i PSYCHOSOCIAL DETERMINANTS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY AMONG PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN EMBAKASI EAST SUBCOUNTY NAIROBI, KENYA KOLLI RACHAEL MUMBUA A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF A MASTER OF ARTS DEGREE IN SECURITY STUDIES AND CRIMINOLOGY OF MOUNT KENYA UNIVERSITY JUNE, 2025 ii DECLARATION AND APPROVAL iii DEDICATION This research is devoted to my Parents, Thank you Dad and Mom, am grateful for your infinite love, unending support and encouragement. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I take this opportunity to begin by thanking the Almighty God for life and health, secondly my supervisor Dr Catherine Kirimi (Ph.D.) for the pearls of wisdom you shared with me, your diligent effort, timely response and consistency with me is very much appreciated. I would love to appreciate my parents for the emotional as well as financial support, thank you Dad and Mom, lastly to appreciate my friends for the ideas exchanged and implemented v ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to investigate Psychosocial Determinants and Their Influence on Juvenile Delinquency among Public Secondary School Students in Embakasi East Sub-county Nairobi, Kenya. This research examined how key psychosocial factors such as family dynamics, peer influence, and socio-economic conditions contributed to delinquent behavior among adolescents in this region. The study also proposes intervention strategies to mitigate juvenile delinquency in selected public secondary schools within Embakasi East Sub-County. The study was grounded in ecological and strain theories, offering a comprehensive framework for understanding the environmental influences and pressures faced by students. A mixed-methods and descriptive survey design was employed, utilizing both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative data were collected using structured questionnaires, while qualitative insights were gathered through semi-structured interviews with 15 teachers and 5 school administrators. A sample size of 360 respondents was determined using Slovin's formula, ensuring adequate representation from the target population of 3,601 students. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, with results presented in tables and charts. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and frequencies, highlighted the significance of socio-economic status (mean = 4.63, SD = 0.942) as the most influential psychosocial determinant of juvenile delinquency, followed by family dynamics (mean = 4.52, SD = 0.908) and peer influence (mean = 4.44, SD = 0.723). Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that socio-economic status and family dynamics are significant contributors to delinquent behavior, while peer influence showed a weaker association. Additionally, the analysis revealed a weak positive relationship between the psychosocial factors and juvenile delinquency, with only 9.9% of the variation in delinquency being explained by the predictors. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically, identifying three key themes: peer influence, family dynamics, and socio- economic status. Peer influence emerged as a critical factor, with students mimicking risky behaviors from peers. Family dynamics, particularly family structure and parental neglect, were found to strongly influence students’ likelihood of engaging in delinquent behavior. Socio- economic status was also identified as a major contributing factor, with students from low-income backgrounds facing greater challenges in terms of academic performance and emotional well- being. The findings underscore the importance of addressing both family and socio-economic factors in efforts to reduce juvenile delinquency. Based on these results, the study recommends that schools and community-based programs focus on fostering positive peer interactions collaborate with social services to provide family support, and establish mental health services to support students. Schools should also create safe, supportive environments that discourage delinquent behaviors. vi Table of Contents DECLARATION AND APPROVAL .......................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................................... iv ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... x LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ..................................................................................... xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 12 1.1 Background to the study ................................................................................................................... 12 1.2 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................................. 14 1.3 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................................... 15 1.4 Objectives of the Study ..................................................................................................................... 15 1.5 Research Questions ........................................................................................................................... 16 1.6 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................... 16 1.7 Justification of the Study .................................................................................................................. 17 1.8 Scope of the Study ............................................................................................................................ 17 1.9 Study Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 18 1.10 Delimitation of the Study ................................................................................................................ 18 1.11 Assumption of the Study ................................................................................................................. 18 1.12 Operational Definition of Terms ..................................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 21 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 Empirical Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 21 2.2.1 Family Dynamic ......................................................................................................................... 21 2.2.2 Peer Influence ............................................................................................................................ 22 2.2.3 Socio-economic Status ............................................................................................................... 25 2.3 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................................... 27 vii 2.3.1 Ecological Theory ...................................................................................................................... 27 2.3.2 Strain Theory ............................................................................................................................. 28 2.4 conceptual frameworks ..................................................................................................................... 28 2.5 Research Gap .................................................................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN .................................................... 31 3.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Research Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 31 3.2 Research Design ................................................................................................................................ 31 3.3 Location of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 32 3.4 Target Population .............................................................................................................................. 32 3.5 Sampling procedures and Technique ................................................................................................ 33 3.6 Sample population ............................................................................................................................ 33 3.7 Construction of research instruments ................................................................................................ 34 3.8 Testing for Validity and Reliability/Trustworthiness ....................................................................... 34 3.9 Data Collection Methods and Procedures ......................................................................................... 35 3.10 Proposed Data Analysis Techniques and Procedures ..................................................................... 35 3.11 Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................................. 36 CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION .............................. 36 4.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 36 4.1 Response Rate ................................................................................................................................... 37 4.2 Reliability and Validity results ......................................................................................................... 37 4.2.1 Validity Test ............................................................................................................................... 37 4.2.2 Reliability Test ........................................................................................................................... 37 4.3 Demographic ..................................................................................................................................... 39 4.3.1 Age of the Respondents ............................................................................................................. 39 4.3.2 Gender of the Respondent .......................................................................................................... 40 4.3.3 Level of education ...................................................................................................................... 41 4.4 Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................................................... 42 4.4.1 Peer influence ............................................................................................................................. 42 4.4.2 Family Dynamics ....................................................................................................................... 45 4.4.3 Socio Economic status ............................................................................................................... 47 viii 4.4.4 Juvenile Delinquency ................................................................................................................. 49 4.4.5 Summary of the mean Score ...................................................................................................... 50 4.5 Inferential Statistics .......................................................................................................................... 52 4.5.1 Correlation Analysis .................................................................................................................. 52 4.5.2 Multiple Linear Regression Analysis ......................................................................................... 53 4.6 Interview Data Analysis (Thematic Analysis) .................................................................................. 58 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 59 5.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 59 5.1 Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................................ 59 5.1.1 Quantitative findings .................................................................................................................. 59 5.1.2 Qualitative findings .................................................................................................................... 63 5.2 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 65 5.3 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 67 5.4Suggestions for Further Study............................................................................................................ 69 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 71 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 76 APPENDIX I: LETTER OF INTRODUCTION. ...................................................................................... 76 APPENDIX II: INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR PARENTAL/GUARDIAN CONSENT .............. 77 APPENDIX III: QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................................................... 80 Section 1: Peer Influence ........................................................................................................................ 81 Section 2: Family Dynamics ................................................................................................................... 82 Section 3: Socio-Economic Status .......................................................................................................... 84 APPENDIX IV: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE FOR THE TEACHERS AND ADMNISTRATORS .......... 85 APPENDIX V: WORK PLAN ................................................................................................................... 86 APPENDIX VI: WORK BUDGET ............................................................................................................ 86 APPENDIX VII:ERC ................................................................................................................................. 89 APPENDIX VIII: INTRODUCATION LETTER ...................................................................................... 90 APPENDIX IX: NACOSTI ........................................................................................................................ 91 APPENDIX X: TURNITIN ........................................................................................................................ 92 .................................................................................................................................................................... 93 APPENDIX XI: MAP OF EMBAKASI EAST SUB-COUNTY ............................................................... 94 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 3. 1 Target Population ....................................................................................................................... 32 Table 3. 2 Sample Size ................................................................................................................................ 33 Table 4. 1 Average Reliability of Psychosocial Determinant ..................................................................... 37 Table 4. 2 Reliability and Validity Results ................................................................................................. 38 Table 4. 3 Peer Influence ............................................................................................................................ 42 Table 4. 4 Family Dynamics ....................................................................................................................... 45 Table 4. 5 Socio-Economic Status .............................................................................................................. 47 Table 4. 6 Juvenile Delinquency ................................................................................................................. 49 Table 4. 7 Mean Score ................................................................................................................................ 50 Table 4. 8 Correlation Matrix ..................................................................................................................... 52 Table 4. 9 Model Summary ........................................................................................................................ 54 Table 4. 10 Anova ....................................................................................................................................... 55 Table 4. 11 Regression coefficients ............................................................................................................ 56 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2. 1 Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................. 29 Figure 4. 1 Age group respondents ............................................................................................................. 39 Figure 4. 2 Gender Group Respondents ...................................................................................................... 40 Figure 4. 3 Level of Education.................................................................................................................... 41 xi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS NCRC- National Crime Research Centre OJJDP- Office Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention UNODC – United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime WHO – World Health Organization 12 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reported in 2021 that juvenile delinquency is a major universal concern contributing to rising crime rates and social unrest. In response, both governments and international organizations are working to develop new systems aimed at reducing the number of deviant students. Similarly, the World Bank in its 2020 report emphasized that juvenile delinquency is often rooted in broader socio-economic issues, including family instability, peer influence, and financial hardship. These factors, if not addressed, can lead to cycles of violence, higher incarceration rates, and increased economic instability. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime also highlighted that millions of juveniles globally interact with the criminal justice system annually, many of whom are secondary school students experiencing academic and social struggles. It further identified key contributors to delinquency, such as the absence of parental guidance, exposure to crime-prone neighborhoods, and poverty. In the United States, data from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 2020 showed that juveniles constituted 13% of all arrests, with a notable concentration among students from low-income communities where dropout rates, truancy, and gang involvement are high. In Europe, although overall juvenile crime rates have declined, Eurostat reported in 2019 that approximately 75% of young offenders had experienced family breakdown or social exclusion issues that negatively impact school attendance and behavior. In Latin America, the World Bank reported in 2021 that over 60% of juvenile arrests in Brazil and Mexico were linked to gang involvement, with most of those arrested being school dropouts or students with persistent academic difficulties. Across Africa, the United Nations Children’s Fund explained in its 2020 findings that economic hardship and limited educational access have driven up rates of juvenile offenses by 30% over the past decade. These offenses are often connected to school dropout, unemployment, and the absence of clear career prospects. Such findings point to the need for comprehensive school-based interventions, mentorship, and socio-economic support mechanisms that reduce youths’ vulnerability to crime. Farrington, in his 2019 study, explored the effects of family instability and found that children brought up in broken homes, abusive households, or those lacking parental supervision are at 13 greater risk of engaging in delinquency. Complementing this view, Hirschi in 2017 identified peer influence as one of the most powerful predictors of juvenile crime, particularly in urban environments where gang culture thrives. In line with these findings, the World Bank reiterated in 2020 that poverty, unemployment, and lack of access to education often push youths toward illegal activities as a means of survival. UNICEF, in a 2020 report titled School-Based Approaches to Juvenile Justice Reform, emphasized that school-centered interventions are crucial to reducing adolescent delinquency. The report highlighted programs in Sweden and Canada where counseling, peer mediation, and mentorship led to lower dropout rates and reduced criminal behavior among at-risk students. The World Health Organization, through its 2019 study Adolescent Health and Risk Factors, revealed a strong link between adolescent misbehavior and childhood trauma, including domestic violence, neglect, and substance abuse. These home-based stressors often translate into school difficulties and increased involvement in gang-related and criminal behavior. As a result, WHO advocated early interventions such as peer support, mental health services in schools, and integrated efforts between social welfare institutions and education systems In its 2021 report titled Alternatives to Incarceration for Youth Offenders, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime outlined the success of community-based diversion programs for juveniles. These included skills development, after-school activities, and restorative justice initiatives designed to divert students from criminal pathways and the formal justice system. Collectively, such studies highlight the importance of supportive, rehabilitative, and school-based strategies over punitive responses. In the African context, UNICEF noted in 2020 that school-going juveniles face numerous challenges including inadequate resources, high dropout rates, and limited mentorship, making them susceptible to criminal behavior. In South Africa, youth offenses involving violence, drug use, and gang activity have risen by 30% over the last decade, largely as a result of poverty and poor access to quality education. Similarly, the World Bank documented in 2020 that students in Kenya and Nigeria from economically disadvantaged backgrounds often turn to petty crime, truancy, and substance abuse in response to financial stress and the lack of constructive after- school engagements. UNICEF further reported that in informal settlements across cities such as 14 Nairobi and Lagos, school-going juveniles frequently encounter peer pressure, gang exposure, and unstable family environments factors that elevate the risk of delinquency. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime also drew attention to Nairobi’s informal areas, including Embakasi East Sub-County, as hotspots for juvenile challenges such as school dropout, truancy, drug use, and gang involvement problems frequently linked to poverty and parental neglect. A 2020 study by UNICEF titled Urban Youth and Delinquency in Developing Countries found that many secondary school students from underprivileged families resorted to minor criminal acts like theft and drug trafficking out of economic desperation. Supporting these findings, the National Crime Research Centre in 2021, through its report Youth Crime and Urbanization in Kenya, observed that criminal gangs in Nairobi actively recruit students, often luring them with monetary incentives. The Ministry of Education in 2021 also reported a surge in school unrest, arson attacks, and violence within Kenyan secondary schools, attributing the rise to weak disciplinary frameworks, lack of mentorship, and insufficient psychosocial support. Without timely interventions, career guidance programs, and community-based support, school-going youth in urban centers such as Embakasi East face an elevated risk of delinquency. Combating these challenges, calls for a coordinated effort involving schools, parents, community organizations, and law enforcement agencies to implement restorative and preventive strategies that shield students from criminal influences. 1.2 Statement of the Problem Juvenile delinquency among secondary school students in Embakasi East Sub-County, Nairobi, has become a growing concern, with increasing reports of truancy, substance abuse, school unrest, and involvement in petty crimes. According to the National Crime Research Centre’s 2021 report Youth Crime and Urbanization in Kenya, many of these behaviors are prevalent in urban informal settlements, including areas within Embakasi East, where school-going adolescents face heightened exposure to criminal gangs, drug abuse, and poor school attendance. Despite the implementation of various interventions, these issues persist, suggesting that key psycho-social drivers such as family instability, peer pressure, and economic deprivation are not being effectively addressed. Farrington, in his 2019 study Family Instability and Juvenile Crime emphasized that broken homes, domestic violence, and lack of parental supervision significantly elevate a child’s risk of engaging in delinquent behavior. This is reinforced by Hirsch’s, (2017) work Causes of 15 Delinquency, which identifies peer influence, especially in urban settings with a strong gang presence, as one of the most powerful predictors of juvenile crime. Further compounding the problem is the active recruitment of students into gangs, particularly in economically challenged neighborhoods where weak mentorship structures and inadequate school-based support leave adolescents vulnerable. The Ministry of Education’s 2021 report Status of Discipline and Safety in Kenyan Schools observed that the rise in school unrest, arson, and violence in secondary schools’ points to a lack of effective psychosocial support and guidance systems. Similarly, the United Nations Children’s Fund in its 2020 publication Urban Youth and Delinquency in Developing Countries emphasized that school-going youth in Nairobi’s informal settlements often resort to petty crimes as a survival mechanism due to social exclusion and economic hardship. While studies by global institutions such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime in 2021 and the World Bank in 2020 have explored juvenile delinquency in Kenya, much of the existing research tends to take a national or regional approach, with limited focus on the specific context of public secondary school students in Embakasi East Sub-County. This gap in localized data hinders the formulation of targeted, evidence-based interventions. Therefore, this study seeks to examine how psycho-social factors specifically family dynamics, peer pressure, and socio- economic conditions contribute to juvenile delinquency in this area. Gaining a deeper understanding of these underlying issues will offer valuable, data-driven insights for educators, policymakers, and community stakeholders in designing more effective school-based interventions, structured mentorship programs, and community-level support systems. Addressing these root causes is essential for reducing delinquent behavior among students and improving their overall academic and social well-being. 1.3 Purpose of the Study The Purpose of the study is to investigate the Psycho-social determinants on Juvenile delinquency among Secondary Schools Students in Embakasi- East Sub County, Nairobi, Kenya. 1.4 Objectives of the Study I. To investigate the Psychosocial Determinants and Their Influence on Juvenile Delinquency among Public Secondary School Students in Embakasi East Sub-county, Nairobi Kenya. 16 II. To examine the Psychosocial Determinants and Their Influence on Juvenile Delinquency among Public Secondary School Students in Embakasi East Sub-county Nairobi, Kenya. III. To identify the Psychosocial Determinants and Their Influence on Juvenile Delinquency among Public Secondary School Students in Embakasi East Sub-county Nairobi, Kenya. IV. To come up with intervention Strategies to curb Juvenile Delinquency among public secondary student in Embakasi- East Sub County, Nairobi Kenya. 1.5 Research Questions I. What is the Psychosocial Determinants and Their Influence on Juvenile Delinquency among Public Secondary School Students in Embakasi East Sub-county Nairobi, Kenya.? II. How does peer pressure influence juvenile delinquency among public secondary students in Embakasi East Sub County, Nairobi, Kenya? III. What is the influence of socio-economic status on juvenile delinquency among public secondary students in Embakasi East Sub County, Nairobi, Kenya? IV. What intervention strategies can be developed to curb juvenile delinquency among public secondary students in Embakasi East Sub County, Nairobi, Kenya? 1.6 Significance of the Study The Study allows for comprehensive understanding of the underlying causes of delinquent behavior by examining family-dynamic, peer pressure, and socio-economic status. This understanding will inform targeted interventions that address specific challenges, such as improving family support systems, enhancing peer relationships, and fostering a positive school environment. Moreover, insights gained from this research can guide policy-makers in creating laws and regulations that promote youth welfare, including education policies and community support initiatives. By focusing on these psychosocial determinants, the study will help develop support systems for at-risk youth, promote healthy emotional and social development, and inform community-based programs that engage young people in constructive activities. Ultimately, this research will raise awareness among parents, educators, and the community about the complex interplay of factors influencing juvenile behavior, contributing to long-term social benefits such as reduced crime rates and improved educational outcomes. 17 1.7 Justification of the Study Juvenile delinquency remains a pressing concern in Kenya, particularly in urban centers like Embakasi East Sub-County, where socio-economic challenges, family instability, and peer influence significantly contribute to delinquent behavior among secondary school students. Studies by Omboto, Ondiek, Odera, and Ayugi in 2013, as presented in their work Factors Influencing Youth Crime and Juvenile Delinquency in Kenya, reveal that rapid urbanization, poverty, and inadequate parental supervision are key drivers of juvenile involvement in criminal activities. Similarly, Mutiso, Wanjiru, and Kimani in 2021, through their study of Urban Crime and School-Age Offending in Nairobi, underscore the influence of broken family structures and peer pressure in shaping deviant behavior among adolescents. Despite these findings, there remains a significant gap in localized research focusing specifically on public secondary school students in Embakasi East and the psycho-social factors influencing their conduct. Interventions such as community policing, school guidance programs and behavioral counseling have been introduced; however, their effectiveness remains largely unverified due to limited empirical evaluation within this context. Nyaga's, (2019) analysis in Education and Juvenile Behavior in Urban Kenya and Wambua's, (2020) study titled The Role of Parenting and School Systems in Curbing Juvenile Delinquency both advocate for context-specific studies that offer actionable insights. This study seeks to fill that gap by examining the extent to which family dynamics, peer relationships, and socio-economic status influence juvenile delinquency, thereby informing the development of more targeted interventions for parents, educators, and policymakers in the region. 1.8 Scope of the Study This study will be conducted in Nairobi County, specifically Embakasi East Sub-County, focusing on public secondary schools within the sub-county. The selection of Nairobi County is based on its convenience and its status as a highly urbanized region, where rapid urbanization, industrialization, and globalization have contributed to socio-economic challenges influencing juvenile delinquency. A study by Kariuki-Githinji (2020) highlighted that urban cities produce more delinquent adolescents due to urbanization, making Embakasi East an ideal setting to explore how psychosocial determinants such as family dynamics, peer influence, and socio-economic conditions contribute to delinquent behavior. The research will be grounded in ecological and strain theories, which suggest that delinquency is shaped by the environment and social pressures. 18 This study aims to provide evidence-based insights into the ways these factors interact to influence juvenile delinquency among students in an urban educational setting. 1.9 Study Limitations This study may encounter several limitations; the small sample size of 360 secondary school students in Embakasi East Sub-County may restrict the generalizability of the findings to other regions. Additionally, obtaining honest responses from students regarding delinquent behaviors may be difficult due to fear of stigma or disciplinary action, leading to social desirability bias .To address these limitations, the researcher will use stratified random sampling to ensure diverse representation of students from different schools within Embakasi East Sub-County Wards. To minimize social desirability bias, respondents will be assured of anonymity and confidentiality, encouraging them to provide honest responses. 1.10 Delimitation of the Study The study is delimited to Specific Objectives which include family-dynamic, peer influence, and socioeconomic factors, which helps provide a structured analysis of the psychosocial influences on juvenile delinquency among secondary students. Moreover, the research is geographically confined to Embakasi-East Sub County, allowing for an in-depth examination of local factors affecting delinquency while potentially limiting the applicability of the findings to other regions with different socio-economic and cultural contexts. By acknowledging these limitations and delimitations, the study will be effectively contextualized, offering clarity on the scope and applicability of its findings. 1.11 Assumption of the Study The Study operates under the assumption that participants will provide truthful responses during data collection. This foundational belief in the honesty of participant responses forms a crucial aspect of the research methodology. The assumption is based on the expectation that participants, including secondary school students, will candidly share their experiences related to juvenile delinquency. Recognizing the sensitivity of the subject matter, the study places trust in the willingness of participants to disclose accurate information, allowing for a more authentic understanding of the complex dynamics at play. While the assumption of truthful responses provides valuable insights, it is also acknowledged that social desirability bias or other factors may influence participants' self-disclosure 19 1.12 Operational Definition of Terms Psychosocial determinants – interplay between psychological and social factors that influence an individual's behavior and mental processes. Family Dynamics- A child's behavior and development shaped by the relationships, roles, and interactions that take place inside the family. Peer influence- Positive or negative effect that students have on other fellow students that influences their character and conduct. Socio-economic Status- the degree of wealth, education or occupation that influences the type of live they live; It affects their access to basic needs, opportunities, and overall quality of life. Juvenile Delinquency – Unlawful or deviant behavior by individuals under the age of 18, such as truancy, substance abuse, and theft. Secondary School Students – Learners aged approximately 13–18 years enrolled in public secondary schools. Public Secondary Schools – Government funded institutions offering secondary-level education under Kenya’s curriculum. School-Based Interventions – Structured programs within schools (e.g., counseling, peer mediation) aimed at addressing risky behaviors. Mentorship Programs – Support systems where students receive guidance from responsible adults or peers to promote good behavior and personal development. Youth Gangs – Informal and often criminal groups that recruit vulnerable adolescents for illegal activities. Substance Abuse – The use or misuse of drugs and alcohol often linked to poor academic performance and criminal behavior. Truancy – Frequent or habitual absenteeism from school without valid reason, often a sign of deeper behavioral or social issues. 20 Delinquent Behavior –actions that violates laws, particularly among adolescents (for instance; violence, stealing, defiance). Informal Settlements – Urban areas marked by poverty, poor infrastructure, and limited services often breeding grounds for crime. Psychosocial Support – Mental, emotional, and social services provided to help students cope with challenges and reduce behavioral risks. Community-Based Programs – these are Local efforts involving schools, families, and organizations to guide youth and prevent delinquency. Preventive Strategies – Proactive approaches such as awareness, guidance, and life skills programs to stop delinquency before it begins. 21 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction This section explores prior studies on the influence of psychosocial determinants on Juvenile Delinquency among public Secondary School Students. This chapter presents empirical as well as theoretical review. Furthermore, this study highlights the gaps identified in the literature and introduces the conceptual framework to depict the relationships between the variables. In conclusion, the research and knowledge gaps are discussed. 2.2 Empirical Literature Review This section provides an overview of relevant empirical literature on the topic, focusing on their methodologies and findings. 2.2.1 Family Dynamic A dysfunctional family and poor parental supervision are widely recognized as strong predictors of juvenile delinquency among secondary school students. In their study, Hoeve, Dubas, Gerris, Van der Laan, and Smeenk (2012) demonstrated that adolescents exposed to inconsistent parenting characterized by a lack of supervision, weak emotional bonds, and inadequate discipline are more prone to exhibit delinquent behavior. Similarly, Gottfredson and Hirschi (2019), in A General Theory of Crime, argued that ineffective parenting, whether overly strict or permissive, fosters rebellion among adolescents, leading to school truancy and disciplinary problems. Murray and Farrington (2010), in their work The Effects of Parental Imprisonment on Children, revealed that adolescents with incarcerated parents often display disruptive behavior in school, which heightens their risk of suspension and involvement in crime. Sampson and Laub (2017), in Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life, emphasized that adolescents raised in homes plagued by domestic violence, substance abuse, or parental neglect tend to struggle with emotional regulation and social interaction, making them susceptible to joining delinquent peer groups. A study by Okoth, (2020) titled Parental Neglect and Juvenile Delinquency Among Secondary School Students in Nairobi County, found that adolescents from abusive and neglectful households developed aggressive behaviors that often manifested as indiscipline in school. The study noted a strong correlation between family conflict and poor academic performance, as students from unstable homes had difficulty concentrating and staying motivated in their studies. 22 The National Crime Research Centre (2021), in its report Status of Juvenile Delinquency in Kenya, highlighted that in urban areas such as Embakasi East Sub-County, students from broken families exhibited a higher likelihood of engaging in petty crimes, gang-related activities, and substance abuse. The report attributed these behaviors to weak parental structures, alcoholism, and the lack of a supportive home environment. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2021), in its findings on Nairobi’s informal settlements, established that high rates of juvenile crime were associated with family-related factors such as economic hardship, parental absenteeism, and exposure to domestic conflict. In Embakasi East specifically, adolescents from low-income households often turned to peer groups involved in crime as a coping mechanism. Further, the Ministry of Education (2021), in its report Status of Discipline and Unrest in Secondary Schools in Kenya, emphasized that the increase in school-related offenses such as arson, drug use, and violence was closely linked to weak mentorship programs, lack of psychosocial support, and ineffective disciplinary structures. The report underlined that students experiencing family instability often exhibited behavioral challenges in school, leading to frequent clashes with school authorities and peers. Ward, Van der Merwe, and Dawes (2016), in Youth Violence: Sources and Solutions in South Africa, also found that students raised in single-parent households especially those lacking consistent paternal figures showed elevated tendencies toward absenteeism, indiscipline, and association with gangs, findings which reflect similar patterns in low-income urban areas of Kenya. 2.2.2 Peer Influence Adolescent conduct is heavily shaped by the peer group’s students associate with, particularly during secondary school years. Numerous empirical studies have confirmed that peers can act as agents of either prosocial development or deviant behavior. In the context of juvenile delinquency, negative peer influence has been linked to behaviors such as truancy, substance abuse, violence, and academic misconduct. Hirschi (2017), in his study Social Bond Theory, argued that when family ties are weak and parental supervision is absent, adolescents are more likely to seek emotional support and validation 23 from their peers. This pursuit of social acceptance, especially in unregulated environments, often leads them to adopt delinquent behaviors promoted within their peer circles. Thornberry, Lizotte, Krohn, and Farnworth (2018), in The Developmental and Life-Course Perspective on Juvenile Delinquency, found that peer group affiliation is one of the strongest and most consistent predictors of delinquency. The study revealed that adolescents who socialize with peers involved in violent behavior and drug use tend to mimic these actions, reinforcing the group’s antisocial norms and making disengagement increasingly difficult. Patterson and Dishion (2019), in their work Peer Influences and Adolescent Problem Behavior, demonstrated that adolescents exposed to negative peer influence are more likely to display defiance, aggression, and school-related misconduct. The study highlighted that peer pressure often overrides guidance provided by parents or teachers, particularly when adolescents perceive peer validation as more immediate or emotionally fulfilling. Junger-Tas, Marshall, Killias, and Ribeaud (2020), in their publication Juvenile Delinquency and Peer Dynamics, established that peer networks played a central role in increasing student involvement in property crimes, vandalism, and physical aggression. Their findings emphasized the importance of early intervention and peer monitoring strategies within schools. Hemphill, Heerde, Herrenkohl, and Toumbourou (2019), in their longitudinal research Adolescent Peer Relationships and Delinquency, found that students associating with peers involved in criminal behavior were significantly more likely to replicate those actions. The influence was strongest during mid-adolescence, when identity formation and the need for belonging are at their peak. Zhang and Li (2021), in Digital Peer Influence and Youth Misconduct, found that negative peer interactions, especially through digital platforms, contributed to increased instances of cybercrime, truancy, and gang initiation. They noted that the anonymity of online communication amplified delinquent behaviors by minimizing immediate consequences. Takahashi, Nakamura, and Saito (2020), in Peer Pressure and School Dropouts, observed that adolescents exposed to deviant peer behavior experienced elevated rates of bullying, truancy, and drug experimentation. The researchers concluded that peer groups serve as powerful socializing agents capable of either mitigating or exacerbating school misconduct. Burton (2019), in the study Gang Culture and Adolescent Behavior, reported that students lacking parental involvement were more likely to succumb to peer pressure. His findings highlighted that gang-affiliated peers often 24 provided a false sense of belonging, encouraging students to engage in risky activities like theft, drug use, and violence. Ward, Van der Merwe, and Dawes (2016), in Peer Group Influence in Secondary Schools, demonstrated that bullying, school fights, and group defiance of school authority often stemmed from associations with delinquent peers. The study emphasized that students internalize aggressive behaviors when they perceive them as socially acceptable within their peer group. Adebayo and Yusuf (2020), in their research Examining Peer Influence on Adolescent Risk Behavior, identified strong correlations between peer associations and examination malpractice, drug use, and internet- related fraud. The study concluded that peer norms often overshadow institutional rules when students feel unsupported or disengaged from school structures. Olawale and Adekunle (2022), in Peer Groups and Urban Youth Delinquency, observed that adolescents embedded in delinquent peer circles were more likely to engage in robbery, substance abuse, and confrontational behavior. The findings called for peer mentorship and stronger school- community collaborations to curb rising levels of peer-instigated misconduct. Mensah and Owusu (2021), in their publication Peer Relationships and School Misconduct, confirmed that students influenced by delinquent peers had higher chances of engaging in vandalism, fighting, and alcohol consumption. The study emphasized that peer pressure was a stronger predictor of misbehavior than either teacher instruction or parental expectations. Mugisha and Musoke (2020), in their study Adolescents and Peer Conformity, found that negative peer pressure led to increased school absenteeism, disobedience, and even criminal behavior. The authors recommended integrating peer-led behavior correction initiatives within school guidance programs. Okello and Njoroge (2021), in Delinquency and Peer Pressure in Urban Schools, reported that students in densely populated neighborhoods were more susceptible to delinquent behavior due to constant exposure to negative peer models. The study noted that peer groups promoting drug use and defiance often recruited new members, worsening the cycle of indiscipline. Muiruri and Mwangi (2021), in their research Substance Abuse and Peer Behavior among Adolescents, highlighted that students surrounded by peers using miraa, bhang, and alcohol were more likely to participate in substance abuse. Limited parental oversight and a lack of structured 25 after-school programs were also cited as contributing factors. The National Crime Research Centre (2021), in the report Juvenile Delinquency and School Discipline, found that peer influence was a leading factor behind school fires, gang affiliations, and indiscipline. The report emphasized that weak disciplinary frameworks in institutions made students more vulnerable to deviant peer behaviors. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2022), in Youth Violence and Peer Influence in Educational Institutions, concluded that peer groups often instigated riots, exam cheating, and school unrest. The study recommended implementing structured mentorship programs to offer students alternative role models within the school setting. Kamau and Otieno (2023), in their work Peer Mentorship and Juvenile Behavior, identified the absence of mentorship structures as a critical factor behind delinquent behavior. Their findings revealed that students without peer role models were more likely to follow the lead of aggressive, defiant classmates, highlighting the need for targeted interventions. 2.2.3 Socio-economic Status Socio-economic status (SES) is a crucial determinant of juvenile delinquency, with extensive literature identifying poverty, financial instability, and parental unemployment as strong predictors of antisocial behavior among adolescents. Agnew and Brezina (2019) argue that economic hardship induces social strain, compelling young people to seek alternative routes to success, which may include engagement in criminal activity. This aligns with the Strain Theory by Merton (1938), which proposes that when conventional opportunities for success are blocked, individuals may resort to deviant means to achieve societal goals. A study conducted by Piquero, Jennings, and Farrington (2021) assessed how low family income influenced youth involvement in deviance and found that adolescents from financially struggling households were more susceptible to engaging in theft, drug-related offenses, and violence. The authors further observed that economic stress disrupts parental supervision and fosters association with delinquent peers. In similar research, Farrington (2019) emphasized that financial instability during childhood is a significant predictor of future criminal behavior. Weatherburn (2018) examined the implications of economic deprivation on youth behavior and found that it was associated with increased school dropout rates, substance abuse, and gang 26 involvement. The findings illustrated that adolescents experiencing chronic poverty often become alienated from mainstream society, which increases their vulnerability to delinquency. Hoffman and Dufur (2020) reinforced this argument by noting that limited financial resources hinder parental involvement and restrict access to education and mentorship factors that typically guard against deviant behavior. Murray and Farrington (2010) conducted longitudinal research showing that children raised under financially constrained conditions demonstrated a higher likelihood of engaging in crimes such as property offenses and violent acts. The study attributed this to stress within the household, poor living conditions, and continuous exposure to criminal environments. Similarly, a meta-analysis by Pratt and Cullen (2020) involving over 100 studies confirmed that low socio-economic status is a powerful predictor of youth delinquency, as financial distress often leads to psychological strain, fostering aggressive or antisocial tendencies. Further studies, including that by Ward, Van der Merwe, and Dawes (2016), highlighted that in areas of economic hardship, adolescents often engage in street crime and drug use due to lack of supervision, with many caregivers working long hours or living apart from their children. Okoth (2020) echoed this by asserting that financial instability can push youth into survival-based criminal activity such as petty theft, gang participation, and drug peddling. The author recommended the establishment of vocational training and empowerment initiatives to provide alternatives for at-risk youth. Findings by the National Crime Research Centre (2021) emphasized that economic deprivation correlates with school absenteeism and exposure to delinquent peer groups, especially where families are unable to meet basic educational and living needs. The report underscored that adolescents from resource-constrained households are more prone to engage in acts such as drug use, theft, and defiance due to desperation and lack of structured guidance. Research by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2021) pointed out that adolescents living in economically strained communities often reside in high-crime neighborhoods, making them susceptible to deviant behaviors due to peer pressure and limited access to constructive activities. Similarly, Mutua and Wambua (2022) concluded that financial hardship contributes to high school dropout rates, often triggering frustration and ultimately leading to delinquency. 27 2.3 Theoretical Framework This study is guided by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory and Merton’s Strain Theory. Bronfenbrenner’s theory explains how different environmental systems such as family, school, peers, and society interact to influence adolescent behavior. Merton’s Strain Theory highlights how socio-economic pressures and lack of access to legitimate opportunities may lead youth to engage in delinquency. Together, these theories provide a strong foundation for understanding the psychosocial determinants influencing juvenile delinquency among secondary school students. 2.3.1 Ecological Theory Ecological theory, particularly Bronfenbrenner's explores various impacts juvenile delinquency. It posits that a person is influenced by three Levels, ranging from immediate settings to broader societal contexts. The First one the microsystem level, immediate relationships and settings, such as family and peers, play a critical role; for instance, parental failure to provide basic needs can significantly impact a student's behavior, with research indicating that lack of supervision correlates with increased delinquency, (Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. , 2000). Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996) (1996), the mesosystem entails the interaction of different microsystems, and when factors such as a negative school climate intersect with neglect at home, the risk of juvenile delinquency significantly increases. At the exosystem level, social systems that indirectly influence a child’s development such as parental working conditions and community resources also have a strong impact. Smith and Montague (2006) observe that parental alcoholism, for instance, may destabilize the home environment, heightening the likelihood of adolescents engaging in delinquent behaviors. At the macrosystem level, Sampson and Wilson (1995) emphasize the role of cultural values and socioeconomic conditions, explaining that growing up in a disadvantaged neighborhood can foster feelings of hopelessness, which may in turn lead to increased delinquency. Finally, Bronfenbrenner (1992) highlights the chronosystem, which focuses on how transitions over time such as parental separation or neighborhood decline can affect a child’s psychosocial development. Together, these interconnected systems within Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model provide a comprehensive understanding of how layered social and environmental factors contribute to juvenile delinquency. 28 2.3.2 Strain Theory Developed in 1930s, serves as a foundational perspective, Merton posits, societal structures create a conflict between culturally acceptable objectives, such monetary success, educational attainment, and social status—legal acquisition. This disconnection leads feelings of frustration and disillusionment, particularly among those who face barriers to success due to socio-economic disadvantages, family dysfunction, or negative school environments. He describes there are five ways to cope with stress: invention, ritualism, retreatism, revolt, and conformity. Of these, innovation is especially pertinent to delinquency, individuals may accept definition of achievement but reject legitimate way, resorting instead to deviant behaviors such as theft, drug dealing, or other forms of criminality, (Merton, 1938). The relevance of strain theory to juvenile delinquency can be observed in various contexts, where students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds or those experiencing inadequate parental support may feel compelled to commit delinquent behaviors in order to successfully deal with their situation. For instance, a student who faces academic pressure while lacking sufficient family support may turn to delinquency as an alternative path to success, (Merton, 1938). Furthermore, peer influences and a negative school environment can exacerbate these feelings of strain, leading students to adopt deviant behaviors as alternative pathways to success. By understanding the mechanisms outlined in strain theory, researchers, skilled professionals can create focused treatments that deal with the root problem juvenile delinquency, thereby fostering more supportive environments that enable at-risk youth to pursue legitimate avenues for achievement. This framework will guide my study by helping to identify specific psychosocial factors such as family dynamics and peer relationships that contribute to feelings of strain among secondary school students, thereby informing effective intervention strategies. 2.4 conceptual frameworks The conceptual framework links the independent variables; peer influence, Family Dynamics and Socio-Economic Status to the dependent variable, Juvenile Delinquency, to indicate the relationship between Psychosocial Determinants and Their Influence on Juvenile Delinquency. 29 Independent Variables Extraneous Variables Dependent Variables Figure 2. 1 Conceptual Framework Source: Researcher (2024) Family dynamic • Family Structure • Parental Supervision • Parenting Styles • Family Conflict • Parental Involvement Peer Influence • Peer Pressure • Peer Group Dynamics • Peer Delinquency • School Environment • Risk-Taking Behavior Socioeconomic Status  Low Household Income  Parental Unemployment  Poverty and Poor Living Conditions  Lack of Access to Educational Resources  Financial Stress in Families Juvenile Delinquency • Drugs and substance use • Truancy • Prostitution • Sexual offences • Property crimes • Gambling • Teenage pregnancy • Pornography Government Policy •Curriculum 30 2.5 Research Gap Despite extensive research on the factors contributing to juvenile delinquency, there are still notable gaps in the methodologies and theoretical frameworks that scholars have applied. For example, Kim and Jang (2019) explain that many studies rely heavily on quantitative approaches, which, although statistically informative, often fail to reflect the lived experiences of adolescents. Similarly, Crocetti, Rabaglietti, and Ciairano (2020) observe that while surveys and structured instruments provide measurable data, they sometimes overlook the internal identity struggles and social contexts faced by young people. On the other hand, some researchers have employed qualitative methods to explore group dynamics and personal narratives; however, the integration of mixed methods designs remains underutilized. This is even though combining qualitative and quantitative methods can more effectively capture the complex and layered nature of delinquent behavior. Barnes and Farrell (2015) also note that theoretical perspectives often remain narrow, with general strain theory being dominant in most studies. Meanwhile, Chemutai, Faith, and Elizabeth (2022) argue for broader frameworks, emphasizing the need to include ecological perspectives that consider family, community, and environmental influences on youth. These methodological and theoretical limitations have hindered a more holistic understanding of how psychosocial factors contribute to delinquency. Therefore, this study will adopt a descriptive survey design incorporating mixed methods, grounded in both ecological and strain theories, to provide a more nuanced and comprehensive view of juvenile delinquency. 31 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DESIGN 3.0 Introduction Covered in this Section is; Research methodology, research design, target population, sampling strategies and sample size, data collection tools, processes, data analysis strategies, and study limitations. 3.1 Research Methodology This study applied mixed-methodology, incorporating together quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative approach involved structured questionnaires for collecting measurable data on psychosocial determinants; analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics in SPSS thus identified patterns and correlations. The qualitative approach utilized semi-structured interviews analyzed through thematic analysis. This combination ensured a holistic understanding of juvenile delinquency, thus allowed for triangulation of data, improving validity and reliability. Following Mugenda & Mugenda (2019), this approach provided statistical rigor and contextual depth, making it ideal for formulating effective policy recommendations and intervention strategies to address delinquency in the region. 3.2 Research Design The quantitative aspect adopted a descriptive survey design, which is suitable for collecting quantifiable data from a wide sample and helps in identifying trends, associations, and prevalence of delinquent behaviors (Mohajan, 2018). Structured questionnaires were used to gather data on key variables such as peer influence, family dynamics, and socio-economic conditions. The collected data was analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequencies, percentages, and means. Qualitative research component is grounded in a thematic analysis. Semi-structured interviews with selected respondents will be conducted to gain deeper insights into their personal experiences, motivations, and environmental influences. Thematic analysis will be used to interpret qualitative data, (Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V., 2017) By integrating both designs, this mixed-methods approach ensured triangulation as well as contextual insights providing comprehensive perspective, making it possible to develop well- informed policy recommendations and intervention strategies to mitigate juvenile delinquency among secondary school students in Embakasi East Sub-County. 32 3.3 Location of the Study The research will take place in Embakasi East Sub-County, Nairobi County, as this area presents a unique context for this study. Embakasi East is an urban region characterized by a mix of densely populated residential areas, various economic obstacles and disparities in accessibility to education and social services. These conditions provide an optimal environment for examining study. The Area had a high concentration of secondary schools, providing a representative sample of students from diverse backgrounds. Additionally, the urban environment in Embakasi East, which may expose students to higher levels of social strain, delinquency, and peer pressure, offers valuable insights into how such challenges contribute to juvenile delinquency, making it a more relevant location for the study. 3.4 Target Population The target population will consist of: • 5 Public secondary schools, with 3,450 students in Embakasi East Sub-County. • 135 Teachers and guidance counselors in public secondary schools. • 16 school administrators. Table 3. 1 Target Population School Name Students Teachers Administrators Utawala Secondary School 1,200 45 5 Embakasi Garrison Secondary School 800 30 4 Brookfield Secondary School 600 25 3 St. Justino Secondary School 350 15 2 Muhuri Muchiri Boys High School 500 20 2 TOTAL 3,450 135 16 Source: Researcher, (2024) 33 3.5 Sampling procedures and Technique This study employed a stratified random sampling technique that ensured a representative and unbiased selection of participants from a target population of 3,601 public secondary school students in Embakasi East Sub-County, Nairobi, Kenya. A sample size of 360 respondents was determined using Slovin’s formula, ensuring statistical accuracy. The population was divided into strata based on school type (day or boarding), gender composition (mixed, boys-only, girls-only), and academic performance levels, after which participants were randomly selected within each stratum. This approach ensured proportional representation, minimized bias, and enhanced the reliability of findings. Inclusion criteria included students aged 12-25 years who were at the moment enrolled in public secondary schools, while exclusion criteria eliminate private school students, those who decline consent, and students with severe learning disabilities affecting participation. By employing stratified random sampling, the study ensured a balanced and diverse sample, improving accuracy, reliability, and validity in examining the influence of psychosocial determinants on juvenile delinquency in Embakasi East Sub-County, (Mugenda, A. G. & Mugenda, O. M., 2013). 3.6 Sample population According to Stocker (2010), a sample is utilized to gather representative information about a population. This study employs Slovin’s formula to determine the sample size, expressed as n= N/(1+Ne^2) where n= Number of Samples N= Total Population e= Error tolerance Assuming margin error (e) of 0.05, Total Population (N): 3,601 (3,450 students, 135 teachers, 16 administrators. n =3,601/(1+3601‧(0.05)2 ) n= 360 Table 3. 2 Sample Size School Name Students Teachers Administrators Total 1. Utawala Secondary School 120 4 1 125 34 2. Embakasi Garrison Secondary School 80 3 1 84 3. Brookfield Secondary School 60 2 1 62 4. St. Justino Secondary School 30 3 1 36 5. Muhuri Muchiri Boys High School 50 3 1 53 Total Sample Size 340 15 5 360 Source: Researcher, (2024) 3.7 Construction of research instruments This study will utilized a variety of data collection tools to obtain comprehensive and reliable information. Structured questionnaires were administered to 340 students; from Utawala Secondary School (120 students), Embakasi Garrison Secondary School (80 students), Brookfield Secondary School (60 students), St. Justino Secondary School (30 students), and Muhuri Muchiri Boys High School (50 students). Additionally, 15 teachers and 5 school administrators participated in the semi-structured interviews across the same schools. The structured questionnaires gathered quantitative data on aspects such as peer influence, family dynamics, and socio-economic conditions contributing to juvenile delinquency. The quantitative data helped identify patterns and trends across a large sample, enhancing the generalizability of the findings. The semi-structured interviews provided qualitative insights into the perspectives of teachers and school administrators on delinquent behavior, intervention strategies, and the support systems available within the school environment. Combining both instruments provided a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing juvenile delinquency, informing effective interventions and policies to address the issue in secondary schools in Embakasi East Sub-County (Mugenda, A. G. & Mugenda, O. M., 2013) 3.8 Testing for Validity and Reliability/Trustworthiness Pilot study was conducted to ensure the validity and reliability of the research instruments in two secondary schools within Neighboring Embakasi West Sub-County public secondary schools Umoja Secondary School and Kariobangi North Secondary School involving 10 students, 2 35 teachers, and 1 administrator. This process identified ambiguous or unclear questions, which were revised before final data collection. Validity was ensured by expert review of the research tools to confirm relevance, clarity, and comprehensiveness, while triangulation through both quantitative (structured questionnaires) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews) methods enhanced accuracy by cross-verifying data from multiple sources. Cronbach's Alpha coefficient, which measures internal consistency in SPSS, was used to evaluate reliability; a threshold of 0.7 or over is deemed appropriate. Cronbach's Alpha values above 0.8 imply strong instrument reliability, whereas those between 0.7 and 0.8 indicate moderate reliability. This approach improved the precision, reliability, and credibility of the study's conclusions by guaranteeing a high degree of internal consistency, (Kothari, C. R. & Garg, G., 2014). 3.9 Data Collection Methods and Procedures The data collection process was systematically conducted within Embakasi East Sub-County, which is subdivided into five wards: Utawala, Mihango, Embakasi, Upper Savannah, and Lower Savannah. Schools within these wards were selected using stratified random sampling to ensuring fair representation across different socio-economic backgrounds. Before data collection, research authorization was looked for from relevant authorities, including the National Commission for Science, Technology, and Innovation (NACOSTI), the Ministry of Education, and the Embakasi East Sub-County education office. Upon approval, introductory letters were sent to school principals seeking their cooperation. The research instruments were distributed to students, while interviews with teachers and administrators were scheduled at their convenience. By integrating both quantitative and qualitative data, this study aimed to provide well-rounded perspective on juvenile delinquency in Embakasi East. 3.10 Proposed Data Analysis Techniques and Procedures This study employed both quantitative and qualitative data analysis techniques. Quantitative data; structured questionnaires were analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations) as well as inferential statistics (multiple liner regression) thus summarized respondent characteristics and key study variables. 36 For qualitative data, thematic analysis was used to identify patterns and emerging themes from interviews with teachers and school administrators. This method provided deeper insights into the contextual factors influencing juvenile delinquency. Triangulation of both quantitative and qualitative findings enhanced validity by integrating statistical trends with contextual narratives, ensuring a more comprehensive interpretation of the research problem, (Mugenda, A. G. & Mugenda, O. M., 2013). Data analysis was conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to process quantitative data. The study findings were presented in tables, and charts, thus ensured systematic alignment with the research objectives. 3.11 Ethical Considerations This study focused on students who have not yet attained 18 years of age, making informed consent a critical ethical consideration. Constitution of Kenya (2010), Article 31 ensures every citizen has the right to privacy; the researcher adhered to all ethical guidelines rigorously. Proposal was presented to Mount Kenya University Ethical Research Committee for review. Once ethical approval was obtained, the researcher applied for the National Commission for Science, Technology, and Innovation (NACOSTI) permit. Throughout research process, aim of the study was thoroughly explained to all respondents making sure that they comprehended their rights and the nature of their involvement. Participation was entirely voluntary; no coercion was employed to obtain information from respondents. The confidentiality of the data collected was prioritized, and all personal identifiers were eliminated in order to safeguard the identities of respondents. Furthermore, researcher took necessary precautions to prevent any intimidation or physical harm to respondents, ensuring that a safe environment was maintained throughout the study. By adhering the researcher aimed to uphold them respect as contributing important insights into Study. CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION 4.0 Introduction This chapter presents the core findings of the study by analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data to address the research objectives and answer the research questions. The data is presented systematically through tables, charts, graphs, and thematic descriptions. The analysis focuses on 37 examining how psycho-social determinants specifically family dynamics, peer influence, and socio-economic status relate to juvenile delinquency among public secondary school students in Embakasi East Sub-County. Where relevant, interpretations are tied to ecological and strain theories to provide theoretical grounding. 4.1 Response Rate The study achieved a response rate of 70.8%, which is considered excellent. Out of 360 questionnaires distributed, 255 were duly completed and deemed valid for analysis. According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2013), a response rate of 50% is adequate, 60% is good, and 70% and above is excellent for survey-based studies. The high response rate enhanced the credibility and generalizability of the findings. 4.2 Reliability and Validity results 4.2.1 Validity Test To assess content validity, the research instruments were reviewed by administrators and students from public secondary schools. The responses were evaluated against the study objectives using a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree). SPSS was used to calculate a validity index based on expert input and data consistency. The questionnaire items were numbered (1–255) and coded to match respondent data accurately. 4.2.2 Reliability Test SPSS Reliability refers to the internal consistency of the instrument. The study used Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient generated through SPSS Version 29 to assess the reliability of the key variables. The overall Cronbach Alpha coefficient for psycho-social determinants was 0.653, as presented in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2. Table 4. 1 Average Reliability of Psychosocial Determinant Variables Cronbach Alpha values Average reliability statistics of Psycho social determinants 0.653 Source; Researcher (2025) The study’s Cronbach Alpha coefficient was 0.653, indicating a moderate level of internal consistency among the questionnaire items. According to Malhotra (2014), Cronbach’s Alpha is 38 calculated as the average of all possible split-half reliability coefficients for a set of items, and it reflects how closely related the items are as a group. Although values above 0.7 are typically considered acceptable for reliability (Kothari & Garg, 2014), values around 0.6 can be acceptable in exploratory research (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2013). Sekaran and Bougie (2013) note that Cronbach Alpha coefficients range from 0 to 1, with values closer to 1.0 indicating stronger internal consistency. Therefore, while the coefficient of 0.653 is slightly below the ideal threshold, it still demonstrates a reasonably reliable measure of the psycho-social determinants investigated in this study, especially considering the exploratory nature of the research. Table 4. 2 Reliability and Validity Results Variables Cronbach Alpha Values Comments Peer influence 0.601 Accepted Family dynamics 0.783 Accepted Socio economic status 0.787 Accepted Source; Researcher (2025) To ensure the reliability and validity of the research instruments, a pilot study was conducted in two public secondary schools Umoja Secondary School and Kariobangi North Secondary School in the neighboring Embakasi West Sub-County. The pilot involved 10 students, 2 teachers, and 1 school administrator. This preliminary exercise allowed the researcher to identify and revise ambiguous or unclear questions before the main data collection phase. Validity was established through expert reviews of the instruments to confirm relevance, clarity, and comprehensiveness. Additionally, triangulation through the use of both quantitative (structured questionnaires) and qualitative (semi-structured interviews) methods enhanced the accuracy and credibility of the data by cross-verifying insights from multiple sources. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient in SPSS, which measures internal consistency. As shown in Table 4, the values for peer influence (α = 0.601), family dynamics (α = 0.783), and socio-economic status (α = 0.787) indicate acceptable reliability, with values above 0.7 showing moderate to strong consistency. Although the alpha for peer influence is slightly below the commonly accepted threshold of 0.7, it is still considered adequate for exploratory studies (Zinbarg, 2005). According to Kothari and Garg (2014), values above 0.8 represent strong 39 reliability, while those between 0.7 and 0.8 reflect moderate reliability. These results confirm that the instruments used to measure psycho-social determinants were internally consistent and reliable, strengthening the credibility of the study's findings on juvenile delinquency among public secondary school students in Embakasi East Sub-County. 4.3 Demographic The background information of the respondents who took part in the study is shown in this section. This information was crucial in comprehending and categorizing the various responses based on the respondents' backgrounds or profiles. The details include the respondents' age, gender, form level, and the work experience of school personnel in secondary schools. Understanding these demographics helped contextualize the responses and provided a clearer view of how different factors, such as education level and work experience, may influence perceptions and behaviors related to juvenile delinquency. 4.3.1 Age of the Respondents The study was interested in findings out the age group of the participants. The study findings are as shown in Figure 2. Figure 4. 1 Age group respondents Source; Researcher (2025) 40 Majority of respondents (38.4%) were aged between 15 and 19 years, followed by those aged 20– 24 years at 35.7%. This suggests that the findings predominantly reflect the views and experiences of adolescents and young adults, who are typically the focus of juvenile delinquency research. Respondents aged 10–14 years constituted 16.1%, while those above 25 years represented only 9.8%. This age distribution aligns with Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory, which emphasizes the influence of development stages and environmental systems on behavior. Adolescents often caught in the transition between childhood and adulthood may be especially vulnerable to the psycho-social stressors highlighted in this study. 4.3.2 Gender of the Respondent The study was interested in findings out the gender group of the respondent. The study findings are as shown in figure 3 Figure 4. 2 Gender Group Respondents Source; Researcher (2025) The data indicates that 65.9% of respondents were male, while 34.1% were female. This disproportionate representation is consistent with prior studies that show higher involvement of male adolescents in delinquent behaviors (Wambua, 2020). According to Strain Theory, males are more likely to experience and respond to socio-economic pressures through deviant behavior due to societal expectations and limited emotional coping outlets. The female responses, though fewer, 41 offer important gender-specific insights, especially in areas such as peer influence and family structure. 4.3.3 Level of education The study was interested in findings out the level of study. The study findings are as shown in figure 4 Figure 4. 3 Level of Education Source: Researcher (2025) Form Three students formed the largest group at 43.1%, followed by Form Two students at 37.6%. Form One students comprised 15.7%, while Form Four students were the least represented at 3.5%. The predominance of Form Two and Three students suggests that most participants were mid-way through their secondary education and thus capable of reflecting on the influences in their school and home environments. According to Ecological Systems Theory, the school environment (mesosystem) plays a central role in shaping youth behavior. These findings provide a nuanced understanding of how different education levels influence exposure to, and coping with, delinquency-related pressures. 42 4.4 Descriptive Statistics This section outlines the descriptive results concerning the impact of psycho-social factors on juvenile delinquency among students in public secondary schools in Embakasi East Sub-County, Nairobi, Kenya. The data analysis utilized various statistical methods, including frequency distribution, measures of central tendency, and measures of variation or dispersion. The interpretation of the results was based on a 5-point Likert scale, where the ratings were as follows: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly Agree This analysis aimed to shed light on how psycho-social aspects like peer pressure, family dynamics, and socio-economic background play a role in influencing delinquent behavior among secondary school students. The findings will be presented in the following sections, using appropriate statistical measures to support the interpretation. 4.4.1 Peer influence Table 4. 3 Peer Influence 43 N Mean Std. Deviation If my friends take part in delinquent activities, I am more prone to do the same. 255 4.35 .721 Negative influence significantly influences adolescents to participate in delinquent acts 255 4.51 .553 The desire to fit in with friends increases the chances of participating in bad conduct 255 4.57 .590 Students who associate with delinquent peers are more likely to adopt similar behaviors. 255 4.58 .628 Positive peer relationships can help prevent involvement in delinquent activities. 255 4.46 .725 Students often feel compelled to commit delinquent acts to maintain their social status among peers 255 4.46 .719 The influence of friends is stronger than parental influence on students’ decisions regarding delinquency 255 4.37 .735 Participating in group activities with peers reduces the risk of individual delinquent behavior. 255 4.42 .743 Adolescents who experience rejection from their peer group are more prone to bad conduct 255 4.26 .937 Peer group dynamics play a crucial role in influencing adolescents conduct 255 4.45 .881 Source; Researcher (2025) 44 The respondents strongly agreed that associating with delinquent peers increases the likelihood of engaging in similar behaviors. For instance, the statement "Students who associate with delinquent peers are more likely to adopt similar behaviors" recorded the highest mean score of 4.58 (SD = 0.628). Similarly, "If my friends take part in delinquent activities, I am more prone to do the same" received a high mean of 4.35 (SD = 0.721), indicating a strong peer effect on individual behavior. The pressure to conform and maintain social acceptance emerged as a major factor. The statement "The desire to fit in with friends increases the chances of participating in bad conduct" had a mean of 4.57 (SD = 0.590). Additionally, "Students often feel compelled to commit delinquent acts to maintain their social status among peers" scored a mean of 4.46 (SD = 0.719), confirming the role of social acceptance in influencing delinquent behavior. The impact of negative peer pressure was highlighted in statements such as "Negative influence significantly influences adolescents to participate in delinquent acts", which received a mean of 4.51 (SD = 0.553). This demonstrates that negative peer behavior is perceived as a powerful contributor to delinquent actions among students. On the contrary, respondents agreed that positive peer relationships could deter delinquency. "Positive peer relationships can help prevent involvement in delinquent activities" had a mean score of 4.46 (SD = 0.725), showing that supportive friendships may serve as a protective buffer against negative behavior. While less emphasized, the theme of peer rejection was still relevant. "Adolescents who experience rejection from their peer group are more prone to bad conduct" recorded the lowest mean in this theme at 4.26 (SD = 0.937), indicating variability in opinion but still reflecting a connection between social exclusion and behavioral issues. 45 4.4.2 Family Dynamics Table 4. 4 Family Dynamics N Mean Std. Deviation dysfunctional families led to involvement of illegal acts by their children 255 4.46 2.559 Parental involvement in a child's education significantly reduces the likelihood of juvenile delinquency 255 4.44 .648 Frequent conflicts and arguments at home contribute to an increased risk of delinquency among students 255 4.54 .545 Positive communication prevents juvenile delinquency 255 4.62 .582 Students who experience neglect or lack of support from their parents are more likely to exhibit delinquent behaviors. 255 4.64 .624 Presence of a father figure in the household positively influences the behavior of adolescents and reduces delinquency 255 4.50 .742 Families that engage in regular family activities and bonding experiences are not prone to delinquency 255 4.45 .825 Students who feel emotionally supported by their families are not prone to delinquency 255 4.47 .859 Substance abuse among family members increases the probability of adolescent’s delinquency. 255 4.53 .841 46 Parental presence greatly decreases the chances of juvenile delinquency 255 4.60 .850 Source; Researcher (2025) The results indicate a strong consensus among respondents that family dynamics significantly influence juvenile delinquency. The mean scores for all statements range from 4.44 to 4.64, reflecting strong agreement across various aspects of family influence. The standard deviations are generally low, indicating consistency in responses, except for one statement with higher variability. The highest mean score (4.64) was recorded for the statement "Students who experience neglect or lack of support from their parents are more likely to exhibit delinquent behaviors." This suggests a strong belief that parental neglect increases the likelihood of delinquency. Similarly, "Parental presence greatly decreases the chances of juvenile delinquency" had a high mean of 4.60, reinforcing the idea that active parental involvement is a key protective factor against delinquent behavior. Parental involvement in education also emerged as a significant factor, with a mean of 4.44 for the statement "Parental involvement in a child’s education significantly reduces the likelihood of juvenile delinquency." This indicates that respondents widely acknowledge the role of engaged parenting in preventing delinquency. Positive family communication was strongly supported, with the statement "Positive communication prevents juvenile delinquency" receiving a mean of 4.62. This suggests that open and constructive dialogue within families plays a crucial role in shaping adolescent behavior. Additionally, "Families that engage in regular family activities and bonding experiences are not prone to delinquency" had a mean of 4.45, indicating that respondents believe strong family relationships act as a deterrent to delinquent behavior. The presence of a father figure was also recognized as a key factor in preventing delinquency; with a mean score of 4.50 for the statement "Presence of a father figure in the household positively influences the behavior of adolescents and reduces delinquency." This suggests that respondents believe stable parental structures contribute to positive adolescent behavior. Frequent family conflicts were associated with an increased risk of delinquency, as indicated by the mean score of 4.54 for the statement "Frequent conflicts and arguments at home contribute to 47 an increased risk of delinquency among students." Similarly, "Dysfunctional families led to involvement in illegal acts by their children" had a mean score of 4.46, suggesting that family instability is perceived as a major contributing factor to delinquency. Interestingly, this statement had the highest standard deviation (2.559), indicating greater variability in responses. This suggests that while many respondents strongly agreed, others may have had differing perspectives possibly influenced by personal experiences with stable families despite economic hardships or exposure to delinquency from external factors like peer influence. Substance abuse within the family was another significant factor, with the statement "Substance abuse among family members increases the probability of adolescent delinquency" receiving a mean score of 4.53. This indicates strong agreement that exposure to substance abuse at home normalizes risky behavior and increases the likelihood of delinquency. 4.4.3 Socio Economic status Table 4. 5 Socio-Economic Status N Mean Std. Deviation Compared to families that have more incomes, those with fewer resources are more likely to indulge in delinquency 255 4.57 .519 The probability of delinquency among students is strongly correlated with the socioeconomic condition of a household. 255 4.69 .480 One of the main factors contributing to delinquent behavior is peer pressure, among students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. 255 4.74 .465 Students who experience economic hardship are more likely to exhibit signs of delinquency 255 4.75 .486 48 Community involvement programs can effectively reduce juvenile delinquency among students from low socio-economic backgrounds 255 4.79 3.224 Parents’ attitudes towards education and discipline impact the likelihood of their children engaging in delinquent behavior. 255 4.55 .719 Students with access to mentorship and guidance aren’t delinquent regardless of their socio-economic status. 255 4.46 .782 The socioeconomic background of a family has a close connection with academic performance of students, which influences delinquent behavior 255 4.53 .864 Source; Researcher (2025) Findings related to the influence of socio-economic factors on juvenile delinquency received high mean scores, ranging from 4.46 to 4.79, indicating strong agreement that socio-economic status significantly impacts delinquent behavior among students. The statement "Students who experience economic hardship are more likely to exhibit signs of delinquency" received the highest mean (4.75), suggesting that respondents strongly believe financial struggles contribute to delinquent behavior. Similarly, the statement "One of the main factors contributing to delinquent behavior is peer pressure among students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds" had a high mean of 4.74, emphasizing that peer influence is a key driver of delinquency, particularly among students from low-income families. The statement "The probability of delinquency among students is strongly correlated with the socioeconomic condition of a household" recorded a mean of 4.69, reinforcing the notion that household financial stability plays a crucial role in preventing delinquent behavior. Additionally, "Compared to families with higher incomes, those with fewer resources are more likely to indulge in delinquency" (mean = 4.57) supports the view that lower-income families face greater challenges in deterring delinquency. The statement "Community involvement programs can 49 effectively reduce juvenile delinquency among students from low socio-economic backgrounds" received the highest mean (4.79) but also had the largest standard deviation (3.224), suggesting mixed opinions on the effectiveness of such programs. This variation could be attributed to differences in personal experiences, program availability, or the perceived impact of community initiatives. Mentorship was also seen as a protective factor, as indicated by the statement "Students with access to mentorship and guidance aren’t delinquent regardless of their socio-economic status" (mean = 4.46). The statement "Parents’ attitudes towards education and discipline impact the likelihood of their children engaging in delinquent behavior" received a mean of 4.55, reflecting the belief that parental involvement in education and discipline significantly reduces delinquency risks. Most statements had relatively low standard deviations (ranging from 0.465 to 0.864), indicating consensus among respondents. However, the large standard deviation for the statement on community involvement programs (3.224) suggests diverse opinions on their effectiveness, likely due to differences in personal or regional experiences. 4.4.4 Juvenile Delinquency Table 4. 6 Juvenile Delinquency N Mean Std. Deviation Does peer pressure contribute to juvenile delinquency 255 4.27 .843 There any role family dynamic play in the development of delinquent behavior among a adolescents in public secondary schools 255 4.29 .755 Doe socio economic factors influence juvenile delinquency rate in public secondary school 255 4.28 .650 Does school policies and disciplinary actions impact juvenile delinquency rate 255 4.20 .794 50 There relationship between academic performance and involvement in delinquent behavior. 255 4.05 1.015 Source; Researcher (2025) The statement “Does peer pressure contribute to juvenile delinquency?” recorded a mean of 4.27 with a standard deviation of 0.843, indicating that many respondents strongly agree that peer pressure is a significant factor influencing adolescent behavior. This reinforces earlier findings where peer groups were noted as critical influencers in shaping students' conduct. The influence of family structure and interactions was evident in the statement “Is there any role family dynamics play in the development of delinquent behavior among adolescents in public secondary schools?” which had the highest mean score of 4.29 (SD = 0.755). This shows a strong belief that the home environment including parenting styles, emotional support, and fam