent decades. In U.K., the proportion of people in lone parent, increased from 4 percent in 1971 to 12 percent in 2003. It is important to note that lone parenthood is an overwhelmingly female category. On average, they are among the poorest groups in contemporary society. Many lone parents face social disapproval as well as economic insecurity (Giddens, 2006). The time from the late 1930‘s up to the 1970‘s has sometimes been called the period of the absent father. During the Second World War, many fathers rarely saw their children because of their war service. In the period following the war, in a high proportion of families women were not in paid labour force and stayed at home to look after the children. The father who was the main breadwinner, would be off for work all day and would see his children only in the evenings and at weekends. Lack of supervision by both parents gives room for the child to indulge in antisocial behaviour (Giddens, 2006). According to Wright and Wright (1994), the family is the foundation of human society. Children who are rejected by their parents, who grow up in homes with considerable conflict, or who are inadequately supervised are at the greatest risk of becoming delinquent. Also Immarigeon (1996) states that justice can be better served and young people steered on the right path by involving families in juvenile crime cases. If anything would play a large part in delinquency it would be a family. Understanding how the family and how the juvenile within the family works get to the core of delinquency. Families are one of the strongest socializing forces in life. They teach children to control unacceptable behaviour, to delay gratification, and to respect the rights of others. Conversely, Families can alsoteach children aggressive, antisocial, and violent behaviour. Positive parenting practices during the early years and later in adolescence appear to act as buffers preventing delinquent behaviour and assisting adolescents involved in such behaviour to desist from delinquency (Wright and Wright, 1994). Various forms of exposures to violence are important sources of early adolescent role exit. This means that a juvenile can witness violence within the family and outside as well (Hagan and Foster, 2001). If violence encompasses all emotional environmental aspects of the juvenile‘s life, he or she is more likely to engage in delinquent activities. A substantial number of children engage in delinquency. Antisocial and/or aggressive behaviours may begin as early as preschool or in the first few grades of elementary school. Such childhood misconduct tends to be resistant to change; for example, the 41 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY parents disciplining more harshly, often predicts continuing problems during adolescence, as well as adult criminality (Prochnow and DeFronzo, 1997). 2.2.2 Family background and recidivism Family stability, often defined from the point of view of whether or not both parents are living together with their siblings, is the single most important factor in ensuring that a child is properly assimilated into the mainstream of society. The influence of the family in reducing or encouraging recidivism stems from the notion of social control, where it is believed that parental influence is capable of counteracting negative swings in adolescents and forms a potential barrier to delinquent behaviour. Attachment to parents helps inhibit the initial formation of delinquent friendships, which itself helps interrupt the cycle of negative peer influence and delinquent behaviour (War, 1993). Marriage and parenthood are a strong basis of social bonds that promote conformity to social and socio-legal norms (Rand, 1987; Sampson and Laub, 1993; Laub, Nagin, and Sampson, 1998; Li, Heide, and Mackenzie, 2000). Families aid greatly in the construction of social capital, which may be a necessary, though not necessarily a sufficient, ground for remaining law-abiding (Winter, 2000; Cottle, Ria, and Kirk, 2001). Even after a period of intervention common problem-solving techniques and interaction between family members have been shown to be a major factor in subsequent offending behaviour (Epstein, Lawrence, and Duane, 1983; Andrews, Zinger, Banta, Gendreau and Cullen, 1990). In the meta-analysis, Andrews, Zinger, Banta, Gendreau and Cullen, (1990) functional family therapy was found to be the leading factor in the reduction of recidivism and this was further corroborated by follow-up works on family therapy on delinquency and criminal behaviour by Gordon, Graves and Arburthon (1995). Supportive family relationships are likely to reduce repeat delinquent behaviour for youth who are on parole or other follow-up interventions (Fendrich, 1991). Family characteristics, such as poor parenting skills, family size, home discord, child maltreatment, and antisocial parents are risk factors linked to juvenile delinquency (Derzon and Lipsey, 2000; Wasserman and Seracini, 2001). McCord‘s (1979) study of 250 boys found that among boys at age 10, the strongest predictors of later convictions for violent offences (up to age 45) were poor parental supervision, parental conflict, and parental aggression, including harsh, punitive discipline. Some studied have linked being raised in a single-parent family with increased delinquency (McCord, Widom, and Crowell, 2001). However, when researchers control socioeconomic conditions, these 42 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY differences are minimized (Austin, 1978; Crockett, Eggebeen, and Hawkins, 1993). Some research has shown that children from families with four or more children have an increased chance of offending (West and Farrington, 1973; Wasserman and Seracini, 2001). Existing research points to a powerful connection between residing in an adverse environment and participating in criminal acts (McCord, Widom, and Crowell, 2001). Sociological theories of deviance hypothesize that ―disorganized neighbourhoods have weak social control networks; that weak social control, resulting from isolation among residents and high residential turnover, allows criminal activity to go unmonitored‖ (Herrenkohl, Hawkins, Chung, Hill, and Battin-Pearson, 2001). Although researchers debate the interaction between environmental and personal factors, most agree that ―living in a neighbourhood where there are high levels of poverty and crime increases the risk of involvement in serious crime for all children growing up there‖ (McCord, Widom, and Crowell, 2001). Farrington (2000) notes that ―only in the 1990‘s had the longitudinal researchers begun to pay sufficient attention to neighbourhood and community factors, and there is still a great need for them to investigate immediate situational influences on offending.‖ As described below, the environment in which youth are reared can influence the likelihood of delinquency. The presence of a father in the childhood home is generally found to have a negative impact on measures of criminal involvement. However, while this effect is found to be significant by Comanor and Phillips (1999), Williams and Sickles (2000) found that the father‘s presence had an insignificant effect on the probability of adult arrest. Similarly, Case and Katz (1991) found that having both parents present in the family home had a negative but insignificant effect on the probability of participating in crime. Family size, measured by the respondent‘s number of siblings was found to have a positive but generally insignificant effect on the probability of engaging in crime (Grogger, 1998; Williams and Sickles, 2000). The literature also reports mixed findings with respect to race, and measures of the respondent‘s socio-economic status and household income. For example, Comanor and Phillips (1999) found that being black was associated with significantly fewer encounters with the law, while Williams and Sickles (2000) and Grogger (1998) found a positive but insignificant relationship. In contrast Phillips and Votey (1987) and Witte and Tauchen (1994) found that blacks were significantly more likely to be involved in antisocial behaviours. Both Witte and Tauchen (1994) and Phillips and Votey (1987) found that the socio-economic status of the 43 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY respondent‘s family was negatively related to the probability that an individual engages in crime. However, this effect was only found to be significant in the latter study, which focused on juvenile arrests, whereas Witte and Tauchen (1994) examined adult arrests. Prior research on the relationship between family environment and child behaviour characterizes a child's well-being with a positive and caring parent-child relationship, a stimulating home environment, and consistent disciplinary techniques (Schmitz, 2003). Families with poor communication and weak family bonds have been shown to have a correlation with children's development of aggressive/criminal behaviour (Garnefski and Okma, 1996). Therefore, it seems obvious to conclude that those families who are less financially sound, perhaps have more children, and who are unable to consistently punish their children will have a greater likelihood of promoting an environment that will influence antisocial or delinquent behaviour (Jones, 2005). Another indicator of future antisocial or criminal behaviour is that of abuse or neglect in childhood. A statistic shows that children are at a fifty percent greater risk of engaging in criminal acts, if they were neglected or abused (Holmes, Slaughter, and Kashani, 2001). This has been one of the most popular arguments as to why children develop antisocial or delinquent behaviours. According to Tepperman, Curtis and Albanese (2008), the built environment and the organization of its infrastructure also have important effects on people. An environment marked by deprivation can contribute to the potential for delinquency (Kail and Cavanaugh, 2007). Children who live in poverty exhibit more violent and antisocial behaviour than those who live in more prosperous surroundings (Keily, Bates, Dodge and Pettit, 2000). Poverty imposes stress on families who often struggle just to survive and often leads to the very parental behaviours that promote aggression-harsh discipline and lax monitoring (Tolan, Gorman-Smith and Henry, 2003). Karen, (2007) avers that violent crime is far more common in poverty- stricken neighbourhoods. Older children and adolescents exposed to such violence are, as they grow older, more likely to be aggressive and violent themselves (Binghenheimer, Brennan and Earls, 2005; Kail and Cavanaugh 2007). Papalia and her colleagues (2007) note that children whose families are continuously poor tend to become more antisocial with time. When families rise from poverty while the child is still young, the child is more likely to develop behaviour problems than a child whose family was never poor (Macmillan, McMorris and Kruttschnitt, 2004). In many instances, both the design and the planning of buildings, neighbourhood, and cities can facilitate or constrain behaviour. Numerous studies have confirmed that housing 44 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY design does have an effect on people‘s lives (Marcus and Sarkissian, 1986; Arias, 1993). Research on middle-class married single family homes in both downtown and suburban areas of Metro Toronto (Michelson, 1997) concluded that behaviours among those living in combinations of housing type and location differed because of the respective opportunities in housing, such as space for entertainment or hobbies within the home, and differing access by location to urban amenities and services. Ray 1971 and Oscar (1972) empirically confirmed prior observations by Jacobs (1961) they argued that enlightened designs, for residential buildings and grounds can help prevent such crimes as vandalisation and, mugging, which occur where perpetrators believe they can get away with them. Neighbourhoods have been shown to be of considerable salience to housewives, children and others whose daily routines or resources restrict them to the areas where they live (Tepperman, Curtis and Albanese, 2008). Numerous guidelines have been set out suggesting how local neighbourhood designs can fruitfully accommodate the needs of families with children (Marcus and Sarkissian, 1986). Comparative international research has confirmed the importance of local area characteristics in the daily lives of children, even as the particular characteristics of such neighbourhoods vary greatly from country to country; as do the cultures in which the children grow up (Chawla, 2002). A resurgence of research attention to the characteristics of local areas within cities has been seen in recent years. Some of this emerged with respect to the risks encountered by relatively fragile sectors of the population, such as children and the elderly, to the environmental perils. Farrington (2000) observes that ―only in the 1990‘s had the longitudinal researchers begun to pay sufficient attention to neighbourhood and community factors, and there is still a great need for them to investigate immediate situational influences on offending.‖ The environment in which a youth is reared can influence the likelihood of delinquency. Many experts on abnormal behaviour agree that many psychosocial disorders are universal appearing in most cultures (Santrock, 2000). However, the frequency and the intensity of abnormal behaviour vary across cultures with variations related to the social, economic, technological and religious aspects of cultures (Dragun, 1990). The socio- cultural factors that influence mental disorders include socioeconomic status and neighbourhood quality (Brown and Adler 1998). According to Santrock (2000), people from low-income minority, neighbourhood have the highest rates of mental disorders. Socioeconomic status plays a much stronger role. Thus, poverty creates stressful 45 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY circumstances that can contribute to whether a person has behaviour problems (Grizenko, 1998). The Joseph Rownlee Foundation Commissioned Elaino Kempson to review the findings of 31 qualitative studies funded by the Foundation. All the studies were completed in 1994 or 1995 and, in total, involved in-depth interviews with 2,100 people on low incomes and some 300 people whose work involved dealing with low-income groups. The studies focused on a range of issues, such as being single, homelessness, housing, nutrition and diet, disability, and debt and money management. The qualitative studies did not aim to pick out the worst cases of deprivation. Rather, they sought to identify the general pattern that emerged and then use individual cases as illustrations (Kempson, 1996). Haralambos and Holborn (2004) assert that some of the people who had difficulty most were those who had a sudden drop in income, but there were also problems for those who suffered long-term poverty. In some of these households, savings were used up and debt problems had mounted. And as such they could not cater properly for their families. Most of those on low incomes were not spendthrifts; indeed, many planned expenditure with great care. In one study, which examined 74 low-incomes families, about two thirds planned expenditure carefully. Planning usually meant cutting out luxuries, and some of the first things to go were ‗‗treats‘‘ such as holidays, social activities and repairs and decorations. The children in such family might not easily accept this situation. Although poor parents tried to minimize the effect of low income on their children – often going without necessities themselves to do so – the children of the poor suffered a restricted social life. They were less likely to get involved in clubs, take part in extra-curricular activities at school or have their friends around. Some groups spent money on non- essentials. The single homeless, for example, drank a lot of alcohol, but this was untypical of other poor groups. They continued to smoke because they led stressful lives and smoking was the only way they reduced the stress, while people with more money would go out in the evening to drink at the end of the day (Kempson, 1996). Life for those on low incomes involves making difficult choices. Borrowing money was an alternative to cutting down essentials. Some study found that there was a dual credit market. Those with reasonable and secure incomes could obtain credit from mainstream sources such as banks. Those on low incomes often had to turn to disreputable money lenders or pawnshops. In doing so, their borrowings became much more expensive, and they could soon find themselves with the debts they had little chance of repaying. This produced another difficult choice whether to put the needs of creditors 46 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY or family first (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004). One study of 74 low-income families with children found that only 12 had managed to keep their head above water, while 20 families seemed to be getting drowned in a sea of financial problems. In some families, the parents were simply unwilling to allow their children to go without necessities even if this meant getting further and further into debts. Hence a juvenile is capable of going back to crime if faced with all the challenges above. The effect of low income Kempson (1996) found that the research pointed to a wide range of negative consequences for those on low income: The struggle to make ends meet not only affects family life, but can result in poor diet, lack of fuel and water, poor housing and homelessness, debt, poor physical health, and stress and mental health problems. The studies found that people often lost contact with friends because of the cost of socializing. In some families, emotional support from spouses was essential, but in others the struggle to cope with little money led to arguments and sometimes even violence. The argument sometimes drove children away, and could lead to them becoming homeless. This could have negative effect on the adolescent, which can bring about a bad behaviour. Low income can bring about fear of losing what they have. Fear of losing their homes was a very real problem for some of the poor, particularly those who had become unemployed and who had mortgages (Haralambos and Holborn 2004). The growth of home ownership in the 1980‘s, followed by a slump in house prices and increased unemployment, left some with mortgage debts greater than the market value of their houses (negative equity) and without means to pay them off. Where people lost their homes and had to be re-housed, they were often sent to the most undesirable housing estates, where crime and damp or unsuitable housing could affect physical and mental health. The bad state of the family as a result of low income and the stress and trauma the child had been through is capable of causing behaviour problems in the adolescents. 2.2.3 Media Content and Recidivism The mass media refers to the print and electronic instruments of communication that carry messages to often wide audiences. The print media includes newspapers, magazines, and books; the electronic media, include radio, television, motion pictures and 47 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY the Internet. Advertising, which falls into both categories, is also a form of media (Shaefer, 2003). The media is an important agent through which information is disseminated to the public. It reforms and educates; likewise, it is an agent to mould lives, opinions and attitudes (Tolentino, 2001). The penetration of media into people‘s homes has been dramatic over the last sixty years. The percentage of homes with television rose from less than 10 percent in 1950 to close to 100 percent in 2000. The media are not only broad in reach but they also permeate all aspects of everyday life. Take advertising for example, consumer goods are vigorously marketed worldwide, from advertisements on baggage carriers at airports to imprints on the sand of beaches. Little wonder people around the world develop loyalty to a brand and are likely to desire sporting a logo of Nike, Coca-cola, or Harley-Davidson as they are of their favourite soccer or baseball team (Klein, 1999). We spend a great deal of time with the media. Every aspect of the media influence and shape the people‘s political cultural and economic ideas in order to illicit change in behaviour (Ogwezze, 2004). According to communications industry study, we spend 10 hours every day with television, videotaped movies, computer games, radio, and other media outlets. At the end of the week, the time averages more than 69 hours-far more than a full work week (Bureau of the Census, 2000a). The most comprehensive analysis of more than 200 studies on media violence and aggressive behaviour found that exposure to violence causes short-term increase in the aggressive behaviour of youth. Another study found that less television and other media exposure is related to less observed physical aggression. But in such research findings it is important to recognize that other factors besides the media are also related to aggressive behaviour. Witnessing and experiencing violence within one‘s own home and encouragement by others have also shown to be related to violent behaviour (Paik and Comstock 1994; Johnson, Cohen, Smailes, Kasen and Brook, 2001; Robinson, Marta, Wilde, Navracuz, Farish andVarady 2001; US surgeon General, 2001). Media content is a powerful means of bringing about social changes which impact significantly on people who subconsciously adopt and internalise attitudes, beliefs and values presented graphically or textually (Joshi, Pahad and Maniar, 2006). The revolution in media content has helped accelerate the pace of social change during the last few decades. The mass media are more than sources of entertainment or information. They are influential agents of socialization. The media are instrumental in transmitting and reinforcing certain values, social behaviour and definitions of social reality (Terpperman, 48 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Curtis, and Albanese, 2008) Concern about media violence has been long standing. Today, concern focuses on violence and pornography in digital media; 20 years ago, it was television, particularly music videos. But movies, comics and magazines have all been considered potentially dangerous sources of influence, especially for young people. Children who spend time watching violent movies or theft are always affected by what they see. They tend to behave in that direction. In the 1950s, Fredrick Werthman published his book Seduction of the Innocent to protest violence in comic books, as there was a concern regarding the plurality of comic books and the rise of violence in the United States. Those concerned about media violence feel that the negative effects of media are self-evident, that the sheer amount of violence speaks for itself. They are concerned that the children will imitate what they see on television or on the Internet (Tepperman, Curtis, and Albanese, 2008). Media effects have been studied by psychologists in laboratory experiments. Under laboratory conditions, the children displayed more aggressive behaviour than control groups when exposed to television portrayals of violence (Bandura, 1993). It is not clear, however, whether the kinds of imitative behaviour that occur in the laboratory also occur in normal social interaction. Experiments may confidently conclude that the response (aggressive behaviour) was triggered by the stimulus (violent media portrayals) but not that it will also occur outside the laboratory (Singer and Singer, 2001). Two social scientists at the University de Montreal in Quebec studied the effect of listening to rap music on French-Canadian adolescents (Miranda and Cales, 2004). The study found that rap music is related to deviant behaviours, including violence, street gang involvement, and mild drug use, such as tobacco, alcohol, and cannabis, Rap music, that originated in France, is more strongly associated with deviant behaviour while hip pop/soul is significantly linked to less deviant behaviours. Mirinda and Claes (2004) suggest that adolescents who already present antisocial values select antisocial music because it reinforces their values. Surveys indicated that television takes up the third largest amount of time in our lives after work or school and sleep. As children devote their time watching anti-social behaviours such as theft, burglary, rape, drug use, smoking, they may end up practising what they watch. This is because, according to Tepperman, Curtis and Albanese (2008), television is the primary medium accessible to young children and is a potent agent of socialization. In the early 1950s, horror comics were criticised and linked to juvenile delinquency. Since then, television as well as video and computer games have been 49 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY accused of undermining moral values and cultivating a more violent and crime oriented social climate (Gunter, 1994). Clint Eastwood‘s movie ―Dirty Harry‖ has been linked to copycat serial killings and the school shootings at Columbine (1999) have been linked to violent video games (Carnagey, Anderson and Bushman, 2007). Numerous studies have been undertaken to see the effects video game playing has on feelings of aggression and subsequent acts of aggression. The juvenile‘s exposure to media violence is another area of concern. It is estimated that today‘s children will be exposed to approximately twenty to twenty five-violent acts per hour during a Saturday morning and approximately five violent acts per hour during regular adult programming. Viewing television violence may lead to a change in the child‘s values and an increase in violent behaviour. Television desensitizes the child to violence in general and to the pain of others. If children are "glued" to the television for a substantial portion of their days, they may view the world as more dangerous than it really is. Elliott (1994), states that the effects of media violence are negligible if there is protection via adequate monitoring of the youth‘s behaviour, and strong family bonding in concert with the effective teaching of moral values and norms. "Without these protections, its effect can be quite strong." In an immediate exposure to violence, when the adult care provider is calm and "effective", the children have increased "adaptive success". Even if viewers do not necessarily become more violent from watching violent images, there could be desensitization taking place. Using the premise of the narcotizing dysfunction, one might suggest that extended exposure to violent imagery leads to an increased tolerance and acceptance of violent others (Shaefer, 2003). The US Surgeon General‘s 2001 report on youth violence recommended that parents use v-chip technology that screens the television programmes their children can watch. Yet despite parental concerns, a 2001 national study showed that only 17 percent of parents used the chip to block programmes with sexual or violent content. In general most observers agreed that parents should play more of a role in monitoring their children‘s media consumption (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001; US surgeon General, 2001). Much of our knowledge of media violence comes from the study of children who watch television, and some more recent studies have tried to assess the impact of videogames. But we should not lose sight of the fact that media outlets are becoming increasingly diverse, especially with the role the Internet now plays in the delivery of media content. Much of this new content holds great promise for broadening educational 50 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY horizons, but these new easily-obtainable outlets also offer an ending diet of violence (Alexander and Hanson 2001). 2.2.4 Peer influence and recidivism Peers are two or more persons that are operating at similar levels of behavioural complexity; these persons that come together and form groups which are referred to as peer groups (Tenibiaje, 2011). Peer group has significant roles to play in the life of adolescents. According to social learning and differential association theories, the interactive sequences inside groups play a major role in leading individuals towards behaviour that is criminal. McGuire (2009) argues that individuals may apply pressure to each other in a diffuse manner or to specific individuals who are seen as acquiescent or easily led. Direct behavioural learning through modelling and imitation is the potent factor in group influence. Some offences are particularly among young people and they are committed in a group setting. The effect of the peer group and the pressure this may exert towards experimentation and other manifestation of growing independence of youths are cases in points on criminality. The peer generation effects have to do with the quest for affiliation and the link that resides in pattern of social interaction inside such groupings (McGuire, 2009). A study of antisocial behaviour conducted in Sheffield by Baldwin, Bottoms and Walker (1976) found a clear age trend for this in their study of crime. Whereas 61.5% of males and 67.7% of females aged 10-14 years committed offences in pairs or larger groups, among 17- to 20- year-olds the corresponding figures were 18.6 and 48%, and among 30- and 44- year-olds, 8.8 and 10%. Several risk factors emerged as predictive of gang membership. McGuire (2009) observes that these risk factors are availability of marijuana in the neighbourhood, living outside both parents and performing poorly at school. In another research carried out by Benda (2005), it was found that juveniles re- offend as a result of delinquent peer association, carrying weapons, alcohol abuse and aggressive feelings. Light, Nee and Ingam (1993), in their study at Bristol Housing Estate with young people and adults aged 14-35 with histories of vehicle-taking, identify the influence of friends as the single most frequent motive for involvement in offending. Another factor that has a bearing on the likelihood of recidivism is peer influence. Akers (1985) avers that any criminal or delinquent acts and the resultant formal sanctions can give the affected individuals the greater exposure to and affinity for other individuals who constantly violate the law and this patterning of reinforcement leads to elevated 51 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY participation in further criminal behaviour. A great deal of literature has linked peer influence to patterned delinquent behaviour, with peer pressure forming a central explanation of not only the first involvement in delinquency, but also the repetitive pattern that typifies recidivism (Loeber and Loeber, 1987; Warr, 1993; Thornberry, Huizingar, and Loeber, 1995; Matsueda and Anderson, 1998). Serious criminal sanctioning may produce social obstacles that discourage investment in conventional society. Rejection from conventional groups may come in the form of difficulty obtaining employment, barriers against qualifying for student loans, and informal exclusion from conventional social networks. In the realm of family functioning, there is a theory known as the coercion theory, which suggests that family environment influences an adolescent‘s interpersonal style, which, in turn, influences peer group selection (Cashwel and Vacc, 1996). Peers with a more coercive interpersonal style tend to become involved with one another, and this relationship is assumed to increase the likelihood of being involved in delinquent behaviour. Thus, understanding the nature of relationships within the family, to include family adaptability, cohesion, and satisfaction, provides more information for understanding youth (Cashwell and Vacc, 1996). The cohesiveness of the family successfully predicted the frequency of delinquent acts for non-traditional families (Matherne and Thomas, 2001). Family behaviour, particularly parental monitoring and discipline, seem to influence association with deviant peers throughout the adolescent period (Cashwell and Vacc, 1996). Among social circumstances which have a hand in determining the future of the individual family is central (Wright and Wright, 1994). A lack of monitoring is reflected in the parent often not knowing where the child is, whom the child is with, what the child is doing or when the child will be home. Monitoring becomes important as children move into adolescence and spend less time under the direct supervision of parents or other adults and more time with peers. Previous research found that coercive parenting and lack of parental monitoring contributes not only directly to boys‘ antisocial behaviours, but also indirectly, as seen in the contribution to their increased opportunity to associate with deviant peers, which is predictive of higher levels of delinquent acts (Kim, Hetherington and Rice, 1999). Communication also plays a big role in how the family functions. Positive communication for optimal family functioning has major implications for delinquent behaviour (Clark and Shields 1997). In their study, Bernburg, Krohn and Rivera, (2006) examined the ensuing criminal embeddedness following juvenile justice system intervention. Using panel data of 870 52 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY adolescents in the 7th and 8th grades, they coded participant‘s individual delinquency as well as the delinquency of their peers. The study sought to establish a connection between formal justice system intervention and subsequent delinquency. Data were collected three times at six-month intervals in face-to-face interviews conducted in private. After controlling other variables, such as race, gender, initial levels of delinquency, family impoverishment and substance abuse, they found that ―juvenile justice intervention is significantly associated with serious delinquency in a subsequent period‖ (Bernberg, Krohn, and Rivera, 2006). Also, because of the longitudinal nature of the study, some evidence was gathered on the temporal ordering of variable influence. According to the results, association with deviant peers significantly mediated the relationship between formal justice system intervention and later delinquency. Deviant groups represent a source of social support in which deviant activities are accepted. Moreover, deviant groups often provide social shelter from those who react negatively toward the deviant status. The labelled person is thus increasingly likely to become involved in social groups that consist of social deviants and unconventional others (Bernberg, Krohn, and Rivera, 2006) For more than 50 years, social scientists have found that delinquent acts are disproportionately committed by groups of juveniles rather than by lone offenders (Warr, 1993). Numerous studies have found that youths with antisocial friends and associates are more likely to be delinquent themselves. The theory of differential association posits that criminal behaviour is learned through direct and repeated interactions with people who have attitudes or beliefs favourable to deviance (Akers, 2000). Through social interaction, uninitiated youths are taught criminal techniques as well as definitions favourable to violating the law. The central tenet of differential association theory is that ―a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law (Sutherland and Cressey, 1974) Criminological theory suggests that reducing teenagers‘ antisocial interactions and increasing their exposure to the influences of non-delinquent, pro-social peers is a plausible approach to delinquency prevention. Every parent who worries about a child ―hanging out with the wrong crowd‖ knows this as well. Association with delinquent peers is due to low social control, poor self-concept, and interpersonal inadequacy (Brook, Whiteman, Balka, and Cohen, 1997). Poor or ineffective parenting will produce children who lack self-control (Lerner and Galambos, 1998).Associating with antisocial peers occurs through modelling of antisocial behaviour and attitudes. Youth who see 53 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY antisocial behaviours are more likely to act on them than peers who just talk about it (Mills, Kroner, Mongrain, and Sylvain, 2005). 2.2.5 Peer relations and delinquency Experts have long debated the relationships between peer group interaction and delinquency. Delinquent acts tend to be committed in small groups, rather than alone, a process called co-offending (Reiss, 1988). Theft-related offences are particularly likely to be committed by groups of co-offenders of the same gender and age; brothers have been found to commit offences with brothers of a similar age. Does having antisocial peers result in delinquency or are delinquent‘s antisocial youths who seek out like-minded companions? Three opposing viewpoints exists on this question, Control theorists, such as Travis Hirschi, claim that delinquents are as detached from their peers as they are from other segments of the society. If delinquent youths may acknowledge that they have friends‘ their actual personal relationships are cold and exploitative. James Short and Fred Strodtbeck describe the importance delinquent youths attach to their peer groups and observe how delinquents lack the social skills to make their peer relations rewarding or fulfilling. To them, if delinquency is committed in groups, it is because birds of a feather flock together, not because deviant peers cause otherwise law-abiding youths to commit crimes. The second view emphasizes that peer relations contribute directly to delinquency. If so, after incarceration, the offender who keeps deviant peers is likely to go back to the offence. Structural theorists view the delinquency experience as one marked by peer group support. They link delinquency to the rewards gained by associating with like- minded youth and their formation of law-violating youth groups and gangs. Lower-class youths who find it difficult to achieve success and a sense of pride through legitimate means are open to achieving status in a group. Influential peer relations are also central issue of social learning theory. Social learning involves modelling the behaviour of others and acquiring deviant knowledge and attitudes through intimate contact with valued peers. A third view is that peers and delinquency are mutually supporting. Antisocial kids join up with like-minded friends; deviant peers sustain and amplify delinquents careers. As children move through the life course, friends will influence their behaviour, and their behaviour will influence their friends (Thombery and Akon 1992). Warr (1993) also found that these antisocial friends help delinquent careers to withstand the aging-out 54 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY process. Several studies have found a consistent relationship between involvement in a delinquent peer group and delinquent behaviour. Lipsey and Derzon (1998) note that, for youth ages 12 to 14, a key predictor variable for delinquency is the presence of antisocial peers. According to McCord and colleagues (2001), ―factors such as peer delinquent behaviour, peer approval of delinquent behaviour, attachment or allegiance to peers, time spent with peers, and peer pressure for deviance have all been associated with adolescent antisocial behaviour.‖ Conversely, Elliot (1994) reported that spending time with peers who disapprove of delinquent behaviour may curb later violence. The influence of peers and their acceptance of delinquent behaviour are significant, and this relationship is magnified when youth have little interaction with their parents (Steinberg, 1987). Some experts have researched peer pressure and based on their findings, have determined peer influence as somewhat of a myth. They argued that peer pressure is a myth that enables adults to explain youths' troubling behaviours (Ungar, 2000). Many of these studies were compiled by observations, surveys, and interviews. Some may disagree with these peer pressure "myth" findings because of how they are acquired. If you ask an average teen if they are influenced by peer pressure, they may be likely to say "no" because they want others to think they are original, innovative, and a trendsetter. No teenager is going to reply, "Yes. I am influenced by peer pressure because I want to be like everyone else. I don't want to have a mind of my own because that isn't cool." 2.2.6 Stigmatization and recidivism As noted by Karen (2007), stigma is a smear of shame and reproach upon one‘s reputation. Terpperman, Curtis and Albanese (2008), assert that people are seen as deviant because of what others believe they have done or what others believe them to be. The labels of ‗‗deviant‘‘ that is assigned to people is not benign. Rather, it is charged with a great deal of emotion (Terpperman, Curtis, and Albanese, 2008). Such labels sorts through the thousands of acts in which a person has engaged and indicate that the person‘s identity is best understood in terms of the act according to which the label is affixed. The assignment of stigma suggests what sociologists refer to as master status. This means that the label of deviant overrides all other status considerations. To be known as a murderer, for example, is to possess a status characteristic that trumps any other status characteristics the person might have, whatever else, one might be-bright, 55 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY interesting, poor, blond, first (Tepperman , Curtis, and Albanese 2008). No parent would want his child to be seen around anybody that has behaviour problems. Haralambo and Holborn (2004) observe that certain people who have undesired differentness are stigmatized in that others regard them as ‗‗tainted‘‘ and discounted. Goffman (1963) is less interested in the origins of stigma than in the impact it has on the social interaction of the stigmatized person and how they perceive themselves. Whenever there is a significant difference between a person‘s virtual identity (what the normal person is like) and their actual identity, then negative consequences are likely to follow. According to Haralambo and Holborn (2004), if the agent of social control defines the youngsters as delinquent and they are convicted for breaking the law, those youngsters then become deviant. They have been labelled as such by those who have the power to make the labels stick. Thus Becker (1963) argued that deviance is not a quality that lies in behaviour itself, but in the interaction between the people who commit an act and those who respond to it. Goffman (1963) distinguishes between a discrediting stigma, such as a clearly visible disfigurement or disability and a discreditable stigma, where the negative undesired differences is not obvious, and the person has the possibility of hiding it. People who have discrediting attributes, deal with their potentially difficult day-to-day interaction with others through impression management. This lowers the chances of humiliation or other problems. Stigmatization is a powerful and disrupting social label that radically and negatively affects the ways individual view themselves and the ways others view the individuals as a person. Stigmatization is a dynamic process that arises from the perception that an individual has an undesirable attributes, thus reducing him in the eye of society (Nwagwu, 2004). Also Giddens and Duneir (2004), define stigma as any characteristics that sets an individual or group apart from the majority of the population with the result that the individual or group is treated with suspicion or hostility. In its most superficial form, labelling theory merely suggests that individuals may feel obligated to act out roles dictated by their new status as criminals. Since peer delinquency and other controls do not fully account for delinquent behaviour, it is possible that an altered self-concept independently affects recidivism (Bernburg, Krohn, and Rivera, 2006). Indeed, the relationship between self-identification as deviant and actual deviant behaviour cannot be overlooked. However, it is possible that the relationship between identity and behaviour is mediated by social influences (Chiricos, Barrick and Bales 2007; Mouttapa, Watson, 56 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY McCuller, Sussman, Weiss, Reiber, and Wenzel, 2010). In a study examining the behaviours and attitudes of 91 incarcerated youths from four different youth detention camps in southern California, Mouttapa, Watson, McCuller, Sussman, Weiss, Reiber, Lewis, and Tsai (2010) linked serious alcohol abuse with a shared social identity with the ―gang member‖ image. Participants were asked in a self-report survey about their behaviours prior to their apprehension, as well as their experiences leading up to and during correction with feelings of anger. They were also asked to select from a list of 16 different social ―identities‖ the one that they felt best represented their peer group. The list was compiled by the researchers and correctional centre staff. This list included, but was not limited to identities such as, ―skaters‖, ―stoners‖, ―jocks‖, ―taggers‖, ―heavy metalers‖, ―loners‖, and ―actors‖. The majority of the participants who identified themselves as ―gang members‖, 63% had consumed alcohol heavily in the 30 days prior to their incarceration, as opposed to 30% among those who did not self-identify as gang members. The results remained statistically significant after controlling self-reported levels of anger. Although this study does not account for the possibility that offenders‘ self-concept may be as a result of their incarceration, it does take some steps towards clarifying the relationships among an individual‘s identity, peer group and behaviour. This may be especially detrimental to the life-course orientation of juveniles with a developing self-concept. It also follows that those offenders who undergo the greatest change in status may also exhibit the greatest change in behaviour. Chiricos, Barrick and Bales (2007) observed this in a study involving 71,548 men and 24,371 women convicted of a felony in Florida between 2000 and 2002. Florida law, at the time, granted judicial discretion over the decision to withhold the legal ―felon‖ status for those convicted of a felony. Having the status withheld means that the individual does not legally need to report the conviction on applications for employment, retains his or her eligibility for government programmes including federal student financial aid, and does not have his or her voting rights curtailed or revoked. This, in theory, preserves some measure of the convict‘s stakes in conformity and incentives to avoid further deviant behaviour. The researchers found that, among the offenders convicted of a felony, women, whites, those with greater educational attainment and those without a prior record were among those most likely to be affected by felony status compared to those who had the status withheld, measured in terms of increased recidivism. Contrary to some initial expectations that these groups should be the most able to insulate themselves from the effects of criminal labelling, the data pointed to the 57 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY opposite conclusion that, simply put, those who have more to lose from a criminal conviction lose more. Myers (2003) found, in his study of violent youths in Pennsylvania, that offenders who were judicially waived to adult criminal court exhibited higher rates of recidivism. The study was of 494 youths convicted of a violent crime, 79 of whom were waived to adult court. Statistical controls were in place for prior record, age, whether or not a weapon was used to commit the crime, location, parents‘ marital status and school enrolment. While the group waived was roughly 50% more likely to be rearrested for a violent felony in the follow-up period according to Pennsylvania arrest records, statistical controls could not completely account for the risk of selection bias. The waived offenders, on average, did have more extensive prior records that the youths retained in juvenile court, as well as a higher average age at the time of arrest, even though, surprisingly, they were less likely to use a weapon in committing the crime. However, the study revealed an interesting correlation that accords with the implications of the study by Chiricos, Barrick, and Bales (2007). Offenders who had obtained a diploma or GED before their initial arrest, or were enrolled in school at the time of their arrest, were significantly more likely to reoffend compared to those who had dropped out of school. Myers (2003), offers the explanation that perhaps those who had completed their education might have lost employment as a result of their arrest. Additionally, those enrolled in school might have elected not to return following their arrest and encountered difficulty obtaining employment. Stigma is a perceived negative attribute that causes someone to devalue or think less of the whole person. People tend to distance themselves from individuals in stigmatized groups, to blame individuals in these groups for the perceived negative attributes, and to discriminate against and diminish the stigmatized individuals. In contrast, labelling theory predicts that formal sanctions increase re-offending by promoting a criminal self-concept, limiting access to legitimate economic opportunities, and disrupting interpersonal relationships (Paternoster and Lovanni, 1989). While deterrence and labelling theories traditionally have been viewed in opposition to one another (Liska and Messener, 1999), recent theoretical contributions have integrated concepts from these and other theories with an eye towards outlining the specific condition under which sanctions decrease future offending and those under which they increase future offending ( Braithwaite, 1989; Grasmick and Bursik, 1990; Sherman, 1993; Sherman and Smith, 1992), the social position of offenders subjected to sanctions 58 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY (Sherman 1993), and the perceived legitimacy of the application legitimacy of the application of sanctions (Tyler, 1990; Fukuyama, 1992) from social control theories. Braithwaite (1989) argues that shame can deter criminal behaviour both by posing to individual offenders the threat of losing social approval of significant others and more generally (and symbolically) by reaffirming society moral boundaries to offenders and other members of society. However, he recognizes that the different qualities of shaming are not automatic and, in fact, shaming can be stigmatizing and operates to enhance the probability of future offending (Sharman, 1993). Most important to control crime, is that shameful expressions of disapproval of criminal or deviant acts be followed by efforts to reintegrate offenders into the community of law-abiding or respectable citizens. Re-integrative shaming absolves the offender of criminal label by punishing the act, then forgiving the actor. In the absence of such, reconciliation efforts become stigmatizing or disintegrative, the criminal label becomes a master status for offenders, who are then likely to be cut off from mainstream social relationships and attracted to criminal subcultures, both of which may increase the likelihood that they will continue their involvement in crime. Braithwaite‘s (1989) central thesis is that communitarian societies exhibit a strong tendency towards reintegrative shaming. This is so because, in communitarian society‘s offenders, victims, and other community members are deeply embedded in relationships of interdependency and mutual obligation. These conditions increase substantially the likelihood that community members will view offenders as total personalities rather than merely as criminals who should be excluded from social life. As Braithwaite (1989) puts it, the complex experience that people have of each other makes it more difficult to squeeze the identities of offenders into crude master categories of deviance. Therefore, in communitarian societies, there is more gossip, more scandal, more shame, but more empathy, less categorical stigma, and, therefore, ultimately less criminal sub-cultural formation. Initial delinquency increases the chances of being negatively observed and labelled by parents and teachers (Cechaviciute and Kenny, 2007). These labels increase the likelihood of future delinquency (Bernburg, Krohn and Rivera, 2007). According to Seigel (2002), is of the view that labelling theory holds that society, by placing labels on juvenile delinquents, stigmatizes them, leading to a negative label for a youth to develop into a negative self-image. Youths who are labelled as "criminals" or "delinquents" may hold these as self-fulfilling prophecies-believing the labels that others assign to them, thereby acting as the labels. A youth who succumbs to a label may then 59 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY proceed to act as a "criminal" or act as a "delinquent," abandoning social norms because he or she believes that he or she is a bad person and that this is what bad people are supposed to do. Tannenbaum (1938) calls this social labelling the "dramatization of evil." He argues that this "transforms the offender's identity from a doer of evil to an evil person." Labels can be applied formally, by social institutions (courts, schools, and so on) or informally, by a youth‘s acquaintances, peers, and families. These labels can be positive, or negative, and even socializing, but stigma that hold negative connotations and may negatively affect the juvenile are the main concern of labelling theory (Seigel, 2002) Self-rejection, by self-fulfilling prophecy, plays a role in social labelling theory. ―Self- rejecting attitudes result in both a weakened commitment to conventional values and the acquisition of motives to deviate from social norms‖ A sense of anomie (normlessness) sets in and the juvenile will form bonds with like-minded, delinquent, peers. These delinquent peers can lead to the juvenile‘s ‗rejection of rejecters.‘ Teachers are ‗‗stupid;‘‘ cops are ‗‗dishonest‘‘; parents ‗‗just don‘t understand‘‘. These troubled youths become distanced from society and find themselves in deviant lifestyles. Basically, social labelling theory holds that juveniles begin believing they are people who do bad things and are transformed into believing they are bad people. The theory argues that there is a self-fulfilling prophecy in which a juvenile becomes negatively labelled and subsequently lives up to that negative label. At first look, this makes sense; a negative label cannot conceivably be seen as positive (at least by society; a delinquent may view his or her negative behaviour as positive) and could be seen as detrimental to a youth‘s confidence, self-respect, and self-esteem. Theorists have suggested several different processes through which public labelling may influence subsequent involvement in crime and deviance (Liska and Messner, 1999). Becker (1963) focuses on the general impact the deviant label has on further embedding the individual into deviant social groups. Deviant groups represent a source of social support in which deviant activities are accepted. Moreover, deviant groups often provide social shelter from those who react negatively toward the deviant status. The labelled person is, thus, increasingly likely to become involved in social groups that consist of social deviants and unconventional others. Although several labelling theorists have mentioned this point (Tannenbaum, 1938; Becker, 1963; Schur 1971) highlight the role of deviant networks in explaining how public labelling increases the likelihood of subsequent deviance. ―A final step in the career of a deviant is 60 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY movement into an organized deviant group‖. The deviant group provides collective rationalizations, definitions, and opportunities that encourage and facilitate deviant behaviour. This implies that involvement in deviant networks should mediate the influence of public deviant labelling on subsequent involvement in deviance (Becker, 1963). Researchers have rarely studied the presence of intermediate processes that may translate deviant labelling into subsequent deviance (Laub and Sampson, 1993; De Li 1999; Bernburg and Krohn, 2003). Management of Stigma People may employ various strategies that allow them to control information about their deviant identity or to alter the meaning of their stigma so as to reduce the significance of the deviance in their lives (Park, 2002; Hathaway, 2004). In any discussion of stigma management, it is important to distinguish between the discreditable and discredited (Mankoff, 1971). In the former case, we are talking about people who might become discredited if knowledge about their stigma were to become public. In the later case, the stigma is either evident or it can be assumed to be known (Tepperman, Curtis and Albanese, 2008). Because the discreditable and the discredited face different sorts of problems, they have differing options available to them for the management of stigma. For the discreditable, the pressing need is to control information others have about them. If people have a kind of stigma, others may not know about, they face the constant worry that others they care about may reject them if information about this stigma becomes public (James and Craft, 2002). Victims of sexual crime, those suffering from stigmatized diseases, and those who hold unpopular religious beliefs need, in many cases to keep aspects of their lives secret because they fear the reflection of others (Tepperman, Curtis, andAlbanese, 2008). In other cases, the discreditable may attempt to pass to fraudulently assume an identity other than the one for which they might be stigmatized. The discredited face a different problem. Their stigma tends to be apparent, so there is no need to keep it secret. Rather, they need to restrict its relevance to the ways others treat them. As to Pfuhl (1993) avers one obvious way this might be accomplished is through some form of purification, in which the stigmatized individual attempts to convince others that he or she has left a deviant identity behind. Tepperman, Curtis and Albanese (2008) observe that the discredited might also invoke some collective form of stigma management. This means that individuals who are the bearers of stigma may join 61 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY together to form some sort of association intent on changing public perceptions of their disvalued character. Organizations intended to ‗‗undeviantize‘‘ behaviour have been formed in recent years, including the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and COYOJE (Call off your Old Tired Ethics), which promotes the rights of sex workers. Collective stigma management may involve attempts to influence media coverage of the group describe members of the group (Bullock and Culbert, 2002). Stigmatization is a very serious issue that needs adequate management so that the stigmatized might not have permanent behaviour problems as a result of rejection from the society 2.3 Theoretical framework The following theories offer some explanation to the variables and core concerns of this study: Differential association theory, labelling theory, and strain theory 2.3.1 Differential association theory Among Edwin Sutherland‘s most important contributions to delinquency is the theory of differential association, in which he describes the process of becoming delinquent. His work dominated US criminology for four decades, from the 1930s to the 1970s (Regoli, Hewitt, and Delisi, 2014). Sutherland first published the theory of differential association in 1939. He revised it in 1947. Sutherland argued that behaviour is learnt through interaction with significant others, especially parents and peers. Delinquent behaviour is learnt from intimate others, parents and peers and those children who become delinquents have learned an excess of definitions unfavourable to the definition of law. The likelihood of a youth becoming delinquent is determined by his or her interactions with both conventional and criminal associations. A child who has more contacts supporting criminal conduct than opposing is likely to be more prone to commit crime than someone who has more positive than negative associations. This theory consists of nine principles:  Antisocial behaviour is learned.  Antisocial behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.  The principal part of the learning of antisocial behaviour occurs within intimate personal groups. 62 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY  When antisocial behaviour is learned, the learning includes techniques of committing delinquent acts (which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes simple) and the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalization and attitudes.  The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favourable or unfavourable.  A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of the law.  Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.  The process of learning antisocial behaviour by association with deviants and anti- criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.  While delinquent behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those needs and values, since non-delinquent behaviour is an expression of the same needs and values. Differential association theory shaped criminology for nearly a half century. An indication of its widespread and acceptance was the many studies testing and criticizing it. These investigations revealed that children are more likely to commit antisocial activities when they are with delinquent peers. Many studies have found that children with pro-social peers are less likely to commit delinquent activities. War (1993) says the nature of peer association is the best predictor of delinquency. He went further to document a large body of research on the group nature of delinquency and the role of peers in delinquency in the United States and throughout the world. Edwin Sutherland‘s differential association theory is based on the premise that delinquency is learned through intimate social relations with friends where attitudes or ―definitions‖ favourable to law violation are acquired. Thus, not only are adolescents‘ attachments to peers important for delinquency involvement; but more important also the context or norms of the friendship group determine whether attachment to friends results in conventional or delinquent behaviour. The social transmission of delinquency occurs within the friendship network through the dissemination of attitudes about the appropriateness of delinquent behaviour (Sutherland, 1947). While Sutherland‘s theory emphasizes the attitudes of peers in the transmission of delinquency, Aker‘s (1985) extension to differential reinforcement theory suggests that the adoption of delinquent behaviour occurs through the imitation of peers‘ behaviour or through the observation of its consequences (either positive or negative). Consistent with 63 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Aker‘s reformulation of differential association theory, research finds that the behaviour of peers is more important than the attitudes of peers in influencing an individual‘s own delinquency (Warr and Stafford 1991). This theory is good for examining the environmental and psychological factors that influence recidivism. As stated by Sutherland (1947), antisocial behaviour is learned through social interactions if attitudes that favour law violations are present. Therefore, adolescents residing in a family environment characterized by deviants will definitely be influenced by the norm as a result of constant exposure to such trends to reoffend after correction. Also delinquent peer association can produce youths with antisocial behaviour since it could be learned if the group norm is characterized by delinquency. Youth who have internalized this behaviours will externalizes it in the process of time. Stigmatized youth will have no choice other than to associate with peers of like minds. The self-esteem is also affected as a result of stigmatization. Media as source of information can promote recidivism. Exposure to violent films, criminal and activity culminate into recidivism. Media is also a socializing agent just as the family. If it is internalized for a long time the outcome is violence or antisocial behaviour. Since antisocial behaviour is learnt through intimate association and exposure to attitudes that promote antisocial activity, if there is no exposure to antisocial activities or these attitudes, there will be no delinquent behaviour. The position of the child in the network determines if he/she will be deviant or not. 2.3.2 Labelling theory The labelling theory has a rich tradition in sociology, and its conceptual and theoretical foundation can be traced to the writings of symbolic interaction theorists. This perspective borrowed greatly from the works of Charles Horton Cooley, George Herbert Mead, and W, I, Thomas (Regoli, Hewitt, and Delisi, 2014). At the heart of this theory is the idea that, daily, children are faced with the problem of how others perceive them. This theory assumes that social control creates deviance when adolescents are negatively labelled. Although this theory is sometimes criticized for being a dated liberal defence of delinquency, its central ideas remain relevant today. This theory is not concerned with individual traits or environmental influences that can instigate initial deviant acts rather its focus is on the stigmatizing effects of the juvenile justice system on those that are labelled. The main focus of the labelling theory is on the power of the social response, especially in the form of social control to produce delinquent behaviour. Its major aim is 64 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY to understand how officially labelling someone as delinquent may propel the person to become delinquent (Regoli, Hewitt, and Delisi, 2014). An early expression of labelling was found in Frank Tannenbuam‘s 1938 book, Crime and the Community. He maintains that delinquent activity stems from random play or adventure. A play group may evolve into a delinquent gang as a result of conflict between the group and community. Labelling and stereotyping lead children to isolating themselves from the rest of the community and associating with others similarly identified. Even if the child drops the behaviour no one will see him as turning a new leaf; rather the label is still there. Lemert (1951) further studied the process through which juveniles come to define themselves as delinquents. This process involves initial minor acts of delinquency (primary deviance), which are followed by negative social responses, further primary deviance stronger penalties, more serious deviance, formal action by authorities, and eventual acceptance of the delinquent label (secondary deviance). Not all youth‘s labelled delinquent accept that; their acceptance of such label depends on their social class. If a child comes from a family in which the parents are powerless and poor, he or she is more likely to accept the assigned delinquent role. This is so because the status and self conceptions of family members are transferred to the children. When a child is called delinquent it likely he will accept it and live up to that. The community expects the labelled youth to act in a manner prescribed by the label, and community members are unlikely to believe he is a changed person regardless of his effort to live a changed life (Tannenbuam 1938). Deviance is ascribed by higher authority and is a relative term because it is determined by higher authority. If an act is not labelled so will it be but if an act is labelled so it is. Just as Tannenbuam (1938) notes label lowers the self-concept of the child as well as self-esteem. When labelled, the juvenile suffers rejection, loneliness and depression. This can impose stress on the child and further increase the likelihood to reoffend. The label can affect the level of interaction of the child with others. Labelled peers will also suffer rejection, loneliness and consequently be prone to reoffend. Also an offender that is not rehabilitated and goes back to an environment full of deviants can continue to reoffend. Also harsh family environments can have negative impacts on the child. Label promotes deviance but not all deviant acts are as a result of label. There are cases of people who are not labelled and they are deviant. Some shoplift, vandalize, steal, 65 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY and play truant, yet they are not labelled and are never caught. Also if a person is not labelled he is not deviant; it is determined by the society. 2.3.3 Strain theory In 1939, an American sociologist, Robert K. Merton, wrote an article that expanded Durkheim‘s idea of anomie into what has become known as strain theory. Instead of normlessness that Durkheim described, Merton defined anomie as permanent disjuncture that exists in society between (1) cultural goals that are regarded as worth striving for and (2) institutionalized means or approved ways of reaching these goals. The socially approved means of acquiring these goals are by getting good education, obtaining job training and pursuing career advancement. Some people have easy access to success than those who are born to less-advantageous circumstances. For some children, access to legitimate means of socially acceptable goals is lacking. Doors to a good education or to o good job may not be there and this creates a problem because such individual also desires wealth and status like their privileged counterparts. Merton argues that this type of strain between means and goals are always present in the society. He identifies five ways people adapt to frustration in society. Regoli, Hewitt, and Delisi (2014) list them as follows:  Conformity involves buying into the system and accepts both the goals defined by culture and the socially defined means to get there.  Innovators are individuals who strive for society‘s goals but do so through means that deviate from the norms of the society.  Ritualists are persons who do not subscribe to the goals of society although they still participate in socially accepted means to support themselves.  Retreatist are individuals who have dropped out of society altogether (drug addicts, alcoholics and so on) believe in neither means nor goals of society.  Rebels are individuals who do not subscribe to either the means society feels are legitimate or goals that society defines. Merton assumes that children are inherently good and commit delinquencies mostly when their backs are against the wall. If society could eradicate the conditions that produce strain, such as poverty and inequality, it might also be able to prevent delinquency. Societal values can enhance antisocial behaviour as well as recidivism. A child who finds himself in poverty-stricken environment or family, while his mates are 66 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY out there living in affluence, will experience strain. A stigmatized child who had no means of going back to school or earning a living after incarceration in remand home also experiences strain. The child could not go back to school or be gainfully employed after rehabilitation. Also access to media exposes good things of life to the youth, yet he could not enjoy such things. The child might experience strain. Lack of means to achieve societal goals can produce strain. It means lack of means of achieving these goals will produce strain. The strength of the Merton‘s approach is that it locates the source of deviance outright within the subculture and social structure and not in the failing of an individual. Society‘s belief through discrepancies between its acceptable goals and its approved means of reaching it exerts great pressure on some people to deviate rather than to conform. Explanation of the three theories Differential association theory maintains that behaviour is learnt. When a child is exposed to conditions favourable to antisocial behaviour, the juvenile will learn and continue to offend. The differential association theory, which is considered by most sociologists as the best formulation to date of a general theory of delinquency, holds, in essence, that criminality is learned in interaction with others in a process of communication. Specifically, the hypothesis is that delinquency is learned from observations of definitions favourable to law violation, the learning, including both the techniques of committing antisocial behaviour and the "specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations and attitudes." The ratio between such definitions and others unfavourable to law violation determines whether or not a person becomes deviant (Sutherland, 1947). If a child associates with peers that are characterized by antisocial behaviour, he will learn the delinquent behaviour and as such will offend. When the offence is committed, label is assigned; this promotes further offending. When a juvenile is negatively labelled, he accept the prophecy and continues to offend. A type of symbolic interaction, labelling theory concerns the meanings people derive from one another's labels, symbols, actions, and reactions. This theory holds that behaviours are deviant only when society labels them as deviant. As such, conforming members of society, who interpret certain behaviours as deviant and then attach this label to individuals, determine the distinction between deviance and non‐deviance. Labelling 67 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY theory questions who applies what label to whom, why they do this, and what happens as a result of this labelling. Label promotes further offending. When a juvenile finds it difficult to achieve societal goal as a result of lack of means to do so, he also offends. Societal goals without means of achieving it produces strain on the juvenile; this results in offending. Anomie refers to the confusion that arises when social norms conflict or do not even exist. In the 1960s, Robert Merton used the term to describe the differences between socially accepted goals and the availability of means to achieve those goals. He stress, that, for instance, attaining wealth is a major goal of everybody but not everybody possesses the means to do this, especially members of minority and disadvantaged groups. Those who find the ―road to riches‖ closed to them experience anomie, because an obstacle has thwarted their pursuit of a socially approved goal. When this happens, these individuals may employ deviant behaviours to attain their goals, retaliate against society, or merely ―make a point.‖ Simply put, when these juveniles are exposed to factors favourable to delinquency, they learn it and the result is to commit antisocial act. When antisocial activity is committed, punishment follows, which brings about label. This label promotes more offending. When a child faces strain as a result of inability to achieve societal goals, then he begins to offend. 68 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 2.4 Conceptual Framework Family background  Socioeconomic Society/community status  Parenting style  Rehabilitation  Good behaviour Media  Violent films/ movies Antisocial behaviours  Internet Treatment/correction Re-offending  Theft  Remand  Theft Peer influence home  Burglary  Burglary  Fine  Murder  Deviant friends  Murder  Probation  Arson  Arson  Community  Alcohol services  Drug  Rape  Run away Remand Home Factor  Run away  Curfew violation  Deviant friends  Media  alcohol  Lack of adjustment  Workers in the home Self-esteem  Abuse  Neglect  Derogatory terms  Segregation  Label Figure 2:4:1 Conceptual framework 69 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Explanation of the model Figure 2.4.1 indicates that juveniles come from family background that is made up of different family structures, such as intact family, divorced, lone parenting. These homes adopt different parenting styles and each method of child rearing practices impacts greatly on the existence of the juvenile. Some of the families are poor and their socioeconomic status is very low. These juveniles also live in neighbourhoods characterized by deviance. The juvenile is exposed to media video, films television, music, and movies, which are sources of information as well as great agent of socialization of the young ones. Their parents are not always available to monitor what they watch. The juveniles imitate what they are exposed to whether good or bad. In their daily activities, they come in contact with their peer groups and some of the groups are deviant, while some are not. If the child associates with deviant group, he will exhibit behaviour problems. Peer influence is one of the factors that affect the behaviour of the child. When the juvenile becomes antisocial, he is apprehended and sent to correctional homes. He is corrected and released. After release from custody the juvenile face the problem of stigmatization as a result of the attitudes of society. There is the problem of neglect from harsh treatment in the home, from parent, siblings, neighbours, and teachers. The treatment propels the juvenile to reoffend. Juvenile exhibits antisocial behaviours such as theft, burglary, murder, arson, runaway, rape, and violation of curfew. They are apprehended and sent to correctional homes for treatment. The treatment they are offered includes: fine, remand, probation, community service. These juveniles learn more deviant acts from their acquaintances in the home before release. On release, some are corrected and they will refrain from antisocial behaviour while the rest, after some time, will find their way back to antisocial life. Also, after release, they face the problem of adjustment as a result of the stigmatization and rejection they face in society. The stigmatization brings about low self- esteem and the result is reoffending. Stigmatizing follows them because they will not see anything good in themselves again. This label brings about further offending instead of dropping the attitude. Although some will change after correction some of the juveniles, after a while, will find their way back to antisocial life. 70 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 2.5 Empirical studies McCord‘s (1979) study of 250 boys found that, among boys at age 10, the strongest predictors of later convictions for violent offences (up to age 45) were poor parental supervision, parental conflict, and parental aggression, including harsh, punitive discipline. Some research has linked being raised in a single-parent family with increased delinquency (McCord, Widom, and Crowell, 2001). This means that poverty and family problem can lead to behaviour problems. There are different types of family structures and poverty prevalent in the country and all are contributory factors to offending. The study of Livingstone, Stewart, Allard and Ogilvie (2008) of a cohort of juveniles born in Queensland in 1983 or 1984 and with one or more finalized juvenile court appearances identified three primary juvenile offending trajectories:  early peaking–moderate offenders showed an early onset of offending, with a peak around the age of 14 years, followed by a decline. This group comprised 21 percent of the cohort and was responsible for 23 percent of offences committed by the cohort;  late onset–moderate offenders, who displayed little or no offending behaviour in their early teen years, but who had a gradual increase until the age of 16 years, comprised 68 percent of the cohort, but was responsible for only 44 percent of the cohort‘s offending; and  chronic offenders, who demonstrated an early onset of offending with a sharp increase throughout the time frame under study, comprised just 11 percent of the cohort, but were responsible for 33 percent of the cohort‘s offending (Livingstone, Stewart, Allard, and Ogilvie, 2008). In essence, some display the attitude of offending at an early stage of their development, with a sharp increase, while, in some, it is delayed. They also indulge in offending later in life. Early or late manifestation of offending is bad because it hampers national development. Gatti, Tremblay and Vitaro‘s (2009) longitudinal study of 1,037 boys born in Canada who attended kindergarten in Montreal, Canada in 1984 found that intervention by the juvenile justice system greatly increased the likelihood of adult criminality among this cohort. Even when the effect of other relevant variables had been controlled, Gatti, Tremblay and Vitaro (2009) found that contact with the juvenile justice system increased the cohort‘s odds of adult judicial intervention by a factor of seven. An increase in the intensity of interventions was also found to increase negative impacts later in life. The more restrictive and intensive an intervention, the greater its negative impact 71 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY is, with juvenile detention being found to exert the strongest criminogenic effect. Gatti, Tremblay and Vitaro (2009), therefore, recommend early prevention strategies, reduction of judicial stigma and limitation of interventions that put juvenile offenders together. Intervention is good because it aims to deter offenders, but antisocial activities are on the increase. A study conducted by Nugent and Paddock (1996) looked at the effects of mediation as it related to the recidivism rate of juvenile offenders versus juvenile offenders who went through the traditional court systems. It found that, out of a sample of 100 juveniles, the use of mediation provided a positive benefit, as it related to recidivism. The results of the study yielded the following: participants who went through the traditional court system reoffended at the rate of 35%, while participants who went through mediation reoffended at a rate of 20% within the first year. This study noted that some of the reasons for the recidivism rates were possibly related to family structure. In another study conducted by Umbriet (1994), two groups of juvenile offenders were compared to see if their recidivism rates were the same; this study looked at 903 cases of offenders who either went through mediation or did not. His research was conducted with 85% male and 15% female juvenile offenders and their victims. He concluded that the juveniles who participated in the mediation committed fewer crimes post-mediation than those who did not participate in the mediation. Different methods were adopted in correcting juvenile offenders. Some of these methods could decrease or increase offending. The juvenile officers should have it in mind that the ultimate aim is to reduce offending. Incarceration therefore, should not be too harsh to avoid pushing the juvenile into recidivism. Also a study by the University of Nevada, Reno on recidivism rates across the United States showed that Nevada had one of the lowest rates of recidivism among offenders at only 29.2 percent (Moblyw, 2009). A study conducted in Connection to this followed 16,486 offenders for a three-year period to see how many of them would end up going back to remand home. The results from the study showed that about 37% of the offenders were rearrested for a new crime and were sent back to remand home again within the first three years they were released. Of the 16,486 offenders, about 56% of them were convicted of a new crime. In 2001, the Florida Department of Corrections created a graph showing the general recidivism rate of all offenders released from remand home from July 1993 until six and a half years later. This graph showed that recidivism is 72 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY much more likely within the first six months after they are released. The longer the offenders stayed out of detention, the less likely they were to return. In Thailand, approximately 26.8 million of Thai children and youths are more than one quarter of the Thai population. Nearly 1% of these groups are juvenile delinquents. Characteristically, more than 12% of the incarcerated juveniles committed repeated mistake or recidivism; therefore, an indicator of recidivism rate of Thai juveniles is higher than the universal standard. Moreover, from 1996 to 2006, juvenile recidivism increased by approximately 1.6 times, and youth recidivism with violence increased by 4.7 times. According to a national study, within 3 years almost 7 out of 10 released males will find themselves back in the home. This happens due to personal and situation characteristics, including the individual‘s social environment, peers, family, community, and state-level policies (Visher, 2003). In a study that used a multivariate model of 505 juveniles regarding the impact of substance abuse on recidivism, Stoolmiller and Blechman (2005) found a robust significance in juvenile use of substances and re-offending. McElfresh, Yan and Janku (2009) observed that nearly 41 percent of juvenile offenders involved in recidivism reoffended within the first three months of their initial offence disposition date and nearly 29 percent of male offenders reoffended within 12 months, compared with 19 percent of females. Also, in Benda‘s (2005) study of 300 females and 300 male graduates of boot camp, he there were noteworthy genders differences in predictors of tenure in the community without recidivism in a-5 year follow-up. 2.6 Literature appraisal In this chapter, various concepts and issues that are related to this study were reviewed and it is necessary to appraise such issues and concepts as they were discussed. In the introductory part, the chapter dealt with be review of literature on recidivism, delinquency, delinquency and recidivism, family background, delinquency and recidivism, media content, and recidivism, peer influence and recidivism, stigmatization and recidivism, self-esteem, and adolescence. The second segment of this chapter discussed the empirical studies on this work. This included the various past research works related to this study. The next part dealt with three relevant theories adopted for this study: differential association theory emphasizes that behaviours are learned through interaction with significant others especially parents and peers. Association with delinquent peers influences deviant 73 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY behaviour. Lack of interaction with deviant peers promotes positive behaviour. Labelling theory stresses the power of label on the adolescents. Once labelled, the label follows them throughout their lives and they behave in that manner. Strain theory also explains that societal values without means of attaining them lead to frustration and offending. If means of attaining societal goals is available the juvenile will not reoffend. The literatures reveal an increase in juvenile recidivism all over the world and are having its toll on society. Correction is meant to deter an offender from committing an offence again but some juveniles still do so no matter the correction they received from appropriate authority. A lot of factors are associated with recidivism of juveniles. That a child is deviant is a cumulative effect of many factors on the young one. These include both environmental and psychological factors. It is having its toll on society as one considers the number of youths involved in recidivism daily. Some factors associated with the recidivism of the child include family background, media content, peer influence, and stigmatization. Family background of the child plays vital roles in the life of the juvenile. The family is the first socializing agent in the development of the child. These days, different family structures have emerged, each with its parenting styles. The economic status of the family, as well as the environment where the child resides promotes good behaviour or criminality in the child. Families characterized by poverty, divorce and environment dominated by deviance promote recidivism The media is also another socializing factor in the life of the child. The television and Internet facilities are everywhere and children are influenced daily by what they see. They tend to imitate what they watch. Television commercials can expose the child to unfamiliar lifestyles and culture. If they watch more of delinquent acts it will shape their lives, as they will want to imitate what they watch. Peer influence is also a factor in the behaviour of the young ones. Association with delinquent peers promotes recidivism. No child wants to grow in isolation; children belong to groups. Peer rejection affects the child drastically, if children keep delinquent peers, they will be influenced to commit antisocial activities. Stigmatization is also a factor in the recidivism of a child. When the juvenile is labelled, the label follows him throughout life. Stigma is difficult to do away with and this promotes delinquency. When a juvenile is stigmatized, he develops low self-esteem. This makes the juvenile to continue to indulge in antisocial activities after undergoing correction. When juveniles commit offence, they are apprehended and corrected for their bad behaviour. This correction is meant to deter them from indulging in such act again. Some 74 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY stop, while others still go ahead to indulge in antisocial activities. No matter how you punish juveniles, they will continue to go back to antisocial life. Family functioning as well as environmental and psychological factors affect the behaviour of juveniles. Different family structures have emerged, each with its parenting styles which pose stress on the child. Also divorce has its toll on juveniles. Media contents, also impact on the behaviour of the child. Children are exposed to different types of media content which are a great socializing agent, like the family. Through the media the juveniles are exposed to cultures; and values of other societies are learned by them, and they are influenced by what they saw. Peer group is also a factor in the behaviour of the child. When a child keeps delinquent peers, he ends up becoming delinquent and commits delinquent activities. Also label makes the juvenile to indulge the more in antisocial activity. Problems in the home, the environment as well as psychological problems impact greatly on the behaviour of the child. A lot of studies have been carried out on different forms of juvenile antisocial behaviour in Nigeria. These studies have looked at various family variables that predict juvenile antisocial life. For example, Alemika and Chukwuma (2001) explored juvenile justice administration in Nigeria and provided insight into juvenile justice system in Nigeria. Busari and Ojo (2011) looked into empowering youths in remand homes against risk-taking behaviours in Ibadan remand homes, Oyo State. Abrifor, Atere and Muoghalu (2012) examined gender differences trend and pattern in recidivism among inmates in selected prisons in Nigeria. Tenibiaje in (2013) explored educational attainment and peer group influence as predictor of recidivism among male recidivists in Ekiti State, South West Nigeria. Different studies have been carried out in different forms of juvenile antisocial activities in Nigeria and in other places, but there is a dearth of empirical research on psycho-socio (family background, media content, peer influence, self-esteem) and remand home related-factors predicting juvenile recidivism. Therefore, this study examined how family background, media content, peer influence, remand home-related factors, and self- esteem influenced recidivism among juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria. 75 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This chapter discusses the methodology used in carrying out the study. This includes the research design, population, sample and sampling procedure, instrumentation, validity and reliability of the instrument and the method of data analysis. 3.1 Research design This study adopted the descriptive survey research design of correlational type. This research design is relevant to the study because the study involves more than two quantitative variables. It allows data to be collected from multiple variables and correlation statistics technique is then applied to the data. This assists the researcher to examine if there is relationship between variables in the study. 3.2 Population The target population for this study was juvenile offenders who had been in and out of the correctional centres in Lagos and Oyo States. These states are well populated and there are reported cases of these vices in them. Four hundred and fifty-seven (457) respondents were used for the study. 3.3 Sample and sampling techniques The purposive sampling technique was used to select two states for the study. The states selected were Oyo and Lagos states. Total enumeration was adopted in selecting respondents for the study, who were currently in the centers. All the respondents who had been in and out of the correctional home at least once were used for the study. This technique was adopted because of the condition for selection of the respondents. That is, those who indulge in antisocial activity after correction were used for the study. Only the inmates who met the criteria were selected for the study since the study was to find out why they go back to antisocial behaviour after correction. 3.4 Instruments for data collection The instruments for data collection were seven sets of measuring scales that were adapted and modified for the purpose of the study while some were generated by the researcher. These were Demography Scale, Family Background Scale, Media Content Scale, Peer Influence Scale, Self-esteem Scale, Remand Home Factor scale and 76 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Recidivism Scale. This method was complemented by six sessions of focus group discussion with the selected inmates in the selected correctional centres for the study. 3.4.1 The Demography Scale This scale consisted of scales on all the social factors in the study, such as Demography and Socio-economic Status Questionnaire: This scale was developed by Salami, (2000a) and was adapted and modified to measure the demography, educational, occupational and social status of the parents of the juvenile recidivists. The instrument was subjected to face and content validity. The reliability was ascertained using test- retest. This involved a trial study in a remand home that was not selected for the study. 3.4.2 Family Background Scale: (Furstenber and Cherlin, 1991) was adapted and was used to measure the influence of family background on recidivism among juveniles in this study. It consisted of fifteen items drawn on a four-point scale; 4=strongly agree, 3=agree, 2= disagree, 1= strongly disagree. The respondents are expected to choose and tick from 1, 2, 3, & 4, as it is most appropriate to them. The instrument was subjected to face and content validity. Test-retest was used to ascertain the consistency of the instrument. This involved a trial study in a remand home not selected for the study. It yielded a coefficient of 0.83 using Cronbach alpha. 3.4.3 Media Content Scale: This was generated by the researcher to measure the influence of the media on the recidivism of the juvenile. It consisted of seventeen items drawn on a five-point rating scale, ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). The respondents were expected to choose and tick from 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5. The instrument was given to experts in the field for correction and their input. This helped to ascertain the face and content validity of the instrument. Test-retest was used to determine reliability of the instrument. This involved a trial study in a correction centre different from the ones listed for the study. It yielded a coefficient of 0.85. 3.4.4 Peer Influence Scale (Animasahun, 2007): This was used to measure the influence of peers on the recidivism of the juvenile. This scale consisted of fifteen items. The items were drawn on a five-point scale of 1(Strongly disagree) to 5(Strongly agree). The respondents were expected to choose and circle the options that are applicable to them. The instrument was subjected to face and content validity. The reliability was 77 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY ascertained by test-retest. This involved a trial study in a remand home not selected for the study. This yielded a coefficient of 0.75. 3.4.5 Self-esteem Scale was adapted from Piers Haris (2000). It was used to collect data on how stigma impacts on the self-esteem of the child which influences the recidivism of the juvenile. The instrument was used to measure how stigma of the juvenile influenced recidivism of the juvenile. It had sixteen items drawn on a four-point scale: 4=strongly agree, 3=agree, 2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree. The respondents were expected to choose and tick the options that are applicable to them. The instrument was subjected to face and content validity. The reliability was ascertained by test-retest. This involved a trial study in a correction home not selected for the study. This yielded a coefficient of 0.82 3.4.6 Remand Home-Related Factors Scale was generated by the researcher. It was on a four point scale: 4 =strongly agree, 3=agree, 2=disagree, and 1=strongly disagree. It contained fifteen items, which covered factors in the correctional homes that influence juvenile recidivism. The respondents were expected to tick the options that were applicable to them. This questionnaire was subjected to face and content validity while test-retest was used to ascertain the reliability of the instrument. This involved a trial study in a remand home not selected for the study. This yielded a coefficient of 0.73 3.4.7 Recidivism Scale Statistical Information on Recidivism- Revised 1 (SIR – RI) Scale (Mark and Lawrence, 2002). Recidivism scale was used by the researcher to measure juvenile recidivism. It was on a four-point scale: 4=strongly agree, 3=agree, 2=disagree, 1=strongly disagree. It contains 13 items. The instrument was subjected to face and content validity. The reliability of the instrument was ascertained through test-retest. This involved a trial study in a remand home not selected for the study. This yielded a coefficient of 0.75 3.4.8 Focus Group Discussion (FGD): This was in six sessions, two sessions each from the correctional homes used for the study. The qualitative data were used to complement the quantitative data. Some data that were not captured through questionnaire were captured through mutual interaction of the researcher with the respondents. The questionnaire alone could not serve the purpose of getting enough data from the 78 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY respondents as desired. The researcher also interviewed workers in the homes and this assisted in the quality of information received from the respondents. The FGD was conducted verbally as the researcher was not allowed to record anything using tape recorder to score responses, besides note taking. Table 3.1 Schedule of FGD sessions for the study Name of correctional home No of sessions No of Total Date conducted respondents respondents for per sessions each remand home Juvenile Correctional Centre Eleyele, Ibadan, Oyo State 2 5 10 15th Dec, 2016 Special Correctional Center for Girls Idi Araba, Lagos 2 5 10 7th January, 2016 State Special Correctional Center for Boys Oregun, Lagos 2 5 10 6thJanuary, 2016 State. Source: Field work, 2015 FGD sub -themes The following issues were covered: Family background  Media content  peer influence  Self esteem  Recidivism  Remand home-related factors 3.5 Procedure for data collection A letter of ethical consideration to conduct research in this area was collected from University of Ibadan. Also, a letter of introduction was collected from the Department of Adult Education, University of Ibadan. The researcher applied for authority to carry out research through the Head of service (HOS) State Secretariat Ibadan and through the 79 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Permanent Secretary (PS) State Secretariat, Alausa, Lagos State. This letters were to obtain their permission to carry out research in the underlisted institutions under them: 1) Juvenile Correctional Centre and Child Care Unit, Eleyele Ibadan, Oyo State 2) Special Correctional Centre for Boys, Oregun Lagos State 3) Special Correctional Centre for Girls, Idi Araba Lagos State A copy of the questionnaire was also submitted to the Directors of Social Welfare Unit for verification to ensure the content was not harmful to the respondents. When the permission was granted the researcher, with the help of trained research assistants, administered copies of questionnaire to the respondents. The inmates were acquainted with the purpose of the study, the procedure for the study and the need for their active participation in the study. A total of five hundred (500) copies of the questionnaire were distributed to the respondents. Four hundred and eighty-five (485) were retrieved while four hundred and seventy-five (457) copies that were properly filled were used for the study. 3.6 Methods of data analysis The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics; Mean, Standard Deviation, Pearson Product Moment Correlation (PPMC) and multiple regression were used to find the relationship, joint and relative contributions of the independent on the dependent variables measures in the study. The qualitative data collected through the focus group discussion (FGD) were content analyzed. 80 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY CHAPTER FOUR DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS This chapter deals with the analysis of data collected and the discussion of the findings based on the research questions raised for the study. The chapter is divided into two sections. The first deals with the presentation of the data collected on the demographic information of the respondents used in the study, while the second part deals with presentation of data collected on the test of contributions of the variables in the study. 4.1 Demographic characteristics of the respondents This section presents information on demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the juvenile offenders studied. Some of the characteristics presented include age, gender, education of respondent, education qualification of respondents‘ fathers/mothers/guardians, religion, marital status, respondents‘ relationship with guardian, and occupation of respondents‘ fathers/mothers/guardians. Information on these characteristics provides the socio-economic context for explaining and understanding issues affecting the behaviour of these juvenile offenders – recidivism. 81 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 4.3 .1 Distribution of the respondents by gender The demographic characteristics of the respondents by gender are presented in Table 4.1.1 300 250 200 Male 150 Female 100 50 0 Male Female Figure 4.1.1: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents by Gender About 61% of the respondents are males while females constitute the remaining 39%. In terms of sample size, the males are 277 and the females are 180. Figure 4.1.1 indicates that more males were involved in recidivism than females. Males were more aggressive and are more involved in antisocial activities than females. 82 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY The demographic characteristics of the respondents by gender and city are captured in Figure 4.1.2b 250 200 150 Male 100 Female 50 0 Ibadan Lagos Figure 4.1.2b: Bar chart showing the distribution of the respondents by city and gender . The distribution of children by city showed that the respondents from Ibadan were 150 (32.82%), while those from Lagos were 307 (67.18). Among those from Ibadan, 85 (56.67%) were males and 65 (43.33%) were females; while in Lagos 192 (62.54%) were males and 115 (37.46%) were females. Figure 4.1.2b indicates that more juveniles from Lagos State were involved in recidivism than those from Oyo State Nigeria. 83 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 4.1.3 Distribution of the respondents by age group 350 300 250 200 12-15 years 150 16-18 years 100 50 0 12-15 years 16-18 years Figure 4.1.3: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents by age The distribution of the respondents by age group is presented in Figure 4.1.3. The structure of the population was such that juveniles between 12-15 years constituted about 67.6%, while juvenile 16-18 years constituted almost one half of the 12-15 years group (32.4%). Figure 4.1.3 indicates that 309 juveniles were within the age range of 12-15 years, while 148 juveniles were within the age range of 16-18 years old. This implies that younger juveniles were more involved in recidivism than the older ones. 84 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 4.1.4 Distribution of the respondents by class 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 JS 1-3 SS 1-3 Not in school Figure 4.1.4: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents by class The distribution of the respondents by class is shown in Figure 4.1.4. The figure reveals that 272 (59.5%) of the respondents in JS 1-3, 152 (33.3%) were in SS 1-3 and 33 (7.2%) were not in school. Figure 4.1.4 indicates that 272 juveniles were in JSS 1-3, 152 juveniles were in SS1-3, while 33 of them were not in school at all. This implies that juveniles in junior school (JSS1-3) were more involved in antisocial activities than those in senior secondary school (SS1-3) and some juveniles who were not in school constitute 7.2%. 85 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 4.4 Distribution of the respondents by religion 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Christianity Muslem Others Figure 4.1.5: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents by religion The distribution of respondents by religion is given in Figure 4.1.5 which showed that 302 (66.1%) of the respondents were Christians, 150 (32.8%) were Muslims and 5 (1.1%) belonged to other religion. Figure 4.1.5 reveals that respondents cut across all religions, with Christianity having 66.1% juveniles, Islam 32.8%, and other religions 1.1%. 86 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 4.1.6 Distribution of the respondents by marital status of parents 250 200 150 100 50 0 Figure 4.1.6: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents’ parents by marital status The distribution of the respondent‘ parents by marital status showed that 82 (17.9%) were single, 208 (45.5%) were married, 134 (29.3%) were separated, 20 (4.4%) were divorcees, 8 (1.8%) were widows/widowers and 5 (1.1%) are others. Figure 4.1.6 reveals that the majority of the respondents‘ their parents were single, separated, divorced, widow/widower. This has implications for recidivism among juvenile offenders, as single parents and separated parents and so on constitute almost 50% of the entire parents of the juveniles surveyed. This has great social implication and may account, in no small measure, for the high recidivism in the juveniles. 87 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 4.1.7 Distribution of the education of the respondents fathers, mothers, and guardians 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Figure 4.1.7a: Bar chart showing the distribution of the respondents fathers by education Figure 4.1.7a shows that 31 (6.8%) of the fathers had Quranic education, 83 (18.2%) had no school education, 18 (3.9%) had first school leaving certificate, 43 (9.4%) had Ordinary Level qualification, 84 (18.4%) had NCE, 109 (23.8%) had first degree/HND, 47 (10.3%) had Master‘s/Professional certificate and 42 (9.2%) had Ph.D. The Figure reveals that some of the juveniles‘ fathers were well educated, some were not well educated, while others were not educated at all. This reflected on how they train the juveniles and lack of proper care contributed in no small measure to recidivism. 88 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Figure 4.1.7b: Bar chart showing the distribution of the respondents’ mothers by education Figure 4.1.7b indcates that 2 (0.4%) of the respondents mothers had Quranic education, 85 (18.6%) had no school education, 32 (7.0%) had first school leaving certificate 88 (19.3%) had Ordinary Level qualification, 122 (26.7%) had NCE, 56 (12.3%) had first degree/HND, 31 (6.8%) had Master‘s/Professional certificate and 41 (9.0%) had Ph.D. The Figure reveals that some of the juveniles have mothers who were well educated with higher qualification; some had mothers who were not well educated; while others‘ mothers were not educated at all. 89 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Figure 4.1.7c: Bar chart showing the distribution of the respondents guardians by education Figure 4.1.7c shows that 3 (1.3%) of the guardians had Quranic education, 3 (1.3%) had No school education, 3 (1.3%) had first school leaving certificate, 15 (6.3%) had Ordinary Level qualification, 6 (2.5%) had NCE, 10 (4.2%) had first degree/HND, 14 (5.9%) had Master‘s/Professional certificate, 42 (9.2%) had Ph.D and 183 (76.8%) did not indicate their qualification. The Figure indicates that the majority of the respondents‘ guardians were not educated, some were not well educated with high certificates; while few had good education, with higher degrees. This impacted on how they take care of these juveniles and also contributed to the increase in juvenile recidivism. 90 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 4.1.8 Distribution of the occupation of the respondents fathers, mothers and guardians Figure 4.1.8a: Bar Chart showing the distribution of the respondents’ fathers by occupation Figure 4.1.8a shows that 12 (2.6%) of the fathers were farmers, 45 (9.9%) were artisans, 101 (22.1%) were businessmen, 186 (40.7%) were civil servants, 43 (9.4%) were professionals, 5 (1.1%) were others and 65 (14.2%) did not indicate their occupation. The figure reveals that the occupation of some of the fathers was not indicated; while some were farmers, artisans, and businessmen; and a lot of them were civil servants or professionals. 91 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Table 4.1.8b: Distribution of the respondents’ mothers by occupation Occupation Frequency Percentage Others 9 2.0 Farming 19 4.2 Artisans 69 15.1 Business 88 19.3 Civil Servant 177 38.7 Professional 38 8.3 Not available 57 12.5 Total 457 100 Table 4.1.8b shows that 19 (4.2%) of mothers were farmers, 69 (15.1%) were artisans, 88 (19.3%) were in business, 177 (38.7%) were civil servants, 38 (8.3%) were professionals, 9 (2.0%) were others and 57 (12.5%) did not indicate their occupation. The table also reveals that the respondents‘ mothers were farmers, artisans, and businesswomen; but the majority were civil servants, professionals; while some of them did not indicate their occupation. 92 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Table 4.1.8c: Distribution of the respondents’ guardians by occupation Occupation Frequency Percentage Others 1 0.4 Farming 1 0.4 Artisans 1 0.4 13 5.5 Business 14 5.9 Civil Servant Professional 4 8.3 Not available 204 85.7 Total 238 100 Table 4.1.8c shows that of 238 of the respondents that were guardians, 1 (0.4%) was a farmer, 1 (0.4%) was an artisan, 13 (5.5%) were in business, 14 (5.9%) were civil servants, 4 (1.7%) were professionals, 1 (0.4%) belonged to others and 204 (85.7%) did not indicate their occupation. The table also reveals that the respondents‘ guardians were farmers, artisans, business people, civil servants, professional, but a few of them did not indicate the occupation of their guardians. 93 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 4.2 Testing of research questions Research Question 1: What is the level of family background of juvenile offenders? Table 4.2.9: Family background juvenile offenders S/N ITEMS SA A D SD Mean SD 1 My parents are responsive to 140 115 24 176 2.48 1.282 my feelings and needs. (30.8%) (25.3%) (5.3%) (38.7%) 2 My parents do not care for me. 215 56 85 97 2.86 1.226 (47.5%) (12.4%) (18.8%) (21.4%) 3 My parents are always harsh on 83 199 88 80 2.63 0.979 me. (18.4%) (44.2%) (19.6%) (17.8%) 4 My parents are separated or 64 236 51 105 2.57 0.994 divorced. (14.0%) (51.8%) (11.2%) (23.0%) 5 My parents do not have time to 50 228 76 95 2.52 0.947 monitor what I do. (11.1%) (50.8%) (16.9%) (21.2%) 6 I experience a lot of violence in 47 248 62 95 2.55 0.937 my home. (10.4%) (54.9%) (13.7%) (21.0%) 7 My parents only approve me 112 236 64 39 2.93 0.856 doing what they want. (24.8%) (52.3%) (14.2%) (8.7%) 8 My parents are always angry 79 223 99 51 2.73 0.880 when I do things I wish to do. (17.5%) (49.3%) (21.9%) (11.3%) 9 My parents beat me when they 84 120 205 43 2.54 0.901 do not like what I do. (18.6%) (26.6%) (45.4%) (9.5%) 10 In my neighbourhood there are 102 230 68 50 2.85 0.896 a lot of deviant youths. (22.7%) (51.1%) (15.1%) (11.1%) 11 My parents find it difficult to 77 173 89 107 2.49 1.038 discipline me when I go wrong. (17.3%) (38.8%) (20.0%) (24.0%) 12 My parents allow me to do 60 170 109 113 2.39 1.003 whatever I desire without (13.3%) (37.6%) (24.1%) (25.0%) questioning me. 13 My guardian does not care 180 47 95 109 2.69 1.248 about me. (41.8%) (10.9%) (22.0%) (25.3%) 14 My guardian is too harsh on 172 74 77 105 2.73 1.222 me. (40.2%) (17.3%) (18.0%) (24.5%) 15 I feel like running away from 178 76 66 108 2.76 1.234 my guardian's house. (41.6%) (17.89%) (15.4%) (25.2%) Weighted mean = 2.64 Interpretation and discussion Table 4.2.9 shows the responses of the participants on family background. The rating is as follows: ‗‗My parents only approve me doing what they want‘‘ (mean = 2.93) was ranked highest by the mean score rating, it was followed by ‗‗My parents do not care for me‘‘ (Mean = 2.86), ‗‗In my neighbourhood there are a lot of deviant youths‘‘ (Mean = 2.85), ‗‗I feel like running away from my guardian's house‘‘ (Mean = 2.76), ‗‗My guardian is too harsh on me‘‘ (Mean = 2.73), ‗‗My parents are always harsh on 94 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY me‘‘(Mean = 2.72), ‗‗My guardian do not care about me‘‘ (Mean = 2.69), ‗‗My parents are always harsh on me‘‘ (Mean = 2.63), ‗‗My parents are separated or divorced‘‘(Mean = 2.57), ‗‘I experience a lot of violence in my home‘‘ (Mean = 2.55), ‗‗My parents beat me when they do not like what I do‘‘ (Mean = 2.54), ‗‗My parents do not have time‘‘ (Mean = 2.52), ‗‗My parents find it difficult to discipline me when I go wrong‘‘ (Mean=2.49), ‗‗My parents are responsive to my feelings and needs‘‘(Mean=2.48) and lastly, ‗‗My parents allow me to do whatever I desire without questioning me‘‘ (Mean = 2.39). Table 4.2.9 further reveals the weighted mean score of 2.64 out of the maximum 4.00, which was higher than the standard mean of 2.50. This implies that the respondents‘ knowledge of their family background was moderate. Based table 4.2.9, it could be observed that 56.1% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my parents are responsive to my feelings and needs,‘‘ while 44% strongly disagreed. Also 59.9% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my parents do not care for me,‘‘ while 40.2% strongly disagreed. Similarly, 62.6% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my parents are always harsh on me,‘‘ while 37.4 strongly disagreed. In the same vein, 65.8% strongly agreed that ‗‗my parents are separated or divorced,‘‘ while 34.2% strongly disagreed; in addition 61.9% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗my parents do not have time to monitor what I do,‘‘ while 38.1% strongly disagreed. Also, 65.3% of respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I experience a lot of violence in my home‘‘ while 34.7% strongly disagreed. However, 77.1% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my parents only approved me doing what they want,‘‘ while 22.9% strongly disagreed. Furthermore 66.8% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗my parents are always angry when I do things I wish to do,‘‘ while 33.2 % strongly disagreed. A total of 45.2% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my parents beat me when they do not like what I do,‘‘ while 54.9% strongly disagreed. But 73.8% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗in my neighbourhood there are a lot of deviant youths,‘‘ while 26.2% strongly disagreed. Also, 55.8% of respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my parents find it difficult to discipline me when I go wrong,‘‘ while 44% strongly disagreed. A total of 50.9% respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my parents allow me to do whatever I desire without questioning me,‘‘ while 49.1% strongly disagreed. Besides 52.7% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my guardian do not care about me,‘‘ while 47.3% strongly disagreed. In addition, 57.5% respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my guardian is too harsh on me,‘‘ while 42.5% strongly disagreed. Also, 59.2% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I feel like running away from my guardian‘s house,‘‘ while 40.6% strongly disagreed. 95 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY The view: ‗‗My parents only approved me doing what they want‘‘ was ranked highest by the mean score rating, followed by ‗‗my parents do not care for me‘‘ and ‗‗in my neighbourhood there are a lot of deviant youths‘‘. This result revealed that the home and the neighbourhood where they reside are not comfortable for them. This enhances their participation in antisocial activities. This was further supported by the FGD in which a female respondent from SCCG said that she indulged in antisocial activities because of the condition at home. This implies that the home and neighbourhood where the juveniles reside influence recidivism among juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria. 96 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Research Question 2: What is the level of peer influence of juvenile offenders? Table 4.2.10: Peer influence of juvenile offenders S/N ITEMS SA A NS D SD Mean SD 1 I have friends that teach 70 262 27 67 32 3.59 1.123 me what I do. (15.3%) (57.2%) (5.9%) (14.6%) (7.0%) 2 Most of what my 189 115 50 66 38 3.77 1.340 parents hide from me I (41.3%) (25.1%) (10.9%) (14.4%) (8.3%) learn from my peers. 3 I have many friends. 87 302 22 39 7 3.93 0.845 (19.0%) (66.1%) (4.8%) (8.5%) (1.5%) 4 I cherish being in the 71 259 62 50 16 3.70 0.975 company of my friends (15.5%) (56.6%) (13.5%) (10.9%) (3.5%) than any other thing. 5 My friends are 70 262 54 56 13 3.70 0.967 generally well behaved. (15.4%) (57.6%) (11.9%) (12.3%) (2.9%) 6 My friends and I 50 233 75 55 41 3.43 1.119 engage in youthful (11.0%) (51.3%) (16.5%) (12.1%) (9.0%) exuberance. 7 My dressing habit is 99 209 33 63 47 3.55 1.263 influenced by my peers. (22.0%) (46.3%) (7.3%) (14.0%) (10.4%) 8 I have some notorious 34 232 73 79 38 3.32 1.102 friends. (7.5%) (50.9%) (16.0%) (17.3%) (8.3%) 9 My drinking habit is 37 51 50 92 222 2.09 1.336 influenced by my peers. (8.2%) (11.3%) (11.1%) (20.4%) (49.1%) 10 I have often watched 34 211 40 86 85 3.05 1.302 pornographic films (7.5%) (46.3%) (8.8%) (18.9%) (18.6%) from my peers. 11 I get pornographic films 191 41 29 99 96 3.29 1.657 from my peers. (41.9%) (9.0%) (6.4%) (21.7%) (21.1%) 12 My friends connect me 68 194 40 78 76 3.22 1.347 with new friends of (14.9%) (42.5%) (8.8%) (17.1%) (16.7%) shady character. 13 I learnt some bad habits 199 81 27 58 90 3.53 1.604 from my friends. (43.7%) (17.8%) (5.9%) (12.8%) (19.8%) Weighted mean = 3.38 Interpretation and discussion Table 4.2.10 shows the responses of the participants on peer influence. The rating is as follows: ‗‗I have many friends‘‘ (Mean =3.93) was ranked highest by the mean score rating. It was followed by ‗‗Most of what my parents hide from me I learn from my peers‘‘ (Mean = 3.77), ‗‗My friends are generally well behaved‘‘ (Mean = 3.70), ‗‗I cherish being in the company of my friends than any other thing‘‘ (Mean = 3.70), ‗‗I have friends that teach me what I do‘‘ (Mean=3.59), ‗‗My dressing habit is influenced by my peers‘‘ (Mean = 3.55), ‗‗I learnt some bad habits‘‘ (Mean=3.53), ‗‗My friends and I 97 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY engage in youthful exuberance‘‘ (Mean=3.43), ‗‗I have some notorious friends‘‘ (Mean=3.32), ‗‗I get pornographic film from my peers‘‘ (Mean = 3.29), ‗‗My friends connect me with new friends of shady character‘‘ (Mean=3.22), ‗‗I have often watched pornographic films from my peers‘‘ (Mean = 3.05), and lastly by ‗‗My drinking habit is influenced by my peers‘‘ (Mean = 2.09) Table 4.2.10 further reveals the weighted mean score of 3.39 out of the maximum 5.00, which was higher than the standard mean of 3.00. This implies that the respondents‘ level of peer influence was moderate. Based on table, it could be observed that 72.5% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I have friends that teach me what I do‘‘ 5.9% were undecided, while 21.6% strongly disagreed. But 66.4% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗most of what my parents hide from me I learn from my peers,‘‘ 10.9% were undecided, while 22.7% strongly disagreed. Also, 85.1% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I have many friends‘‘, 4.8% were undecided, while 10% strongly disagreed. Furthermore 72.1% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I cherish being in the company of my friends than any other thing‘‘, 13.5% were undecided, while 14.4% strongly disagreed. Besides 73% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my friends generally are well behaved‘‘, 11.9% were undecided, while 15.2% strongly disagreed. In the same manner, 62.3% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my friends and I engage in youthful exuberance‘‘, 16.5% were undecided, while 21.1% strongly disagreed. A total of 68.3% respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my dressing habit is influenced by my peers‘‘ 7.3% were undecided, while 24.8% strongly disagreed. Also, 58.4% of respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I have some notorious friends‘‘, 16.0% were undecided, while 25.6% strongly disagreed. In addition 19.5% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗my drinking habit was influenced by my peers‘‘ 11.1% were undecided while 69.5% strongly disagreed. A total of 53.8% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I have often watched pornographic films from my peers,‘‘ 8.8% were undecided, while 37.5% strongly disagreed. Besides 50.9% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I get pornographic films from my peers,‘‘ 6.4% were undecided, while 42.8%, strongly disagreed. While 57.4% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗my friends connect me with new friends of shady character‘‘, 8.8% were undecided, and 33.8% strongly disagreed. Also, 61.5% of respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I learnt some bad habit from my friends,‘‘ 5.9% were undecided, while 32.6% strongly disagreed. The result reveals the view: ‗‗I have many friend‘‘ was ranked highest by the mean score rating, followed by ‗‗most of what my parents hide from me I learn from my 98 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY peers‘‘ and ‗‗my friends are generally well behaved‘‘. This implies that the juveniles keep a lot of friends and learn a lot of things from them. They learn what their parents did not teach from their friends. Furthermore, this result indicated that friends exert a lot of influence on the juvenile and this accounted for why the juveniles find it difficult to desist from antisocial activities after correction. The type of peers the juvenile keep is very vital because as long as they are in the deviant group, they would always join them to indulge in antisocial activities no matter how they have been corrected. This result accounted for why juvenile recidivism was still on the increase instead of declining. 99 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Research Question 3: What is the level of self-esteem of juvenile offenders? Table 4.2.11: Self-esteem of Juvenile Offenders S/N ITEMS SA A D SD Mean SD 1 On the whole, I am 129 112 66 150 2.48 1.214 satisfied with myself. (28.2%) (24.5%) (14.4%) (32.8%) 2 At times, I think I am not 195 154 71 34 3.12 0.934 good at all. (43.0%) (34.0%) (15.6%) (7.5%) 3 I feel I am useless at all 160 85 138 69 2.74 1.099 times. (35.4%) (18.8%) (30.5%) (15.3%) 4 I am not able to do things 40 279 78 59 2.66 0.813 as well as most other (8.8%) (61.2%) (17.1%) (12.9%) people. 5 I feel I do not have much 33 270 91 61 2.60 0.809 to be proud of. (7.3%) (59.3%) (20.0%) (13.4%) 6 I feel bad because people 58 221 104 70 2.66 1.727 do not like me. (12.8%) (48.8%) (23.0%) (15.5%) 7 I do not like the way I am 174 156 77 45 3.02 0.977 treated by others. (38.5%) (34.5%) (17.0%) (10.0%) 8 Nobody wants to identify 28 225 108 88 2.43 0.874 with me. (6.2%) (50.1%) (24.1%) (19.6%) 9 I suffer rejection 34 223 107 91 2.44 0.893 anywhere I go. (7.5%) (49.0%) (23.5%) (20.0%) 10 They abuse me anywhere 38 212 97 104 2.41 0.934 I go. (8.4%) (47.0%) (21.5%) (23.1%) 11 I am making steady 84 278 52 38 2.90 0.793 progress in life. (18.6%) (61.5%) (11.5%) (8.4%) 12 I am at the same level 61 147 86 159 2.24 1.076 with my age mates. (13.5%) (32.5%) (19.0%) (35.1%) 13 I am better than some of 102 167 44 142 2.50 1.151 my age mates. (22.4%) (36.7%) (9.7%) (31.2%) 14 I can be better than what I 119 155 168 13 2.84 0.848 have presently achieved. (26.2%) (34.1%) (36.9%) (2.9%) 15 I feel bad about myself in 53 149 208 46 2.46 0.827 relation to what I have (11.6%) (32.7%) (45.6%) (10.1% achieved in life. 16 I can do better than I am 132 155 152 11 2.91 0.850 presently doing. (29.3%) (34.4%) (33.8%) (2.4%) Weighted mean = 2.64 100 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Interpretation and discussion Table 4.2.11 shows the respondent‘ views on the level of self-esteem scale. The rating is as follows: ‗‗At times, I think I am not good at all‘‘ (Mean = 3.12) was ranked highest by the mean score rating. It was followed by ‗‗I do not like the way I am treated by others‘‘ (Mean = 3.02), ‗‗I can do better than I am presently doing‘‘ (Mean =2.91), ‗‗I am making steady progress in life‘‘ (Mean=2.90), ‗‗I can be better than what I have presently achieved‘‘ (Mean = 2.84), ‗‗I feel I am useless at all times (Mean=2.74), ‗‗I am not able to do things as well as most other people‘‘ (Mean = 2.66), ‗‗I feel bad because people do not like me‘‘ (Mean = 2.66), ‗‗I feel I do not have much to be proud of‘‘ (Mean=2.60), ‗‘I am better than some of my age mates‘‘ (Mean=2.50), ‗‗On the whole, I am satisfied with myself‘‘ (Mean=2.48), ‗‗I feel bad about myself in relation to what I have achieved in life‘‘ (mean=2.46), ‗‗I suffer rejection anywhere I go‘‘ (Mean=2.44), ‗‗Nobody wants to identify with me‘‘ (Mean=2.43), ‗‗They abuse me anywhere I go‘‘ (Mean=2.41), and lastly by ‗‗I am at the same level with my age mates‘‘ (Mean = 2.24). Table 4.2.11 further reveals the weighted mean score of 2.65 out of the maximum 5.00, which was higher than the standard mean of 2.50. This implies that the respondents have moderate level of self-esteem. Based on the table, it could be observed that 52.7% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗on the whole, I am satisfied with myself,‘‘ while 47.2% strongly disagreed. Also, 77% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗at times I think that I am not good at all,‘‘ while 23.1% strongly disagreed. Also, 54.2% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I feel useless at all times,‘‘ while 45.8% strongly, disagreed. Furthermore, 70.0% of respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I am not able to do things as well as most other people,‘‘ while 30.0% strongly disagreed. Besides 66.6% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I feel I do not have much to be proud of,‘‘ while 33.4% strongly disagreed. Similarly 61.6% of respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I feel bad because people do not like me‘‘ while 38.5% strongly disagreed. Moreover, 73.0% of respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I do not like the way I am treated by others,‘‘ while 27.0% strongly disagreed. In addition, 56.3% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗nobody wants to identify with me,‘‘ while 43.7% strongly disagreed. But 56.5% of respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I suffer rejection anywhere I go,‘‘ while 43.5% strongly disagreed. While 55.4% of the respondents strongly agreed ‗‗that they abuse me anywhere I go,‘‘ 44.6% strongly disagree. A total of 80.1% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I am making steady progress in life,‘‘ while 19.4% strongly disagreed. Also 46% of the respondents strongly agreed that 101 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY ‗‗I am at the same level with my age mates,‘‘ while 54.1% strongly disagreed. A total 59.1% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I am better than some of my age mates,‘‘ while 40.9% strongly disagreed. While 60.3% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I can be better than what I have presently achieved,‘‘ while 39.8% strongly disagreed. Whereas 44.3% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I feel bad about myself in relation to what I have achieved in life,‘‘ 55.7% strongly disagreed. Also, 63.7% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I can do better than I am presently doing,‘‘ 36.2% strongly disagreed. Findings revealed that the statement, ‗‗At times, I think I am not good at all‘‘ was ranked highest by mean score rating, followed by ‗‗I do not like the way I am treated by others‘‘ and ‗‗I can do better than I am presently doing‘‘. The result indicated that the stigmatization of juvenile offender suffered as a result of undergoing correction had effect on the way they saw themselves. This also accounted for why they relapsed into antisocial life after undergoing correction. This is further supported by the FGD findings The respondents in juvenile correctional home Ibadan said they suffered abuse, hate and lack of care after release. This was also confirmed by the juveniles from Oregun correctional home and the one at Idi Araba, ―When people do not like them that is why they continue to follow their friends‘. They keep antisocial friends and it makes them to be involved in antisocial activities. This result indicated that low-self esteem enhances the rate of involvement of juveniles in antisocial activities. Stigmatization from members of the society is not good since lack of acceptance makes the juvenile continue to interact with other antisocial peers which in turn, results into behaviour problems. This is why recidivism is difficult to bring under control. 102 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Research Question 4: What is the level of recidivism of juvenile offenders? Table 4.2.12: Recidivism of juvenile offenders S/N ITEMS VTM TM NTM NVTM Mean SD 1 I have been corrected 323 70 24 32 3.52 0.886 previously. (71.9%) (15.6%) (5.4%) (7.1%) 2 I have had a pardon during 273 111 47 23 3.40 0.867 my past correction. (60.1%) (24.5%) (10.4%) (5.1%) 3 I have tried to escape from 22 46 239 145 1.88 0.777 remand home once. (4.9%) (10.2%) (52.9%) (32.1%) 4 I have been previously 164 64 104 124 2.59 1.228 corrected for assault. (36.0%) (14.0%) (22.8%) (27.2%) 5 I was in school as at the time 48 237 95 73 2.57 0.883 I was first corrected. (10.6%) (52.3%) (21.0%) (16.1%) 6 I was out of school as at the 30 185 89 147 2.22 0.978 time I was in the remand (6.7%) (41.0%) (19.7%) (32.6%) home again. 7 The interval between my last 47 234 87 83 2.54 0.909 corrections is short to this (10.4%) (51.9%) (19.3%) (18.4%) present admission. 8 I have so many dependent 33 183 130 104 2.32 0.911 before I was brought back. (7.3%) (40.7%) (28.9%) (23.1%) 9 I was previously corrected 196 46 76 138 2.66 1.301 for sex offence. (43.0%) (10.1%) (16.7%) (30.3%) 10 I was previously corrected 47 188 85 129 2.34 1.005 for burglary. (10.5%) (41.9%) (18.9%) (28.7%) 11 I had a job at the time I was 37 74 207 137 2.02 0.889 apprehended again. (8.1%) (16.3%) (45.5%) (30.1%) 12 I did not learn any lesson 24 200 95 137 2.24 0.945 during my last visit to the (5.3%) (43.9%) (20.8%) (30.0%) correctional home. Weighted mean = 2.58 103 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Interpretation and Discussion Table 4.2.12 shows the views of the respondents on recidivism scale. The rating is as follows: ‗‗I have been corrected previously‘‘ (Mean = 3.52) was ranked highest by the mean score rating. It was followed by ‗‗I have had a pardon during my past correction‘‘ (Mean = 3.40), ‗‗I was previously corrected for sex offence‘‘ (Mean = 2.66), ‗‗I have been previously corrected for assault‘‘ (Mean = 2.59), ‗‗I was in school as at the time I was first corrected‘‘ (Mean = 2.57), ‗‗The interval between my last corrections is short to this present admission‘‘ (Mean = 2.54), ‗‗I was previously corrected for burglary‘‘ (Mean = 2.34), ‗‗I have so many dependent before I was brought back‘‘ (Mean=2.32), ‗‗I did not learn any lesson during my last visit to the Remand Home‘‘ (Mean = 2.24), ‗‗I was out of school as at the time I was in the remand home again‘‘ (Mean = 2.22), ‗‗I had a job at the time I was apprehended again‘‘ (Mean = 2.02) and lastly by ‗‗I have tried to escape from remand home once‘‘ (Mean = 1.88). The table also captures the weighted mean score of 2.52 out of the maximum 4.00, which was slightly higher than the standard mean of 2.50. This implies that the respondents‘ level of recidivism was moderate. Based on the table, it could be observed that 87.5% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I have been corrected, previously,‘‘ while 12.5% strongly disagreed. Similarly 84.6% respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I had a pardon during my past correction,‘‘ while 15.5% strongly disagreed. Also, 15.1% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I have tried to escape from remand home once,‘‘ while 85% strongly disagreed. While 50% of respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I have been previously corrected for assault,‘‘ 50% strongly disagreed. Besides 62.9% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I was in school as at the time I was first corrected,‘‘ while 31.1% strongly disagreed. Moreover, 48.4% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I was out of school as at the time I was in the remand home,‘‘ while 52.3% strongly disagreed. Furthermore, 62.3% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗the interval between my last correction is short to this present admission,‘‘ while 37.7% strongly disagreed. Only 48% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I have so many dependants before I was brought back,‘‘ while 52% strongly disagreed. Besides 53.1% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I was previously corrected for sex offence,‘‘ while 47% strongly disagreed. Also, 52.4% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I was previously corrected for burglary,‘‘ while 47.6% strongly disagreed. While 24.4% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I had a job at the time I was apprehended again,‘‘ 75.6% strongly 104 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY disagreed. Lastly 49.2% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I did not learn any lesson during my last visit to the remand home‘‘ while 50.8% strongly disagreed. The result revealed that the statement: ‗‗I have been corrected previously‘‘ was ranked highest by the mean score rating, followed by ‗‗I have had a pardon during my past correction‘‘ and ‗‗I was previously corrected for sex offense‘‘. The juvenile had been involved in different types of antisocial activities hence they were previously corrected or granted pardon or corrected for sex-related offences. This explains why juvenile recidivism has not been abated. 105 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Research Question 5: What is the level of juvenile offenders‘ remand home related factors? Table 4.2.13: Juvenile offenders remand home factors S/N ITEMS SA A D SD Mean SD 1 The home brings you in contact 104 256 42 53 2.90 0.883 with other deviants. (22.9%) (56.3%) (9.2%) (11.7%) 2 You learn some of the things you 51 310 34 58 2.78 0.808 do from your friends in the home. (11.3%) (68.4%) (7.5%) (12.8%) 3 You offend because your friends in 81 208 92 69 2.67 0.943 the home influenced you to do it. (18.0%) (46.2%) (20.4%) (15.3%) 4 There is a lot of warmth and care in 101 141 168 36 2.69 0.911 the home. (22.7%) (31.6%) (37.7%) (8.1%) 5 The remand home is a better place 55 238 78 74 2.62 0.905 to stay. (12.4%) (53.5%) (17.5%) (16.6%) 6 The workers in the home are too 57 109 212 67 2.35 0.887 hostile. (12.8%) (24.5%) (47.6%) (15.1%) 7 Hostility is the order of the day 56 250 51 93 2.62 1.068 outside the remand Home. (12.4%) (55.6%) (11.3%) (20.7%) 8 You are exposed to violent films/ 55 62 242 92 2.18 0.894 movies in the home. (12.2%) (13.8%) (53.7%) (20.4%) 9 Workers in the home treat us like 67 293 36 57 2.82 0.836 their children. (14.8%) (64.7%) (8.0%) (12.6%) 10 You experience violence in the 40 246 82 82 2.54 0.890 home and outside the home. (8.9%) (54.7%) (18.2%) (18.2%) 11 I made many friends in the home. 73 290 35 57 2.83 0.844 (16.0%) (63.7%) (7.7%) (12.5%) 12 I learnt many things from trial in 89 289 33 41 2.94 0.794 the home. (19.7%) (63.9%) (7.3%) (9.1%) 13 I learnt to be smarter in the home. 97 285 20 49 2.95 0.833 (21.5%) (63.2%) (4.4%) (10.9%) 14 I kept in touch with friends I met 104 243 55 50 2.89 0.885 during my last visit to the home. (23.0%) (53.8%) (12.2%) (11.1%) 15 I learnt more terrible things from 64 76 85 228 1.95 1.112 friends I met in the home. (14.1%) (16.8%) (18.8%) (50.3%) Weighted mean = 2.63 106 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Interpretation and Discussion Table 4.2.13 shows the response of respondents‘ on remand home scale. The rating is as follows: ‗‗I learnt to be smarter in the home‘‘ (Mean = 2.95) was ranked highest by the mean score rating. It was followed by ‗‗I learnt many things from trial in the home‘‘ (Mean = 2.94), ‗‗The home brings you in contact with other deviants‘‘ (Mean = 2.90), ‗‗I kept in touch with friends I met during my last visit to the home‘‘ (Mean = 2.89), ‗‗I made many friends in the home‘‘ (Mean = 2.83), ‗‗Workers in the home treats us like their children‘‘ (Mean = 2.82), ‗‗You learn some of the things you do from your friends in the home‘‘ (Mean = 2.78), ‗‗There is a lot of warmth and care in the home‘‘ (Mean = 2.69), ‗‗You offend because of your friends in the home‘‘ (mean=2.67), ‗‗Hostility is the order of the of the day outside the remand Home‘‘ (Mean = 2.62), ‗‗The remand home is a better place to stay‘‘ (Mean = 2.62), ‗‗You experience violence in the home and outside the home‘‘ (Mean = 2.54), ‗‗The workers in the home are too hostile‘‘ (Mean = 2.35), ‗‗You are exposed to violent films, movies in the home‘‘ (Mean = 2.18), and finally, ‗‗I learnt more terrible things from friends I met in the home‘‘ (Mean=1.95). Table 4.2.13 further revealed the weighted mean score of 2.65 out of the maximum 4.00, which is higher than the standard mean of 2.50. This implies that the respondents had moderate perception of remand home. Based on the table, it could be observed that 79.2% of the respondents strongly agreed that the ‗‗remand home brings you in contact with other deviants,‘‘ while 20.9% strongly disagreed. Also, 79.7% of respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗you learn some of the things you do from your friends in the home,‘‘ while 20.3% strongly disagreed. Whereas 64.2% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗you offend because of your friends in the home‘‘ 35.7% strongly disagreed. Furthermore, 54.3% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗there is a lot of warmth and care in the home,‘‘ while 34.1% strongly disagreed. A total 65.9% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗the remand home is a better place to stay,‘‘ while 34.1% strongly agreed. Also, 37.3% of respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗the workers in the remand home are too hostile,‘‘ while 61.7% strongly disagreed. Moreover 68.0% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗Hostility is the order of the day outside the remand home,‘‘ while 32% strongly disagreed. Only, 26% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗you are exposed to violent films/movies, in the home‘‘ while 74.1% strongly disagreed. A total of 79.5% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗workers in the home treat us like their own children,‘‘ while 20.6% strongly disagreed. Similarly, 63.3% of the 107 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗you experience violence in the home and outside the home,‘‘ while 36.4% strongly disagreed. Also, 79.9% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I made many friends in the home,‘‘ while 20.2% strongly disagreed. Besides 83.6% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I learnt many things from correction in the home‘‘ while 16.4% strongly disagreed. Furthermore, 84.7% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I learnt to be smarter in the home,‘‘ while 15.3% strongly disagreed. In addition 76.8% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I kept in touch with friends I met during my last visit to the home,‘‘ while 23.3% strongly disagreed. Lastly 30.9% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I learnt more terrible things from friends I met in the home,‘‘ while 69.1% strongly disagreed. The finding revealed that the statement: ‗‗I learnt to be smarter in the home‘‘ was ranked highest by mean score rating, followed by ‗‗I learnt many things from corrections in the home,‘‘ and ‗‗the home brings you in contact with other deviants‘‘. This result indicated that recidivism was further promoted while the juvenile was receiving correction. The juveniles were sent to correctional homes to be reformed and live a better life in society but they learn more deviant acts and became worse than before they were sent for correction or confined. This was further supported by the FGD findings that revealed that: the respondents confirmed that they learnt many bad things in the home although the workers were very friendly and took good care of them. In Oregun and Idi Araba, the respondents said that they cared for them. They agreed that they had many friends in the home as well as outside the home. These juveniles further said that there was a lot of difficulty in the home as well as outside after their release. People outside the home did not like them; hence, they kept their old friends. Since the juvenile learnt to be smarter in the home, sending juveniles to correctional homes produced inmates that learn more deviant acts and they constituted nuisance to society. The government spends more money to rehabilitate the juveniles but the homes are not efficient in dealing with the offenders. The home promotes juvenile reoffending and the juvenile is faced with the danger of becoming adult offender with time. 108 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Research Question 6: What is the level of media content of juvenile offenders? Table 4.2.14: Media content of juvenile offenders S/N ITEMS SA A N D SD Mean SD 1 You relapse to antisocial life 57 180 25 70 125 2.94 1.463 because of the kind of (12.5%) (39.4%) (5.5%) (15.3%) (27.4%) violent films you watch on television. 2 You go back to antisocial 49 170 33 100 106 2.90 1.392 life because of the type of (10.7%) (37.1%) (7.2%) (21.8%) (23.1%) music you listen to. 3 The video games you 191 35 24 93 112 3.22 1.704 indulge in makes you to go (42.0%) (7.7%) (5.3%) (20.4%) (24.6%) back to antisocial activities. 4 Exposure to violence makes 64 183 35 82 93 3.09 1.396 you behave the way you do. (14.0%) (40.0%) (7.7%) (17.9%) (20.4%) 5 The violence in the family 61 203 43 60 89 3.19 1.364 environment, movies, films (13.4%) (44.5%) (9.4%) (13.2%) (19.5%) influences your way of life. 6 The violent behaviour you 59 186 43 67 100 3.08 1.397 exhibit emanates from your (13.0%) (40.9%) (9.5%) (14.7%) (22.0%) exposure to such in your daily activities. 7 The community you live is 52 188 54 75 86 3.10 1.336 known for violence. (11.4%) (41.3%) (11.9%) (16.5%) (18.9%) 8 In my family I watch a lot of 190 60 23 74 106 3.34 1.673 violent movies. (42.0%) (13.3%) (5.1%) (16.3%) (23.4%) 9 My parents do not care 49 176 28 94 104 2.94 1.399 about what I watch (10.9%) (39.0%) (6.2%) (20.8%) (23.1%) 10 I cannot .do without 181 48 27 94 104 3.24 1.665 watching violent movies. (39.9%) (10.6%) (6.0%) (20.7%) (22.9%) 11 I am free to watch any 67 207 57 65 58 3.35 1.257 programme in the television. (14.8%) (45.6%) (12.6%) (14.3%) (12.8%) 12 I am free to see any channel 61 206 57 72 57 3.35 1.498 in the Internet. (13.5%) (45.5%) (12.6%) (15.9%) (12.6% 13 My daily activities are 194 61 34 91 75 3.46 1.580 influenced by what I watch (42.6%) (13.4%) (7.5%) (20.0%) (16.5%) in the television. 14 My daily activities are 25 201 29 140 63 3.05 1.199 influenced by what I read in (5.5%) (43.9%) (6.3%) (30.6%) (13.8%) the newspaper. 15 Do you have decoder at 73 274 29 48 33 3.67 1.089 home? (16.0%) (60.0%) (6.4%) (10.5%) (7.2%) 16 There is a particular period 181 152 41 52 30 3.88 1.235 of watching films each day. (39.7%) (33.3%) (9.0%) (11.4%) (6.6%) 17 Do you have DVD at home? 108 265 22 30 27 3.88 1.038 (20.1%) (58.6%) (4.9%) (6.6%) (6.0%) Weighted mean = 3.32 109 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Interpretation and Discussion: Table 4.2.14 shows the responses on media content scale. The rating is as follows: ‗‗There is a particular period of watching films each day‘‘ (Mean = 3.88) was ranked highest by the mean score rating. It was followed by ‗‗Do you have DVD at home‘‘ (Mean = 3.88), ‗‗Do you have decoder at home‘‘ (Mean = 3.67), ‗‗My daily activities are influenced by what I watch in the television‘‘ (Mean = 3.46), ‗‗I am free to watch any programme in the television‘‘ and ‗‗I am free to see any channel in the internet‘‘ (Mean = 3.35), ‗‗In my family I watch a lot of violent movies‘‘ (Mean=3.34), ‗‗I cannot do without watching violent movies‘‘ (Mean = 3.24), and ‗‗The video games you indulge in makes you to go back to crime‘‘ (Mean = 3.22), and ‗‗The violence in the family environment, movies, films influences your way of life‘‘ (Mean=3.19), ‗‗The community you live is known for violence‘‘ (Mean = 3.10), ‗‗Exposure to violence makes you behave the way you do‘‘ (mean=3.09), ‗‗The violent behaviour you exhibit emanates from your exposure to such in your daily activities‘‘ (Mean=3.08), ‗‗My daily activities are influenced by what I read in the newspaper‘‘ (Mean = 3.05), ‗‗You relapse to antisocial activities because of the kind of violence you watch on television‘‘ and ‗‗My parents do not care about what I watch‘‘ (Mean = 2.94), and, ‗‗You go back to antisocial life because of the type of music you listen to‘‘ (Mean = 2.90). Table 4.2.14 further reveals the weighted mean score of 3.27 out of the maximum 5.00, which was higher than the standard mean of 3.00. This implies that the respondents‘ level of media content was moderate. Based on the table, it could be observed that 51.9% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗you relapse to antisocial activities because of the kind of violent films you watch on television,‘‘ 5.5% were neutral, while 42.7% strongly agreed. Also, 47.8% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗you go back to antisocial activities because of the type of music you listen to,‘‘ 7.2% were neutral, while 44.9% of respondents strongly disagreed. Besides 49.7% of them agreed that ‗‗the video games you indulge in makes you to go back to antisocial activities‘‘, 5.3% were neutral, while 45% of respondents strongly disagreed. Furthermore, 54% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗exposure to violence makes you behave the way you do‘‘, 7.7% were neutral, while 38.3% of respondents strongly disagreed. In addition 57.9% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗the violence in the family environment, movies/films, influences your way of life,‘‘ 9.4% were neutral while 32.7% of respondents strongly disagreed. Also, 53.9% of respondents strongly agreed that 110 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY ‗‗the violent behaviour you exhibit emanates from your exposure to such in your daily activities,‘‘ 9.5% were neutral, while 36.7% of respondents strongly disagreed. Furthermore, 57.7% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗the community you live in is known for violence,‘‘ 11.9% were neutral, while 35.4% of respondents strongly disagreed. Similarly, 55.3% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗in my family I watch a lot of violent movies‘‘, 5.1% were neutral, while 39.7% strongly disagreed. Similarly, 49.9% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my parents do not care about what I watch,‘‘ 6.2% were neutral, while 43.9% of respondents strongly disagreed. Also 50.5% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I cannot do without watching violent movies,‘‘ 6.0% were neutral, while 43.6% respondents strongly disagreed. In addition 60.4% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗I am free to watch any programme in the television,‘‘ 12.6% were neutral, while 27.1% strongly disagreed. Furthermore, 59% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗I am free to see any channel in the internet‘‘, 12.6% were neutral while 28.5% of respondents strongly disagreed. Also, 59.6% of the respondents strongly agreed that ‗‗my daily activities are influenced by what I watch in the television‘‘, 7.5% were neutral, while 36.5% of respondents strongly disagreed. Moreover, 49.4% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗my daily activities are influenced by what I read in the newspapers,‘‘ 6.3% were neutral, while 44.4% of respondents strongly disagreed. Also, 76% of respondents strongly agreed ‗‗do you have a decoder at home,‘‘ 6.4% were neutral, while 17.7% strongly disagreed. A total of 73% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗There is a particular period of watching films each day,‘‘ 9.0% were neutral, while 18% strongly disagreed. Lastly, 78.7% of them strongly agreed that ‗‗Do you have DVD at home?‘‘, 4.9% were neutral, while 12.6% of respondents strongly disagreed. The findings revealed that the opinion: ‗‗there is a particular period of watching films each day‘‘ was ranked highest by the mean score rating followed by ‗‗Do you have DVD at home?‘‘. The responses indicated that the juveniles was well equipped each day in their various homes to watch different kinds of movies, films, and there were violent and non-violent ones to watch each day without the supervision of their parents. Parents do not monitor what the juveniles are exposed to each day and studies have indicated that violent film, movies and aggression influences the behaviour of the juvenile. This finding was further supported by the FGD. The respondents confessed that the media contributed to what they did. When they were further asked to mention the type of movies they watch, in Lagos Correctional Home, a juvenile of 12 years of age explained that he watched 111 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY pornographic movies and violent movies. The boy was able to explain the meaning of pornography, to the amazement of the researcher, ‗‗film in which a man and a woman were having sex‘‘. Some of the juveniles still confessed that they were not influenced by violent films or movies they watch on television or the mass media. But they spend quality time each day watching violent films, violent movies each day. Media exerts a lot of influence on the behaviour of juveniles. This is a technological age and the juvenile spends quality time each day watching sex-related films, violent films and movies, rap music, and pornographic films which can influence aggression that makes juveniles to reoffend. This accounts for why juvenile recidivism is not easily brought under control. Therefore all the violent films, violent movies, sex-related films and rap music the juvenile is exposed to unmonitored by parents contributes to juvenile recidivism. 112 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Research Question 7: What is the relationship between independent variables (media content, remand home related factors, self-esteem, family background and peer influence) and recidivism? Table 4.2.15: Correlation matrix of independent variables on recidivism Construct Recidivism Family Peer Influence Self Esteem Remand Media Background Home Content Recidivism 1 0.453* 0.539* -0.047 0.129** 0.649** 0.315 0.006 0.000 .000 0.000 Family 1 0.661* 0.289* 0.165* 0.588* Background 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Peer Influence 1 0.192* 0.164* 0.614* 0.000 0.000 0.000 Self-Esteem 1 0.208* 0.196* 0.000 0.000 Remand Home 1 0.083 0.079 Media Content 1 Mean 30.98 39.67 43.97 42.31 39.48 56.51 Std. Deviation 6.723 8.450 9.290 4.970 5.938 16.283 *Denotes correlation at 0.05 level of significant. Interpretation and Discussion Table 4.2.15 shows that there is positive low significant correlation between recidivism and family background (r = 0.453; P<0.05). It implies that family background is related to recidivism. Peer influence correlated significantly with recidivism and the correlation is positive and moderate (r = 0.539; P<0.05). This means that peer influence is related to recidivism. Self-esteem had a negative insignificant correlation with recidivism (r = -0.047; P>0.05). This shows that self-esteem is not related with recidivism. There was positively weak significant correlation between remand home factors and recidivism (r = 0.129; P<0.05). There was a positive strong significant correlation between recidivism and media content (r = 0.6490; P<0.05). The findings revealed that independent variables (media content, remand home factors, self-esteem, family background, and peer influence) had effect on the dependent variable (recidivism). There was relationship between the independent variables and the 113 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY dependent variable. There was positive low significant correlation between recidivism and family background. This implies that family background is related to juvenile recidivism. This finding is consistent with Derzon and Lipsey‘s (2000) assertion that family characteristics, such as poor parenting skills, family size, home discord, child maltreatment, and antisocial parents are risk factors linked to juvenile delinquency. Existing research points to a powerful connection between residing in an adverse environment and participating in criminal acts (McCord, Widom and Crowell, 2001). This implies that the home of the juvenile promotes offending, and family and how the juvenile is brought up are linked to juvenile recidivism. The findings in this study also revealed that peer influence correlated significantly with juvenile recidivism and the correlation was positive and moderate. This indicates that the peer relationship the juvenile keep promotes recidivism, especially if they are delinquent peers. This is in line with Lipsey and Derzon‘s (1998) assertion that for youth ages 12–14, a key predictor variable for delinquency is the presence of antisocial peers. It is also in line with McCord, Widom, and Crowell‘s (2001) claim that ―Factors such as peer delinquent behaviour, peer approval of delinquent behaviour, attachment or allegiance to peers, time spent with peers, and peer pressure for deviance have all been associated with adolescent antisocial behaviour.‖ The findings also revealed that self-esteem had a negative insignificant correlation with recidivism. This implies that self-esteem is not related to recidivism. There is positively weak significant correlation between remand home factor and recidivism. This presupposes that remand home factor is significantly related to recidivism. Remand home ought to reduce recidivism after correction and exposure to intervention there but it promotes offending. This is also in line with Animashaun‘s, (2011) assertion that all effort to combat antisocial activities and address challenges of recidivism has not really yielded any positive result, possibly because the root cause has not been properly attended to. In addition that there was positive strong significant correlation between recidivism and the media content the juveniles are exposed to. This implies that the media content juveniles are exposed to such as violent films, movies, sex related films, rap music, promote juvenile recidivism. This is in line with Joshi, Pahad and Maniar (2006) who aver that media content is a powerful means of bringing about social changes, which 114 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY impact significantly on people who subconsciously adopt and internalize attitudes, beliefs and values presented graphically or textually. This finding is further supported by the focus group discussion (FGD). The FGD revealed that family background, media content, self-esteem, peer influence and remand home-related factors of juvenile offenders promote juvenile recidivism. The juveniles maintained that they re-offend because of the condition at home. This explains why juvenile recidivism is not yet brought under control by penal administrators. Furthermore the juveniles were influenced by the media content they were exposed to over a period of time. Hence, a boy 12 years old from Special Correctional Centre Oregun, Lagos State was able to explain the meaning of pornographic films. They set aside particular time to watch movies. This gives them the opportunity to spend quality time on media and most parents do not have time to monitor the activities of their children. This further allows the juvenile to maintain deviant friends they met in the correctional homes as well as those of them living in their neighbourhood. Peers are very influential in the life of the juvenile, keeping deviant friends influences them into recidivism. This is why recidivism is not yet brought under control. Furthermore, after release the juvenile face a lot of challenges. They are stigmatized (harsh treatment, neglect, abuse) which in turn affects their self- esteem as revealed by the (FGD). This is also in line with the finding of research question seven which showed that the independent variables in the study predicted juvenile recidivism. Also the remand home-related factors also influence juvenile recidivism, as noted in the FGD. The juveniles in all the homes agreed that they learnt more deviant acts in the home. This is because they come in contact with more deviant juveniles. They learn from them as well as from the neighbourhoods they are released into. This explains why juvenile recidivism is on the increase in Oyo and Lagos, states Nigeria. Juvenile recidivism is a menace that has eaten deep into the society. This explains why the juvenile after correction still indulges in re-offending. These factors confirm why juvenile recidivism is not yet brought under control by penal administrators. 115 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Research Question 8: What is the composite contribution of the independent variables (media content, remand home related factors, self-esteem, family background and peer influence) to recidivism? Table 4.2.16: Summary of multiple regression analysis on composite contributions of independent variables (media content, remand home, self-esteem, family background and peer influence) to recidivism Model Sum of Df Means F Sig. squares Square Regression 10214.641 5 2042.928 89.607 .000* Residual 10168.251 446 22.799 Total 20382.892 451 R = .708 2 R = .501 2 Adjusted R = .496 Std. Error of the Estimate = 4.775 *Denotes significant relationship at 0.05 significance level. Interpretation and Discussion Table 4.2.16 shows that the composite contribution of the independent variables of media content, remand home factors, self-esteem, family background and peer influence to recidivism was significant. The F value ratio of the result (F(5,446) = 89.607; P<0.05) shows that there is composite contribution. Table 4.2.16 further reveals a 2 multiple regression adjusted (R ) of 0.496. This implies that 49.6% of the total variation in recidivism is attributable to the composite contributions of independent variables of media content, remand home, self-esteem, family background and peer influence. There was composite contribution of the independent variables media content, remand home factor, self-esteem, family background to recidivism was significant. The F value ratio of the result (F (5,446) = 89.607; P<0.05) showed that there was composite 2 contribution. There was also a multiple regression adjusted (R ) of 0.496. Similarly, 49.6% of total variation in recidivism is attributable to the composite contributions of the independent variables of media content, remand home related factors, self-esteem, family background and peer influence. This implies that socio and psychological variables and remand home-related factors predict juvenile recidivism in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria. Recidivism, is therefore, brought about by a number of factors as indicated by the findings of the study. This is in line with Wright, Caspi, Moffitt, and Silva‘s (1999) 116 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY assertion that antisocial behaviour is manifested by low self-esteem, poor peer and adult relationships, and instability in the home life. Furthermore Okimoto and Wenzel (2009) aver that correction that generally excludes the offender from the majority—physically or socially—such as incarceration, increases the risk of offenders‘ alienation from society and consequent ―rejection of their rejecters‖. Thus, as the juvenile go in and out of the correctional centre his chances of facing rejection in society increase. This affects the juvenile self-esteem and makes him to reoffend after undergoing correction. The media is also one of the variables, in the study that jointly with other independent variables promoted juvenile recidivism. This is because juvenile spend quality time each day to watch, listen to or browse what is good or bad for them unguarded by their busy parents. The juveniles also came from different family backgrounds which impact on their behaviour and consequently bring about antisocial activities. Also the kinds of friends juveniles keep also promote juvenile recidivism, especially when they are antisocial peers. After undergoing correction, the juvenile faces problem of adjustment in society and this promotes reoffending. This affects the self-esteem of the juvenile which promotes involvement in recidivism. Correction may also fail to adequately prepare released offenders to reintegrate themselves into conventional society owing to ineffective treatment or underdeveloped reintegration programmes (Halsey 2006). A sufficient mass of offenders in society allows for the formation of deviant subcultures (Braithwaite 1989). This kind of association with deviant peers after a term of correction may create environments conducive to recidivism by providing appropriate opportunities, values and definitions. Thus the independent variables in the study (family background peer influence, remand home factor, self-esteem, media content) jointly predicted juvenile recidivism among juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria. 117 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Research Question 9: What is the relative contribution of independent variables (media content, remand home factors, self-esteem, family background and peer influence) to recidivism? Table 4.2.17: Summary of multiple regressions showing relative contribution of the independent variables to recidivism Model Unstandardized Standardized Rank T Sig. Coefficients Coefficients B (β) Std. Error Beta (β) (Constant) 19.257 2.302 8.364 .000 th Family Background .047 .038 .059 5 1.236 .217 rd Peer Influence .150 .035 .207 3 4.286 .000* nd Self-Esteem -.305 .048 -.225 2 -6.354 .000* th Remand Home .100 .039 .088 4 2.556 .011* st Media Content .217 .018 .525 1 11.760 .000* *Denotes significant at P<0.05 Interpretation and Discussion: Table 4.2.17 reveals the relative contributions of each of the independent variables to recidivism. The relative contribution of family background to recidivism was not significant (β = .059; t = 1.236; P>0.05). However, the relative contributions of peer influence (β = .207; t = 4.286; P<0.05), self-esteem (β = -.225; t = -6.354; P<0.05), remand-home related factors (β = .088; t = 2.556; P<0.05) and media content (β = .525; t = 11.760; P<0.05) were significant on recidivism. The findings revealed that there was relative contribution of each of the independent variables (family background, media content, peer influence, self-esteem, and remand home factor) to juvenile recidivism. The relative contribution of the family background to recidivism was not significant. Family background is very important in the upbringing of the juvenile and the exposure of the juvenile to various family characteristics, like parenting style, socioeconomic status, divorce, lone parenting predicts recidivism. This is in line with Derzon and Lipsey‘s (2000) view that family characteristics, such as poor parenting skills, family size, home discord, child maltreatment, and antisocial parents, are risk factors linked to juvenile delinquency. This 118 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY finding is a departure from previous studies that upheld the view that family background predicts antisocial behaviour among offenders. Besides, there was significant relative contribution of peer influence to juvenile recidivism. Juveniles who associate with antisocial peers also learn and become antisocial with time. The type of peer group the juvenile is involved determines the juvenile chances of reoffending. This is in line with McCord, Widom and Widwell‘s (2001), argument ‗‗that factors such as peer delinquent behaviour, peer approval of delinquent behaviour, attachment or allegiance to peers, time spent with peers, and peer pressure for deviance have all been associated with adolescent antisocial behaviour.‖ Juvenile recidivism can be brought about by many factors, as revealed in this study. The type of peers the juvenile is keeping is very vital, if the group are deviant the juvenile also become deviant. This is in line with Benda (2005) who notes that juveniles re-offend as a result of delinquent peer association, carrying weapons, alcohol abuse and aggressive feelings. There was relative contribution of self-esteem to juvenile recidivism. A juvenile who suffers rejection from the society after correction feels bad and this propels him to continue to re-offend. Juvenile who feels rejected by the society will find a way of making it up that is why the juvenile continued to reoffend. Findings also revealed that there is relative contribution of remand home factor to juvenile recidivism. The juvenile are further influenced in the remand home to be further involved in recidivism instead of dropping the act. Penal administrators believe that recidivism is brought under control through correction. When juvenile goes in and out of the correctional homes they make more deviant friends and the result is involvement in recidivism. This is in line with Akers‘ (1985) assertion that any antisocial or delinquent acts and the resultant formal sanctions can give the affected individuals the greater exposure to and affinity for other individuals who constantly violate the law. This patterning of reinforcement leads to elevated participation in further antisocial behaviour. Furthermore, that the media content the juvenile was exposed to have relative contribution to juvenile recidivism. The media as a means of information is good but has its bad aspect. Shaefer, (2003) asserts that research on media content has shown that exposure to violence causes short-term increase in aggressive behaviour of the youth. Less television and other media exposure is related to less observed physical aggression, though other factors besides media are related to aggressive behaviour. The media is a great agent of socialization and it promotes juvenile recidivism, although there are some aspects of media that is good. Therefore the peer influence, remand home factor, self- 119 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY esteem and media content has relative significance to juvenile recidivism, while family background is not too significant like in prior studies. Research Question 10: Which of the independent variables mostly predicted recidivism? Interpretation and discussion The relative contributions of each of the independent variables at different levels and ranks based on the beta weight and t values is shown thus: media content (β = .525; t = 11.760; P<0.05) > self-esteem (β = -.225; t = -6.354; P<0.05) > peer influence (β = .207; t = 4.286; P<0.05) > remand home factors (β = .088; t = 2.556; P<0.05) > family background (β = .059; t = 1.236; P>0.05). Thus, recidivism is strongly predicted by media content followed by self-esteem, peer influence, remand home-related factors and least predicted by family background. The relative contribution of the independent variables at different levels and ranks based on the beta weight and t values showed that juvenile recidivism was strongly predicted by media content, followed by self-esteem, peer influence remand home related factors and least predicted by family background. Based on beta weight and t, values juvenile recidivism was strongly predicted by media. This is in line with the fact that this is a technological age. Juveniles are exposed to different forms of media content and their parents are too busy to monitor what they watch. Alexander and Hanson (2001) argue that much of our knowledge of media violence comes from the study of children who watch television, and some more recent studies have tried to assess the impact of videogames. But we should not lose sight of the fact that media outlets are becoming increasingly diverse, especially with the role the Internet now plays in the delivery of media content. Much of this new content hold great promise for broadening educational horizons, but these new easily-obtainable outlets also offer an ending diet of violence. Self-esteem is the next variable to predict juvenile recidivism. When juvenile self- esteem was low as a result of rejection by society after correction, the juvenile had no option other than to reoffend. This is in agreement with Kelly‘s (1978) view that there is a direct correlation between delinquency, recidivism and low self-esteem. There is a link between increased self-esteem and a reduction of antisocial behaviour. Peer influence ranked third among the independent variables in the study that predicts juvenile recidivism. This is in line with the assertion of This is in consonance with Benda (2005), who observes that juveniles reoffend as a result of delinquent peer association, carrying weapons, alcohol abuse and aggressive feelings. A juvenile that keeps antisocial friends 120 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY will learn from them and also, after correction will still continue to reoffend. The fourth variable that predicted recidivism was remand home factor. Correctional homes are meant to stop juveniles from further involvement in recidivism but research has proved it wrong. Epstein, Lawrence, and Duane, (1983) argue that after a period of interventive treatment, common problem-solving techniques and interaction between family members have been shown to be a major factor in subsequent offending behaviour. Thus correction does not stop the juvenile from further offending; rather, they continue to be involved in antisocial activities. This is also confirmed by Halsey (2006), who maintains that correction may also fail to adequately prepare released offenders to reintegrate themselves into conventional society due to ineffective treatment or underdeveloped reintegration programs. Family background ranked fifth among the independent variables in the study that predicts juvenile recidivism. This finding is not in line with previous studies that indicated that family background is major predictor of juvenile recidivism. This study revealed that media content was very significant predictor of juvenile recidivism among offenders in Oyo and Lagos States Nigeria, followed by other variables (self-esteem, peer influence, remand home factor and family background) in the study. In the FGDs the respondents confessed that media contributed to their manifestation of antisocial activities. The respondents said there was special time each day for watching television. When the juveniles were further asked to mention the type of movies they watched, in Lagos correctional home a 12 years old juvenile explained that he watched pornographic movies, violent movies. Some of the juveniles still confessed that they were not influenced by violent films or movies they watched on television or the mass media. They also spend quality time each day watching violent films, which exerted a lot of influence on their behaviour. The exposure of the juvenile to violent film, violent media content, pornographic films is on the increase; hence the media ranked highest as the most predictive factors of recidivism. The second variable self-esteem ranked second among the variables was also supported by the FGD participants. 4.3 Discussion of findings of focus group discussion (FGD) The researcher conducted two sessions of focus group discussion in each of the three correctional homes selected for the study, making a total of six sessions. The homes were Juvenile Correctional Centre (JCC) Eleyele Ibadan, Special Correctional Centre for 121 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Girls (SCCG) Idi Araba and Special Correctional Centre for Boys (SCCB) Oregun, Lagos State, Nigeria. When the respondents were asked what they do before they were brought to the correctional centers, various reasons were provided by the respondents. Some stole, stubborn, wandering, roam the street while some were out of school. The respondents were asked if their family background contributed to their reoffending a boy from Special Correctional Centre for Boys (SCCB) Oregun, Lagos confessed that he reoffended because of where he comes from. A girl from the Special Correctional Centre Idi Araba, Lagos agreed that they indulged in antisocial behaviours because of their condition at home. Some said because their parents were divorced, separated, single parents and some stayed with relatives and they were not well taken care of. Some said they lived in areas where they were influenced by peers around them. The respondents further confessed that the media contributed to their manifestation of antisocial activities. They said there was special time each day for watching television. When the juveniles were further asked to mention the type of movies they watch, in Lagos Correctional Home, one of them mentioned pornographic movies, violent movies. Some of the juveniles still confessed that they were not influenced by violent films or movies they watch on television or mass media. The respondent asserted that they followed friends to do most of the things they indulged in. The juveniles said they had many friends. They learnt from them also since their parents were not there to monitor what they were doing. One of them said he had many friends and could not do without them. Their parents did not really care for them; hence, they kept many friends. The respondents in the Juvenile Correctional Home Ibadan said they suffered abuse, hate and lack of care after release. This was also confirmed by the juveniles in Lagos State. They kept antisocial friends and it made them to be involved in antisocial activities. When the juveniles were asked if they learnt any bad thing in the home, a juvenile from the Correctional Home, Ibadan said they learnt many bad things in the home. They also agreed that the workers in the home were very friendly and took good care of them. In Oregun and Idi Araba, the respondents said that they cared for them. They agreed they had many friends in the home as well as outside the home and learnt deviant acts from them. These juveniles further said that there were difficulties in the home as well as outside after their release, particularly lack of acceptance by society. 122 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Thus, in Oyo and Lagos correctional homes the problem of the juvenile offenders emanated from their families. Their parents did not care for them hence they dropped out, roamed the street, hawked and indulged in anti-social activities. This further propelled the juvenile to keep antisocial peers, and watch violent films and sex-related movies that promote antisocial activities. Most of these juveniles were victims of divorce, family separation, single parenting. They were left in the care of relatives, such as guardians who did not really take proper care of them. Their parents abandoned their duty and responsibility towards their children thereby making them vulnerable to antisocial activities. The juveniles were really exposed by their parents and this heightened their involvement in antisocial activities. Hence juvenile recidivism is still on the increase. 4.4 Discussion of theoretical framework in relation to the findings Three theories guided the study, namely differential association theory, strain theory and labelling theory. Differential association theory maintains that behaviour is learned through interaction with significant others, especially parents and peers. It is learnt from intimate others, parents, peers and those who become delinquent have learnt an excess of definitions unfavourable to definitions of law. This theory maintains that behaviour is learnt and if the juvenile is exposed to conditions favourable to antisocial life, the child will learn and become delinquent. This assertion is in line with the findings of this study. All the independent variables in the study-family background, exposure to media, peer influence, remand home related factor and self-esteem predicted juvenile recidivism. The variable that predicts recidivism most was media content the juvenile is exposed to. They were exposed to violent films, movies, music, Internet on daily basis. Television (TV) is a common household item now. The young ones spend quality time each day watching what is good and bad for them and they imbibe what they watch and also practise it. This is consistent with Ogwezze (2004), who note that every aspect of media, such as magazine, books, motion pictures, television, and influence and shape peoples‘ political, cultural and economic ideas, in order to elicit change in behaviour. Their parents are too busy to monitor what the young ones are exposed to. The media is a great socializing force for the young ones. They learn these antisocial activities as portrayed in the media they are exposed to and the result is to indulge in antisocial activities. This is also in line with Tepperman, Curtis, and Albanese (2008) assertion that television is the primary medium accessible to young children and is a potent agent of socialization. As children devote their time watching antisocial 123 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY behaviours, such as theft, rape, drug use, and smoking, they may end up practising what they watch. Even after undergoing correction, they still indulge in antisocial life. However, it is not all aspects of media that are bad. Some programmes on television, and Internet radio are educative and good for the child. Tolentino (2001) avers that media is an important agent through which information is disseminated to the public. It reforms and educates; likewise, it is an agent to mould lives, opinions and attitudes. The juveniles also learn from their peers with whom they associate. Juveniles belong to cliques and they learn from their peers. Braithwaite (1989) observes that a sufficient mass of offenders in society allows for formation of deviant subculture. This kind of association of deviant peers after a term of correction may create environment conducive to recidivism by providing appropriate opportunities, values and definitions. Also in the correctional homes, they come in contact with other deviants. They learn from them even from their surroundings and homes, all these promote antisocial bebaviour in the life of the child as well as recidivism. Some of them are kept with adult offenders and they learn from them adult criminality. All these promote recidivism. The strain theory by Merton states that societal goals without a means of achieving them produce strain. According to him, societal values can enhance deviance and on daily basis juveniles are faced with strain. Juveniles are released into the society after correction without proper rehabilitation. This brings about difficulty in integrating back into society because they are not exposed to trade, craft, and functional education that will make it easy for them to integrate back into society. These difficulties further enhance recidivism, which is a cheap and faster option for them. Furthermore they suffer rejection after release from members of society. This compound the problem, as it leads to low self-esteem, which is a measure of how the juvenile perceive himself. The stigmatization the young ones suffer from members of society further enhances their rate of involvement in antisocial activities. Labelling is a self-fulfilling prophecy; consequently juvenile continue to reoffend. Bernberg, Krohn and Rivera (2006), claim that deviant groups often provide social shelter from those who react negatively towards the deviant status. The labelled person is thus increasingly likely to become involved in social groups that consists of social deviants and unconventional others. They learn through the media, peers, home, and practise what they have learnt. They are apprehended and sent to correctional homes. In the homes, they come in contact with other deviants and learn more deviant acts from them. This is why Gatti, Tremblay and Vitaro (2009) recommend early prevention strategies, the reduction of judicial stigma 124 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY and the limitation of interventions that put juvenile offenders together. Intervention is good because it aims at deterring offenders, but rather antisocial activities are on the increase. Some are also kept with adult offenders who influence their involvement in deviant acts. After correction the juveniles are faced with how to meet up with the societal goals. The strain they experienced on how to meet up with the societal goals and the rejection they face from members of society propel them to be involved again in antisocial activities after a while. Involvement in deviant life brings about label by members of society. Once the juvenile is labelled, the stigma is difficult to remove. They accept it and continue to reoffend. Terpperman, Curtis, and Albanese, (2008) contend that labels sort through the thousands of acts in which a person has engaged and indicate that the person‘s identity is best understood in terms of the act according to which the label is affixed. Juveniles are gift from God to their parents to nurture and ensure they are functional members of society. Parents have failed in this regard. Although some parents are up and doing, some have failed by not caring properly for their children. They entrust the upbringing of the juveniles to relatives who do not properly take care of them. They do not monitor what they do neither do they provide their needs. Also different family structures have emerged in the recent times with different parenting styles. Some are harsh while some do not care about what the juveniles are doing. This brings about incessant involvement of the juveniles in antisocial behaviours. Parents have also failed in the area of monitoring the kind of friends the juveniles keep. The results have also indicated that juveniles that keep antisocial friends are influenced to indulge in antisocial activities. Parents are too busy to know the type of friends the juveniles keep. Hence juvenile recidivism is not yet brought under control, by law enforcement agencies. Juveniles are also exposed to various forms of media without proper monitoring by their parents or guardians. They are exposed to violent films where the actors indulge in murder, sexual activities, drinking alcohol, and rape. Through the media, they are exposed to pornographic films and adverts that influence them into recidivism. Thus, the violence and aggression in the mass media lead the juveniles into antisocial behaviour. They learn violence as a result of their exposure to violence. They can easily imitate violence and aggression they see on television and in movies. The prolonged exposure to violence encourages the juvenile to develop similar violent behaviours. Also, their frequent visit to correctional homes exposes them more to antisocial behaviours. In the correctional homes, they come in contact with other deviant peers from whom they learn 125 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY more antisocial life. Besides the hardship in the home and the treatment they receive instead of bringing recidivism under control, further enhances it. The inability of parents to nurture the young ones properly makes the juvenile to learn from their peers, media, and correctional homes antisocial activities over time just as stipulated by differential association theory. After correction, the juveniles are stigmatized, which affects their self esteem. This brings about strain and the juvenile who feels dejected by the attitude of the society further indulges in recidivism. No wander this menace called juvenile recidivism has not been brought under control in spite of all the measures adopted by law enforcement agencies, juvenile justice system, and penal administrators. Once the juvenile are stigmatized after correction, their self-esteem is lowered and, just as the labelling theory posit, they continue to reoffend. This makes it difficult to bring juvenile recidivism under control. Failure of families in their upbringing of their children has profound effect on juvenile recidivism because they are faced with the problem of identifying with delinquent peers through whom they learn antisocial activities. Also, they are exposed to the media through which they are exposed to various forms of violent films that portrays violent characters, pornography films, alcohol, and theft. Frequent visit to the correctional homes further expose them to antisocial peers through whom they learn antisocial activities. The prolonged and repeated exposure to violent acts over time makes the juvenile to develop similar antisocial behaviours. The rejection they suffer in the hands of society in the form of label further promotes juvenile recidivism. This is basically why the problem has not been brought under control by law enforcement agencies and penal administrators. Thus, their exposure to factors that are favourable to antisocial activity in the home, from peers and the media, just as stated by differential association theory, makes them, act out the behaviour; they are apprehended and corrected. They also learn more while undergoing correction because they come across other deviant peers they interact with. And for some of them, the interaction does not stop at the centre, it continues after their release. Then, after release from correction, the juvenile experience strain because of rejection and the attitude of the society towards the juvenile offenders. This further compels the juvenile to continue to reoffend. It is like a process, because when they enter the society after correction and they are not well treated they continue to relate with their deviant friends and, before long, they get into trouble again and are sent back to correctional centres. 126 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMENDATIONS The study examined the extent to which family background, peer influence, self- esteem, remand home related factors, media content, influenced recidivism among juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria. This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusion, recommendations, limitation to the study and contributions to knowledge as well as suggestions for further studies. 5.1 Summary The research was carried out in a sequential form. The first chapter focused on general introduction. This covered the background to the study, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, and the scope covered by the study. Furthermore, there were operational definitions of terms to give a better understanding of some key words in the study. Eleven research questions were raised as a guide to the study. Chapter two focused on the review of relevant literature for the study, the empirical studies, as well as the theoretical framework adopted for the study and the conceptual framework for the study. The third chapter of the study was on research methodology. This comprised the research design, population, sample and sampling technique, the research instruments, validity and reliability of instrument, procedure for data collection, and focus group discussion and procedure for data analysis. Chapter four of the study provided the findings and discussion. The data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics, such as mean, standard deviation, and multiple regression, Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to look at level of relationship, joint and relative contribution of independent on the dependent variables measure in the study. The qualitative data collected were content analyzed. The findings of the study revealed that:  There was significant relationship between the independent variables (family background, peer influence, self-esteem, media content and remand home related factors) and juvenile recidivism.  The composite contribution of independent variables-media content, remand home-related factors, self-esteem, family background and peer influence to recidivism was significant. 127 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY  Relative contributions of each of independent variables to recidivism revealed that family background to recidivism was not significant, while the relative contributions of peer influence, self-esteem, remand-home factors and media content were significant on recidivism.  The relative contributions of each of the independent variables at different levels and ranks based on the beta weight and t values indicated that recidivism was strongly predicted by media content, followed by self-esteem, peer influence, and remand-home and least predicted by family background. 5.2 Conclusion The study examined psycho-socio and remand-home related factors as determinants of juvenile recidivism and concluded that: There is significant relationship between the independent variables (family background, peer influence, self-esteem, media content and remand home-related factors) and juvenile recidivism. There was composite contribution of all the independent variables-media content, remand home factors, self-esteem and family background-to juvenile recidivism. The multiple regression adjusted (R) of 0.496 implies that 49.6% of total variation in recidivism is attributable to the composite contributions of independent variables in the study. The relative contributions of each of the independent variables in the study show that the contribution of family background to recidivism was not significant, while the relative contribution of peer influence, self-esteem, remand home related factors and media content were significant on recidivism The relative contributions of each of the independent variables at different levels and ranks based on the beta weight and t values indicated that recidivism was strongly predicted by media content followed by self-esteem, peer influence, and remand home, and least predicted by family background. Some other factors, such as socioeconomic status of parents, gender, educational status of parents, marital status, those staying with parents or guardians or family members, parents‘ occupation, also predicted juvenile recidivism. Although recidivism was predicted most in this study by media content, self-esteem, peer influence and remand home-related factors and family background, there were other contributory factors to juvenile recidivism. 128 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 5.3 Recommendations Based on the findings of the study, the following are recommended:  The home should have the conducive environment that can provide psychological security to juveniles from correctional homes, to stem recidivism.  Society should do all within its powers to discourage the stigmatization of young offenders.  Qualified personnel, such as counsellors and social workers should come up with policies that can help integrate released young offenders into society.  Parents and guardians should guard against unnecessary peer pressure exerted on their wards and juveniles should be selective in adopting decisions from peers.  Parents should, through adequate orientation and counselling, inculcate into their children, the moral soundness that can help them to desist from utilizing unhelpful media content.  Schools should be attached to these homes so that these young ones, after release, will be able to fit into the school system again.  The juveniles, while undergoing correction should be exposed to skills, which will assist them to easily integrate back into, society after correction 5.4 Contributions to knowledge The contributions of the study to knowledge include the following:  The study revealed the importance of psycho-socio and remand home related factors as determinants of recidivism among juvenile offenders. The study revealed that the media content the juvenile was exposed to was the major predictor of recidivism, followed by self-esteem, peer influence and remand home-related factors; family background was the least predictor of juvenile recidivism.  The study also developed a conceptual framework that may be used for research on the influence of psycho- social and remand home-related factors as determinant of recidivism.  The study revealed that family background, media content, peer influence, remand home related factors and self-esteem are significantly related to juvenile recidivism among offenders in Oyo and Lagos States Nigeria. 129 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY  The study further indicated that there is composite contribution of the independent variables to juvenile recidivism.  The study showed that some other factors, such as religion, marital status, educational status of parents, staying with guardians, staying with family members, contribute to recidivism.  Last, the work will be a reference for future researchers. 5.5 Limitation to the study The major challenge the study had was inability of the researcher to have access to the respondents easily. An authority letter to carry out research was written by the researcher through the Head of Service and Permanent secretary in Oyo and Lagos States respectively. A lot of time was wasted before the letter was approved and the researcher was permitted to do so. The majority of the juveniles were not in school and therefore, cannot speak English. It was the trained assistants that assisted in distribution and explanation of the questionnaire for most of them. Some copies of the questionnaire were not well filled and some were not returned to the researcher. The researcher also faced the problem of restriction because she was not permitted to carry out the research freely. This was because they did not want the juveniles to be exposed since they were minors that needed to be protected. The researcher was not allowed to record or take any photograph with the respondents for the same reason. Most of them were shy and refused to reveal information about them during the FGD. Even the workers were not ready to divulge any information concerning the juveniles. 5.6 Suggestions for future research This study has paved the way for further research in this area of psycho-socio and remand home-related factors as determinants of recidivism. More research should be carried out in this area to cover other variables that were not included in this study. Also further research is necessary to cover wider scope, since this study was limited to Oyo and Lagos States. Further research of this nature is needed in other states of Nigeria as this will assist in comparing the states with the highest recidivism rate in Nigeria. 130 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY REFERENCES Abrifor, C. A., Atere. A. A. And Muoghalu, C. O.2012. Gender differences, trend and pattern recidivism among inmates in selected, Nigerian Prisons: European Scientific Journal, Vo l8 No24. Adam, E. M. 2013. An Appraisal of the regime of juvenile justice under the Child‘s Right Act in Nigeria. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, Vol. 2, No.8. Akers, R. L. 1985. Social control theory and delinquency: a longitudinal test. Criminology, no. 23, pp. 47-61. Akers, R. L. 2000. Criminological theories: introduction, evaluation and application 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury. Alberta, P. 1999-2000, Annual Report Edmonton Government of Alberta, (2000), Available at http://www.gov.ab.ca/just/annrep2k Alemika, E. O. and Chukwuma, I. C. 2001. Juvenile justice administration in Nigeria: philosophy and practice. Center for Law enforcement and Education, Ikeja Lagos. Alexander, A, and Hanson, J. 2001. Taking sides: mass media and society. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Dushkin. Andrews, D., I., Zinger, R. Hoge, James Banta, Paul Gendreau, and Francis T. Cullen 1990. Does correctional treatment work? A clinically-relevant and psychologically-informed meta-analysis. Criminology vol. 28, no. 3: 369-404. Animasahaun, R. A 2006. Crime behaviour factory battery: Ibadan: Stevart Graphics Enterprises. Animasahun, R. A. 2011. Development and validation of crime behaviour factor battery International Journal of Psychology and Counselling Vol 3(8); 137-153, November 2011. Aremu, S. O. 2007. Brief Review of Literature on the 14 constructs of Crime Behaviour Factor Battery (CBFB). Paper presented in Psychology of Adjustment course (GCE702), Department of Guidance and Counselling, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. Arias. E. 1993. The meaning and use of housing. Aldershot; Avebury. Arnett, J. 2000. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through twenties. American Psychology, 55: 469-480. Austin, R. L. 1978. Race, father absence and female delinquency. Criminology 15(4): 487–504. Baldwin, J., Bottoms, A. E., and Walker, M. A. 1976. The urban criminal: a study in Sheffield, London, page 50. Bamgbose, O. 2002. Teenage prostitution and the future of female adolescent in Nigeria. International journal of offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46: 569- 585. 131 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Bandura, A. 1993. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychology, 28: 117-148. Barbaree, H. E., Marshall, W. L. 2008. An introduction to the juvenile sex offender: terms, concepts, and definitions 2nd Ed. New York: Guilford Press. Becker, H.S. 1963. Outsiders. New York: The Free Press. Beck, J. 1981. Employment, community treatment center placement and recidivism. Study of released federal offenders. Federal Probation, 45: 4: 3-8. Benda, B. B. 2001. Factors that discriminate between recidivists, parole violators, and non-recidivists in a 3-year follow-up of boot camp graduates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 45: 6: 711-729. Benda, B, B, 2005. Gender differences in life- course theory of recidivism: A survival analysis, International Journal of Offender June, 49(3): 325-342. Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., 2003. Labelling, life chances and adult crime: the direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood in Criminology 41(4): 1287-1318. Bernburg, Jon Gunnar, Marvin D. Krohn and Craig J. Rivera, 2006. Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness and Subsequent Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43(1): 67-88. Berndt, T. 1979. Developmental changes in conformity to peers and parents. Devel Psychol. 15: 608-16. Binghenheimer, J. B, Brennan, R. T, and Earls, F. J. 2005. Firearm violence exposed and serious violent behaviour Science, 308:1323-1326. Bischof, O. H., Urlaub, V. Kruft, B., Wittmann-Liebold, B., 1995. Peptide environmentof the peptidyl transferase center from Escherichia coli 70s ribosomes as determined by thermoaffinity with dihydrospiranycin. J.Biol. Chem. 270: 23060-23064. Blackburn , F. 1981. Relationship between recidivism and participation in a community college Associate of Arts Degree Programme for Incarcerated offenders in proceedings of thirty sixth Annual Correctional Education Association Conference: Rockville, Maryland : National Institute of Justice. Blaske, D. M., Borduin, C. M., Henggeler, S. W., and Mann, B. J. 1989. Individual, family and peer characteristics of adolescent sex offenders and assaultive offenders. Developmental Psychology, 25(5): 846-855. Bondeson, U. V. 2002. Alternatives to imprisonment: intentions and reality. New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers. Braithwaite, John 1989. Crime, shame and reintegration. New York: Cambridge University Press. Brentero and Ness, A. 1982. Perspectives on peer group treatment: the use and abuses of Guided group Interaction/ Positive Peer Culture. Child and Youth Service: Review 4: 307-24. 132 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Bridges, G. S., and Steen, S. 1998. Racial disparities in official assessment of juvenile offenders: attribution stereotypes as mediating mechanism. American Sociological Review Vol. 63: 554-570. Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., Balka, E. B., & Cohen, P. 1997. Drug use and delinquency: shared and unshared risk factors in African American and Puerto Rican adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 158 (1): 25-39. Brown, H. D. and Adler, N. E. 1998. Socioeconomic status. Encyclopedia of mental health (Vol 3) H. S. Friedman Ed San Diego: Academic Press. Brown, L. B. 2002. The dynamic prediction of criminal recidivism: a three- wave prospective study, (Doctoral Thesis, Queen’s University 2002) Forum on Corrections Research, 14 (1): 24-27. Browning, K and Loeber, R. 1999. Highlights of findings from the Pittsburg: Long term effect of early Childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. http://www.futurechildren.org Retrieved on February 2, 2006. Bullis, M. Yovanoff, P. Mueller, G,and Havel, E. 2002. Life on the Outs… Examination of the facility to community transition of incarcerated youths. Exceptional children, 69: 7-22. Bullock C, F and Culbert, J. 2002. Coverge of domestic violence fatalities by newspaper in Washington State. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 17: 475-99. Bureau of Census 2000a, Statistical abstract of the United States, 2000. Washington DC: US Government printing office. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009. Criminal behaviour. recent trends in US: Recidivism, US. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved on 4/4/2012. Busari, A. O and Ojo, R. A. 2011. Empowering youth in remand home against risk taking behaviors for effective transition to independence. Ethno med 5(3): 217-222. Carnage, N., Anderson, C., and Bushman, B., 2007. The effect of video game violence on psychological desensitization to real life violence. Journal of Exp. Soc. Psychology, 43: 489-496. Case, A. and Katz, L. 1991. The company you keep: the effects of family and neighbourhood on disadvantaged youths, Working Paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. Cashwell, C. S. and Vacc N. A. 1996. Family functioning and risk behaviours: influence on adolescent delinquency. School Counsellor, 4: 105-114. Castellano, T. and Soderstrom, I., 1992. Therapic wilderness and juvenile recidivism: a programme evaluation‘‘. Journal of Offender’s Rehabilitation: 17: 19-46. Cechaviciute, I. and Kenny, D. T. 2007. The relationship between neutralizations and perceived delinquent labeling on criminal history in young offenders serving community orders. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 34 (6): 816-829. 133 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Cecile, M. and Born, M. 2009. Intervention in juvenile delinquency: danger of iatrogenic effects? Children and Youth Services Review 31: 1217–1221 Chawla, L. 2002. Growing up in an urbanizing world. London Earthsean: D.C. Government Printing Office. Chen, X., Chen, H. and Kaspar, V. 2001. Group social functioning and individual socioemotional and school adjustment in Chinese children. Merril-Palmer Quarterly. Chiricos, Ted, Kelle Barrick, and William Bales, 2007. The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology 45(3): 547-581. Clark, R. and Shields, G. F. 1997. Family communication and delinquency. Academic Journal Article from Adolescents vol 32: 81-92. Cole, D. A. 1991. Preliminary support for acompetency-based model of depression symptoms in childhood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 100: 181-190. Comanor, W. S. and L. Phillips, 1999. The Impact of income and family structure on delinquency, Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Santa Barbara. Corbett, R. P., and Petersilia, J. 1994. Up to speed: a review of research for practitioners. Federal Probation, 58(3): 51-56. Corrado, R. R., Cohen, I. M., Glackman, W. and Odgers. C. 2003. Serious and violent young offenders‘ decision to recidivate: an assessment of five sentencing models. Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 49, 2: 179-200. Cottle, Cindy, C., Ria J. Lee, and Kirk Heilbrun 2001. Prediction of criminal recidivism in juveniles: a meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior vol. 28, Issue: 3: 367-394. Crockett, L. J., Eggebeen, D. J., and Hawkins, A.J. 1993. Father‘s presence and young children‘s behavioural and cognitive adjustment. Journal of Family Issues 14(3): 355-377. DeComo, R. E. 1998. Estimating the prevalence of juvenile custody by race and gender. Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 44, no. 4: 489-506. De Li, Spencer. 1999. Legal sanctions and youths status achievement: a longitudinal study‘‘ Justice Quarterly, 16: 377-401. Demo, R., Wansley, W., Meyers, K. 2005. A practice/research collaborative: an innovative approach to identifying and responding to psychological functioning problems and recidivism risk among juveniles arrests. Journal of Rehabilitation, 41 (1): 39-54. Demuth S. and Brown S. 2004. Family structure, family processes, and adolescent delinquency: the significance of parental absence versus parental gender. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(1): 58-81. Department of Human Services (Juvenile Justice) 2009. Annual Report 2008- 2009 Sydney, NSW Government. Sydney: NSW Government. 134 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Derzon J. H. and Lipsey M. W. 2000. The Correspondence of Family Features with Problem, Aggressive, Criminal and Violent Behaviour. Unpublished Manuscript. Institute for Public Policy Studies: Nashville. Deschenes, E. P., Owen, B., and Crow, J. 2006. Final Report: Recidivism among Female Prisoners: Secondary Analysis of the 1994 BJS Recidivism Data Set. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice. Doren, B. Bullis M. and Benz, M. R. 1996. Predicting the arrest status of adolescents with disabilities in transition. The journal of Special Education (29): 363-380. Draguns, J. G. 1990. Application of cross cultural psychology in the field of mental health. Applied cross-cultural Psychology, R, W, Brislin, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. DuBois, D. Felner, R. Brand, S. and George, G. 1999. Profile of self-esteem in the early adolescence: Identification and investigation of adaptive correlates. An American Journal of Community Psychology, 27: 899-932. Duncan, R. D. Kennedy, W. A. and Patrick, C. J. 1995. Four-factor model of recidivism in male juvenile offenders. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. Vol. 24, no.3: 250-257. Edward, L. and Sagatum, I, 1983. Dealing with parents and child in serious abuse cases. Family Court Journal 34: 9-14. Ellermann R., Sullo, P. and Tien, J. 1992. An alternative approach to modelling recidivism using quantile residual life functions. Operations Research 40(3): 485- 504. Elliott, D. S. 1994. Onset, developmental course, and termination. the American Society of Criminology. Criminology 32(1): 1-2. Elliott, Delbert S., and Scott Menard. 1996. Delinquent friends and delinquent behavior: temporal and developmental patterns. Delinquency and Crime: Current Theories, J. David Hawkins, 28–67. New York: Cambridge University Press, 28-67. Epstein, Nathan B. Lawrence M. Baldwin, and Duane S. Bishop 1983. The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy vol. 9, no. 2: 171-180. Fagan, A, and Western 2005. Escalating and deceleration of offending behaviours from adolescence to early adulthood. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 38(1): 59-76. Farrington, D. 1986. Age and Crime: crime and justice: An annual review of research, Chicago. University of Chicago Tonry M, and Morris, N, Press: 189-250. Farrington, D. P. 1992. Criminal career research in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Criminology, 32: 521-536. Farrington, D. P. and Loeber, R. 1998. Chapter 1: Major aims of this book. Serious and Violent Juvenile offenders: Risk factors and successful interventions, Loeber, D, P, Farrington . Thousand Oaks: Sage publications 1-12. 135 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Farrington, D. P. and Loeber, R. 1999. Transatlantic replicability of risk factors in the development of delinquency. Cohen, P. C, Slomkowski, C. and Robins L, N. Historical and geographical influences on psychopathology, (pp, 299-329). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Farrington, D. P. and Loeber, R. 2000.Young children who commit crime: Epidemiology, developmental origins, risk factors, early interventions, and policy implications. Journal of Development and Psychopathology, 12, 4: 737-762. Farrington, D. P. 2000. Explaining and preventing crime: the globalization of knowledge—The American Society of Criminology 1999 Presidential address. Criminology 38 (1): 1-24. Farrington, D.P. 2002. Developmental criminology and risk-focused prevention. Maguire, M. Morgan R, and Robert Reiner. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology 3rd edn.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fendrich, M. C. 1991. Institutionalization and parole behaviour: assessing the influence of individual and family characteristics. Journal of Community Psychology, 19: 109-122. Fenzel, L. M. 2000. Perspective study of changes in global self- worth and strain during the transition to middle school. Journal of Adolescence 20(1): 93-116. Fergusson, D. M., and Horwood, I. J. 2002. Male and female offending trajectories, Development and Psychopathology, 14: 159-177. Florida Department of Correction 2003. Recidivism: An Analysis of Public and Private State Prisons pp37. nd Fortin, J. 2003. Children’ rights and the developing Law 2 Edition Revised. Publisher Lexis/Nexis/Butterworts. Fukuyama, F. 1992. The end of history and the last man, New York: Free Press. Garnefski, N. and Okma, S. 1996. Addiction-risk and aggressive/criminal behaviour in adolescence: influence of family, school and peers. Journal of Adolescence, 19: 503-512. Gatti, U. Tremblay R. and Vitaro F. 2009. Iatrogenic effect of juvenile justice. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 50(8): 991-998. Geismar, L, L. and Wood, K. M. 1986. Family and delinquency: resocializing the young offender. New York: Human Sciences Press. George B. Palermo. 2009. Reintegration and recidivism. International journal of offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 1: 3-4. Gerstein, L. H. and Briggs, J. R. 1993. Psychological and sociological discriminants of violent and nonviolent serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Addictions and Offender Counseling, Vol. 14: 2-13. Gendreau, P. Goggin, C. and Little, T. 1996. A meta analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: what works, Criminology, 34: 575-607. 136 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Gibbs 1978. Crime, Punishment and Deterrence New York: Elsevier Scientific. Giddens, A. 2006. Sociology 5th edition. Fully Reversed. Cambridge: Polity Press. Giddens, A. and Duneirer, M. 2006. Introduction to Sociology, New York: Cambridge: Polity Press Glasser, W. 1965. ‗Reality therapy: a new approach to psychiatry. New York: Harper and Row. Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: notes on the management of a spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp 53. Gold, M, and Petrono, 1980. Delinquent behaviour in adolescence. Handbook of adolescent Psychology. Adelson, J. New York: Wiley. Gondles, J. A. 2003. The prohibition and parole system needs our help to succeed, Corrections Today, 65(1): 8. Gordon, D. A. Graves, K., and Arbuthnot, J. 1995. The effect of functional family therapy for delinquents on adult criminal behaviour. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 22: 60-73. Gorman-Smith D., Tolan, P., Ashli J. and David, B. 2001. Partner violence and street violence among urban adolescents: do the same family factors relate? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11: 273-295. Grabmeirer, J. 1988. Worldwide hunger more a political problem, Study finds (614): 292- 8457. Graham, J. and Bowling, B. 1995. Young people and crime. Home Office Research Study No. 145, London: Home Office. Gransmick H. G. and Bursik R.J. 1990. Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: extending the deterrence model, Law and Society Review, 24: 837-61. Greenwood, P. W., Deschenes, E. P. and Adams, J. 1993. Chronic juvenile offenders: Final Results from the Skillman Aftercare Experiment. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Grenier, C. E., and Roundtree, G. A. 1987. Predicting recidivism among adjudicated delinquents: a model to identify high risk offenders‘‘. Journal of offending Counselling, services and Rehabilitation: Vol. 12, 1: 101-112. Grizenko, N. 1998. Protective factors in development of psychopathology. Encyclopaedia of mental health Vol, 3. H, S, Friedman. San Diego :Academic Press. Grogger , J. 1998. Market wages and youth crime, Journal of labour economics, vol. 16, no 4: 756-791. Gunter, B.1994.The question of media violence. In media effects: Advances in Theory and Research, J. Bryant, and D.Zillman eds. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum 163-212. Haapasalo, J., and Pokela, E. 1999. Child rearing and child abuse antecedents of criminality. Aggression and Violent Behaviour 1: 107-127. 137 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Hagan, J. 1993. The Social Embeddedness of Crime and Unemployment. Criminology, Vol. 31: 465-491. Hagan J. and Foster H. 2001. Youth violence and the end of adolescence. American Sociological Review, 66: 874-899. Hakeem, Ijaiya. 2009. Juvenile justice administration in Nigeria. National University of Juridical Sciences (NUJS) Law Review (2009) Vol.24: 573-583 Halsey, Mark, 2006. Negotiating conditional release: juvenile narratives of repeat incarceration. Punishment and Society 8(2): 147-181. Hamparian, D., Schuster, R., Dinitz, S., and Conrad, J., 1985. The Violent few (Lexington, Mass: Lexinton Books. Hanson, R. K. and Harris, A. 1998. Dynamic predictions of sexual recidivism (No 1998- 01) Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada, (1998). Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. 2004. Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. London: Collins Publishers. Harrison, P., Maupin, J. R., and Mays, G. L., 2001. Teen Court: an examination of processes and outcomes. Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 47, no. 2: 243-264. Harms, P. 2003. Detention in delinquency Cases, 1990-1999. Office of juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, Office of Justice Programms, US Department of Justice Fact Sheet, 7. Harter, S. 1987. The determinants and mediational role of global self-worth in children. contemporary topics in Developmental Psychology. N. Eisenberge (Ed). New York: Wiley. Harter, S., Stocker, C., and Robinson, N. 1996. The perceived directionality of the link between approved and self worth: the liabilities of a looking glass of self orientation among young adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 6: 285-308. Hathway, A, D. 2004 Cannabis users informal rules for Managing stigma and Risk. Deviant Behaviour 25, 6: 559-77. Heide, Kathleen, Erin Spencer, Andrea Thompson, and Eldra Solomon, 2001. Who‘s in, who‘s out, and who‘s back: follow-up data on 59 juveniles incarcerated in adult prison for murder in the early 1980s. Behavioural Sciences and the Law (19):97- 108. Henslin, James 2008. Social Problems: a down-to-earth approach. Southern IIIinois University at Edwardsville. Herrenkohl, T. I. Maguin E, Hill, K. G. Hawkins, J. D. Abbott, R. D. and Catalano, R. F. 2000. Developmental risk factors for youth violence. Journal of Adolescence Health, 26: 176-186. Herrenkohl, T. L., Hawkins, J. D., Chung, I. Hill, K. G., and Battin-Pearson, S., 2001. School and community risk factors and interventions. Child delinquents: 138 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY development intervention. service needs, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 211–246. Hewitt, J. P. 2009. Oxford handbook of positive psychology. Oxford University Press. Pp 217-224. Hickman, G. P., Bartholome, S, and Mckenry, P. C. 2000. Influence of parenting style on the adjustment and academic achievement of traditional college freshmen. Journal of College student Development 41(1): 41-54. Hill, J. 1983. Early adolescence: A frame work Journal of early adolescence 3: 1-21. Hindelang M. 1973. Causes of delinquency: a partial replication and extension. Social Problems. 20: 471-487. Hipwell, A. E. and Loeber, R. 2006. Do we know which interventions are effective for disruptive and delinquent girls? Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 9: 221-255. Hoffman, J and Johnson, R. 1998. A national portrait of family structure and adolescent drug use. Journal of Marriage and the Family 6: 633-645. Holmes, S. E., Slaughter, J. R. and Kashani, J. 2001. Risk factors in childhood that lead to the development of conduct disorder and antisocial personality disorder. Child Psychiatry and Human Developme , 31: 183-193. Huey, S. J. Jr. and Antiono, S. P. Jclin 2008. Child Adolescent Psychology. 37(1): 262- 301. Huston, J. and Barton, S. M. 2005. Juvenile justice: theory systems and organisation. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall. Immarigeon, Russ, 1996. Families know best. State Government News. 39: 22-4. Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) 2014. Indiana Government Centre: Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204. Jacobs, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities. New York: Random House. James, D. L. and Craft, E. A. 2002. Protecting one‘s self from a stigmatized disease …once one has limit. Deviant Behaviour 23: 267-99. Jengeleski, G. 1981. Comparative study of the effect of a college employment and training programme or post-release arrest, conviction, and sentence outcomes for ex offenders . Rockville , MaryLand : National Institute of Justice. Johnson, G. J., Cohen, P., Smailes, E.M., Kasen, S., and Brook, J.S., 2002. Television viewing and aggressive behaviour during adolescence and adulthood. Science 295: 2468-2471. Jones, C. M. 2005. Genetic and environmental influence in criminal behaviour. New York. Rochester institute of Technology: Joshi, U. A. Pahad and Avani, M, 2006. Images of women in print media-a research inquiry, Indian Media Stud. J. I: 39-51. 139 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Kagan, J. and Coles, R., 1972. Two to sixteen: early adolescence, New York: Norton. Kail, R. V. and Cavanaugh, J, C. 2007. Human development: a life-span view (4th ed). Belmont. CA: Wadsworth. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001. Few parents use v-chip to Block TV sex and violence. Menlo Park: Kraiser family foundation. Kalist, E, David, and Lee, Y, Daniel, 2009. Measuring and analyzing juvenile recidivism in rural and urban Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, PA: Centre for Rural Pennsylvania. Karen, K. K. Ashman 2007. Introduction to Social Work and Social Welfare: critical nd thinking perspectives 2 edition Thompson Books/Cole. Karen, K, K Ashman 2010. Introduction to Social Work and Social Welfare: critical rd thinking perspectives 3 edition Thompson Books/Cole. Keily, M. K. Bates, J. F. and Pettit, G. 2000. A cross-domain growth analysis: externalizing behaviours during 8 years of childhood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28: 161-179. Kelley,Matt2009.Mondaymap:helpingparoleeRebuild.http://criminaljustice.change.org/bl og/view/monday_map_helping_parolees_rebuild Kelly, D. H. 1978. Track position, peer affiliation and youth crime. Urban Education Vol 13 (3): 397-406. Kempson .E.1996. Life on a Low Income New York : Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Keniston, K. 1970. Youth: a ‗new‘ stage of life. American Scholar 37: 631-641. Kiesner, J, Dishion, T. J. and Poulin, F. 2001. A reinforcement model of conduct problems in children and adolescents: advances in theory and intervention. Conduct disorders in childhood and adolescence. J, Hill and B, Maughan Eds, New York: Cambridge University Press. Kim, Jungmeen, E, E, Mavis Hetherington, and David Rice, 1999. ―Associations among family relationships, antisocial peers, and adolescents‘ externalizing behaviors: gender and family type. Child Development, vol. 70, 5:1209-1230. Kim, H. S., and Kim, H. S., 2005. Gender differences in delinquent behaviour among Korean adolescents. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev, 35(4), 325-345. Klein, H. 1977. Towards more effective behaviour programs for juvenile offenders Federal Probation 11:45-50. Klien, S. P., and Caggiano, M. N. 1986. The prevalence predictability and policy implication of recidivism. Santa Monica Rand. Klein, N. 1999. No logo: money, marketing and the growing anti-corporate movement. New York: Picador, St Martin‘s Press. Langan, P. A. and Levin, D. J. 2002. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Bureau of justice statistics, special report (NCJ, 193427). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. 140 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Lanza-Kaduce, L., Bishop, D. M. and Frazier, C. E. 2005. Juvenile offenders and adult felony recidivism. The impact of transfer. Journal of Crime and justice, 28: 59-77. Laub, J. H. and Sampson, R. J.1993. Turning points in the life course: why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology 31: 301-25. Laub, J. H., Daniel S. Nagin, and Robert J. Sampson 1998. Trajectories of change in criminal offending: good marriages and the desistance process. American Sociological Review 63:225-238. Law, M. 2004. Federally sentenced women in the community: dynamic risk predictors. Forum on Corrections Research, 16: 18-20. Lerner, R. M. and Galambos, N. L. 1998. Adolescent development: challenges and opportunities for research, programs, and policies. Annual Review of Psychology, 49: 413-446. Lemert, E. M. 1951. Social Pathology. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Publishers. Li, Spencer De, Heide De Priu and Doris L. MacKenzie 2000. Drug Involvement, Lifestyles, and Criminal Activities Among Probationers. Journal of Drug Issues 30: 593-620. Liaudinskiene, G. 2005. Resocialization barriers of juvenile delinquents. Social Sciences 1(47): 41-53. Light, R. Nee and Ingam, H. 1993. Car theft: the offender’s perspective, Home Office Research Study 130 London: HMSO. Lipsey, M. 1992. Juvenile Delinquency Treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. Meta-analysis for explanation, Cook, T., H. Cooper, D. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. Hedges, R. Light, T. Louis, and F. Mosteller Eds., New York: Russell Sage 83-127. Lipsey, M. W., and Derzon, J. H. 1998. Predictors of violent or serious delinquency in adolescence and early adulthood: a synthesis of longitudinal research. Serious and violent juvenile offenders: risk factors and successful interventions, R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 86–105. Liska, A. and Messner, S. F. 1999. Perspectives on crime and deviance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall. Livingston, M., Stewart, A., Allard, T. and Ogilvie, J. 2008. Understanding juvenile offending trajectories. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 41(3): 345-363. Loeber, R. and Stouthamer-Loeber, M. 1987. Prediction. Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency, Quay, Herbert C. Ed. NY: John Wiley and Sons 25-382. Loeber, R. and Farrinton, D. P. 1998. Serious and violent juvenile offenders risk factors and successful interventions. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. 141 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Loeber, R., Pardini, D., Homish, D., Wei, E., Farrington, D., Creemers, J., Rosenfeld, R. 2005. The prediction of violence and homicide in young men. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 73 (6): 1074-1088. Macmillan, R., McMorris, B, J, and Kruttschnnitt, C. 2004. Linked lives: Stability and change in material circumstances and trajectories of antisocial behaviour in children. Child Development 75: 205-220. Maltz, M. D., 1981. Recidivism. (http://books.google.com). Mackenzie, D. L.2000. Evidence-based corrections: Crime and Delinquency, 46: 457- 471. Maltz, Michael D. 1984. Recidivism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Mankoff. M. 1971. Societal reaction and career deviance: A critical analysis. Sociological Quarterly 12: 204-18. Marcus, C. C. and Sarkissan 1986. Housing as if people mattered: site design guidelines for medium-density family housing. Berkeley: University of California Press. Matherne, M. and Adrain Thomas, 2001. Family environment as predictor of adolescent delinquency Adolescence 36: 655-65. Mathias, R., Demuro, P. and Allinson, R. 1984. Violent juvenile offender San Francisco: National Council on crime and Delinquency. Matsueda, R. L. and Anderson, K. 1998. The dynamics of delinquent peers and delinquent behaviour. Criminology. Vol. 36, 2: 269-308. Mbuba, J. M. 2004. Juvenile recidivism: an analysis of race and other socio-demographic predictors within three intervention modalities in the State of Louisiana Ph.D. Dessertation. http://opus.ipwfw.edu/dpea_facpubs/109 Mbuba, J. M. 2005. A refutation of racial differentials in the juvenile recidivism rate hypothesis. AJCJS. Vol. 1, 2: 51-68. Mbuba, J. M. and Grenier, C. E. 2008. International Journal of Social Inquiry. Volume 1 1: 75-88. McCord, J. 1979. Some child-rearing antecedents of criminal behaviour in adult men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(9): 1477-1486. McCord, J. 1997. The Cambridge Sommerville Study. A pioneering longitudinal experiment study of delinquency prevention preventing antisocial behaviour: McCord, J and Tremblay, R. E., (eds) New York Gmford Press, 196-208. McCord, J., Widom, C.S., and Crowell, N.A., 2001. Juvenile crime, juvenile justice. panel on juvenile crime: prevention, treatment, and control. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. McElfresh, R., Yan, J and Janku, A. 2009. Juvenile offender recidivism report. A state wide juvenile court report: Submitted to Supreme Court of Missiouri Office of State Courts Administration. 142 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY McGuire, J. 2009. Understanding psychology and crime perspectives on theory and action, Glasgow: Open University Press. McVie S. 2009. Criminal careers and young people, Youth offending and youth justice. Barry M and McNeill F (eds), London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers: 38-55. Mendel, R. A. 2011. No place for kids. a case of reducing juvenile incarceration. From (Retrieved on 6 March 2014). Michelson, W. 1997. Man and his urban environment: a sociological approach reading mass: Addison Wesley. Mills, J., Kroner, D., Mongrain, S., and Sylvain, J. 2005. Deconstructing criminal networks: Intervening to break down patterns of criminal associations. Corrections Today, 67(1): 46-49. Miner, M. 2002. Factors associated with recidivism in juveniles: an analysis of serious juvenile sex offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39: 421- 436. Minor, K. I., Wells, J. B., Soderstrom, I. R., Bingham, R. and Williamson, D. 1999. Sentence completion and recidivism among juveniles referred to teen courts. Crime and Delinquency. Vol. 45, 4: 467-480. Miranda, D, and Claes, M, 2004. Rap music genres and deviant behaviours in French – Canadian adolescents, Journal of Youth and Adolescence 33, 2: 113-22. Moblyw. 2009. Study suggests Nevada prisons do pretty good job of preventingrecidivism".LasVegasSun.http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/aug/ 20/study-suggests-nevada-prisons-do-pretty-good-job-p/. Retrieved 2009-09-14. Moffitt, T. 1993. Life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behaviour: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100: 674-701. Mouttapa, Michele, Donnie W. Watson, William Jason McCuller, Steve Sussman, Jie W. Weiss, Chris Reiber, Deanna Lewis and Winnie Tsai. 2010. I‘m mad and I‘m bad: links between self-identification as a gangster, symptoms of anger, and alcohol use among minority juvenile offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 8(1): 71-82. Myers, David, L. 2003. The recidivism of violent youths in juvenile and adult courts. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice: An Interdisciplinary Journal 1(1): 79-101. Muehlenberg, Bill. 2002. The case for two-parent family Part II. National Observer. 53: 49-58. Murray, C. and Cox, B. L., 1979. Beyond probation. Beverly Hills Calif: Sage. National population commission, 2006. National population census. Federal Republic of Nigeria official Gazette, 96 (2). Nee, C. and Ellis, T. 2005. Treating offending children: What works? Legal and Criminology Psychology, 10(1): 133-148. 143 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Newson, J. and Newson, E. 1989. The extent of parental punishment in UK London: Approach. Nugent, W. R., and Paddock, J. B. 1996. Evaluating the effects of victim-offender reconciliation programme on reoffended. Research on Social Work practice, 6, (2): 155-178. Nwagwu, R. O. 2004. Stigmatization: a cog in the wheel of HIV/AIDS prevention. The Punch November 7. Oguniyi, O. A. 1992. Research methods: Ibadan: Wisdom Publishing Limited. Ogwezze, A. 2004. The press gender and politics: Nigerian perspective. paradox of gender equality in Nigeria Politics Lagos, 136-171. Okimoto, T. and Wenzel, M. 2009. Punishment as restoration of group and offender values following a transgression: value consensus through symbolic labelling and offender reform. European Journal of Social Psychology 39: 346-367. Okpala, P. N. 1995. Research in Education: A critique of what to do and How to do it. Ibadan Stirling Horden Publishers Nigeria Limited. Okunola, M, I, 2002. A Handbook for Nigerian Social Workers. Printed by Daybis Limited. Oluyemi, A, S, and Norma, M, N. 2014. Recidivism and emotional intelligence of male recidivist in Lagos State Nigeria. Journal of Psychology 5(2): 111-124. Osayi, K.K. 2013. Socio-cultural factors affecting reintegration of discharged prisoners in Anambra State, South East, and Nigeria. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4 (10): 775-780. Oscar, N. 1972. Defensible Space. Crime prevention through urban design. New York: MacMillan. Osofsky, Joy, D. 1997. Children in a violent society. New York: Guilford Press. Otite, O. and Ogionwo, W. 2006. An introduction to sociological studies. Heinemann Educational Books Nigeria Plc. Paik, Haejung, and George, Comstock 1994. The effect of television violence on antisocial behaviour: a meta- analysis Communication Research 21: 516-546. Pampel, F. C. 2000. Logistic regression: a primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Papilia, D. E., Olds, S. W. and Feldman, R. D. 2007. Human development (10th ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Park, K. 2002. Stigma management among the voluntarily childless, Sociological Perspectives 45, 1: 21-45. Paternoster, R. and Iovanni, L. A., 1989. The labelling perspective and delinquency: an elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6: 39-94. 144 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Paternoster, R., Brame, R., and Farrington, D. P. 2001. On the relationship between adolescent and adult conviction frequencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17(3): 201-205 Patterson, G. R., DeBaryshe, B. O. and Ramsey, E, 1989. A developmental perspective on antisocial behavior. American Psychologist, 44: 329-335. Payne, J. 2005. Specialty courts in Australia: report to the Criminology Research Council. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Payne, J. 2007. Recidivism in Australia: Findings and future research. Research and Public Policy series no. 80. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/rpp/61-80/rpp80.aspx Perren, S. and Hornung, R. 2005 Adolescent victims and perpetrators of bulling and violent delinquency: their family and peer relations. Swiss Journal Psychology, 64: 51-64. Peterson, R. D. and Hagan, J. 1984. Changing conceptions of race: towards an account of anomalous findings of sentencing research. American Sociological Review. Vol. 49: 56-70. PewPartnership,2002.AdolescentHealthViolencePrevention. (Retrieved November 22, 2006). Pfuhl Erdwin H. 1993. The deviance process, 3rd ed. New York: Aldine Transaction. Phillips, L., and Votey, H. L. Rational choice models of crime by youth. Review of Black Political Economy 16: 129-187. Pope, C. E. and Snyder, H. N. 2003. Race as a factor in juvenile arrests. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Prochnow, Jane E. and James V. DeFronzo. 1997. The impact of economic and parental characteristics on juvenile misconduct. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 5: 119-128. Pullmann, M. D., Kerbs, S., Koroloff, N., Veach-White, E., Gaylor, R. And Sieler, D. 2006. Juvenile offenders with mental health needs. reducing recidivism using wraparound. Crime and Delinquency, 52(3): 375-397. Puzzanchera, C. M., Stahl, A. L. Finnegan, T. A., Tierney, N. and Snyder, H. N. 2003. Juvenile Court Statistics, 1998. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Quist, R. M. and Matshazi, G.M. 2000. (spring). The Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS): a dynamic predictor of juvenile recidivism. Adolescence. Vol. 35: 137, 181-192. Rahim, M. A. 1984. On the concept and measurement of recidivism current practices and suggested improvement (User Report 1984-441).Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada. 145 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Rand, A, 1987. Transitional life events and desistance from delinquency and crime. From boy to man: from delinquency to crime, M. Wolfgang, T.P. Thornberry, and R. M. Figlio eds., Chicago: University of Chicago Rakis J 2005. Improving the employment rates of ex prisoners under parole. Federal Probation, 69(1): 7-12. Rathus, A. S. 2006 Childhood and Adolescence voyages in development 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Ray, J. C. 1971. Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverly Hills CA: Sage Publications. Regoli, R. M., Hewitt, J. D. and Delsi, Matt. 2014. Delinquency in society, 9th ed. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Reiss, A. 1988. Co-offenching and criminal careers. Crime and Justice Vol. 10: 117-70. Righthand, S. and Welch, C. 2004. Characteristics of youth who sexually offend. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 13(3): 15-32. Robert, A. 2004. An overview of juvenile justice and juvenile delinquency, Juvenile Justice Sourcebook Albert Roberts (ed), New York: Oxford University Press, 6- 40. Robinson, N.1995. Evaluating the nature of perceived support and its relation to perceived self- worth in adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 5: 253- 280. Robinson, Thomas, N, Marta, L, Wilde, Lisa, C, Navracruz, K. Farish Haydel and Ann Varady, 2001. Effects of reducing children‘s television and video game use on aggressive behaviour Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 155: 17-23. Rothbaum, F. and Weisz 1994. Parental caregiving and child externalizing behavour in non clinical samples: a meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 116: 55-74. Rose, C. and Nyer, G. 1979. Inmate and ex- offender post secondary education programme in California, 1. Los Angeles: Evaluation and Training Institute. Ryan, G., and Lane, S., 1997. Juvenile sexual offending: cause, consequences and correction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sabol, W. J., Adams, W. P., Parthasarathy, B. and Yuan, Y. 2000. Offenders Returning to Federal Prison, 1986-97. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report (NCJ, 182991). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Sadock, J. B. Sadock A. B. Kaplan, H. I. 2008. Concise textbook of psychiatry. New Delhi: Woltars Kluwars (India) Pvt. Ltd Salaam, A. O. 1990. Screening for signs and symptoms of juvenile delinquency in Kajola Local Government Area of Oyo State. Unpublished. Department of Guidance and Counseling, University of Ibadan, Nigeria. 146 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Sampson, R. J. and Laub, J. 1997. Crime in the making. Cambridge, MA Harvard University Press. Sampson, R. J. and Laub, J. 1993. Crime in the making: pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Santos, M. A. And Lopes, J. A. L. 2003. Popularity friendship and self concept, Psicologia: Teoria, investigala e pratica 8(2): 233-252. Santrock, J. W. 1990. Adolescence 4th ed. WMC Brown Publishers. Santrock, J. W. 2000. Psychology 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.S Sas L. and Jaffe, P. 1985. Understanding Depression in juvenile Delinquency: Implications for Institutional Admission Policies and Treatment programs Juvenile and Family Court: Journal 37: 49-58. Schaefer, R. T. 2001. Sociology 7th ed. International Edition. Boston : McGraw Hill. Schaefer, R. T. 2003. Sociology 5th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill.‘ Schmallenger, F. A. and Smykla, O. J. 2005. Corrections in the 21st century, Boston: McGraw Hill. Schmitz, M. F. 2003. Influences of race and family environment on child hyperactivity and antisocial behaviour. Journal of Marriage and the family, 65: 835-849. Schur, Edwin M., 1971. Labelling deviant behaviour: its sociological implications. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Seabloom, W., Seabloom, M. E., Seabloom, E., Barron, R. and Hendrickson, S. 2003. ―A 14 to 24-year longitudinal study of a comprehensive sexual health model treatment program for adolescent gender offenders: predictors of successful completion and subsequent criminal recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology: Vol. 47, 4: 468-481. Seigel, Larry J. 2002. Juvenile delinquency. Belmont: Wadsworth Group, 2002. Sherman L.W. and Smith D.A. 1992. Crime Punishment and stake in conformity: legal and informal control over domestic violence. American Sociological Review 57: 680-90. Sherman L. W. 1993. Defiance, deterrence and irrelevance: a theory of criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30: 445-73. Siegel, J. L., and Senna, J. J. 1994. Juvenile delinquency: theory practice law. Los Angeles West Publishing Company. Simons, R., Simons, L., Chen, Y., Brody, G. and Lin, K. 2007. Identifying the Psychological factors that mediate the association between parenting practices and delinquency. Journal of Criminology vol 45: 481-517. Singer .D and Singer J. 2001. Handbook of children and the media. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage. 147 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Smith, C. A. and Stern, S. B. 1997. Delinquency and antisocial behaviour: a review of family process and intervention research. Social Service Review, 71: 382-420. Smith, D. C. and Hall, J. A. 2008. Strenghts-oriented referrals for teens (SORT): giving balanced feedback to teens and families. Health and Social work 32(1): 69. Snyder, J. and Patterson, G. R. 1989. Family Interaction and Delinquent Behaviour. Handbook of juvenile delinquency. New York: Wiley 216-243. Snyder, H. N. 1998. Serious, violent and chronic juvenile offenders: an assessment of the extent of the trends in officially recognized serious criminal behaviour in a delinquent population. Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions. Loeber, Rolf and D. Farrington eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Snyder, H. and Sickmud, M. 2006. Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report Washington DC, US Department of Justice programmes, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency prevention. Snyder, H. M. 2008. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Juvenilearrests2006.RetrievedOctober15,2009fromhttp://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ ojjdp/221338.pdf Stahl, A. L. 2000 (September). Delinquency cases in juvenile courts. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Fact Sheet, 2. Steinberg, L. 1987. Single parents, stepparents, and the susceptibility of adolescents to antisocial peer pressure. Child Development 58(1): 269–275. Steinberge, L. 2002. Adolescence 6th ed. Boston: McGraw Hill Companies. Stevenson, C. and Larson, C. 1996. The juvenile court: analysis and recommendation. Future of Children, 6(3): 57-59. Stoolmiller, M. and Blechman, E. A. 2005. Substance use is a robust predictor of adolescent recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 32: 302–328. Strom, K. J. 2000. Profile of state prisoners under age 18, 1985-97. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report (NCJ, 193427). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Sutherland, E. H. 1947. Principles of criminology New York: J. B. Lippincott Co. Sutherland, E. H. and Cressey, D. R. 1974. Principles of criminology. New York, J. B. Lippincott Co. Tannenbaum, F. 1938. Crime and community. London and New York: Columbia University Press. Tenibiaje, D. J. 2000. Controlling crime and delinguency through the use of counselling therapies. Nigerian Journal of Counselling Education 2 (1): 110-116. Tenibiaje, D. J. 2011. Counselling psychology. Ibadan: Esthom Graphic Prints. 148 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Tenibaje, D. J. 2013. Educational attainment and peer group influence as predictors of recidivism: International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities Vol. 5, No. 1: 30-37. nd Tepperman, L., Curtis, L., and Albanese, P. 2008. Sociology: a Canadian perspective 2 ed. Oxford: University Press. Thompson, K.C. and Morris, R. J. 2013. Predicting recidivism among juvenile delinquents: comparison of risk factors for male and female offenders. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 3(1): 36-47. Thornberry, T. P.1987. Toward an interactional theory of delinquency. Criminology, 25, 4: 863-892. Thornberry, T. and Akron 1992. Delinquent peers, beliefs and delinquent behaviour: a longitudinal test of interactional theory (Working Paper no 6, rev: Albany N.Y. Rochester Youth Development Study, Hindelang Criminal Justice Research Center Page 8-30. Thornberry, T. P., Huizinga, D. and Loeber, R. 1995. The Prevention of serious delinquency and violence: implications from the program of research on the causes and correlates of delinquency. A Sourcebook: Serious, Violent and Chronic Juvenile Offenders, J. C. Howell, J. C., Krisberg, B., Hawkins, J. D. and Wilson, J. J. eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 213-237. Thornberry, T. P., Smith, C. A., Rivera, C., Huizinga, D., Stouthamer-Loeber, M. 1999. Family disruption and delinquency. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, US Department of Justice, Washington, D C, (NCJRS #178285), September. Tolan, P. H., Gorman-Smith, D. and Henry, D. B. 2003. The developmental ecology of urban males youth violence. Developmental Psychology 39: 247-291. Tolentino, M. 2001. The subordination of women in the print media profession: the state of education in Nigeria. Excellence Systems Limited, 52-69. Tremblay R. E. Craig W, M. Developmental juvenile delinquency prevention. Eur J Crim Res. Pol 1997; 5:34-49. Tresidder, J., Payne, J. and Homel, P. 2009. Measuring youth justice outcomes. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Tyler T. 1990. Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press. Udomisor, I. 2013. Management of radio and television stations in Nigeria. New Media and Mass Communication, 10: 224-267. Umbriet , M. S. 1994. Crime victims confront their offenders: the impact of a Minneapolis mediation programme. Research on Social Work Practice, 4 (4): 436- 447. US Census Bureau 2002. Current population survey: Design and Methodology. Technical paper #63RV. Washington. DC: US Census Bureau. 149 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY US Census Bureau 2007. Income poverty and health insurance coverage in the United States: 2006. Current population reports no. P60-233.Washington, DC: Census Bureau. US Surgeon General 2001. Youth violence: a report of the Surgeon General. Washington DC: US Government printing office. UNICEF, 2011 Nigeria-Fact Sheet Child Rights legislation in Nigeria. Ungar, M. 2000. The myth of Peer pressure: adolescents and their search for health- enhancing identities. Adolescence, 35(137): 167-180. Uwakwe, V. 2011. in Juvenile Justice administration system and factors militating against effective Juvenile Justice Administration in Nigeria. Verbrugge, P., Nunes, K., Johnson, S. and Taylor, K., 2002. Predictors of revocation of conditional release among substance abusing women offenders. Ottawa, Ontario: Correctional Service of Canada. Vinter, D. R. 1976. Time out: a national study of juvenile correction: programmes Ann Arbor, Mich: National Association of Juvenile Corrections, 20-53. Visher, Christy, A. 2003. Transitions from prison to community: understanding individual pathways. The Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, District of Columbia Washington, 20037. Walklate, S. 2003. Understanding criminology current theoretical debates, 2nd ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press: Buckingham. War, M., and Stafford M. 1991. Influence of delinquent peers: what they think or what they do . Criminology Volume 29: 851-866. Warr, M. 1993. (September). Parents, Peers, and Delinquency. Social Forces. Vol. 72, 1: 247-264. Warr, M. 1993. Age, peers and delinquency. Criminology (31): 17-40 Wasserman, G. A. and Seracini, A. G. 2001. Family risk factors and interventions: child delinquents: development, intervention, and service needs, R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,165-189. West, D. J., and Farrington, D.P. 1973. Who becomes delinquent? London, England: Heinemann. World Health Organization, 2002. World report on violence and health: Summary. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO). World Youth Report, 2003. The global situation of young people (Sale No. 03. IV.7 United Nations Publication: Dept Press New York. Wiium, N. Brevivik, and Wold, B. 2006. The relationship between smoker role models and intentions to smoke among adolescents. Journal of youth and Adolescents 35: 551-562. 150 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Williams, J., and Sickles, R. C. 2000. An analysis of the crime as work model: evidence from the 1958 Philadelphia Birth Cohort Study, Working Paper, University of Adelaide. Winter, Ian 2000. Towards a theorized understanding of family life and social capital. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Witte, A. D., and Tauchen, H. 1994. Work and crime: an exploration using panel data, Public Finance 49: 155-167. Wright, Kevin N. and Karen E. Wright. 1994. Family life, delinquency, and crime: a policymaker’s guide. Research Summary. Washington DC: OJJDP. 4-21. Wright K. N. and Wright K. E. 1995. Family life, delinquency, and crime: A Policy Maker‘s Guide. OJJDP Research Summary. Washington DC: Department of JuvenileDelinquencyPrevention,August.Http://www.senate.state.tx.US/75R/senate /commit/archive/IC/IC18APPF.PDF (Retrieved June 17, 2009). Wright, B., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T., and Silva, P. 1999. Low self control, social bonds, and crime: Social causation, social selection, or both. Criminology, 37(3): 479-514. Yablonsky, L. and Haskell, M. R. 1988. Juvenile delinquency. 4th ed. New York: Harper and Collins. York: Picador (St Martin‘s Press). Yong, J. N. 1971. Advantage of group therapy in relation to individual therapy for juvenile delinquents. Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of Social Therapy 17: 37- 71. Ziglar, E., Taussig, C., and Black , K., 1992. Early childhood interventions: a promising preventive for juvenile delinquency. American Psychologist 47: 997-1006. 151 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY QUESTIONNAIRE DEPARTMENT OF ADULT EDUCATION FACULTY OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN RESEARCH TITLE: SOCIAL AND REMAND HOME RELATED FACTORS AS DETERMINANTS OF RECIDIVISM AMONG JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN OYO AND LAGOS STATES, NIGERIA. Dear Respondents, This questionnaire is designed to investigate some Indices of Juvenile Recidivism among juvenile offenders in Oyo and Lagos States, Nigeria. Your response to the questions designed to achieve this objective will be treated confidentially and is for academic purpose only. Thank you for your anticipated co-operation SECTION A Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Tick as appropriate or necessary: 1 Name of juvenile home------------- 2 Location of the juvenile home--------------- 3 Sex: (a) Male ( ) (b) Female ( ) 4 Age: specify------ 5 Class Range: (a) JS I-111 (b) SS 1-111 (c) Not in school 6 Religion: (a) Christianity (b) Muslim (c) Others specify------- 7 Marital status of parents: (a) Single Parent (b) Married (c) Separated (d) Divorce (e) widow/widower 152 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY (f) Others specify ---- 8 Are you staying with guardian: specify----- 9 What is your relationship with your guardian------- 10 Education qualification of Parents/guardian Father Mother Guardian (a) Ph.D (b) Master‘s/Professional certificate (c) First degree/HND (d) N.C.E (e) W.A.E.C. (f) First School Leaving Certificate (g) No school (h) Quranic Education 11 Parent‘s occupation: Father Mother Guardian (a) Professional (b) Civil Servant (c) Businessman (d) Artisans (e) Farming (f) Other specify 12 Indicate whether your parents are still alive? Yes No Father Mother 153 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY SECTION B FAMILY BCKGROUND SCALE Instruction: Kindly read through the following statements and rate accordingly. You are to tick () your appropriate response to each of the following questionnaire items. S/N Items SA A D SD 1 My parents are responsive to my feelings and needs. 2 My parents do not care for me. 3 My parents are always harsh on me. 4 My parents are separated/divorced. 5 My parents do not have time to monitor what I do. 6 I experience a lot of violence in my home. 7 My parents only approve doing what they want. 8 My parents are always angry when I do things I wish to do. 9 My parents beat me when they do not like what I do. 10 In my neighbourhood there are a lot of deviant youths. 11 My parents find it difficult to discipline me when I go wrong. 12 My parents allow me to do whatever I desire without questioning me. 13 My guardian do not care about me. 14 My guardian are too harsh on me. 15 I feel like running away from my guardian‘s house. 154 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY PEER INFLUENCE SCALE Instruction: Kindly read through the following statements and rate accordingly. You are to tick (√) your appropriate response to each of the questionnaire items. S/N ITEMS Strongly Agr Not Disagree Strongly Agree ee Sure disagree 1 I have friends that teach me what to do. 2 Most of what my parents hide from me I learn from my peers. 3 I have many friends. 4 I cherish being in the company of my friends than any other thing. 5 My friends are generally well behaved 6 My friends and I engage in youthful exuberance. 7 My dressing habit is influenced by my peers. 8 I have some notorious friends. 9 My drinking habit is influenced by my peers. 10 I have often watched pornographic films from my peers. 11 I get pornographic films from my peers. 12 My friends connect me with new friends of shady character. 13 I learnt some bad habits from my friends. 155 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY SELF-ESTEEM SCALE Instruction: Kindly read through the following statements and rate accordingly. You are to tick (√) your appropriate response to each of the following questionnaire items. S/N Items Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Disagree 1 On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. 2 At times, I think I am not good at all. 3 I feel useless at all times. 4 I am not able to do things as well as most other people. 5 I feel I do not have much to be proud of. 6 I feel bad because people do not like me. 7 I do not like the way I am treated by others. 8 Nobody wants to identify with me. 9 I suffer rejection anywhere I go. 10 They abuse me anywhere I go. 11 I am making steady progress in life. 12 I am at the same level with my age mates. 13 I am better than some of my age mates. 14 I can be better than what I have presently achieved. 15 I feel bad about myself in relation to what I have achieved in life. 16 I can do better than I am presently doing. 156 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Recidivism Scale Instruction: kindly read through the following statements and rate accordingly. You are to tick (√) your appropriate response to each of the following questionnaire items. S/N Items Not very Not true True of Very true true to me of me me of me 1 I have been corrected previously. 2 I have had a pardon during my past correction. 3 I have tried to escape from remand home once. 4 I have been previously corrected for assault. 5 I was in school as at the time I was first corrected. 6 I was out of school as at the time I was in the remand home again. 7 The interval between my last corrections to this present admission is short. 9 I have so many dependents before I was brought back. 10 I was previously corrected for sex offence. 11 I was previously corrected for burglary. 12 I had a job at the time I was apprehended again. 13 I did not learn any lesson during my last visit to the Remand Home. 157 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY Remand Home Factors Scale Instruction: kindly read through the following statements and rate accordingly. You are to tick (√) your appropriate response to each of the questionnaire items. S/N Items Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree Agree disagree 1 The home brings you in contact with other deviants. 2 You learn some of the things you do from your friends in the home. 3 You offend because your friends in the home influenced you to do so. 4 There is a lot of warmth and care in the home. 5 The remand home is a better place to stay. 6 The workers in the home are too hostile. 7 Hostility is the order of the day outside the remand Home. 8 You are exposed to violent films/movies in the home. 9 Workers in the home treat us like their children. 10 You experience violence in the home and outside the home. 11 I made many friends in the home. 12 I learnt many things from trial in the home. 13 I learnt to be smarter in the home. 14 I kept in touch with friends I met during my last visit to the home. 15 I learnt more terrible things from friends I met in the home. 158 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY MEDIA CONTENT SCALE Instruction: Kindly read through the following statements and rate accordingly. You are to tick (√) your appropriate response to each of the questionnaire items. ID QUESTION S Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly disagree agree 1 You relapse to antisocial behaviour because of the kind of violent films you watch on television. 2 You go back to antisocial life because of the type of music you listen to. 3 The video games you indulge in makes you to go back to antisocial activity. 4 Exposure to violence makes you behave the way you do. 5 The violence in the family environment, movies, films influences your way of life. 6 The violent behaviour you exhibit emanates from your exposure to such in your daily activities. 7 The community you live is known for violence. 8 In my family I watch a lot of violent movies. 9 My parents do not care about what I watch. 10 I cannot do without watching violent movies. 11 I am free to watch any programme in the television. 12 I am free to see any channel on the Internet. 13 My daily activities are influenced by what I watch on the television. 159 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 14 My daily activities are influenced by what I read in the newspaper. 15 Do you have decoder at home? 16 There is a particular period of watching films each day. 17 Do you have DVD at home? FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1 What were you doing before you were brought to the home? 2 Why do you reoffend after correction? 3 Does your family background contribute to your reoffending? 4 The films/television you watch does it contribute to your reoffending? 5 Do your friends influence you into antisocial activities after receiving correction? 6 Does the rejection you face after correction contribute to your antisocial behaviour? 160 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY APPENDIX 161 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 162 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 163 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 164 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 165 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 166 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 167 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY 168 UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY