##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Crime victimization and the subsequent choice to notify the police are complex behaviors influenced by various psychological, socio-economic, and contextual factors. Studies on crime victimization suggest that individuals’ experiences and perceptions of crime significantly shape their willingness to report incidents to law enforcement. This study examines the relationship between crime victimization and the reporting of property crimes to the Kenyan police in Gilgil Ward, Nakuru County. Employing a mixed-approach study design, the study combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to analyze the impact of various factors, such as the nature of the crime, incident location, socio-economic conditions, and trust levels towards the police, on victims’ decisions to report property crimes. Data were collected from 96 respondents through questionnaires and interviews. The study found that burglary had the highest reporting rate (78.0%), while theft had the lowest (40.8%). The study identified factors such as the lack of surveillance during curfews, limited police patrols, and the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as contributors to crime patterns and reporting behaviors. The study recommends that strengthening the relationship between the police and the community is essential to encourage crime reporting., establishing more police posts, enhancing community engagement, and using digital platforms to encourage crime reporting. These strategies could improve the reporting rate of property crimes, leading to better crime management and community safety in Gilgil Ward, Nakuru County.

Introduction

Crime victimization plays a significant role in shaping an individual’s decision to report crimes to law enforcement authorities. Crime underreporting remains a critical challenge to effective crime management and justice administration, particularly in developing countries where criminal justice systems (CJS) are often underdeveloped (Ezeet al., 2019). This issue is exacerbated by several factors, including inadequate public awareness of the importance of reporting crimes, lack of trust in law enforcement, and fears of re-victimization or negative personal consequences (Chaudharyet al., 2019; Yoon, 2015). In many African nations, including Kenya, slow progress in enhancing criminal justice infrastructure and public education on reporting mechanisms has contributed to a high incidence of unreported crimes. Victims often weigh the perceived risks and benefits of reporting a crime, frequently deciding against it if they believe the process is cumbersome or unlikely to result in justice (Ezeet al., 2019). This tendency towards non-reporting undermines law enforcement efforts and hinders effective crime prevention and resolution.

Studies have shown that crime reporting rates are influenced by various factors, such as the nature of the crime, socio-economic conditions, and cultural attitudes toward crime reporting. For instance, property crimes, including burglary, theft, and vandalism, are typically reported less frequently than violent crimes due to a perceived lower severity and the complexities involved in engaging with law enforcement (Chebii, 2019; Ezeet al., 2019; Goudriaanet al., 2004). Trust in law enforcement also plays a critical role; Tyleret al. (2014) and Murphy and Barkworth (2014) argue that higher levels of trust in police are correlated with increased crime reporting rates. In contrast, in developing countries like Kenya, mistrust of law enforcement—fueled by perceived corruption, inefficiency, and lack of responsiveness—often deters victims from reporting crimes (TIK, 2016).

While crime reporting rates have been extensively studied in developed countries, the findings may not accurately reflect the situation in developing regions where socio-economic and cultural factors significantly influence crime reporting behaviors. For instance, research from the United Kingdom and the United States shows varying reporting rates, with figures ranging from 38% to 39.3% for property crimes (BJS, 2011; Home Office, 2011). However, these statistics do not necessarily capture changes in actual crime levels but may reflect shifts in public awareness and police scrutiny (Office of National Security, 2019). In contrast, the Netherlands experienced a decline in reporting rates from 43% to 35% over a five-year period, which raises questions about the true trends in crime reporting (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2011; Goudriaan, 2006). These discrepancies highlight the need for context-specific research to understand the factors influencing crime reporting in different settings.

In Kenya, and particularly in Nakuru County’s Gilgil Ward, property crimes such as theft, robbery, and burglary are prevalent, yet reporting rates remain notably low (NCRC, 2017; NPS, 2018). Gilgil Ward, as a rapidly developing area with a growing population, faces unique challenges in crime reporting. Existing studies indicate that reported property crime cases are disproportionately low, with significant underreporting observed for crimes like robbery with violence and livestock theft (GPS, 2020a). Several research suggests that low reporting rates in areas like Gilgil Ward are influenced by a lack of trust in the police, limited awareness of reporting procedures, and cultural attitudes that view crime as a private matter (Goudriaan, 2006; Maina, 2018; Mwangiet al., 2022). Furthermore, social and economic factors such as education level, income, gender have been shown to impact crime-reporting behaviors (Groot & Maasen van den Brink, 2010; Regan, 2018).

Literature Review

Crime victimization and the subsequent decision to report to the police are complex behaviors influenced by various psychological, socio-economic, and contextual factors. Studies on crime victimization suggest that individuals’ experiences and perceptions of crime significantly shape their willingness to report incidents to law enforcement. Research shows that the rate of crime reporting varies significantly across different countries. For example, in the United Kingdom, the reporting rate for victims was 38% (Home Office, 2011), while in the United States, approximately 39.3% of property crimes were reported in 2010 (BJS, 2011). However, these figures do not necessarily reflect changes in actual crime levels; a rise in reported crimes could still coincide with an increase in unreported crimes due to factors like increased police scrutiny or public awareness (Office of National Security, 2019). In the Netherlands, crime reporting rates dropped from 43% in 2006 to 35% in 2011 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2011; Goudriaan, 2006), which complicates the assessment of whether crime rates are genuinely decreasing or if more crimes are going unreported. Also, the challenge of underreporting could be a result of Africans’ ignorance of their role of notifying the police of crime happenings.

Crime reporting has posed a small percentage, ranging from 50% or less (Chaudharyet al., 2019; Yoon, 2015). Most individuals avoid reporting a crime to hide their identity (Chaudharyet al., 2019), lack trust in the CJS officials, fear of being re-victimized by the offenders because of reporting, and the result of analyzing the cost and benefits of reporting a crime (Ezeet al., 2019). Victims of crime weigh their options on reporting or not reporting a crime. However, the law considers reporting a crime to the police as a mandatory act that assists in enhancing law and order in any given state. It’s also worth noting in the discussion below that; -most research on crime reporting has been conducted in developed countries, posing a gap in the literature in developing countries. Hence, this study may be of value to the Kenyan government and especially to the relevant authority in Gilgil Ward in understanding the victims’ behavior. We can say that the consistent research in the developed countries has ensured the growth of their Justice Systems.

The British reporting rate was 38% among those who were victimized (Home Office, 2011). Moreover, according to the National Crime Victimization Survey 2010, approximately 39.3% of property crimes were also reported in the United States (BJS, 2011). Besides, in 2019, there was no change in the level of crime in the past years (Office of National Security, 2019). However, there was an 11% increase in robbery-reported cases, 3% in car theft, and a 4% decrease in burglary-reporting cases. Office of National Security (2019) indicated that the rise or fall of police-recorded crimes does not necessarily mean that the actual crime levels in society have changed. This could mean that the rise of property crime reporting does not indicate that the level of the commission of property crime has reduced. However, there is a chance that property crime levels are on the rise, and this poses a problem since the rate of reporting is still at low levels, thus motivating more offenders to continue with their criminal behaviors.

The Netherlands reporting rate as of 2011 is 35% (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2011), which was slightly lower than the 2006 statistics that indicated a 43% reporting rate (Goudriaan, 2006). Also, in 2017, 10% of the Dutch were victims of one form of property crime and more than 5% of vandalism (Ministry of Justice & Security, 2017). Moreover, 24% of traditional crimes also were reported to the police. There has been a drop in the rate of crime reporting in the Netherlands. This poses a dilemma on whether the victims of crime practice their role of reporting criminal behaviours to the police officers to ensure justice is served. However, the rise or fall of crime reporting in the Netherlands might not be clear as to whether the reduction of crime reporting is a result of a drop in criminal activities or an increase in under-reporting. Moreover, this can’t be clear because the percentages of the reporting rate looked at a general perspective of the reporting, of which some crimes might have a higher reporting rate than others. Hence, the study sought to understand the reporting levels of specific property crime victimization in Gilgil Ward.

The general reporting rate of various forms of crime in the US has risen (Baumer & Lauritsen, 2010). However, the number of reported robberies has decreased since the 1990s (Baumer & Lauritsen, 2010). Whereas in the Philippines, robbery offense was among the top three reported crimes in 2013 (Patalinghug, 2017). Baumer and Lauritsen (2010) also discussed several social changes that had an effect on the police reporting rate between 1980 and 2010. These include the introduction of community policing, the expansion of mobile communication technology, legal and social movements, police abilities to solve crimes, and the notion of anti-snitching. Community policing is one of the main strategies that African countries have tried to implement (Aropet, 2012; Musa, 2016; Natecho & Muturi, 2016). However, according to Hills (2014, as cited in Musa, 2016), community policing has not been successful in most parts of African countries. Also, the arrest of criminals after reporting a crime does not affect subsequent crime reporting (Yoon, 2015).

Nigeria noted a decline of 64,151 in crime reporting between the years 2006 and 2012, according to the CLEEN Foundation report discussed in Musa (2016). Furthermore, Ezeet al. (2019) findings revealed a low crime reporting rate in Gwagwalada Area Council Abuja North Central Nigeria. According to Ezeet al. (2019), if the victimized persons choose to report criminal activities, it will motivate the curbing of crimes in the area. Besides, there is a limited piece of literature that has provided aggregate statistical data on the percentage of reporting rate of all crimes combined, which the current study established. Overall statistics would be helpful, but certain crimes might pose a very high percentage of reporting, which cannot be generalized to other types of crime. Also, it is necessary to look at each specific crime to come up with a clear view of reporting to ensure each crime is handled reasonably by researchers.

According to Kempen (2019), in South Africa, a comparison was made between cases reported to the South Africa Police Station (SAPS) and information provided in the Governance, Public Safety, and Justice Survey, which provided Victims of Crime (VoC) survey reports. It is clear that the underreporting of crimes is still a problem (Kempen, 2019). According to the 2018/2019 VoC, an estimated 1,345,196 housebreaking incidents occurred, affecting 5.8% of South African households. Housebreaking was reported to the police by approximately 48% of households. It is estimated that 467,599 households reported housebreaking to the police. This estimate, however, was significantly higher than the 220,865 burglaries at residential premises reported in the 2018/2019 SAPS crime statistics.

The SAPS statistics showed that 22,431 house robberies were reported, compared to an estimated 264,054 home robberies, affecting 183,998 (1.1%) households in the 2018/2019 VoC. According to the latter survey, roughly 60% of households that experienced house robbery reported it to the police. Theft of motor vehicles also differed significantly from the SAPS’s official statistics, which show 48,324 cases reported to the SAPS. According to the 2018/2019 VoC, 68,030 (0.4%) households were victims of this crime in 2018/2019. Approximately 86% of households that experienced vehicle theft reported the crime to the police.

In Kenya, the NCRC (2017) report indicated that there were low correlations between most of the crimes whose figures were comparing the crime victims’ surveys and crimes reported to the police. Also, in a research survey conducted in Nairobi and Kisumu, the respondents indicated that they opted not to report a crime to the police (TIK, 2016). People have been reluctant to cooperate with police officers (Maina, 2018). Besides, even among university students in Kenya, reporting crime is a problem. Chebii (2019) found out that the 15% reporting rate of crime to the police by students in the Egerton Njoro campus was considered as low. The low reporting rate could have been a result of the presence of alternative persons to report to, such as the security personnel at the campus.

In Nakuru County, stealing, robbery with violence, housebreaking, and burglary are the most common crimes (NCRC, 2017; NPS, 2018). As per the NPS (2018) report, the most prevalent crime was stealing, with 935 cases. Besides, crimes related to breaking were 351 (NPS, 2018). In the Uasin Gishu district, the overall reporting rate of farm theft was 44%, with machinery (more than 59%) and livestock theft (more than 80%) having the most reported crimes (Buneiet al., 2012). However, there was low reporting of small equipment theft, with less than a 30% reporting rate. The reporting rate was considered higher than that of developed countries such as America and Australia.

In Nakuru County, one of the fastest growing sub-county is Gilgil Sub-County. It hosts Gilgil Ward and four other Wards (Murindati, Elementaita, Mbaruk/Emburru, and Malewa West). Gilgil Ward is most prevalent with property crimes, followed by Eburru/Mbaruk Ward in the Gilgil Sub-County (GPS, 2020b). Approximately 20% of the reported crimes to the police officers are property crimes (GPS, 2020a). The 20% accounts for 70–100 cases related to property crime per month (GPS, 2020a). Most of these property crimes are related to theft by servants and theft from persons, which comprise 80% of the reported property crimes (GPS, 2020a). Robbery with violence and theft of livestock are the least reported property crimes, ranging from 0–3 cases per month (GPS, 2020b). Compared to Eburru/Mbaruk, whose reported property crime cases ranged from 30–50 per month (GPS, 2020b). The reporting rate of property crime is considered low in Gilgil Ward (GPS, 2020a). However, the figures cannot ascertain that it results from a drop in the commission of property crime in the area. Besides, in Gilgil Ward, there is limited literature on crime reporting rates. It will be unjust to rely only on the Gilgil police statistics since they might be misleading. The current study offered an understanding of the property crime reporting rates, focusing on the victims’ perspectives.

The seriousness of a crime is a factor that motivates the reporting of a crime (Chebii, 2019; Hart & Colavita, 2011; Kroovandet al., 2019; Sidebottom, 2015; Xieet al., 2006). However, Kroovandet al. (2019) noted that there was a difference between whites and non-whites in cooperation with police; for example, whites were more cooperative than non-whites. Besides, rape and sexual assaults are considered severe, but they are among the least reported (BJS, 2003; Chebii, 2019; Hensonet al., 2013). Also, victims of sexual offenses tend not to report crime since they feel embarrassed and ashamed (Chebii, 2019). This issue poses a problem because the criminals are left free, and the victims are at a greater risk of being targeted by the same offenders. Property crimes also received different levels of reporting based on the type of property that has been harmed or stolen. For instance, larceny is the least reported, while motor vehicle theft is the most reported (BJS, 2007; Goudriaan, 2006). Moreover, the competency of the police matters a lot in property crime; in instances where police officers are competent, they attract more crime reporting (Goudriaanet al., 2004). In violent crimes, older victims are more likely to report a crime compared to those who are young (Goudriaan, 2006; Kroovandet al., 2019), even though the young are more likely to be victims of violent crime (Sickmund & Puzzanchera, 2014). Besides, women report more than men (Goudriaan, 2006). However, women are less likely to report a crime when the offender is an acquaintance (Cheng & Smyth, 2015; Hensonet al., 2013; Steinmetz & Austin, 2014). On the contrary, Sidebottom (2015) found out that assaulted male victims were more likely to report a crime in Malawi.

Crime victims weigh the cost and benefits in most instances before reporting a crime (Ezeet al., 2019; Goudriaan, 2006). They weigh the cost of reporting crime, the risks, and the benefits of reporting crime. For example, if notifying the police of a property crime victimization will make them recover the stolen property, they will choose to report the crime (Chebii, 2019). Buneiet al. (2012) found that a larger group of victims tend to avoid reporting if there is a high cost of reporting and prosecution. However, cultural beliefs can alter the choice of reporting or not reporting a crime (Goudriaanet al., 2004; Musa, 2016). For example, if the cultural norms consider a crime inappropriate to be reported, then the victim will decide not to report; contrary, if the cultural norms regard a crime as report worthy, victims will opt to report the committed crime. In this case, the victim weighs the costs and benefits based on cultural norms. Also, the state of the victim state during his or her victimization can influence whether the victim will or will not report the crime (Goudriaanet al., 2004). For example, if the victim’s property got stolen when he or she was self-intoxicated with an illegal drug, the victim might opt not to report the crime.

The above literature shows the problem of reporting a crime to the police. Besides the fact that there might be more reporting on some crimes, the fact remains that the reporting levels are low. Moreover, there are contradictions on the level of reporting of different types of property crime where scholars give different views regarding the same crimes, such as those that happen in private places. This study aims to address the gap in the literature by investigating the relationship between crime victimization and the reporting of property crimes to the police in Gilgil Ward, Nakuru County, Kenya. It focuses on victims’ perspectives and explores how factors such as trust in law enforcement, socio-economic conditions, cultural norms, and the location of incidents shape reporting behaviors. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for improving crime reporting practices and enhancing the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in Kenya.

Method

Research Design

The study used a mixed-method research methodology. The Mixed-method research design collects and analyzes data using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies (Creswell, 2012). It also gives detailed and complete data to help researchers reach their aims (Creswell, 2012). The argument for utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methods is that none is sufficient on its own to adequately represent the problem (property crime reporting) under consideration. The researcher employed a concurrent embedded technique. The concurrent embedded technique includes a primary method, either quantitative or qualitative, that directs the research investigation and a secondary method that provides support for the research study (Creswell, 2009). In this research project, the quantitative methodology was used to collect information from the target population. The secondary method was the qualitative approach, which was intended to gather information to support the study. The researcher aimed to study the relationship between crime victimization and the reporting of property crimes to the Kenyan police in Gilgil Ward, Nakuru County.

Location of Study

The study was conducted in Gilgil Ward, located in Nakuru County, Kenya. Gilgil Ward borders four other County Assembly Wards within the Gilgil Sub-county: Murindat, Elementaita, Mbaruk/Emburru, and Malewa West. According to the 2019 census, the population of Gilgil Ward is 68,012, with 34,800 males and 33,211 females (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2019). Property crimes are the most prevalent type of crime in Gilgil Ward (GPS, 2020a), with rising levels leading to increased media attention (Asiba, 2018; Ogemba, 2020). However, only about 20% of reported crimes in Gilgil Ward are property crimes (GPS, 2020a). The low reporting rate of property crimes in Gilgil Ward may be influenced by various factors, including victims’ reluctance to report crimes. It remains unclear why many property crimes are not reported despite the expectation that all crimes should be reported to the police for appropriate action. Factors such as the distance to the nearest police station and the nature of police-victim relationships may affect the reporting rate. The extent to which these factors affect the reporting of property crimes and whether the high rates of property crime convictions are due to high or low reporting rates has not been sufficiently studied. Therefore, this study focuses on understanding the relationship between Crime Victimization and Reporting of Property Crimes to the Police by victims in Gilgil Ward, making it a unique and significant area for research.

Sample Size

The study has a sample size of 96 respondents. The sample size was determined using Cochran’s (1977) formula for estimating sample size for an unknown population. Cochran’s (1977) formula is given in (1.1), and the calculations in (1.2) and (1.3):

n 0 = ( z 2 p q ) e 2
n 0 = ( ( 1.96 2 ) ( 0.5 ) ( 1 0.5 ) ) 0.1 2

where n0 is the sample size, z is the chosen critical value for the desired confidence level, p is the expected proportion of an attribute in the population, q = 1 − p, and e is the required level of accuracy. The researcher wishes to utilize a p-value of 0.5 since it is the most commonly employed in choosing a more conservative sample size, a 95% confidence level with a critical value (z) of 1.96, and a desired degree of precision (e) of 0.1. Only 81 of the 96 distributed questionnaires were returned, resulting in an 84.4% response rate, which was sufficient, as advised by Kothari (2010).

n 0 = 96

Results and Discussion

This research sought to establish the relationship between Crime Victimization and the reporting of property crimes to the Kenyan police in Gilgil Ward, Nakuru County. To establish the relationship between Crime Victimization and Reporting of Property Crime, the researcher employed Pearson Correlation and a frequency distribution table. The respondents were first asked to specify the number of times they had been a victim of a property-related crime and made an effort to report the crime to the police, which was then associated with Pearson Correlation. A frequency distribution table was also used to compare percentage frequency. Later, respondents were asked whether they would report property crime (robbery, burglary, housebreaking, or theft) if it occurred in the future. This was measured using descriptive statistics (Frequencies, percentages, means, and Standard deviation). The likelihood of reporting property crime was measured on a five-point scale, where 0 = not at all, 1 = less likely, 2 = likely, 3 = very likely, and 4 = most likely.

The Pearson Correlation Tests

To determine the least reported property crime, the researcher used the Pearson Correlation. The stronger correlation indicates that the property crime was most reported, while the weaker correlation indicates that the property crime was least reported. Pearson Correlation coefficient ranges from −1 to +1. The sign that accompanies the correlation coefficient indicates the direction of the relationship. A correlation coefficient of −1 implies a negative perfect correlation, while a correlation coefficient of +1 implies a positive perfect correlation. An absolute value of a correlation coefficient in the range of 1 to 3 implies a weak correlation; 4 to 6 implies a moderate correlation, while a correlation coefficient in the range of 7 to 9 implies a strong correlation. The correlation coefficient of zero shows that the two variables are not related (Schoberet al., 2018). The significance of a relationship is indicated by its associated p-value, whereby p-values of the correlations less than 0.01 imply that the relationship is significant.

Association between Robbery Victimization and Robbery Reporting

Pearson correlation was conducted to determine the relationship between robbery victimization and reporting of robbery to the police. There was a significant moderate positive relationship between robbery victimization and reporting (r = 0.690, p < 0.01). The relationship was found to be significant at a 1% significant level due to p-values being less than 0.01.

Association between Burglary Victimization and Burglary Reporting

Pearson correlation was conducted to determine the relationship between burglary victimization and reporting of burglary to the police. There was a significant strong positive relationship between burglary victimization and reporting (r = 0.773, p < 0.01). The relationship was found to be significant at a 1% significant level due to p-values being less than 0.01.

Association between Housebreaking Victimization and Housebreaking Reporting

Pearson correlation was conducted to determine the relationship between housebreaking victimization and reporting of housebreaking to the police. There was a significant strong positive relationship between house-breaking victimization and reporting (r = 0.730, p < 0.01). The relationship was found to be significant at a 1% significant level due to p-values being less than 0.01.

Association between Theft Victimization and Theft Reporting

Pearson correlation was conducted to determine the relationship between theft victimization and reporting of theft to the police. There was a significant moderate positive relationship between theft victimization and reporting (r = 0.635, p < 0.01). The relationship was found to be significant at a 1% significant level due to p-values being less than 0.01.

Association between Crime Victimization and Crime Reporting

The study further sought to determine the relationship between the combined element of crime victimization and crime reporting in order to get the composite indexes of the two variables. Both variables were measured at a ratio level, and therefore, Pearson correlation was used to determine their relationship. Pearson correlation was conducted to determine the relationship between the combined element of crime victimization and reporting to the police. There was a significant strong positive relationship between the combined element of crime victimization and reporting (r = 0.783, p < 0.01). The relationship was found to be significant at a 1% significant level due to p-values being less than 0.01.

Descriptive Statistics

After the completion of the analysis of Pearson Correlation of the specific property crimes (robbery, burglary, housebreaking, and theft) victimization and the police reporting, the study established that the most reported property crime was burglary with (r = 0.773, p < 0.01), and the least reported property crime was theft with (r = 0.635, p < 0.01).

Table I shows a computed percentage of reporting using a Microsoft Excel worksheet. Overall, the reporting rate of property crime was 51.1%. Besides, 62.5% of robbery crimes were reported to the police. Also, 78.0% of burglary crimes were reported to the police. Besides, 74.5% of the burglary crimes were reported to the police. Also, 40.8% of theft crimes were reported to the police, which posed to be the least reported crime.

Crime Total victimization Total reporting Percentage reported
Robbery 48 30 62.5%
Burglary 41 32 78.0%
Housebreaking 47 35 74.5%
Theft 265 108 40.8%
Total 401 205 51.1%
Table I. Descriptive Statistics of Property Crime Reporting

The findings are consistent with the key informants’ interview discussions. They claimed that breakings when the victim is not on the premises, are the most commonly reported property crimes to police, while breakings, when the victim is on the premises, and petty theft are the least reported crimes. According to them, breaking was extremely common in shops late at night. This could have been motivated by the COVID-19 pandemic, in which most people, particularly youths, are unemployed. Also, the nationwide curfew reduced neighborhood patrols in towns. Those businesses used to be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so there were few crimes back then because criminals feared committing a crime because they would be easily detected and apprehended. Criminals conduct their criminal activities and go unnoticed because there is less surveillance in this error of curfew. The number of police officers on the ground is insufficient to ensure regular patrols in all areas.

The key informants agreed that reporting property crime helps to reduce crime to a large extent because, to a large extent, potential offenders learn from the experiences of the arrested criminals and are aware that the police are on the lookout, deterring future criminal activities. The key informants recommended that police efficiency be improved and that victims of property crime be motivated to report property crime to increase the rate of reporting property crime.

Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations

Summary

This study aimed to establish the relationship between crime victimization and the reporting of property crimes to the Kenyan police in Gilgil Ward, Nakuru County. Using Pearson Correlation and frequency distribution tables, the study analyzed how often different property crimes—theft, burglary, robbery, and housebreaking—were reported to the police by the victims. The analysis revealed that the likelihood of reporting these crimes varies significantly based on the type of crime and the frequency of victimization. Utilizing Pearson Correlation and frequency distribution tables, the research explored the relationship between property crime victimization and reporting rates. The results indicate that there is a significant positive relationship between crime victimization and the reporting of property crimes. The findings revealed that burglary was the most frequently reported property crime (r = 0.773, p < 0.01), while theft was the least reported (r = 0.635, p < 0.01). Overall, the reporting rate for property crimes in Gilgil Ward was 51.1%, with burglary crimes having the highest reporting rate at 78.0%, followed by housebreaking at 74.5%, robbery at 62.5%, and theft at 40.8%.

These findings are consistent with earlier studies that have shown varying reporting rates across different types of property crimes. Research by Goudriaan (2006) suggests that crimes involving more substantial losses, such as burglary, are more likely to be reported than petty theft, which is perceived as less significant by victims. The study’s results were corroborated by key informants who indicated that property crimes involving break-ins, particularly when the victim is not present, are more likely to be reported. This aligns with existing literature, which suggests that the perceived severity of a crime influences the likelihood of reporting (Chebii, 2019; Xieet al., 2006).

Furthermore, the study identified factors such as the lack of surveillance during curfews, limited police patrols, and the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as contributors to crime patterns and reporting behaviors. These findings align with the literature that highlights socio-economic conditions, such as poverty and unemployment, as critical determinants of reporting criminal behavior (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2011; Ezeet al., 2019). The study also found that key informants believe reporting property crimes can deter future offenses by creating awareness among potential offenders that the police are vigilant, supporting arguments from previous studies that emphasize the deterrent effect of crime reporting (Goudriaanet al., 2004; Mashoet al., 2019).

Conclusion

The study concludes that crime victimization is significantly associated with property crime reporting to the police in Gilgil Ward, Nakuru County, Kenya. The likelihood of reporting is influenced by the type of crime, with burglary being the most reported and theft being the least reported. These variations are attributed to factors such as the perceived severity of the crime, socio-economic conditions, and the presence or absence of surveillance or police patrols. The analysis demonstrated that burglary is the most reported property crime, while theft is the least reported. The overall reporting rate for property crimes was relatively low at 51.1%. These findings suggest that the likelihood of reporting a property crime is influenced by several factors, including the nature of the crime, the presence of victims during the crime, police visibility, and socio-economic conditions.

The reluctance to notify the police of certain property crimes, such as petty theft, may be attributed to the perceived insignificance of crime or a lack of trust in the police’s ability to resolve the issue, as noted by Chaudharyet al. (2019) and Yoon (2015). The study’s findings are consistent with previous research that emphasizes the role of trust in law enforcement and socio-economic conditions in determining crime reporting behaviors (Ezeet al., 2019; Goudriaan, 2006). The socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and limited police patrols may have further discouraged reporting, highlighting the need for targeted interventions to improve community trust in the police and encourage crime reporting. Additionally, these findings contribute to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence from a developing country context, where crime underreporting remains a significant challenge (Estienne & Morabito, 2016; Mashoet al., 2019).

Recommendations

Several strategic actions are recommended to improve the reporting rate of property crimes in Gilgil Ward. First, enhancing police visibility and increasing regular patrols in all areas, especially during times when crimes are more likely to occur, would deter criminal activities and encourage more residents to report crimes. The establishment of additional police posts in strategic locations within Gilgil Ward would also improve accessibility to police services, making it easier and more convenient for victims to report crimes.

Additionally, increasing community engagement and awareness is crucial. The police should actively engage with the community through outreach programs that emphasize the importance of reporting property crimes and educate the public on how reporting can contribute to overall community safety. These programs could help build trust between the police and the public and dispel any misconceptions about the reporting process. Implementing incentive programs, such as rewards or public recognition for citizens who actively report crimes, could further motivate individuals to come forward and report incidents.

Strengthening the relationship between the police and the community is essential to encourage crime reporting. Regular interactions between police officers and community members, transparency in handling reported cases, and providing feedback to crime victims can foster a sense of cooperation and trust. Additionally, the development and implementation of digital platforms, such as mobile applications or online portals, could offer a convenient and anonymous way for victims to report crimes, particularly for those hesitant to do so in person.

Finally, regular training for police officers should be conducted to enhance their skills in community policing, effective communication, and the handling of property crimes. By improving police efficiency and professionalism, public trust can be strengthened, which, in turn, may lead to increased crime reporting rates. These recommendations aim to address the various factors influencing the reporting rate of property crimes in Gilgil Ward and to create a safer community through improved crime management strategies.

References

  1. Aropet, G. (2012). Community policing in Africa: Efforts, challenges and the way forward (Report). African Institute of Crime Prevention.
     Google Scholar
  2. Asiba, E. (2018, November 8). Nakuru supermarket robbery: 3 thugs caught on CCTV. Citizen Digital. https://citizentv.co.ke/news/thugs-caught-on-cctv-raiding-nakuru-supermarket-218303/
     Google Scholar
  3. Baumer, E. P., & Lauritsen, J. L. (2010). Reporting crime to the police, 1973–2005: Implications for US crime trends. Criminology, 48(1), 113-142.
     Google Scholar
  4. BJS. (2003). Reporting crime to the police, 1992-2002. US Department of Justice (Report). Bureau of Justice Statistics.
     Google Scholar
  5. BJS. (2007). Criminal Victimization, 2006. US Department of Justice (Report). Bureau of Justice Statistics.
     Google Scholar
  6. BJS. (2011). Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin: Criminal Victimization, 2010 (Report). Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
     Google Scholar
  7. Bunei, E., Barasa, F., & Rono, J. (2012). Crime reporting behavior of victims of agricultural crimes in Kenya: The case of Uasin Gishu District. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 7(1), 502-520.
     Google Scholar
  8. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Crime statistics in the Netherlands (Report). Central Bureau of Statistics of the Netherlands.
     Google Scholar
  9. Chaudhary, M., Saini, S., & Kumar, P. (2019). Crime underreporting in urban India: Patterns and explanations. Journal of Urban Studies, 25(3), 112-132.
     Google Scholar
  10. Chebii, C. (2019). Crime reporting behavior among university students: A case study of Egerton Njoro Campus, Kenya (Unpublished master’s thesis). Egerton University.
     Google Scholar
  11. Cheng, K. K., & Smyth, R. (2015). Crime reporting, social norms, and the victim-offender relationship. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 116, 325-345.
     Google Scholar
  12. Cochran, W. (1977). Sampling techniques. Wiley.
     Google Scholar
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
     Google Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson Education.
     Google Scholar
  15. Estienne, E., & Morabito, M. (2016). Understanding differences in crime reporting practices: A comparative approach. International Journal of Comparative and Applied criminal Justice, 40(2), 123-143.
     Google Scholar
  16. Eze, M. O., Musa, B., & Chukwuma, U. (2019). Crime reporting behavior in Nigeria: A study of Gwagwalada Area Council, Abuja. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies, 12(1), 45-59.
     Google Scholar
  17. GPS. (2020). Gilgil Sub-county crime analysis report 2019 (Report). Gilgil Police Division.
     Google Scholar
  18. Goudriaan, H. (2006). Crime reporting by citizens: The role of social context and victim characteristics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(2), 95-111.
     Google Scholar
  19. Goudriaan, H., Lynch, J. P., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2004). Reporting to the police in Western nations: A theoretical analysis of the effects of social context. Justice Quarterly, 21(4), 933-963.
     Google Scholar
  20. GPS. (2020). Crime analysis report 2019. GPS
     Google Scholar
  21. Groot, W., & Maasen van den Brink, H. (2010). The effects of education on crime. Applied Economics, 42(3), 279-289.
     Google Scholar
  22. Hart, T. C., & Colavita, C. S. (2011). Property crime and victim reporting. Journal of Crime and Justice, 34(1), 102-115.
     Google Scholar
  23. Henson, B., Reyns, B. W., & Fisher, B. S. (2013). Reporting crime victimization: The relationship between expectations and behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(7), 1463-1484.
     Google Scholar
  24. Home Office. (2011). Crime in England and Wales: Quarterly update to March 2011 (Report). Home Office.
     Google Scholar
  25. Kempen, E. (2019). Crime underreporting and the South African Police Service: A victim’s perspective. Journal of Victimology, 3(2), 77-89.
     Google Scholar
  26. KNBS. (2019). 2019 Kenya population and housing census: Distribution of respondents by administrative units (Report). Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. https://africacheck.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2019-KPHC-Volume-II_.pdf
     Google Scholar
  27. Kothari, C. R. (2010). Research methodology: Methods and techniques (2nd ed.). New Age International.
     Google Scholar
  28. Kroovand, N. B., Lynne, A., & Daniels, M. (2019). Demographic disparities in crime reporting and implications for law enforcement practices. American Journal of Sociology, 125(2), 451-482.
     Google Scholar
  29. Maina, G. (2018). Perception of business community on Kenya Police Service law enforcement practices in Nairobi central business district (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Egerton University, Njoro, Nakuru County, Kenya.
     Google Scholar
  30. Masho, W., Zirkle, W., Wheeler, C., Sullivan, T., & Farrell, A. (2019). Spatial analysis of the impact of a school-level youth violence prevention program on violent crime incidents in the community. Prevention Science, 20, 521-531.
     Google Scholar
  31. Ministry of Justice and Security. (2017). Victims of Crime and Reporting Rates in the Netherlands (Report). Ministry of Justice and Security of the Netherlands.
     Google Scholar
  32. Murphy, K., & Barkworth, J. (2014). Victim willingness to report crime to police: Does procedural justice or outcome matter most? Victims & Offenders: An International Journal of Evidence-Based Research, Policy, and Practice, 9(2), 178–204.
     Google Scholar
  33. Musa, B. (2016). Community policing in Africa: Successes, challenges, and future prospects. African Security Studies, 17(3), 45-61.
     Google Scholar
  34. Mwangi, E., Bor, E., & Kinaro, S. (2022). Influence of trust for the police in Gilgil Ward on reporting of property crime by victims in Gilgil Ward, Nakuru County, Kenya. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(3), 48-56.
     Google Scholar
  35. Natecho, F., & Muturi, H. (2016). The impact of community policing on crime rates in Kenyan communities. African Journal of Criminology, 10(1), 88-101.
     Google Scholar
  36. NCRC. (2017). Patterns of crime in Kenya: A survey on crime victimization (Report). National Crime Research Centre.
     Google Scholar
  37. NPS. (2018). Annual crime report 2018 (Report). National Police Service.
     Google Scholar
  38. Office of National Security. (2019). Crime and policing: A statistical review (Report). Government Publications Office.
     Google Scholar
  39. Ogemba, P. (2020, August 25). Anti-fraud officers in a spot over land cases. The Standard. https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/nairobi/article/2001383786/anti-fraud-officers-in-a-spot-over-land-cases
     Google Scholar
  40. Patalinghug, E. (2017). Crime victimization and reporting behavior in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Criminology, 9(1), 66-87.
     Google Scholar
  41. Regan, D. (2018). Police-citizen interaction in Africa: An exploration on factors that influence victims’ reporting of crimes. https://www.afrobarometer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/afropaperno180_police_citizen_interaction_in_africa.pdf
     Google Scholar
  42. Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: Appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 126(5), 1763-1768.
     Google Scholar
  43. Sickmund, M., & Puzzanchera, C. (2014). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2014 national report (Report). National Center for Juvenile Justice.
     Google Scholar
  44. Sidebottom, A. (2015). Why some property crimes are reported to the police and others are not: An investigation into the decision-making process of victims. British Journal of Criminology, 55(5), 897-916.
     Google Scholar
  45. Steinmetz, K. F., & Austin, T. S. (2014). The reporting paradox: Why some crimes go unreported. Criminal Justice Review, 39(2), 159-177.
     Google Scholar
  46. TIK. (2016). Crime reporting survey in Nairobi and Kisumu (Report). Transparency International Kenya.
     Google Scholar
  47. Tyler, T., Fagan, J., & Geller, A. (2014). Street stops and police legitimacy: Teachable moments in young urban men’s legal socialization. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(4), 751-85.
     Google Scholar
  48. Yoon, D. (2015). Crime reporting: Victim, police, and public perspectives. Journal of Police Studies, 22(4), 64-78.
     Google Scholar