FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE SUBSTANCE USE AND ABUSE AMONG OFFENDERS UNDER
PROBATION IN LIMURU, KENYA
Njore Samuel Njoroge
Associate Lecturer, Department of Peace, Security and Social Studies
Egerton University, Nairobi, Kenya
Email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The study aimed at establishing the factors that influence the substance use and abuse among
offenders under probation supervision in Limuru Probation Center in Kenya. The research
adopted a descriptive design to study a sample of 66 male and 18 female offenders that was
selected through stratified random sampling. Primary data was obtained through a semistructured questionnaire comprising closed and open ended questions and quantitative results
analysed using Statistical Package of Social Sciences (SPSS). Conflict in the respondent’s homes,
substance use by respondents’ parents’ and respondent’s employment status were found not to be
directly related with either alcohol or drug use. There existed a relationship between substance
use by the respondents’ siblings in regard to alcohol use but not drug use by respondents. Longer
probation sentence duration was found not to have the anticipated protective effect against both
respondents’ alcohol and drug use. The study recommends substance abuse counseling and
rehabilitation to address substance use and reduce recidivism. Such intervention should aim at
overcoming external influence from friends and siblings, moulding character formation and
inculcating moral values that exalt self control.
Key words: Substance Abuse, Socio-cultural factors, Socio-psychological factors, Economic
factors, Kenya.
1.
increased from 9,331 in 2003 to 11,817 in 2007
(Statistical Abstracts, 2008).
Introduction
The penal system in Kenya has over the
years preferred imprisonment of offenders to reduce
crime. As a result the prison population steadily
increased from 94,220 in 2003 to 114,087 in 2007
(Statistical Abstracts, 2008) thereby posing a
challenge of congestion in prisons. In its Medium
Term Plan (2008-2012) for vision 2030, the Kenya
Government in 2008 responded to this challenge by
devising a penal reform program that focused on
alternatives to imprisonment which emphasised on
non-custodial sentences (Probation Service Strategic
Plan 2008-2012). The policy shift meant that the
population of offenders under probation supervision
With the increased number of offenders
through the prison decongestion program, the
probation department is now hard pressed to
formulate effective scientifically developed treatment
plans for offenders arrested because of crimes related
to alcohol and drug abuse who are placed under
probation supervision. The Statistical Abstracts of
2008 show that cases of alcohol and drug abuse have
been on the rise and convicted prisoners of drug
related cases increased from 2440 in 2003 to 6,486 in
2007, signifying a 166% increase. Those convicted
and placed on probation rose from 726 in 2003 to 985
64
in 2007 a 37% increase. Offenders convicted and
imprisoned under the Liquor Licensing Act rose from
26,731 in 2003 to 29,080 in 2007 a 9% increase,
(Statistical Abstract, 2008).
A similar survey conducted by the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in 2008
also revealed that although the use of cannabis
among adolescents aged 14-19 years had declined
significantly in 2007, the trend was not replicated
among young offenders who spent time in detention
facilities (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare,
2008). Likewise some 82% persons arrested in
Chicago city in America in the same year by the
Chicago area police tested positive for illicit drug, a
figure which is way above the 40% national average
of high school seniors among the student population
that reported use of marijuana in the whole of US
(Drugs and Crime Facts, 2009).
The above data confirms that Kenya has
witnessed a considerable increase in the number of
substance abusers in the past decade. In her efforts to
curb the use and abuse of illicit substances the Kenya
government has cited the significant association
believed to exist between drug abuse and crime to
criminalize the use of particular substances (Siegel,
2000). The body mandated to monitor and
recommend measures to curb the use of illicit
substances in Kenya, the National Agency for
Campaign Against Drug Abuse (NACADA), has
raised concerns about the increase in the number of
substance abusers and its link with crime especially
juvenile delinquency. A 2004 survey conducted by
NACADA reported that on average 4% of student
youth and 33% of non student youth were current
users of either alcohol or other proscribed substances
(NACADA 2004). A follow up survey in 2007
however showed that Kenyans generally hold
positive attitudes towards legitimate drugs such as
alcohol, tobacco, khat and a good number of them
use such substances. However the same study found
that peer pressure and availability of drugs in the
community are closely associated with drug and
substance abuse among young persons (NACADA,
2007).
Various studies have attributed the onset of
substance use, abuse and criminal behavior to either
personal or environmental factors. Researchers who
uphold the environmental view argue that these vices
result from the influence of destructive social forces
on human behavior. According to Siegel (2000) most
criminals grow up in deteriorated urban areas and
lack the social support and economic resources
available to more affluent members of society. He
further argues that though the problem of substance
use and abuse cuts across the social class divide, it is
more apparent in the lower class populations that
dwell in slums and inner urban neighbourhoods.
These youths, according to Siegel, feel alienated and
hopeless and often meet established drug users who
teach them that narcotics can provide answers to their
feelings of personal inadequacies and stress; this
pattern leads to criminal behavior followed by
substance use or the reverse. Temporal or causal
sequence notwithstanding, researchers are in
agreement that whereas substance abuse may not
cause criminal behavior it does enhance it (Adler et.
al. 1995). Therefore offenders with substance use
problems are more likely to reoffend due to their
dependence and addiction.
Available statistics from other regions tend
to confirm this notion. A survey on probation
offenders in the US conducted in 1995 reported that
14% of probationers were on drugs when they
committed their offence (Drugs and Crime Facts,
2009). A similar survey conducted among prison
inmates in 2004 revealed that 32% of state prisoners
and 26% of federal prisoners had committed their
current offence while under the influence of drugs.
Many researchers have carried out studies
dealing with the problem of alcohol and drug abuse
65
among the general population in Kenya but no
attention has been directed to the offending
population. Yet public opinion decries the increase of
alcohol and drug use and abuse and its connection to
crime. The department of probation in Kenya has in
the recent past attempted to integrate alcohol and
substance abuse treatment into its programs, but there
is no systematic study on what influences offenders
under probation supervision to consume substance of
abuse and its relationship with crime. This paper
reports the findings of a research carried out to
determine the situational and economic factors that
influence the use and abuse of substances among
offenders in Limuru Probation Center in Kenya, with
an aim of devising ways of coming up with effective
treatment plans for offenders under probation
supervision.
2.
question is complex but adds that there are various
factors that account for the use and subsequent abuse
of proscribed substances. The French philosopher
Emile Durkheim believed that when a simple society
develops into a modern and urban one the intimacy
needed to sustain a common set of norms declines
(Adler et al, 1995). In his famous Strain Theory of
Anomie, Durkheim argued that groups become
fragmented when modernization sets in, and in the
absence of a common set of rules, the actions and
expectations of one set of people may clash with
those of other people. As behavior becomes
unpredictable the system gradually breaks down and
the society gets into a state of anomie. In Kenya the
high prevalence of substance use is associated with
the introduction of foreign ways of life which have
undermined indigenous cultures. Traditional culture
in Kenya generally restricted the use of alcohol to
older age groups who consumed it at certain special
occasions. The situation no longer abounds and these
restrictions have since been abandoned, and alcohol
is now available to adults and juveniles although
Kenyan law prohibits sale of alcohol to juveniles.
Factors that Influence Substance Use
Since time immemorial Kenyans have
consumed intoxicants made from various ingredients
like fermented cereals and others tapped from palm
and coconut trees. This form of alcohol was mostly
used in its natural form or distilled into a spirit
(Mwenesi, 1995). However, prior to colonization of
the country, the products were never commercialised
and were never made available to everyone but were
only consumed by a designated core of elders. But
this pattern changed after Kenya became a British
colony when consumption of alcohol was liberalised
which even saw the number of female users increase.
This, according to Mwenesi (1995), was the genesis
of Kenya becoming an “apparently endangered
country” as the number of seizures and amounts
seized, combined with reports from health and social
workers show that alcohol and substance abuse are
on the rise.
This notwithstanding, researchers have
shown that substance abuse disorders are caused by
multiple factors including genetic vulnerability,
environmental stressors, social pressure, individual
personality and presence of psychiatric problems
(Gill, 2000). These factors can serve to increase or
decrease the likelihood of substance use and
subsequent abuse. Gill (2000) asserts that everyone
possesses or experiences a combination of these
factors in their personal, family, social, school,
community and societal environments. This paper
broadly categorizes these factors into socio-cultural,
socio-psychological, and economic and analyzes
them and their contribution to substance use and
abuse as either risk factors or protective factors or
both.
But why do certain people begin to use and
abuse alcohol and drugs? INCB (2009) says that this
66
tertiary institutions is considered favourable due to
high level tolerance from students. Ray and Ksir
(1996) also argue that as adolescence progresses,
peer influence even in drug use behavior becomes
stronger.
2.1 Socio-Cultural Factors
Access of alcoholic drinks and tobacco in
Kenya is easy because the ingredients for making the
two are widely available in the country. In addition
other substances like khat which was legalized in
1977 is openly grown in the Meru region of the
country; cannabis is illegal but is widely grown in
secret; and other illegal substances find their way into
the country through major international entry points.
Although on average every individual is at one time
or the other at risk of substance use, there is a
population of children and young people exposed to
more than an average level of risk. Children and
young people are more likely to use drugs if drugs
are available during adolescence through family
members, or a high level of drug trafficking within
their neighbourhoods (INCB, 2009).
The phenomenon of peer influence as a risk
factor is complex; peer influence rarely takes the
form of overt coercion to try drugs, as is sometimes
assumed. According to INCB (2009) decisions on the
use of a particular drug are also linked to perceptions
of the risk associated with the use of that drug. As the
perceived risk associated with the use of the drug
increases, the rate of its use tends to decline.
Haji (1985) and Obondo (1998) assert that
socio-economic changes like internal migration from
a rural setting to an urban one, may be a risk factor as
it causes a sense of uprooting, loss of traditional
family values and relationships, loss of social
structure with respect to the community of origin,
difficult cultural adaptation or a feeling of alienation.
Weak communities are more likely to experience
crime, drug use and social disorder, which, in turn,
can further weaken those communities (NACADA,
2004; Ndirangu, 2000; INCB, 2009).
Many studies have also shown that
adolescents and the youth have fallen prey to popular
culture. Many youngsters have embraced popular
movie stars who are known to be substance users as
their heroes or heroines. Similarly popular cultures
portray substance use as related to popularity,
success, sophistication, good times, sex appeal and
independence (NACADA, 2004). Mwaniki (1982)
observes that active advertisements of alcohol and
tobacco encourage youngsters to try this new “stuff”.
Prior to the enactment of Mututho Law in 2011
which restricted the number of hours that people can
legally access alcoholic beverages in Kenya and also
prohibited the erection of alcohol and tobacco
billboard and posters within 300 meters of schools in
the country, most tobacco and beer companies were
sponsoring many sports events that attracted the
youth.
Another reason that puts individuals at risk
is bad parentage, in the form of negative socialization
and imparting of negative values. Children who grow
up in a family where members drink, smoke and use
other substances are more likely to abuse substances
in future. Some parents use or sell substances and at
times the children are involved in the business of
selling the substances predisposing them to substance
use (Obondo 1998; NACADA, 2004). Ray and Ksir
(1996) argue that the use of alcohol by parents has an
impact on subsequent alcohol use by their adolescent
children.
As observed by NACADA (2004) peer
pressure is a contributory factor of drug abuse among
users in Kenya. Phillips (1994) observes that peer
pressure and the need to be accepted are the single
most powerful forces influencing youth to become
involved in drugs. Haji (1995) notes that, drug use in
Similarly, having low paying jobs, having
jobs with boring tasks, having no supervision, or
having no opportunity for promotion are also risk
67
factors. NACADA (2004) holds this view and
considers the youth to be at special risk due to
inadequacy of social services, recreational facilities,
educational and employment opportunities. The
survey adds that young people who are not engaged
in learning and who have poor relationships with
their peers are more likely to experience mental
health problems and to be involved in various types
of health-risk behaviour, including drug use.
Similarly youth who do not feel a strong attachment
to their parents are more likely than others to use
drugs and become delinquent (UNDCP, 1995).
greatest initial influences that make young people in
Kenya experiment with substances is the person’s
attitude towards the substance use behaviour. Cobb
(2001) affirms this point by asserting that most
adolescents are aware of the hazards of smoking but
go ahead to start and continue smoking because of
their favourable attitude towards the behaviour.
2.3. Economic Factors
Like in many countries world over poverty
and unemployment contribute to substance abuse
among the youth in Kenya. Idle youth from poverty
hit families who are unable to find gainful
employment abuse cheap alcoholic drinks
(NACADA, 2004; Ray and Ksir, 1996).
Paradoxically, affluence and poverty are a major
cause of substance abuse, with the rich abusing
substances because they can afford them and the poor
falling trap to cheap alcoholic drinks (NACADA,
2004). An earlier study conducted by Mwaniki
(1982) found that socio-economic backgrounds have
a major impact on substance use or abuse. The study
found that 14% more people in the lower income
groups consume alcohol and tobacco compared to
higher income groups. Haji (1985) found that socioeconomic problems like deprivations arising from
rampant levels of poverty are associated with the use
and abuse of Khat in Kenya. Phillips (1994) reports
that some youth who find it hard to get a job without
experience especially during hard economic times
resort to finding self employment in the selling of
drugs and in the process get up hooked up. Similarly,
Kipkirui (2002) found that students who lack school
fees and youths who get bored due to lack of
employment end up using drugs so as to gain the
illusion of becoming bold, confident and courageous.
2.2 Socio-Psychological Factors
According to INCB (2009) drug use by
some youth may be an attempt to relieve mental
health problems. In adolescence, a sensation-seeking
personality is a risk factor for drug use, but so are
internalized problems such as anxiety. Research has
shown that early deprivations like lack of affection
from caregivers, and neglect or abuse, have profound
effect on a child’s pathway through life. Children of
drug or alcohol-dependent parents are at particular
risk for later drug use (INCB 2009). Ndirangu (2000)
observes that unfavourable socialization of children
by parents such as harsh and inconsistent discipline
and hostility or rejection are contributing factors to
substance abuse in Kenya. Thus there are people who
get involved in drugs as they seek for escape outlets
because problems in their family lives are too
depressing to face and drug use and abuse become a
shield from real problems they encounter while
growing up (Philips, 1994; NACADA, 2004).
Ndirangu (2000) and Phillips (1994)
advance a similar argument by saying that some
youth abuse drugs in an attempt to search for identity
and recognition. The two researchers separately
observe that Kenyan youth negative self image and
their search to be recognized has driven them to seek
unconventional ways such as substance use for them
to realize their “lost or unrecognized self esteem.”
NACADA (2004) also points out that one of the
3.
Methodology
Probation service in Kenya was started in
1943 when a series of commissions appointed by the
British colonial government recommended its
establishment. The Probation Ordnance Act of 1943
68
officially commenced in Kenya in 1946 and only
catered for Juvenile and women offenders in the then
Nairobi Municipality. Over the years the probation
service in Kenya has grown and now runs a total of
117 stations with a professional workforce of 457
probation officers managing a daily average of 36000
offenders (Probation Service Strategic Plan 20082012). The scope of its programs has grown from the
initial supervision and rehabilitation of offenders
placed under probation supervision to the
development of community service orders (CSO)
program which came into effect in 1999 as a
reparative sentence.
act cap 90 of the laws of Kenya, and the mental
health act cap 248 of the laws of Kenya.
3.1 Research Design and Sampling
The study covered offenders placed under
probation supervision within the jurisdiction of
Limuru and Lari districts which are served by a
Senior Principal Magistrate court located within
Limuru municipality. The research utilised purposive
sampling at the initial stage to select the Limuru
Probation Station. From a target population of 168
substance abusers (133 males and 35 females) the
research used stratified random sampling to select 66
males and 18 women to participate in the research.
Secondly the research adopted a descriptive design to
determine the factors influencing substance use
among the respondents. The method was chosen in
order to collect data that would describe the factors
that influence substance use and abuse among the
offenders under probation supervision in Limuru. The
technique also ensured that there was fair
representation and generalization of the findings.
The probation department runs three
programs namely probation orders program,
community service orders program, and the aftercare
program. The probation orders program draws its
mandate from the probation of offender’s act cap 64
of the laws of Kenya. The act embodies the
department’s rehabilitation agenda and a link with the
judiciary especially in regard to assisting the courts
with sentencing decisions (Probation Service
Strategic Plan 2008-2012).
3.2 Data Collection Methods
A semi-structured questionnaire consisting
of both open and close ended questions was used to
collect primary data. This allowed the respondents to
recollect information regarding their own substance
use and abuse experiences. The researcher pre-tested
the questionnaire in order to test its validity and
reliability as a data collection tool and to ensure its
effectiveness. Secondary data constituting types of
offenses committed, duration of sentences and
probation conditions was gathered from records in
the custody of Limuru probation station. Data arising
from the close ended questions was quantitatively
analyzed
using
mean
scores,
frequencies,
percentages, and cross tabulations. Chi-square test
was used to test association between variables and
the use and abuse of substances and formed the basis
for rejecting or accepting the null hypothesis.
The community service orders program’s
(CSO) mandate is drawn from the community service
orders act number 10 of 1998 of the Laws of Kenya.
The program is in line with the global trend that
favors non-custodial sentence as opposed to
incarceration. Offenders in this program receive a
reparative sentence that requires them to carry out
unpaid public work within the offended community
as a way of repairing the damaged relationship
between the offender and the community.
The Aftercare Program deals with the
reintegration and resettlement of offenders released
from various penal institutions either on license or
upon completion of their sentences. The probation
service implements this program as per the Borstal
institutions act cap 92 of the laws of Kenya, prisons
69
4.
in Limuru. In particular the research was interested in
finding whether the following hypotheses re true:
Results
The findings of the research were interpreted
in accordance with the study objective which was to
establish the situational and economic factors
influencing substance use and abuse among offenders
under probation supervision in Limuru Probation
Center. The demographic characteristics of the
offenders were as follows: About 66% of the
respondents were above 26 years compared to 21.5%
within 19-25 years and 12.7% within 14-18 years of
age; 41.8% respondents were single and had never
married compared to 35.4% married and 22.8%
separated. Only 3.8 % respondents had post
secondary education, compared to 16.5% respondents
with secondary education, 8.9% who had dropped out
of secondary school at some point, 22.8% with
primary education but have not enrolled for
secondary school, and 48.1% without primary school
certificate. Some 73.4% respondents were
Protestants, 20.3% were Catholics, 2.5% were
Muslims and 3.8% did not profess any religion. The
respondents were in custody because of theft related
offences (43%), physical assault (41.8%) possession
of narcotics mostly bhang (10.1%), offences under
the alcoholic drinks control act (3.8%) and gambling
related offences (1.8%).

Offenders whose parents were at one point
users of mood altering substances are more
likely to use the same substances than those
whose parents were never users;

Offenders whose siblings are users of mood
altering substances are more likely to be
users of the similar substances than those
whose siblings are not users;

Offenders coming from homes prone to
conflict are more likely to be users of mood
altering substances than those originating
from homes devoid of conflicts; and

Unemployed offenders are more likely than
their employed counterparts to be users of
mood altering substances.
4.1.1 Substance Use by Respondents Parents
This research made the assumption that
majority of current users of alcohol came from homes
where parents were at one point users of mood
altering substances, and hence there was a
relationship between parents’ use of mood altering
substances and respondents’ subsequent use of
alcohol. Results showed that a small majority of
52.2% (24 out of 46 alcohol users) came from homes
where either parent used mood altering substances at
one point compared to 47.8% (16 out of 33) who
came from homes where parents had never used
mood altering substances (table 1).
4. 1. Factors Influencing Substance Use and Abuse
among Offenders under Probation
The objective of this research was to
establish the factors influencing substance use and
abuse among offenders under probation supervision
Table 1: Substance Use by Parents and alcohol usage
Drinking Status (Past 12
Parents’ Substance Ever Use
Months)
Yes
No
Drinker
24
22
Non Drinker
16
17
Total
40
39
Source: Research Data 2011
70
Total
46
33
79
Table 2: Substance use by siblings and alcohol usage
Drinking Status (Past 12
Siblings Substance Use (Past 12 Months)
Months)
Yes
No
Drinker
33
13
Non Drinker
15
18
Total
48
31
Source: Research Data 2011
Table 3: Conflict in the respondents’ homes and alcohol usage
Drinking Status (Past 12
Conflict in the Family
Total
Months)
Yes
No
Drinker
14
32
46
Non Drinker
9
24
33
Total
23
56
79
Source: Research Data 2011
Total
46
33
79
Table 4: Current Employment Status
Drinking Status
Current Employment Status
(Past 12 Months)
Full Time
Temporary
Unemployed
Self Employed
2
24
3
14
Drinker
0
17
1
11
Non Drinker
Total
2
41
4
25
Source: Research Data 2011
4.1.2 Substance Use by Respondents Siblings
This research also made the assumption that
majority current users of alcohol at the probation
center came from homes where siblings used mood
altering substances, meaning that there exist a
relationship between siblings’ use of mood altering
substances and respondents’ use of alcohol. Findings
indicated that 71.7% (33 out of 46) respondents came
from homes where siblings were users of mood
altering substances compared to 28.3% who came
from homes with no siblings that consumed the
substances. Further, some 45.5% (15 out of 33)
respondents non consumers of alcohol came from
homes with siblings that used mood altering
substances (table 2)
Total
Student
3
4
46
33
7
79
4.1.3 Conflict in the Homes in Which Respondents
Were Raised
Regarding this aspect the research also
assumed that the offenders who are likely to engage
in alcohol consumption were raised in more conflict
prone homes meaning that there exist a relationship
between conflict in the homes and subsequent use of
alcohol. Findings showed that 70.9% respondents
came from homes without conflicts compared to
29.1% respondents who originated from homes with
some form of conflict. However, 30.4% (14 out of
46) alcohol user respondents came from homes with
some conflict compared to 69.6% respondents who
originated from homes without conflicts (table 3).
71
from homes in which the parents were also at one
point users of mood altering substances, and hence
there existed a relationship between use of mood
altering substances by parents’ and the usage of drugs
by respondents. Results revealed that 38.5% (10 out
of 26) of the drug users were from homes in which
either parent had at one point used mood altering
substances while 61.5% (16 out of 26) came from
homes where parents had never used mood altering
substances (table 5).
4.1.4 Current Employment Status and Alcohol
Usage
Data in table 4 above shows that 94.9% (75
out of 79) respondents were engaged in some form of
gainful employment, meaning that the use of alcohol
was not influenced by lack of employment.
4.1.5 Substance Use by Parents and Respondents’
Drug Usage
The research also made the assumption that
majority of the current drug users were likely to come
Table 5: Substance Use by Parents and Drug Usage
Drug Use Status (Past 12 Months)
Yes
Drug User
10
Non Drug User
30
Total
40
Source: Research Data 2011
Parents’ Substance Ever Use
No
16
23
39
Table 6: Substance Use by Siblings and Drugs Usage
Drugs Usage Status (Past 12 Months)
Siblings Substance Use (Past 12
Months)
Yes
No
Drug User
18
8
Non Drug User
30
23
Total
48
31
Source: Research Data 2011
Table 7: Conflict in the respondents’ homes and drug Usage
Drug Use Status (Past 12 Months)
Conflict in the Family
Yes
No
Drug User
8
18
Non Drug User
15
38
Total
23
56
Source: Research Data 2011
72
Total
26
53
79
Total
26
53
79
Total
26
53
79
Table 8: Current Employment Status and Drug Use
Drug Use Status
Current Employment Status
(Past 12 Months)
Full
Temporary Unemployed
Self
Time
Employed
Drug User
1
15
2
6
Non Drug User
1
26
2
19
Total
2
41
4
25
Total
Student
2
5
7
26
53
79
Source: Research Data 2011
4.1.6 Substance use by Siblings and Respondents’
Drug Usage
Regarding this aspect the research made the
assumption that majority of the drug users were
likely to come from homes where siblings were also
users of mood altering substances, and hence there
existed a relationship between the use of mood
altering substances between the siblings and the
respondents. The findings revealed 69.2% (18 out of
26) respondents came from homes where siblings
were users of mood altering substances compared to
30.8% respondents who came from homes where
siblings had never used mood altering substances.
Contrary to expectations 56.6% (30 out of 53) non
user respondents said that their siblings were current
users of mood altering substances (table 6).
that a significant majority of 70.9% (56 out of 79)
respondents came from homes without conflicts
compared to 29.1% (23 out of 79) respondents
brought up in homes with some amount of conflict.
The study however observed that only 30.8% (8 out
of 26) of the drug users came from homes with some
amount of conflict compared to 69.2% (18 out of 26)
who came from homes without conflicts (table 7).
4.1.8 Respondents Current Employment Status
and Their Drug Use
Research found that 94.9% (75 out of 79)
respondents were in some form of gainful
employment (table 8), and consequently lack of
employment was not factor in consumption of drugs.
Hypotheses testing
4.1.7 Conflict in the Respondents’ Homes and
Drug Usage
Chi-square test was used as a test of
association between various variables and the
consumption of alcohol and drugs and was thus a
basis for not rejecting or rejecting the null hypothesis.
Table 9 below summaries the various statistical tests
carried out in this research.
The research made the assumption that
offenders raised in conflict prone homes are more
likely to consume drug use than those brought in
homes with less conflict. The study findings showed
Table 9: Hypotheses testing
Alcohol
Usage
Variable
X2
P-value
Df
α – Value
Ho
Parents’ Substance Use
0.105
0.746
1
0.05
Not rejected
73
Drug Usage
Siblings Substance Use
5.568
0.018
1
0.05
Rejected
Conflict in the Family
0.093
0.760
1
0.05
Not rejected
Duration of Probation Sentence
0.250
0.617
1
0.05
Not rejected
Parents’ Substance Use
2.297
0.130
1
0.05
Not rejected
Siblings Substance Use
1.166
0.280
1
0.05
Not rejected
Conflict in the Family
0.051
0.821
1
0.05
Not rejected
Duration of Probation Sentence
0.175
0.676
1
0.05
Not rejected
Source: Research Data 2011
The relationship between the respondents’
use of alcohol with their parent’s substance use gave
a chi-square P-value of 0.746 which was greater than
the α level significance of 0.05 meaning the
relationship between the two variables is not
statistically significant. In the case of siblings
substance use, the chi-square P-value was 0.018
which was less than the α-level 0.05 significance
meaning that the relationship between the two
variables was statistically significant. The test of
association respondents alcohol use and conflict at
homes gave a chi-square P-value of 0.760 against the
α level significance of 0.05 meaning the relationship
between the two variables is not statistically
significant. Finally the chi-square P-value between
the duration of their probation sentences and
respondents alcohol use was 0.617 which is greater
than the α level of significance of 0.05 meaning that
the relationship between duration of sentence and the
use of alcohol by the respondents is not statistically
significant.
between siblings substance use and respondents drug
use was 0.280 which is more than the α level of
significance of 0.05 meaning that the relationship
between the two variables is not statistically
significant. Similarly the chi-square P-value between
conflict at homes and respondents drug use was 0.821
which is more than the α level of significance of 0.05
meaning that the relationship between the two
variables is not statistically significant. Finally the
chi-square P-value between the probation sentence
duration and respondents drug use was 0.676 which
is greater than the α level of significance of 0.05
meaning that the relationship between duration of
sentence and the use of drugs by the respondents is
not statistically significant.
5. Summary and Conclusions
The study observed that 52.2% of the
alcohol users were from homes in which either parent
had at one point used mood altering substances while
47.8% came from homes where parents had never
used mood altering substances. This statistic indicates
that there does not exist a direct relationship between
the offenders’ use of alcohol and parents having used
mood altering substances at some point in their life.
Regarding
the
relationship
between
respondents’ drug use with their parent’s substance
use, the chi-square P-value was 0.130 which is more
than the α level of significance of 0.05 meaning that
the relationship between the two variables is not
statistically significant. The chi-square P-value
The research also established that 71.7%
alcohol users were from homes where siblings used
74
mood altering substances compared to 28.3% who
did not have siblings who used mood altering
substances. However some 45.5% non alcohol
consuming respondents came from homes with
siblings that used mood altering substances. Hence
the use of mood altering substances by siblings seems
to be related to the respondents’ current usage of
alcohol.
alcohol use employment status did not seem to have
any significant relationship with the use of drugs by
the respondents.
The study also tested the impact of the
probation duration sentence as a protective factor on
both respondents’ alcohol and drug use but that there
was no relationship between alcohol use and duration
of probation sentences as long sentences seemed not
to have implications on the non use of alcohol by the
respondents. In total these findings were remarkably
different from the study of alcohol, drugs and
substance abuse among the general population.
The number of respondents who came from
homes without conflicts was 70.9% compared to
29.1% who came from homes with some amount of
conflict. It was however observed that only 30.8% of
the drug users came from homes with some amount
of conflict compared to 69.2% who came from homes
without conflicts. Thus, though it was expected that
conflict at home would be a factor influencing the use
of drugs among respondents, our data and tests
showed there was no significant relationship between
the two. Similarly there existed no significant
relationship between conflicts at home and alcohol
use among respondents. A similar observation was
found between parents’ substance use and
respondents’ substance use. However the research
established that there was a significant relationship
between substance use by siblings and alcohol use by
the respondents. Employment status was found not to
have a significant relationship with the usage of
alcohol by the respondents.
5.1 Recommendations
The study recommended counseling and
rehabilitation of prisoners suffering from substance
abuse so as to reduce the same and by extension
reduce recidivism. Such intervention should prioritize
the component of alcohol abuse as it seems to be
more pronounced than drug abuse, and incorporate
measures geared towards overcoming external
influence from persons such as friends and siblings.
The measures should also address character
formation and the inculcation of moral values that
exalt self control and abhor the reverse.
REFERENCES
The findings on drug use were similar to
those of alcohol use as conflict in the homes where
respondents came from was found not to have a
significant effect on the use of drugs by the
respondents. The use of substance by respondents’
parents showed a similar pattern as it did not
significantly relate to drug use by the respondents.
The use of substance use by the respondents’ siblings
was also not related to drug use by the respondents
which differed markedly from the findings pertaining
to alcohol use which showed a significant
relationship between the two. And as with the case of
5.
6.
7.
75
Adler Freda, Mueller Gerhard O. W, Laufer
William S. (1995) Criminology. 2nd Edition:
The Shorter Version. New York McGrawHill INC
Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare. (2008). 2007 National Drug
Strategy Household Survey: First Results.
Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare.
Department of Probation and Aftercare
Services (2008) Probation Service Strategic
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Plan 2008-2012. Nairobi: Office of the Vice
President and Ministry for Home Affairs
Gill Kawaljeet Kaur (2000) Substance
Abuse in Vulnerable Populations. Bombay:
DB Taraporevala Son’s Publication.
Haji, Asha R J (1985) The Social Economic
Factors Associated with Khat use and Abuse
in Garrisa (Kenya). M. A. Sociology,
University of Nairobi
INCB (2009) Report on the International
Narcotics Control Board. New York. United
Nations.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (2008)
Statistical Abstracts. Nairobi: Ministry of
Planning and National Development.
Mwenesi, Halima. A, (1995). Rapid
Assessment of Drug Abuse in Kenya. A
National Report. Nairobi: United Nations
International Drug Programme (UNDCP)
NACADA (2004) Youth in Peril and Drug
Abuse in Kenya. Nairobi: National Agency
for Campaign Against Drug Abuse.
NACADA
(2007)
Rapid
Situation
Assessment of Drug and Substance Abuse in
Kenya. Nairobi: National Agency for
Campaign Against Drug Abuse.
Obondo Anne Atieno (1996) The Social
Economic Effects of Alcoholism on the
Kenyan
Family.
Doctoral
ThesisDepartment of Psychiatry, University of
Nairobi.
Siegel Larry (2000) Criminology. 7th
Edition: Belmont. Wardsworth
Ray, O. & Ksir, C. (1996). Drugs, Society,
and
Human
Behavior.
Boston:
WCB/McGraw-Hill.
UNDCP (1995). The Social Impact of Drug
Abuse. Copenhagen. United Nations
Publications.
76