Title: Crime in the Schools: Reducing Conflict With Student Problem
Solving.
Series: Research in Brief
Author(s): Dennis Jay Kenney and Steuart Watson
Published: National Institute of Justice, July 1999
Subject(s): Crime in schools, school-based programs, and campus crime
23 pages
54,000 bytes

-------------------------------

This is an ASCII plain-text file. To view this document in its graphic
format, download the Adobe Acrobat graphic file available from this Web
site or order a print copy from NCJRS at 800-851-3420 (877-712-9279
for TTY users).

-------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
National Institute of Justice

National Institute of Justice
Jeremy Travis, Director

Research in Brief
July 1999

-------------------------------

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: A project to investigate a student-based
problem-solving model for reducing crime in the Nation's schools. A
quasi-experimental research design was employed that captured data in 3
waves from more than 450 students attending 11th-grade social science
classes in 2 schools (1 experimental and 1 control) during the 1994-95
school year.

Key issues: As envisioned, school-based problem solving changes the
attitudes and/or behaviors of group members and offers the skills and
knowledge needed to bring about desired change. A guided group process
can reduce school crime and disorder and improve the overall school
climate. As students accept responsibility for their school environment,
they develop improved attitudes regarding the police, their peers, the
fairness and clarity of school and social rules, their own abilities to
influence change, and even school itself. 

A student-based problem-solving model has been successfully
implemented in the Charlotte-Mecklenberg County (North Carolina)
School District. Specific changes were expected in the actual rates of
crime and violence; in the levels of fear among students, teachers, and
staff; and in the overall attitudes of participants. Anticipated impacts
related to teacher feelings of safety, evaluation of the school and
educational environment, and subtle effects on student performance and
the willingness to accept responsibility for one's own "community."

Key findings: Project data revealed that the most significant school
problems may not be what we often imagine. Although gangs, drugs, and
armed agitators may receive the most attention, most of the conflicts
uncovered during this project concerned everyday school interactions
(e.g., an insufficient supply of pizza). Students desire a safer, more
orderly school environment. Additional findings include the following:

--Substantial levels of fear among students and teachers were significantly
reduced by the second and third waves of data collection.

--While nearly 1 in 5 students had to fight to protect themselves during the
last school term before the start of the project, fewer than 1 in 10 did so
by project completion.

--The number of students who saw teachers threatened by students
declined by a third, and those who witnessed physical attacks on teachers
dropped by more than half.

--By the end of the project year, 40 percent fewer students in the
experimental school feared that someone would hurt or bother them
during school hours.

--A 29-percent schoolwide reduction in incidents requiring student
suspension included 70 percent fewer "student-student conflict" and 46
percent fewer "student-teacher conflict" suspensions.

Target audience: Teachers and other educational staff; staff of youth
agencies; public health, juvenile justice, and criminal justice officials and
practitioners; researchers and practitioners in conflict resolution and
related areas; and others concerned with violence prevention.

-------------------------------

Crime in the Schools: Reducing Conflict With Student Problem Solving

by Dennis Jay Kenney and Steuart Watson

Forty years ago, surveys of public school teachers indicated that the most
pressing classroom problems were tardiness, talkative students, and gum
chewing.[1] Far more serious complaints are currently heard from
teachers, administrators, and students about the presence of drugs, gangs,
and weapons on campus and the threat of assault, robbery, theft,
vandalism, and rape.[2] The popular media, such as Time magazine and
U.S. News and World Report, have reported that the problems in our
Nation's schools may be paralyzing the system.[3]

Although rigorous studies producing reliable data on school crime and
victimization are infrequent, some research is available. For example,
according to a report from the National Center for Education Statistics,
disruptive student behavior increased during the 5-year period from 1982
to 1987.[4] Worse yet, survey research by the American Federation of
Teachers suggests that the presence of drugs and weapons on campus
substantially increases student violence.[5] Similarly, the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and the National School Boards Association reported that
by the early 1990s, 3 million thefts and violent crimes were occurring
each year on or near school campuses.[6] Since then, most research on
school crime and disorder has indicated that disruptive incidents, the use
of drugs, and the presence of guns and other weapons have been steadily
declining.[7] Still, the estimated incidence of campus-based crimes and
disorder remains unacceptably high, leaving concerned individuals to
suggest that it is difficult for many high schools to be the orderly, safe,
and secure places they must be if effective learning is to take place. 

Crime problem, crime crisis

With research suggesting a regularity of campus crime, and the occurrence
of tragic incidents such as the 1997-99 shootings on campuses in
Colorado, Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Oregon, some
observers are now calling for swift and forceful action to make our
schools safe again. Far from simply popularist rhetoric, these calls for
change must be considered carefully since some of the proposed methods
for responding to school violence may create a restrictive and
unnecessarily intrusive atmosphere in an otherwise safe school setting.
Methods for responding to school violence are based on variations of 
just three distinct approaches--target hardening, violence prevention, and 
student-based problem solving. As illustrated in the sidebar "Approaches
for Responding to School Violence," these approaches encompass
conflicting programs often designed to accomplish dramatically different
results, and the path selected will critically affect students, staff, and the
educational process itself.

School Safety Program in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County School
District

This Research in Brief discusses a project supported by the National
Institute of Justice in 1993 to test a student-based problem-solving
approach in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County (North Carolina) School
District. Responsible for educating most of the youths of the Nation's 35th
largest city, at the time of the study the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County
School District included 109 schools and approximately 4,130 teachers,
9,680 employees, and 79,800 students. During 1992, the year before the
Charlotte School Safety Program was implemented, the Charlotte Police
Department reported a total of 1,409 events requiring police service in the
city's 8 high schools. Although many of these calls for service involved
order maintenance problems such as false alarms, disturbances, disorderly
persons and fights, accidents, and requests for general assistance, such
occurrences have been shown to contribute to a sense of an unsafe
environment.[8] Fortunately, such concerns are sensitive to community
reaction and, in fact, are the primary focus of most community- and
problem-oriented safety approaches.

The heart of the Charlotte School Safety Program required student
participation in the problem-solving process. To develop an innovative
program incorporating a student-teacher-police partnership, the school
system agreed to add a problem-solving model to the regularly required
11th-grade government and history classes in one target high school. The
classes incorporating the problem-solving curriculum devoted an average
of 1 to 2 days a week to student-teacher-police efforts to identify and
solve school problems, especially those involving school safety. Although
the research staff assisted with the curriculum design, the process itself
was largely driven by the school's teachers because they were most
familiar with the problems confronted by students, best understood the
range of response options available, and had ultimate responsibility for
implementing and facilitating the project.

Between 15 and 25 students were assigned to each participating social
science class, allowing more than 250 students to participate during the
project year. Eleventh graders had the advantage of both a vested interest
in their school's future and a knowledge of its past. All participating
students were graded and received credit as they would for any other
subject.

The class design allowed students, teachers, and police to identify together
the crime, drug, and order problems and concerns on campus. As the
process continued, however, students carried increasing responsibility--an
experience that many students reported to be more interesting than they
had initially anticipated. As facilitators, the teachers assisted with
materials and resources, offering overt guidance only when absolutely
necessary. As a part of the regular classroom process, teachers also
assigned out-of-class work, supervised data collection and analysis for the
problems identified, and evaluated student input to the proposed solutions.
Student grades for the course were partly determined by these factors. The
police resource officer assigned to the experimental school regularly
attended the problem-solving classes and participated as fully as
requested. While police-student relations appeared to be strong, little
police involvement was actually required. 

Key program elements, including the problem-solving process, individual
roles, problem-solving model, and outcomes, are discussed below.

Problem-solving process. The goal of Charlotte's problem-solving process
was to attack specific crime-, order-, and fear-related problems using the
resources of the school, students, faculty, and police. This approach was
based on at least a decade of development in other settings where
problems have been addressed with apparent success in areas as diverse as
gangs; drugs; and the management of police calls for service in urban,
suburban, and even rural communities.[9]

While the problem-solving process is straightforward and easily applied in
a structured classroom setting, a few observations are appropriate. The
process of structuring the student problem-solving groups is an important
component that influences later group cohesiveness and effectiveness.[10]
Here, the amount of structure needed is decided by the group leader (i.e.,
the teacher). Generally, less structure is required if group members
possess adequate interpersonal skills, and more structure is necessary if
group members cannot sustain sophisticated interpersonal
relationships.[11] Structuring is done within the group, where guidelines
for acceptable behavior are established by participants before actual
problem solving begins. This approach allows group members to "own"
the guidelines governing their behavior.

Before beginning problem solving, the group leader outlines the group's
purpose and function to help group members orient their behavior to
solving school-related problems while decreasing the probability of
nontask behaviors. Before introducing the problem-solving classes,
participating teachers are advised to develop their group leadership skills,
their methods of giving appropriate feedback, and their understanding of
problem-solving behaviors.


Individual roles. The degree of support that each group receives is a
significant factor in the outcome. In the Charlotte School Safety Program,
participants received assurances of support from the administration,
school board, teachers, and police. On the first day of school, the test
school's principal pledged his support and resources to student problem
solving. Addressing the 11th-grade student body, the principal prepared
students for the new work that was before them with the observation that
they would "be engaging in research activities that might include devising
and administering surveys and conducting interviews to determine what
the real concerns at the school are." Noting the importance of their efforts,
he went on to promise: "[I]n your endeavors you will enjoy the full
support of the school and extended communities."

The school's police liaison officer attended each initial 11th-grade history
class meeting during the first week of school to introduce himself, explain
his role as a participating group member, and give a brief presentation on
community policing and its relationship to civic responsibility and the
problem-solving model that had been added to the course curriculum.
Observing that the community policing concept was nearly 4 years under
way in Charlotte, the officer advised that his department was attempting to
recreate an earlier, more small-town feeling in the city "by sending police
officers out to talk to the public to find out what kinds of concerns they
have and what kind of changes they want." Challenging the students to do
likewise in their own school, he went on to ask each class to "work
together to make your community a better one to be in."

With the project's introductions complete, each classroom teacher
introduced the general concept of problem solving according to his or 
her own individual classroom schedule. Included, however, were common
examples of how problems had been solved by prominent historical
figures as well as a more current example from both the local and national
media. Project groups were then assembled, and the "guidelines for
acceptable group behavior" crafted earlier were explained to complete 
the introduction to the project.

Each teacher was careful to explain his or her facilitator/mentor function
as one of guiding, rather than directing, the process. The teacher explained
that whatever problems the students identified would be pursued; that
teachers would not veto ideas or problems but, rather, would allow each
student group to discover for itself whether a particular problem existed
and the constraints that might prevent its satisfactory solution.

What problems to solve? Once the introductory work was completed, the
four-stage problem-solving model, described below, was presented to the
students. The teachers then divided the students into groups of four to six
and began the introduction to problem identification. Each problem
identification objective was discussed, as were the substeps involved in
identifying legitimate problems. Students were given worksheets for each
step of the process, peer evaluation sheets, and personal responsibility
logs. The groups were then told to begin working.

The students expressed a variety of concerns about their environment, as
described in "Addressing the Issues." Although the usual issues of drugs,
guns, and gangs were included, more mundane (or everyday) problems
(e.g., clean restrooms, cafeteria) consistently emerged ahead of the more
sensational (or rare) ones (e.g., weapons brought to school, fighting). This
was anticipated based on problem-solving efforts in other community
settings, where "quality of life" issues have consistently shaped
"community safety" issues. In fact, from the problem identification
worksheets used by each group, a consistent picture of school-based 
issues emerged. However, while problems in the restrooms, cafeteria, and
parking lots were named by virtually every group, more narrowly defined
concerns such as a lack of vending machines and pay phones also
emerged.

When all groups had finished all the steps of problem identification, each
teacher held a large class meeting to allow each group to present the
problems that had been identified and prioritized so that the class could
select one problem to work on. Each group presented two to three
problems before a problem to be designated as a "class project" was
selected by class vote. Two alternative problems were also selected.

Four-stage problem-solving model. The Charlotte School Safety Program
was based on a problem-solving approach consisting of problem
identification (or scanning), analysis, strategy formulation, and assessment
(or evaluation). (Also see "Methodology" for a discussion of the research
design and data collection process.)

o Problem identification (scanning). During the initial problem
identification (or scanning) stage, group participants identify and discuss
school issues and determine which are appropriate for further work. Issues
of interest might include vandalism, drugs and their availability, physical
attacks in restrooms, and the lighting or general accessibility of campus
facilities.

During this stage, group members gather information about perceived
problems in the school environment. Their own knowledge--combined
with official records and interviews with teachers, administrators, 
parents, other students, and the police--may be useful. Members then
present their findings, and the group determines which problems require
further consideration and how they should be prioritized. Problems chosen
for further investigation are more clearly defined so that little ambiguity
will exist with respect to the identified problem. Problem identification is
the most critical stage because it is here where a clear goal statement
relative to each problem of focus is developed to assist the
problem-solving group in later stages of the process.[12] 

o Analysis. In the analysis stage, the group gathers more detailed
information about identified problems. This stage consists of four steps: 

--Analysis of the forces related to the problem.

--Brainstorming of alternative strategies.

--Evaluation of alternative strategies.

--Specification of the responsibilities of individual group members. 

Clearly, the analysis step establishes the foundation for most of the
decisions regarding action and sets realistic goals for subsequent efforts.
Using Goldstein's original model, goals may include the total elimination
of the problem, substantial reduction of the problem, reduction of the
harm created by the problem, and development of improved methods for
dealing with the problem.[13]

o Strategy formulation. The strategy formulation stage encompasses three
objectives: develop a set of response options consistent with the
information gathered, select the response(s), and implement the
response(s). During this stage, students call upon police resources; invite
student and parental involvement (e.g., for cleanup, repair, or peer
support); solicit faculty or administrative action; and request assistance
from outside sources. Rather than relying on traditional responses alone,
anyone who can help may be invited to do so. Widely ranging response
options should be considered--no approach should be overlooked.
Response options might include the following:

--Efforts to concentrate attention on those accounting for a
disproportionate share of the problem.

--Approaches to convey accurate information.

--Efforts to alter the physical environment and thus reduce opportunities
for recurrence of a problem. 

--Activities to alter or increase rules and policies addressing conditions
that contribute to a problem.[14]

Regardless of the response option selected, it is important to guide the
problem-solving group toward manageable goals. Psychologist Karl
Weick points out that as people begin to look at social problems, they
often do so on a massive scale.[15] In so doing, they define such problems
in a way that overpowers all possible solutions. Participants then
experience frustration, dashed excitement, and helplessness. A more
effective response, Weick argues, is to break large problems into smaller
ones, thus presenting a series of controllable problems of modest size that 
allow for development of specific responses that can succeed. Although
these smaller "wins" may seem less important individually, when
considered together they set an example that attracts support while
reducing resistance to future efforts.

Finally, participants carefully document all response ideas, large and
small, including the following:

--The problems to be addressed.

--The methods used to identify and understand the problems.

--The methods chosen to alleviate the problems.

--Participants' respective roles in implementing the solutions selected.

--The outcomes determined during the evaluation phase of the process. 

o Assessment (or plan evaluation). During the assessment or plan
evaluation stage, group participants again collect data, this time to
evaluate the effectiveness of their responses. Group members compare
problem-related data before and during intervention. Through this
evaluation, group members decide whether the plan is working (based on
the goal statement made during the problem identification or scanning
stage) and make plans to solve other problems. If the plan is ineffective,
the group revisits the problem-solving steps, beginning with scanning, to
determine whether the problem was identified correctly.[16]

Outcomes. As envisioned, school-based problem-solving groups are 
established to change attitudes and/or behaviors of group members and to
function as agents of change offering the skills and knowledge needed to
bring about the desired change. If successful, the guided group process
reduces school crime and disorder and improves the overall school climate
as well. As students accept responsibility for their school environment,
they develop improved attitudes regarding the police, their peers, the
fairness and clarity of school and social rules, their own abilities to
influence change, and even school itself.[17]

While such improvements are generally anticipated, recent research 
suggests that they may be more pronounced among minorities and youths
who traditionally have invested the least in the educational process.
Typically, ethnic minorities drop out at a rate higher than whites; studies 
indicate that, in some urban areas, as many as 40 to 60 percent of black
adolescents drop out before completing their education.[18] Although
various explanations have been offered to clarify this disparity in
outcome, considerable evidence suggests that minority students simply
experience school in ways that differ qualitatively from the experiences of
their white peers.[19] In short, the process of "school bonding" appears to
be far weaker among minority adolescents. It is reasoned, and related
research suggests, that empowering youths within their own environments
significantly increases school attachment and student commitment--of
both white and minority youths.[20] As students' investment in the school
environment increases, school performance should be affected as well.

Findings

The critical element of the project was considered to be impact on the fear
that students and teachers had been experiencing in the test school. Where
substantial levels of fear among the students and teachers had been noted
during the project's pretest, significant reductions had occurred by the
second (December 1994) and third (May 1995) waves of data collection.
By the end of the project year, the percentage of students in the
experimental school who were afraid that someone would hurt or bother
them during school hours decreased by more than 40 percent. In addition,
the school's administration reported a 29-percent schoolwide reduction in
incidents requiring student suspension, including 70 percent fewer
"student-student conflict" and 46 percent fewer "student-teacher conflict"
suspensions. For each item, no significant differences were found in the 
control school during the same time period. Additional findings included
the following.

Fear among the students. At the end of the 1993-94 pretest school year,
nearly 7 percent of the test school's 10th-grade class reported that they
"almost never" felt safe while in the school building. Only slightly more
than half (54 percent) reported "almost always" feeling safe, and at least
45 percent of these students were concerned for their safety at least
sometimes while attending school. Although many students may have
witnessed and reported one or only a few student-teacher conflicts, the
impressions of disorder were nonetheless considerable. Locations of
specific concern included the school's hallways and stairs, cafeteria, and
restrooms. Students from the control school felt only slightly safer. Where
27 percent of the test school's participating students had reported at the
end of the 1993-94 pretest school year that they usually tried to "stay
away" from school restrooms out of fear of being hurt or bothered, by
December of the project year only 20 percent felt so, and only 16 percent
felt so by project completion. Meanwhile, no significant differences were
observed in the control school, suggesting that the results were not due to
student maturation.

In addition, prior to the project, more than 11 percent of the test school's
10th graders had stated that they were "almost always" afraid that
someone would hurt or bother them at school, and another 35 percent
experienced such fear sometimes. Approximately 15 percent were
similarly fearful on their way to and from school. To support these
concerns, 22 percent reported that they had needed to fight to protect
themselves during the current school term. By project completion, fewer
than 1 in 10 students had to fight to protect themselves as compared with
nearly 1 in 5 during the last school term before the start of the project. 

At the end of the 1993-94 pretest school year, 51 percent of the students in
the test school had seen a teacher threatened by a student, and more than
16 percent reported actually having seen a teacher hit or attacked. 

By project completion, the number of students who reported having seen a
teacher threatened by a student declined by one-third, and those who
reported witnessing a physical attack on a teacher dropped by more than
half.

Fear among the teachers. Personal safety at school was not merely of 
concern to students. At the end of the 1993-94 pretest school year, 29
percent of the test school's teachers reported that vandalism, personal 
attacks, and theft were either "very" or, at least, "fairly much" a problem.
While fewer than 20 percent were personally the victims of property
damage, theft of personal property, or physical attack, nearly two-thirds of
teachers participating reported that they had received obscene remarks 
or gestures from students during the past month--36 percent were directly
threatened by remarks from students. In evaluating their school
environment, a significant proportion of the test school's teachers felt
either very or fairly unsafe during school hours in their school's hallways
and stairs, cafeteria, locker rooms and gym, restrooms, and parking lots.
Nearly one-tenth expressed feeling very unsafe or fairly unsafe in their
own classrooms while teaching. Because of such fear, 44 percent of the
school's teachers admitted that they had hesitated to confront misbehaving
students for fear of their own safety at least once or twice during the
school year.

While effects on the teachers were more difficult to assess than effects on
the students, by project completion a considerably increased percentage of
teachers reported feeling "very safe" while in their classrooms, the
school's hallways or stairs, restrooms used by students, locker rooms and
the gym, and the school's parking lots, although none of these
improvements was statistically significant at the standard 0.05 level.
Deteriorating conditions at the control school were significant, however,
although actual victimization appeared to have changed little. Meanwhile,
victimization at the test school showed considerable, although not 
statistically significant, improvement. 

When asked to assess school safety more generally, the test school's 
teachers were even more positive. Where 29 percent reported during the
project's pretest that vandalism, personal attacks, and theft were either
"fairly much" or "very much" a problem in their school, by the project's
end only 12 percent continued to feel so. Similarly, while in May 1994
nearly half felt that their teaching was disrupted either "a great deal" or at
least "a fair amount" by the behavior (such as talking or fighting) of some
students in their classrooms, this fell to 36 percent during the project's
problem-solving activities. Not surprisingly, the willingness of test school
teachers to confront misbehaving students rose sharply during the project
year.

Conclusions 

During the 1994-95 school year, the Charlotte School Safety Program was
introduced to test the ability of students to organize into problem-solving
groups and work with teachers, administrators, and the police to reduce
the problems of crime, disorder, and fear on campus. Although the results
are promising, a few general observations should be noted.

First, the most significant problems in our schools may not be as we often
imagine them. Gangs, drugs, and armed agitators may receive the most
attention; however, most of the conflicts uncovered during this project
were part of everyday school interactions. For example, an insufficient
supply of pizza in a limited number of lunchroom service lines created far
more campus disorder than any of the more frequently addressed
concerns. In short, as has been often found in other community settings,
taking care of the "little things" will often satisfy the larger issues.

Second, a school's students are interested in a safer, more orderly school
environment. While many assumed that participation rates in the project's
problem-solving efforts would be low, teachers and project observers
were consistently impressed by the extent of involvement. Recall the
group that discovered during analysis that they were themselves an
important part of their school's problems--although their discussions were
boisterous, even they acknowledged the need for policies to meet all
community members' needs.

Finally, the environment where this effort was attempted was receptive, 
if not enthusiastic, about the project. Having encountered previous
problems of campus disorder, the test school's teachers and administrators
were open to increased student influence in school governance, and they
were willing to invest the time necessary to modify their own class
curriculums to support project activities. Administrators, meanwhile,
received the students as legitimate members of the school community,
giving full and fair consideration to their ideas for improvement. As a
result, students' efforts were encouraged and reinforced. In a less 
supportive environment, however, it is equally likely that students'
participation and commitment to self-determination could be irreparably
harmed if they perceived that their views were not considered seriously.

Notes

1. National Institute of Education, Violent Schools--Safe Schools: The
Safe School Study Report to the Congress, Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, 1978.

2. National School Safety Center, "School Crime: Annual Statistical
Snapshot," School Safety (Winter 1989).

3. Hall, J., "The Knife in the Book Bag," Time (May 22, 1993); Toch, T.,
T. Guest, and M. Guttman, "Violence in Schools: When Killers Come
Home," U.S. News and World Report (November 8, 1993).

4. National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education,
1989, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, 1989.

5. National School Safety Center, "AFT Survey Validates Problems,"
School Safety (Fall 1989).

6. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States, 1993,
Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1994; National School
Boards Association, Violence in the Schools: How America's School
Boards Are Safeguarding Our Children, Washington, DC: National
School Boards Association, 1993.

7. National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education, Summary of
Results--Students' Survey, Atlanta, GA: Pride, Inc., 1998.

8. Skogan, W., and M. Maxfield, Coping With Crime, Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications, 1981.

9. Police Executive Research Forum, 1993; Eck, 1992; Sherman, 1989;
Diamond, 1993.

10. Bednar, R., and T. Kaul, "Experimental Group Research: Current
Perspectives," in Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change: An
Empirical Analysis (2d ed.), ed. S. Garfield and A. Bergin, New York:
John Wiley and Sons, 1978; Corder, B., T. Haizlip, R. Whiteside, and M.
Vogel, "Pre-therapy Training for Adolescents in Group Psychotherapy:
Contracts, Guidelines, and Pre-therapy Preparation," Adolescence 15
(1980): 699-706. 

11. Bednar and Kaul, Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change. 

12. Bergan, J., and M. Tombari, "Consultive Skill and Efficiency and the
Implementation and Outcomes of Consultation," Journal of School
Psychology 14 (1976): 3-14; Hollister, W., and F. Miller,
"Problem-Solving Strategies in Consultation," American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 47 (1977): 445-450; Lazarus, A., Multimodal Behavior
Therapy, New York: Springer, 1976.

13. Goldstein, H., Problem Oriented Policing, New York: McGraw-Hill,
1990.

14. Ibid.

15. Weick, K., "Small Wins: Redefining the Scale of Social Problems,"
American Psychologist 39 (1) (1984): 40-49.

16. Eck, J., and W. Spelman, Problem Solving: Problem-Oriented
Policing in Newport News, Washington, DC: Police Executive Research
Forum, 1987. 

17. Smith, H., "Group vs. Individual Problem Solving and Type of
Problem Solved," Small Group Behavior 20 (1989): 357-366.

18. Reed, R., "Education and Achievement of Young Black Males," in
Young, Black, and Male in America: An Endangered Species, ed. J.
Gibbs, Dover, MA: Auburn House, 1988.

19. Cernkovich and Giordano, "School Bonding, Race, and Delinquency,"
261-291.

20. For descriptions of related efforts, see Koba, S., "What Works for a
Prize-Winning Teacher: Building Community, Student-Centered
Classroom, Quality World," Omaha World-Herald (March 5, 1993): 17;
and Checkoway, "High Hopes for U.S. Youth: Which Image Will
Prevail?"

-------------------------------

Approaches for Responding to School Violence

Methods for responding to school violence are based on variations of three
distinct approaches--target hardening, violence prevention, and
student-based problem solving.

Target hardening: metal detectors, surveillance cameras, locks, and bars

Most of the more popular responses to school violence today involve the
use of technology to secure each school and make it physically difficult
for students to bring weapons onto the campus. Proponents of this
approach utilize lessons learned from airport security and believe that a
visible presence will deter students from attempting to carry weapons onto
school property. Even where deterrence fails, however, these advocates
argue that, if properly deployed, their methods will virtually ensure the
detection of most weapons. They claim this approach will allow school
security staff to prevent trouble before it occurs. Depending on each
school's resources and physical design, target hardening usually involves
not only tightened security procedures but also metal detectors--either
mobile or stationary--at each campus entrance.

Many critics of target-hardening approaches to school safety recognize
traditional conflicts between educators and police and speculate whether
such an oppressive security environment might worsen relations and harm
the educational process. Others question whether the potential for damage
to the educational environment and process might threaten the very
institutions such methods seek to preserve. As all students and other
individuals are forced to enter a campus through a single point,
unintended consequences may result as delays for false positives become
common. Concerns include the following:

o Will student conflicts be heightened as they often are when lunchroom
procedures produce congested movement?

o Will school scheduling be adversely affected if security personnel
cannot smoothly process the individuals attempting to enter?

o Will students purposely create false positives to slow the entry process
and interrupt the schoolday? Many already use fire alarms to accomplish
such goals.

o If the entry system is slowed, will searches be restricted, thereby
increasing the likelihood of failure?

o Might weapons possession increase as students demonstrate their skills
in beating the system?

o Is it possible to secure a high school campus not built (or designed) for
tight security lockdown? Reported experience in securing prisons offers
little optimism for success. 

Although any of these events may occur, planning for such contingencies
is infrequent. Critics of this approach contend that while implementation
of such methods may be helpful, reliance on this approach alone may be
ineffective and actually harmful to other educational goals.

Violence prevention

A second, treatment-centered approach includes efforts to identify the
youths most likely to commit violent acts during school and to offer them
counseling and skill-building support. Most often, these violence
prevention programs focus on impulsive or aggressive youths who lack
the social competencies necessary to adapt appropriately to the school
environment and to peers. Even the most popular violence prevention
programs focus their efforts at the individual level in the apparent belief
that schools can be made safer if individual behaviors can be modified;
while desirable, the evidence of impact is questionable. Data show that,
typically, the selected individuals have previously exhibited tendencies to
behave aggressively and often come from families that model and endorse
such behaviors. In addition, parents of these children often rely on
coercive parenting techniques, an approach that has been established as a
strong predictor of conduct problems in adolescence.[a] 

Two of the known violence prevention treatment programs are the Second
Step curriculum, intended for preschool children through the fifth grade,
and the Violence Prevention Curriculum for Adolescents, intended for
high schoolers.[b] Both are designed to be integrated into an existing
curriculum.

Second Step targets empathy, impulse control, and anger management
skill areas by presenting cards with pictures of children engaging in
various activities. The reverse side of each card provides instructions that
teachers may follow for a related lesson. Students learn appropriate skills
by responding to teacher questions regarding the interactions on the card,
watching the teacher model the skill, and role playing the same or similar
scenarios. Additional instructional procedures embedded in the curriculum
include problem solving, behavior rehearsal, self-instruction, and other
forms of behavioral modeling.

The Violence Prevention Curriculum was designed to prevent fighting
among high school students primarily by increasing knowledge about
violence and its effects and then by introducing an anger management
module. This curriculum focuses on data from homicides and other acts of
violence, both nationally and in the student participants' own
communities. Anger is explored as a natural emotion, the consequences of
fighting as an expression of anger are evaluated, and the components of
fights are analyzed. The instructional methods offered include didactic
presentation of statistics, videotaped student-scripted role-plays, and
discussions of alternatives to fighting.

Despite the popularity of and generally good reactions to both Second
Step and the Violence Prevention Curriculum, data to support claims of
program effects on violence prevention over time are scarce.[c] Although
both programs may increase knowledge about violence and anger and
improve short-term behavior, long-term behavioral changes are necessary
and must be documented before either method can be properly considered
effective. In fact, the assumptions supporting these programs--that
students lack the appropriate social skills to avoid violent behavior--often
do not hold true. For example, some students report violent acts that are
intended solely to extort money, protect turf, or prove allegiance to
friends.

Student-based problem solving

A third approach--student-based problem solving--fosters problem solving 
focused on system and environmental issues. Although some might argue
that this approach is limited, the appeal of problem-solving models is
intuitive and well supported conceptually from at least two important
perspectives. The first lies within the criminal justice system. After
recognizing that crime and fear are closely linked to perceptions of
disorder, many (perhaps most) reformers now accept the weaknesses of
technological solutions to crime problems and promote, instead, increased
roles for communities. For example, rather than assume a traditional
reactive, or even proactive, approach to problems, these advocates call for
a coactive function that stresses partnerships between officials and the
citizens they serve.[d] Since the formal justice system is empowered to
intervene primarily only after an incident has occurred, prevention and
early intervention efforts, they contend, are largely beyond its reach.
Therefore, citizens working through informal norms of social control have
the best chance to engage their fellow community members in the
discussion and settlement of differences prior to an incident.[e] Out of
these informal resolutions comes the general sense of cooperation and
civility upon which safe communities depend.

The second area of support for student-based problem solving stems from
acceptance of the role of peers in the educational process and in the
development of deviance careers in juveniles. Earlier, Sutherland
theorized that delinquency and deviance are learned through intimate
associations with peers who have attitudes favorable to misconduct.[f]
More recently, both the role of peers and the process of bonding to one's
school have been established as important determinants of educational
behavior and performance.[g]

a. Reid, J., and G. Patterson, "Early Prevention and Intervention With
Conduct Problems: A Social Interactional Model for the Integration of
Research and Practice," in Interventions for Achievement and Behavior
Problems, ed. G. Stoner, M. Shinn, and H. Walker, Washington, DC:
National Association of School Psychologists, 1991.

b. Checkoway, B., "High Hopes for U.S. Youth: Which Image Will
Prevail?" Omaha World-Herald, February 9, 1993; Prothrow-Stith, D.,
Violence Prevention Curriculum for Adolescents, Newton, MA:
Education Development Center, Inc., 1987.

c. National Institute of Justice, Preventing Interpersonal Violence Among
Youth, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, 1994, NCJ 150484.

d. Oettmeier, T., and M. Wycoff, Planning and Implementation Issues for
Community Oriented Policing: The Houston Experience, Washington,
DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 1996.

e. Shonholtz, R., "The Citizen's Role in Justice: Building a Primary Justice
and Prevention System at the Neighborhood Level," in Social Problems:
The Search for Solutions, ed. F. Scarpitti and F. Cylke, Los Angeles, CA:
Roxbury Press, 1995.

f. Sutherland, E., Criminology (4th ed.), Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott,
1947.


g. Steinberg, L., S. Dornbusch, and B. Brown, "Ethnic Differences in
Adolescent Achievement: An Ecological Perspective," American
Psychologist 47 (1996): 723-729; Cernkovich, S., and P. Giordano,
"School Bonding, Race, and Delinquency," Criminology 30 (2) (1992):
261-291.

-------------------------------

Addressing the Issues

As the Charlotte School Safety Program progressed, a student-led analysis
suggested a range of responses to the concerns identified at the test school.
For example, the groups addressing lunchroom conditions quickly agreed
that at the core of the various problems identified were issues of school
procedure. Since virtually all students eat during a single lunch period,
conflicts over seating, order of service, and the availability of choice
menu items were both obvious and inevitable. Frustrated students seeking
a preferred entree item (pizza rather than salad, for example) were easily
angered as they watched other students, usually older or larger, cut ahead
of them in the cafeteria's service line. The fights and generally hostile
atmosphere that resulted were hardly surprising. While long-range
solutions were developed and discussed, more immediate results were
accomplished after negotiations with lunchroom staff opened additional
service lines and significantly increased the menu items most frequently
requested. Interestingly, these negotiations not only were student initiated
but also involved lunchroom workers who were not involved in, or even
aware of, the problem-solving classes. 

Where lunchtime issues were straightforward, parking and restroom
problems proved to be more complex. For classes concerned with parking
congestion, problem analysis involved afterschool traffic counts and
timing of traffic flow. From data that resulted, several suggestions for
parking lot redesigns were developed. With their designs in hand,
however, the students soon learned that the school's administration had
already hired an architectural firm to address these same concerns and that
professionally drawn plans were being developed. A commitment by the
administration to include student participation in that process was offered.

While the attendance and tardy policies that they viewed as overly strict
had been their primary issue, one group realized that many of these
policies had been intended to reduce loitering in the student parking lots.
Following several sessions, the group set out to build student support to
petition for a return to the earlier, less restrictive school rules. As group
members contacted their peers, however, they discovered that their fellow
students agreed with the administration's policies because they previously
had been fearful in the parking lots--especially in the mornings as they
walked past boisterous groups of students who often harassed them on the
way to class. Of course, this problem-solving group included students who
had gathered in the lots the previous year, leaving them to conclude that
they had, in fact, been part of the problem. Declaring themselves to be
harmless, this group at least conceded that solutions to accommodate
everyone's needs were necessary. Unfortunately, by the time this was 
acknowledged, the class time necessary to develop such solutions was no
longer available.

In addressing restroom-related issues, the problem-solving groups focused
primarily on cleanliness, smoking policies, and safety. The need for
improved sanitation was demonstrated with photographs taken between
class periods. Although several arguments for designated smoking
sections were offered, all were rejected because they would violate North
Carolina State law and school board policy concerning minors in
possession of tobacco and the use of tobacco products in public buildings.
As for the safety issues, recommendations for increased monitoring were
offered and accepted.

Finally, one group identified and became immersed in the more general
problem of teen pregnancy and the supports available to help teenage
mothers remain in high school. Citing national trends and the views of
their fellow students, this class developed and proposed a program of
student mentoring for junior high school students that included a sex
education component. Soon, however, they encountered controversy.

After discussing their ideas with teachers and administrators,
disagreements over the extent to which the proposed efforts might actually
promote sexual activity among younger students emerged, leading to a
requirement that abstinence be offered as the only advice during the sex
education component. This, however, was not acceptable to the students
developing the plan, leading the students to withdraw their proposed
response. Although disillusionment could have resulted from this
experience, the students were, rather, encouraged through their
participation in the discussion as equals and their decision to stand on
principle. Discussions about the significance of social problems and the
positive view that "city hall can be fought" occupied much of this group's
remaining class time.

-------------------------------

Methodology

Project evaluation was designed to measure effects on students, teachers,
and the experimental school itself. A four-stage problem-solving model
was employed that encompassed problem identification (scanning),
analysis, strategy formulation, and assessment (evaluation). The
quasi-experimental research design used measures collected in three
survey waves. During each wave, impact data were captured from more
than 450 students attending 2 schools (1 experimental and 1 control). In
each setting, project participants consisted of the 11th-grade students who
attended each school's mandatory social sciences classes during the 1994-
95 school year. 

The data collection phase began during May of the 1993-94 pretest school
year as participating students completed the 10th grade. Information was
gathered from police records, school records, and demographic data, and
the Effective School Battery--an instrument measuring school climate,
student and staff attitudes, and self-reported behaviors--was initially
administered to students and teachers.

The curriculum design process and schedules for the problem-solving
classes were also developed at this time, and the process evaluation began
as well. The remaining planning and curriculum development sessions
were held during the summer months before the start of the new school
year. 

The test school and a control school were chosen based on matching
relevant variables, including student demographics, performance,
participation, and discipline. Teacher characteristics, including percentage
of staff assigned to teaching, teacher experience, and educational level of
the teaching staff, were also considered.

Staff at the test school agreed to implement the School Safety Program,
including the problem-solving classes. The police department agreed to
participate in experimental classes by furnishing a police liaison officer
and to commit additional officers as needed for problem solution
strategies. Meanwhile, the control school agreed to participate fully in the
project's data collection process while receiving only the existing levels of
police services--one officer assigned to campus with no specific duties or
tasks. To measure program outcomes, both process and outcome
evaluations were conducted. The evaluation results allowed for
comparisons among individual participants and at the schoolwide level.

The actual experimental treatments were introduced as the 1994-95 school
year began. As the project progressed, evaluation staff regularly visited
both schools, paying particular attention to introduction and operation of
the problem-solving classes. The second and third waves of data
collection followed at approximately 5-month intervals to coincide with
completion of the school year's two semesters. During each wave, data
were collected from both schools, all teachers, and all participating
students. From the students, all data were gathered on a single day as a
regular part of class, in their regularly assigned classrooms. Data
collection at the control school was scheduled so that the process could be
repeated with staff and teachers as they attended their weekly afterschool
faculty meetings. Since the test school's meeting schedule was less
flexible, staff and teachers self-administered their data collection
instruments during the school day and returned their responses in sealed
envelopes to the teacher in charge of the school's history and social
science department.

-------------------------------

Dennis Jay Kenney, Ph.D., is currently Associate Director and the
Director of Research for the Police Executive Research Forum.

Steuart Watson, Ph.D., is currently a Professor and Coordinator of the
Clinical Intervention Services Program in the School of Psychology at
Mississippi State University.

This project was supported under award 93-IJ-CX-0026 from the National
Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of
Justice. 

-------------------------------

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of
the U.S. Department of Justice. 

-------------------------------

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice
Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

NCJ 177618

This and other NIJ publications can be found at and downloaded from the
NIJ Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

-------------------------------

Quick Access to NIJ Publication News

For news about NIJ's most recent publications, including solicitations for
grant applications, subscribe to JUSTINFO, the bimonthly newsletter sent
to you via e-mail. Here's how: 

o Send an e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

o Leave the subject line blank

o Type subscribe justinfo your name
(e.g., subscribe justinfo Jane Doe) in the body of the message

Or check out the "Publications and Products" section at the NIJ home
page: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij 
or the "New This Week" section at the Justice Information Center home
page: http://www.ncjrs.org