This discussion includes the sections listed below.
Cause for Concern
Because more than a dozen deadly attacks by students armed with guns have occurred in the nation's schools in the past two years (Lichtblau 1999), many people assume that violence and other criminal activity perpetrated by youth within the walls of our schools is a problem that has skyrocketed in the past few years. In reality, however, current data on youth crime and volence in this country provide reasons for both optimism and concern. The U.S. Department of Education's Annual Report on School Safety 1998, (U.S. Department of Education 1999) for example, argues that the data support both positions:
We are given hope by data showing declining school crime and a reduction in the number of guns being carried to school. At the same time, there remains a substantial amount of crime, including violent crime, against both students and teachers in too many schools. It is also very important to note that although the school crime rate is descreasing, students are more fearful at school today than in the past.
A range of other sources combine to paint an equally ambiguous picture. On the one hand, there is ample evidence that schools are not immune to violence. Principals of more than half of the nation’s public schools reported an incident of crime or violence to law enforcement authorities during the 1996-97 academic year. Such incidents were reported by 45 percent of elementary schools, 74 percent of middle schools, and 77 percent of high schools (Thomas Snyder 1998).
Although most crimes at the elementary school level were relatively less serious incidents, such as fistfights, theft, or vandalism, "about 4 percent of elementary school principals and 19 percent of middle school principals reported at least one serious crime during the school year, such as a rape or other types of sexual battery, physical attacks or fights with weapons, or robbery" (Snyder).
Statistics cited by Kaufman, Walker, and Sprague (1997) further illuminate the scope of the problem facing school personnel:
Over 100,000 students bring weapons to school daily and 40 are killed or wounded with these weapons each day. Large numbers of students fear victimization on the way to and from school. Twenty-two percent of students in our nation’s schools are afraid to use school bathrooms because these relatively unsupervised areas are often sites for assaults and other forms of victimization. More than 6,000 teachers are threatened annually and well over 200 are physically injured by students on school grounds. Increasingly, students are intimidated and threatened by mean-spirited teasing, bullying, and sexual harassment occurring at school.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Sickmund, Snyder, and Poe-Yamagata 1997) offers additional alarming statistics about juvenile crime and victimization:
• Ten percent of high school students said that in the past thirty days they had carried a weapon (e.g., gun, knife, or club) on school property.
• All the growth in homicides by juveniles between 1987 and 1994 was firearm-related—as was the 1995 decline; nearly all of the decline between 1994 and 1995 was in homicides by black juveniles.
• Juvenile arrestees are more likely than adult arrestees to have used a gun in committing a crime.
• In a recent National Institute of Justice study that included interviews of samples of individuals in seven cities nationwide who had been arrested and/or detained during the first six months of 1995, one in five interviewees said they carried a gun all or most of the time.
• Nationally, 5 percent of students said they missed at least one day of school in the past month because they had felt unsafe at school or when traveling to or from school.
• About one in seven juvenile arrests in 1995 was for a crime involving violence or the threat of violence.
• A greater proportion of violent crimes were attributed to juveniles in 1994 and 1995 than in any of the last twenty years.
• Although today’s violent juveniles do not commit more violent acts than their predecessors of fifteen years ago, a larger proportion of the juvenile population are committing violent acts.
• In 1994 the rate of violent victimization of juveniles ages 12 through 17 was nearly 3 times that of adults, and almost one-third of those incidents were committed by schoolmates.
In addition, according to the Department of Education, over 6,000 students nationwide were expelled during the 1996-97 school year for bringing guns to their public schools (Caren Caty and others 1998). And it is estimated that "250,000 or more weapons" are brought to school each year by students (Kevin Dwyer 1999). Young American males are also "four times more likely to be murdered with a gun than the same age males in Scotland, seven times more likely than those in Canada, twenty one times more likely than those in Germany, and forty times more likely than those in Japan" (Caty and others).
Another disturbing statistic comes from the American Psychological Association's website, which includes a section on warning signs of youth violence. It states that "one in 12 high schoolers is threatened or injured with a weapon each year," and notes that individuals between the ages of 12 and 24 are at highest risk of being a victim of violence.
Encouraging Signs
Despite these sobering statistics, there are some encouraging signs as well. The FBI's annual statistical report on crime released in October 1999 indicates that juvenile arrests for serious crimes dropped nearly 11 percent between 1997 and 1998 (Lichtblau). And the U.S. Department of Education report emphasizes that despite recent violent episodes in school settings, "most school crime is theft, not serious violent crime." Although juvenile crime has been falling since 1993, federal officials indicate the drop in juvenile crime that occurred between 1997 and 1998 "is the most significant decrease in recent years." Another factor that makes the drop even more remarkable is that this decline is occurring simultaneously with an increase in the overall juvenile population, which is currently about seventy million.
People find it hard to reconcile the recent series of school shootingsÑmore than twelve such incidents in the past two yearsÑwith statistics that indicate juvenile crime is decreasing. Shay Bilchik, head of the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, states, "You have a horrific incident like the Columbine shootings, and that paints a picture of a continuing problem that has not gone away. But people are shocked when you try to tell them that juvenile crime is actually going down" (Lichtblau).
Even though overall juvenile crime rates are dropping, the recurring incidents of deadly violence that have been perpetrated in schools over the past few years--not to mention several deadly plots that were intercepted before being carried out--have caused school administrators to devote more attention to the issue of school safety. As Jeffrey Sprague and colleagues (1998) note, "For staff and students alike, school safety has risen to a level of great importance and excruciating national concern."
Striving for Solutions
School safety must be approached from both an immediate and a long-term perspective and incorporate prevention as well as intervention strategies. In addition, all major sectors of society must make violence prevention a priority.
Toward that end, prompted by the shooting at Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon, in June 1998 President Clinton invited several national experts in the areas of education, law enforcement, and mental health to Washington, DC, to assist the Department of Education and the Department of Justice in developing a guide to school safety. The culmination of their efforts resulted in Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools (Dwyer; Osher; and Warger 1998), which was published in August 1998. The intent of the guide is "to provide school communities with information about what they can do to be prepared and to reduce the likelihood of violence."
The guide is designed to raise awareness among school personnel and community members regarding youth violence and its precursors. It also recommends appropriate prevention and intervention strategies for both the general student population and those students considered to be at risk. Other recommendations deal with engendering and maintaining a safe school atmosphere as well as developing a coherent crisis-response plan.
No matter how many guides are perused or articles are read, however, those who seek an end to youth violence will not find it by travelling a single path, nor by looking at only one sector of society, such as schools. The roots of violence are too deeply entwined in the American culture and psyche to be single-handedly solved by school personnel. Nevertheless, schools cannot shun their share of responsibility to address this literally life-threatening issue, for they have an important role to play in stopping the further spread of youth violence and turning the tide back toward the shore of safety. As Elias and others (1999) note, "Schools are our society's primary formal institution for socializing children into their roles as concerned and responsible citizens in a democracy."
Assess School-Based Characteristics
Although no school can honestly claim to be violence-proof, research indicates that some schools tend to be safer than others, depending on the presence or absence of a variety of characteristics at the school level. Several elements of the school culture and climate act as either protective factors or risk factors, decreasing or heightening schools’ tendency to be safe or unsafe.
School-based risk factors include the following:
• poor design and use of school space
• overcrowding
• lack of caring but firm disciplinary procedures
• insensitivity and poor accommodation to multicultural factors
• student alienation
• rejection of at-risk students by teachers and peers
• anger and resentment at school routines and demands for conformity
Conversely, characteristics of the school culture and climate that serve a protective function include the following:
• positive school climate and atmosphere
• clear and high performance expectations for all students
• inclusionary values and practices throughout the school
• strong student bonding to the school environment and the schooling process
• high levels of student participation and parent involvement in schooling
• provision of opportunities for skill acquisition and social development
Social and Emotional Learning. Working to create and maintain a school climate where these elements are central is one step educators and school leaders can take to foster values and expectations associated with a safer school environment. Elias and colleagues believe that examining the nature of the relationships in a school is paramount in creating a school culture where all students can learn and feel comfortable. Schools, as well as the larger community, can benefit from emphasizing social and emotional development as well as academic development. Some guidelines cited by Elias and colleagues for promoting social and emotional learning include the following:
• Build and reinforce life skills and social competencies; health-promotion and problem-prevention skills; coping skills; and social support for transitions, crises, and for making positive social contributions.
• Link efforts to build social and emotional skills to developmental milestones, as well as to the need to help students cope with ongoing life events and local circumstances.
• Emphasize the promotion of prosocial attitudes and values about self, others, and work.
Integrate social and emotional learning with traditional academics to enhance learning in both areas.
• Build a caring, supportive, and challenging classroom and school climate to ensure effective social and emotional teaching and learning.
Integrate and coordinate social-and-emotional-learning programs and activities with the regular curriculum and life of the classroom and school.
• Foster enduring and pervasive effects in this type of social and emotional learning through collaboration between home and school.
Specific research-based programs that address some of these issues have been identified by the Elementary principal B.J. Wise (1999) concurs that any efforts to minimize violence in schools need to "methodically teach children how to behave and show them alternative ways of getting their needs met." Wise contends that educators "can best help troubled children by teaching them the coping skills needed to deal with anger and frustration." One part of this process is establishing a schoolwide discipline program that incorporates both positive and negative consequences for specific behaviors. Unfortunately, as Wise points out, most teachers-in-training do not receive adequate preparation in "discipline methods, strategies for meeting the psychological needs of at-risk students, or techniques for working with angry and frustrated youngsters."
Sprague, Sugai, and Walker (1998) also note that although most schools have a discipline handbook, many such handbooks detail unacceptable behavior but offer "little information about the expectations for acceptable behavior and the strategies that students, teachers, and parents might employ to encourage these expectations." These authors emphasize that "all students, but especially students with antisocial behavior, must be exposed to clearly specified and consistently implemented discipline systems that both encourage prosocial behaviors and discourage rule violations."
To promote a safe and effective school environment, Sprague and colleagues recommend a comprehensive schoolwide behavioral support system comprised of six elements:
Although schools have a major role to play in setting behavioral expectations for students, this does not mean that nothing should be done to encourage socially appropriate behavior in children prior to the time they enter public school. On the contrary, the earlier children receive consistent messages from their parents and other significant adults about healthy ways of responding to a variety of experiences, the easier it will be for them to negotiate the challenging territory of social-emotional-moral development. As Cornell (forthcoming) emphasizes, it is important for adults to remember that "children as young as age 4 can be taught to solve interpersonal problems in an empathic and considerate manner" and to take active steps to facilitate this type of learning in young children.
In 1982, King High School in Cleveland, Ohio, implemented the Winning Against Violent Environments (WAVE) conflict-resolution program, one of the oldest such programs in the country (Vail). The technique has helped students to "air their grievances and work out problems verbally, rather than with fists or firearms" (Vail). The mediation process is voluntary. To initiate the process, the parties that are at odds fill out a form on which they describe the problem they are having with each other. They then schedule a mutually acceptable time to come to the peer-mediation room and meet with peer mediators. The two mediators who are present outline the rules that will govern the process--parties must be willing to treat each other with respect and listen to each other. The mediators also clarify their own role to participants, which is to give each party the opportunity to express his or her perspective concerning the problem, keep track of possible solutions suggested by the parties, and then oversee the signing of a contract that details the terms of the resolution. Later, mediators also check in with participants to see if they are abiding by the terms specified in the contract.
Cornell notes that "convincing evidence" exists concerning the efficacy of comprehensive school-based programs that incorporate peer mediation and a range of other approaches to conflict resolution. "Extensive research" supports a "peacemaker" approach that uses whole-school or cadre methods and offers age-appropriate content for students at all grade levels. Controlled studies conducted by Johnson and Johnson (1995) indicate that "students can learn and retain conflict resolution skills, and subsequently apply their skills to actual conflicts in both school and family settings."
Be Aware of Individual Risk Factors and Protective Factors
It is simply not possible to create a net that is woven tightly enough to snare all potentially violent students. But if students, teachers, administrators, and parents are vigilant, a significant proportion of students who may be at high risk of engaging in violent or destructive acts can be identified and helped, thereby averting at least some potential future tragedies waiting to happen.
The best hope for long-range reduction in youth violence, believes Hill Walker, codirector of the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior in the University of Oregon’s College of Education, lies in early identification of and assistance to children who display antisocial attitudes and behaviors. Walker notes that "there are strong and clearly established links" between particular risk factors and both short- and long-term detrimental consequences for "the individual, caregivers and associates, and... society at large" (Walker 1998).
Longitudinal studies have identified specific factors that are associated with youth violence and delinquency. This research, Walker says, points to "situations in which the mother and/or father has been arrested, the child has been a client of child protection, one or more family transitions have occurred (death, divorce, trauma, family upheaval), the youth has received special education services, and/or severe antisocial behavior" (Walker).
Elias and others (1999) also identify some causal factors related to violence, including "poverty, institutionalized and individual racism, intolerance of differences, abuse, lack of parental supervision and guidance, and the breakdown of family structures." They note that in many cases the violence wrought by young people "is fueled by a lack of hope, a dearth of positive connections to the American dream, and a sense that they have nothing to 'risk.' " In addition to these factors, they add children's exposure to violence through the media, noting that by age eighteen, "the typical child will have seen 16,000 simulated murders and 200,000 acts of violence. Moreover, in most cases, the perpetrators were not punished" (Elias and others).
Of course just because a child or youth has been faced with certain "risk factors," the individual is not necessarily destined to engage in antisocial behavior or become violent. Other so-called "protective factors" can help to offset or counterbalance to some extent the factors that place the individual at risk. Children and youth who have confronted a wide range of traumatic or adverse conditions yet are perceived as "resilient" tend to be "from environments that provided care and support, high expectations, and opportunities for participation in their school, community, or family" (Kadel, Watkins, Follman, and Hammond 1999).
Specific ways schools can help to foster resiliency and assist in building protective factors into a student's life include the following:
Caring and Support
Create a nurturing staff and positive role models.
Ensure creative, supportive leadership dedicated to the school's mission.
Develop an orderly, flexible climate that is warm, responsive, and quiet without being oppressive.
Offer support and mentoring from staff and peers.
High Expectations
Maintain high expectations of all students and staff.
Ensure minimum mastery of basic skills by all students.
Avoid negative labeling and tracking.
Emphasize cognitive development.
Monitor student progress frequently.
Opportunities for Participation
Spend more time on task.
Individualize instruction.
Use a culturally diverse curriculum.
Encourage a variety of experiences to discover each child's talents.
Enable students to take part in meaningful activities and value their contributions.
Encourage parents and community participation in direct instruction, recognize student progress, and communicate expectations.
(Bernard 1991, Kunjufu 1984)
The APA (1993) has also identified four so-called "accelerating factors" that seem to heighten the probability that at-risk youth will cross over the invisible line into violence:
Behavioral factors identified by Walker as associated with the above-mentioned risks include
The academic performance of these students also often is significantly below their grade level, and they tend to be disengaged from school.
First Steps is an intensive early intervention program designed to divert at-risk kindergartners from a path leading to an antisocial pattern of behavior that is destructive and very costly to the child, family, school, and, ultimately, society" (Walker and others). This program is one attempt to work with children before their behavioral problems get more severe, which is typically what happens if no intervention occurs. It is erroneous to assume that young children with antisocial tendencies with grow out of such behavioral problems. The reality is that the problems get worse, not better, over time.
According to Walker and others, well-designed and effectively implemented early intervention programs have the potential to actually prevent a host of negative long-term outcomes, such as rejection by teachers and peers, school failure and dropout, delinquency, assignment to alternative school settings, vulnerability to gang membership and, in some cases, interpersonal violence (Walker and others). Developed at the University of Oregon's Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior, First Step emphasizes positive reinforcement for appropriate behavior. Annemieke Golly, who trains teachers and parents to employ the program, said, "The whole idea is to give a ton of attention on appropriate behavior and no attention for negative behavior."
Two central goals of the First Steps program are "to teach the at-risk child to get along with others (teachers and peers) and to complete assigned academic work well and in a timely fashion" (Walker and others).
Focus on Early and Ongoing Intervention
Instead of merely keeping our fingers crossed that children who are exhibiting behavioral problems will "grow out of it" or telling ourselves that it’s probably just a phase, Walker emphasizes the need to get troubled kids help at an early age, before their behavior escalates further and becomes more ingrained. Shawn A. Johnston, a forensic psychologist in San Francisco who has interviewed thousands of violent children, including many killers, states, "There is an evolving body of research literature that very clearly suggests that by the third grade we're able to identify kids who are at risk of going on to engage in antisocial aggression" (O'Neill 1998)
Walker also notes "relatively accurate predictions" can be made about the future arrest status of the typical at-risk fifth-grader based on three school measures:
1. The number of discipline contacts the student has during the school year
2. The amount of negative behavior the student displays with classmates on the playground
3. The teacher’s impression of the student’s social skills
Any effort to prevent school violence must be supported in multiple ways to be maximally effective. Policies must be established and consistently implemented; teachers, administrators, and other staff must receive initial and ongoing inservice training; and parent and community involvement and support must be elicited (Hamby 1999).
Limiting Exposure to Media Violence. Parents and community members can play a powerful role in influencing children's views concerning violence by regulating and monitoring their exposure to violence as portrayed in the media and on video games. According to Davd Grossman, an author and psychologist who studies the psychology of killing, the data that links TV violence and violent crime is more "scientifically sound" than the data that shows a link between tobacco use and cancer (Swanson 1998 1998). A three-year Television Violence Study, coordinated by the Center for Communication and Social Policy at the University of California at Santa Barbara and commissioned by the National Cable Television Association, found that the proportion of prime-time and basic cable shows with violence has risen since 1994 (National Association of Secondary School Principals 1998). And not only is there more violence splashed across the screens, but it is usually both "glamorized and sanitized," thereby potentially weakening viewers'--particularly young viewers'-- association between violence and harm or pain (National Association of Secondary School Principals).
Over a three-year span, the study looked at factors that either increase or decrease the risk of harmful effects on viewers, about 40 percent of the violent incidents shown on TV were committed by supposedly "good" characters, who are apt to be thought of by children as role models, and perhaps worthy of emulation. Another disturbing finding was that "the long-term negative consequences of violence are portrayed in only 15 percent of programs, when averaged over the three years." According to Ed Kunkel, associate professor of communications at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a senior researcher for the study, "These patterns teach children that violence is desirable, necessary, and painless."
Offer Social-Skills Training and Violence-Prevention Curricula
Kaufman, Walker, and Sprague recommend exposing all students, even so-called typical students not considered at risk, to a variety of strategies, such as "teaching conflict resolution, emotional literacy and anger management procedures." These strategies fit under the umbrella of primary prevention. Similar measures include "teaching all students and staff the rules and expectations and other disciplinary policies and procedures" as well as "teaching skills for school success (e.g., being prepared, getting to class on time, asking for help, completing and turning in homework), designing and presenting an effective and interesting academic curriculum, and maximizing opportunities for student academic and social success" (Kaufman, Walker, and Sprague).
Secondary prevention, designed for students who need more support than what is offered on a schoolwide basis, consists of such steps as providing individually tailored behavioral or academic support, mentoring, skill development, and assistance to students for whom the schoolwide strategies are insufficient (Kaufman, Walker, and Sprague).
Some schools are also starting to offer curriculum designed to foster in students qualities that have an inhibiting effect on violent behavior. One promising violence-prevention curriculum, Second Step, has age-appropriate lessons geared for students from preschool through grade 8.
Three levels of intervention are used by instructors in the Second Step program. The first level of intervention, which is designed for all students in the school community, focuses on teaching conflict-resolution and anger-management skills, as well as providing education about how to avoid drug and alcohol use.
Second-level intervention is designed for students identified as being at risk of engaging in antisocial behavior. Direct instruction in moral reasoning and impulse control is used by teachers working with these youth and their families.
The third and most intensive level of intervention is designed to meet the needs of students who already exhibit antisocial behavior patterns. At this level, various types of services and support are "wrapped around" the student and the student’s family depending upon their specific needs. The family is a partner in the needs-assessment process, rather than merely a passive recipient of services professionals deem warranted or appropriate.
Characteristics of the intervention approaches used at each level with each type of student are outlined below.
Target Student Type: Regular (typical or not at risk)
Approach: Primary Prevention (universal interventions):
• Schoolwide discipline plans
• Instruction in conflict-resolution/anger-management strategies
• Effective teaching and schooling procedures
Target Student Type: At Risk for Antisocial Behavior Patterns
Approach: Secondary Prevention (individualized interventions):
• Identification of at-risk clusters of children, youth, and families
• Direct instruction in moral reasoning, anger-management, and self-control
• Family support and parent-management training
• Consultant-based one-to-one interventions
Target Student Type: Chronic (life course persistent)
Approach: Tertiary Prevention (wrap-around, comprehensive interventions):
• Connection of children, youth, and caregivers to community-based social-service agencies
• Development of individually tailored, wrap-around interventions
• Significant family involvement in planning and treatment activities
• Coordination with social-service agencies, law enforcement, courts, and corrections
•Drug-alcohol counseling
• Alternative placements such as day-treatment centers, specialized schools, residential environments (Kaufman, Walker, and Sprague)
Some Areas of Controversy
Although some strategies aimed at reducing school violence are nearly universally applauded and supported, others are more controversial. Following are some issues that raise moral, ethical, or legal questions. Each area dealt with has a fair share of opponents as well as proponents.
Engage in Student 'Profiling' and Other Techniques?
The FBI is moving into the area of school violence prevention (Jacobson 1999). Two reports currently being prepared for publication by the FBI analyze several school shootings and identify characteristics associated with individuals who are most likely to commit violence. Not all school officials or mental health professionals welcome the FBI's efforts, however. Some have reservations about what is commonly referred to as "profiling," that is, identifying characteristics prevalent among students who have committed violent acts. The primary concern is that certain students may be stigmatized or classified inappropriately because they seem to fit a certain profile.
Ronald D. Stephens, executive director of the National School Safety Center, believes reliance on law-enforcement techniques could create legal problems for school administrators (Jacobson). He advocates "having adults who continually monitor, mentor, and support young people." On the other hand, Rick Kaufman, a spokesman for the school district of which Columbine High is a part, does not believe the FBI is overstepping its rightful boundaries by helping school officials become more aware of risk factors and educating teachers and administrators about how to distinguish between high- and low-level threats (Jacobson).
In addition to the FBI, the U.S. Secret Service has also recently turned its attention to the issue of school violence prevention. A team from the Secret Service conducted "a detailed review of the Columbine shootings and those at more than a dozen other schools" where violence had erupted, interviewing as many of the killers as possible (Dedman 1999). The intent of the investigation is to try to discover "patterns of motive and behavior" and to ultimately develop training materials for both police officers and school officials that will assist them in more effectively responding to "vague information that classmates or teachers are concerned about a student" (Dedman). As far as assessing the level of potential danger posed by a particular individual, the Secret Service advises asking a numbr of specific questions about a person's behavior and motivation, such as "What has the person said about his intentions? Has the person shown an interest in assassins, weapons, or militant groups? Is there a history of mental illness, has the person acted on hallucinations or delusions? Has the person been suicidal?" (Dedman).
As noted above, involvement of agencies such as the FBI and the Secret Service in school violence prevention is controversial. In addition, objections have been raised concerning some of the methods that are being implemented by administrators who are intent on trying to prevent violence from finding its way into their schools. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reports that since the shooting in Littleton, Colorado, earlier this year, its offices across the nation have been inundated with complaints that students' rights are being "trampled" by anxious school administrators (Graves 1999). The ACLU reports that some students are being unfairly interrogated for such things as wearing black clothing or arriving at school in a trenchcoat. According to Ann Beeson, a staff attorney at the ACLU's national headquarters, "Most school officials are not aware or not focusing on the fact that students are citizens, too" (Graves).
Increase Building Security?
There is a lack of consensus among experts, school personnel, parents, and students regarding the prudence of installing metal detectors, building fences around school grounds, installing video cameras, hiring police or security guards to patrol school campuses, and taking other steps designed to increase the physical security of the building and premises.
A sole focus on school security issues is obviously inadequate. Efforts to improve the physical security of school buildings must be seen as only one facet of a multidimensional approach that is used in conjunction with other, short- and long-term violence prevention and intervention strategies, such as trying to identify and help those students who are manifesting a variety of warning signs.
Some experts are opposed to turning schools into fortress-like facilities. The gains achieved in the area of building security as a result of installing metal detectors and other security-related hardware may be largely offset by detrimental effects in the area of school culture and climate. The climate or "feel" of a school may make a school more or less prone to violence. To resort to security measures, say Kaufman, Walker, and Sprague, is a natural but often ultimately counterproductive step, in that it sometimes "prevents the development of long-term solutions that actually have a chance to work." Installing metal detectors or other equipment designed to increase the security of schools can actually "move school systems away from proactive initiatives, prevention efforts, cooperative partnerships with other agencies, and problem ownership."
Between the extremes of installing metal detectors and doing nothing because of either denial that violence could happen or lack of consensus about what steps to take lie several moderate, less-intrusive measures being adopted by schools around the country. In 1996-97, public schools had a variety of security methods in place. Newsweek magazine reports on the percentages of schools taking various precautions in an effort to reduce the risk of violence:
| • Visitors to school sign in | 96% |
| • Campus closed during lunch | 80% |
| • Access to school buildings controlled | 53% |
| • Access to school grounds controlled | 24% |
| • Drug sweeps (locker checks, etc.) | 19% |
| • Random metal-dector checks | 4% |
| • Daily metal-detector checks | 1% |
| (Gegax and colleagues 1998) | |
Impose Stiffer Sentences for Juvenile Offenders?
Faced with finite funds, many states are struggling with the issue of how much money should be allocated to prevention and/or treatment of troubled youth and how much should be devoted to punishment. Some believe imposing stiffer sentences on juveniles who commit crimes, including crimes at school, will serve as the most effective deterrent. Over the past several years, several state legislatures have passed laws that hold juvenile offenders more accountable for their actions. Many are convinced that a "hard line" is what is needed. Recent changes made at the state level, noted by Portner (1998), include the following:
• Since 1992, all but 10 states have adopted or altered laws that make it easier to prosecute in adult courts offenders under age 18 accused of violent crimes.
• Between 1992 and 1995, 21 states adopted laws opening certain juvenile records and proceedings to the public, and 13 states gave juvenile courts unprecedented authority to notify schools when a minor is taken into custody for a violent crime. The changes mark a dramatic reversal from well-established provisions designed to keep minors' records confidential.
• Sixteen states since 1992 have adopted "blended sentencing" provisions that allow judges to employ a combination of adult and juvenile sanctions when sentencing certain young offenders.
• Since 1992, 15 states and the District of Columbia have passed lasw requiring minimum terms of incarceration for minors who commit certain crimes.
It is clear that, by itself, a "lock 'em up" mentality is not going to take care of the problem of juvenile crime and violence. Even if imposing longer sentences on juveniles helps to reduce the juvenile crime rate, the fact is that juveniles do not remain juveniles forever. That is, if we do not address the treatment needs of young offenders as well as imposing appropriate punitive sanctions on them for their antisocial actions, they are likely to exit the juvenile justice system only to enter the adult penal system.
Shannon Brownlee (1999) notes that recent research indicates that the brain is not fully developed in most people until their early 20s. These new findings about the brain and its capacity for growth is encouraging, for it may mean "that even troubled teenagers can still learn restraint, judgment, and empathy." Similarly, Jay Giedd, a child psychiatrist at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland, stresses that moral development is not something that is already solidified by the time individuals reach their teen years. He says, "Teenagers are choosing what their brains are going to be good at--learning right from wrong, responsibility or impulsiveness, thinking or video games" (Brownlee). that in many cases it is not too late to turn adolescents around.
The most effective institutional treatment programs make "extensive use of individual counseling and interpersonal skills training" (Cornell). A study conducted by Lipsey and Wilson (1997) found that in maximally effective programs "youth reviewed difficult social situations or past experiences, learned more skillful responses, and practiced thieir skills using methods such as role-playing, videotape feedback, and homework tasks. Young offenders also improved their ability to identify and cope with angry feelings" (Cornell).
Jessica Portner (1998) notes that although "many violence-prevention programs have failed to keep violence-prone teenagers from entering the prison system, several approaches have shown promising results." According to Portner, "Individualized approaches that encourage problem-solving, foster moral reasoning and decisionmaking, and emphasize academic or job-related skills can help prevent violent behavior."
No Simple Solutions
The problem of youth violence does not avail itself to simple solutions. The roots of the problem are multifaceted, and thus the response must be multidimensional and comprehensive. Youth violence is one issue that requires the sustained involvement and commitment of all major sectors of society, including schools, social-service agencies, churches, law-enforcement agencies, parents, and young people themselves. Schools and communities can become safer if everyone accepts some responsibility, works together, and commits themselves to implementing well-coordinated, effective prevention and intervention strategies.
References
American Psychological Association, Commission on Youth Violence. Violence and Youth: Psychologi's Response. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1993.
Bernard, B. Fostering Resiliency in Kids. Proactive Factors in the Family, School, and Community. Portland, Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1991.
Brownlee, Shannon. "Inside the Teen Brain." U.S. News and World Report (August 9, 1999): 45-54.
Caty, Caren; Tracy L. Heller; Anthony J. Guarino; and William Michael. A "Safe" High School: Prevalence and Consequences of Students' Exposure to Firearms. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, New York, October 28-30, 1998. 15 pages.
Cornell, Dewey G. "What Works in Youth Violence Prevention." In Youth Violence in Virginia: A Needs Assessment, edited by D. Cornell, A. Loper, A. Atkinson, and P. Sheras. Virginia Department of Health, forthcoming.
Dedman, Bill. "Government Team Seeks Explanation for Violence." Register Guard (June 21, 1999): 1A, 8A.
Dwyer, Kevin P. "Children Killing Children." Communique. National Association of School Psychologists (Spring 1999): 1-2.
Dwyer, K.; D. Osher; and C. Warger. Early Warning, Timely Response: A Guide to Safe Schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1998. 40 pages.
Elias, Maurice J.; Linda Lantieri; Janet Patti; Herbert J. Walberg; and Joseph E. Zins. "Violence Is Preventable." Education Week (May 19, 1999): 45, 49.
Gegax, T. Trend; Jerry Adler, and Daniel Pedersen. "The Boys Behind the Ambush." Newsweek (April 6, 1998): 21-24.
Graves, Amy Beth. "ACLU: Schools Ignoring Rights of Students." Register Guard (May 10, 1999): 1A, 8A.
Hamby, John V. Developing a Comprehensive Violence Prevention Plan: A Practical Guide. Clemson, South Carolina: Clemson University, National Dropout Prevention Center, 1999.
Jabs, Carolyn. "Child's Play?" Family PC (October 1999): 61-66.
Jacobson, Linda. "FBI 'Profiling' Help Worries Educators." Education Week (October 6, 1999):
Johnson, D.W., and R.T. Johnson. "Teaching Students to be Peacemakers: Results of Five Years of Research.Peach and Conflict." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines (1995): 737-50.
Kadel, Stephanie; Jim Watkins; Joseph Follman; and Cathy Hammond. Reducing School Violence: Building a Framework for School Safety. Third Edition. Greensboro, North Carolina: SERVE, 1999. 78 pages.
Kaufman, Martin; Hill Walker, and Jeffrey Sprague. "Translating Research on Safe and Violence Free Schools into Effective Practices." Eugene, Oregon: Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior, August 1997. 20 pages.
Kunjufu, J. Developing Positive Self-Images and Discipline in Black Children. Chicago, Illinois: African-American Images, 1984.
Lichtblau, Eric. "Juvenile Crime Rate Continues to Decrease." Register Guard (October 18, 1999): 1A, 12A.
Lipsey, M.W., and D.B. Wilson. Effective Intervention for Serious Juvenile Offenders: A Synthesis of Research. Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbile Institute for Public Policy Studies, 1997.
Massing. Michael. "Hollywood Should Clean Up Its Violent Acts." Register Guard (July 18, 1999) 1F, 4F.
Moseley, Stephanie. Antisocial Behavior in Youth: Causes, Consequences, and Interventions. Eugene, Oregon, 1999. 21 pages.
National Association of Secondary School Principals. "Study Reveals Glamorized, Sanitized Violence Continues to Pervade American Television." NASSP Newsletter (September 1998): 10.
O'Neill, Patrick. "Experts: Inner Chaos Fuels Kids Who Kill." The Oregonian (May 25, 1998): A13.
Portner, Jessica. "Legislators Tackle Youth Crime Via New Juvenile-Justice Routes." Education Week (April 15, 1998): 1, 20-21.
Portner, Jessica. "School Safety Consultant Ron Stephens: The Man in Demand." Education Week (September 8, 1999): 14.
Sickmund, Melissa; Howard N. Snyder; and Eileen Poe-Yamagata. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1997 Update on Violence. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Snyder, Thomas D. "Trends in Education." Principal 78, 1 (September 1998): 40-48.
Sprague, Jeffrey; George Sugai; and Hill Walker. "Antisocial Behavior in Schools." In Handbook of Child Behavior Therapy, edited by Watson and Gresham. 451-74. New York: Plenum Press, 1998.
Swanson, Cami. "Author Links Youth Violence to TV." Register Guard (October 12, 1998): 1C, 4C.
U.S. Department of Education. Annual Report on School Safety 1998. Washington, DC: Author, 1999.
Vail, Kathleen. "Give Peace a Chance." The American School Board Journal (August 1998): 22-24.
Walker, Hill. "Youth Violence: Society's Problem." Eugene, Oregon: Register-Guard (May 31, 1998): 1B, 4B.
Hill M. Walker, and others. "First Step to Success: Intervention Strategies for the Early Remediation of Kindergarten Behavior Problems." (on web site for the Institute for Violence and Destructive Behavior).
Wise, B.J. "Vaccinating Children Against Violence." Principal 79, 1 (September 1999): 14-15, 17, 20.
