Factors Influencing Juvenile Delinquencies Among Juvenile
[A CASE STUDY OF BORSTAL TRAINING INSTITUTE GANMO, KWARA STATE.]

    The U.S Department of Justice (1996) reported that the proportion of murder and non-negligent manslaughter offenders who were under age 18 increase from 9.7% in 1987 to a whopping 15.2% in 1996, an increase of about 50%. Editors of the “source Book” of criminal justice statistics for 1997 and other analysts such as Conklin (1998), Gall and Lucas (1996), and Blumstein (1995) have committed on the increasingly serious nature of crimes by juveniles.
    Conklin (1998), reviewing data presented by Fox (1995) and by Blumstein (1995), says that between 1985 and 1993 “the homicide arrest rate for people twenty-five and over declined by 20%, while the rate for eighteen to twenty-four years old increased by 65% and the rate for fourteen to seventeen years old rose by 165% (Conklin, 1998:124).
    In a study of juvenile violence in Great Britain, Oliver (1997) states that the number of violent juveniles increased by 34% between 1987 and 1993, an increase he attributes to the growth of inequality and family stress in Britain. In France, Bui-Trong (1996) has written about the recent escalation of juvenile violence, noting especially the increased severity of scale. The author, noting a decline in family morals, predicts that this problem can be expected to worsen. During the 1980s, even Japan experienced an increased rate of juvenile delinquency, which some observers attributed to the stress of competition of academic success (Conklin, 1998).
    Young people are more likely to commit crime than others (Hirschi and Gott Fredson, 1993) though person 13 to 18 years of age represent only 8.2% of the population, they constitute 21.2% of those arrested for committing crimes (U.S. Department of Justice, 1996). The peak age for property crime is 16 and for violent crime is 18 (Siegel and Senna, 1997).
    According to the U.S. Department of Justice (1996), juvenile involvement in violent crime has increased over the past several decades. For example, the number of persons under 18 years of age who were arrested for murder increased by 150% between 1985 and 1994. During 1995 – 1996 juvenile arrests increased by 3% while the adult arrests did not change, but violent crime arrests of juvenile decreased by 6%.
    The National School Board Association survey more than 700 school districts in 1993, and 82% reported that students involvement in assaults, fistfights, knifings, and shootings had “increased significantly” or “increased somewhat” in the preceding 5 years (Henry, 1994).
Factors Responsible for Juvenile Delinquency
    Efforts to discover the roots of juvenile delinquency reveal that it is an endless effort to attribute its cause to a single factor. The indices of juvenile delinquency are numerous. However, studies on some of them will be reviewed in this sub-division.
Family factors and Juvenile Delinquency
    The family factors which may have an influence on offending include: The level of parental supervision, the way parents discipline a child, parental conflict or separation, criminal parents or siblings, parental abuse or neglect and the quality of the parent – child relations (Graham and Bowling, 1995:33). Children brought up by lone parents are more likely to start offending than those who live with two natural parents, however, once the attachment a child feels towards their parents(s) and the level of parental supervision are taken into account, children in single parent families are no more likely to offend than others (Graham and Bowing 1995: 35).
    Conflict between a child’s parents is also much more closely linked to offending than being raised by a lone parent (Walklate, 2003:106). If a child has low parental supervision they are much more likely to offend (Graham and Bowling, 1995). Many studies have found a strong correlation between a lack of supervision and offending, and it appears to be the most important family influence on offending (Farrington 2002:610) and (Graham and Bowling, 1995:38). When parents commonly do not know where their children are, what their activities are, or who their friends are, children are more likely to truant from school and have delinquent friends, each of which are linked to offending (Graham and Bowling, 1995:45-48). Supervision is connected to poor relationships between children and parents, as children who are often in conflict with their parents maybe less willing to discuss their activities with them (Graham and Bowling, 1995:37). Children with a weak attachment to their parents are more likely to offend (Graham and Bowling, 1995:37).
Wright and Wright (1995) provided a list of family correlates of delinquency based on functional family risk theory:
(a)    Family history of the behaviour problem including parents’ or siblings’ role modeling of anti-social values and behaviour as well as favourable attitudes about antisocial behaviour, and parental criminality. Poor socialization practices, including failure to promote moral development; and neglect in teaching life, social, and academic skills to the child.
(b)    Poor supervision of the child, including failure to monitor the child’s activities, neglect, sibling supervision, and too few adults to care for the number of children.
(c)    Poor discipline skills, including lax, inconsistent, or excessive discipline, expectations which are unrealistic for the development level of the child and excessive, unrealistic demands or harsh physical punishment.
(d)    Poor parent-child relationship including lack of parental bonding and early insecure attachment, negativity and rejection of the child by the parents, lack of involvement and time together resulting in rejection of the parents by the child and maladaptive parent – child interactions.
(e)    Family disorganization, where chaos and stress often because of poor family management skills, life skills or poverty. Poverty is an indices of family disorganization.
(f)    Differential family acculturation and role
reversal or loss of parental control over adolescents by parents who are less acculturated than their children.