Determinant Factors For School Violence A Study of The McComb, Mississippi School System

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMl films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMl a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMl directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The University of Southern Mississippi
DETERMINANT FACTORS FOR SCHOOL VIOLENCE:
A STUDY OF THE McCOMB, MISSISSIPPI SCHOOL SYSTEM
by
Robert Bruce Hunt HI
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate School
of The University of Southern Mississippi
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
[irector
/
Dean of the Graduate Scnool
May 2001
UMl Number 3013763
Copyright 2001 by
Hunt, Robert Bruce, III
All rights reserved.
____ _______ (f t
UMl
UMl Microform 3013763
Copyright 2001 by Bell &Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
COPYRIGHT BY
ROBERT BRUCE HUNT m
2001
by
Robert Bruce Hunt in
Abstract of a Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate School
of The University of Southern Mississippi
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
May 2001
ABSTRACT
by Robert Bruce Hunt III
May 2001
Increased school violence has fostered the need for school administrators to
understand the perceptions of fear that affect their students. Federal funds to develop
programs, implement security measures, hire resource officers and professional
counselors, and support research have been made available to schools, police departments,
and institutions of higher education. This research project was made possible as a result
of a COPS grant awarded to the McComb School District and the McComb Police
Department A portion of that grant provided funding for a study conducted at the school
in conjunction with The University of Southern Mississippi's Criminal Justice Department
The subjects of the study students from Denman Junior High School and McComb
High School. Key elements of the study were to determine the students perceptions of
fear in different physical locations at school, traveling to and from school, and while at
extracurricular activities. Other factors of concern pertained to drug availability and gang
presence. A population sample of 54 participants from the junior high and 125
participants from the high school, out of a total population o f435 and 819 respectively,
1
took part in the survey.
A survey instrument consisting of 85 questions was used, based on a modified
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention school safety survey. Questions
with a distinct urban bias were eliminated. Absent a statistically significant difference
being found, data from the two schools were pooled. The data were also compared to
results from the Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report U.S. Department
of Justice, and Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Preventioa
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Sandra C. Hunt Her unwavering
support and strength helped make this endeavor possible. Special consideration is also
given to my mother, N. Dale Hunt my sisters, Colleen Lyman and Robbie Legus, and my
daughters, Cassandra Shindelar and Kristi DeFranco, for the support and encourgement
they gave me.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer would like to thank the faculty of the Departments of Criminal Justice
and Adult Education at The University of Southern Mississippi for the tremendous
education, guidance, and support that was shown to me throughout my time as a graduate
student I would especially like to thank the members of my dissertation committee for
their advice and support throughout the duration of this project Dr. W. Lee Pierce, Adult
Education, for his steady support during my times of frustration; Dr. Michael Clay Smith,
Criminal Justice, for his expertise in teaching me legal research; and Dr. Stephen L.
Mallory, Criminal Justice, for pushing me forward in the statistical portion of my research,
and for his ever present sense of humor that kept me smiling in the face of despair.
Special thanks to Col. Tyler H. Fletcher, former Chair of the Department of
Criminal Justice, for always encouraging me to strive for higher goals and to Dr. William
Banks Taylor, Criminal Justice, for giving me the tools necessary to reach those goals.
Above all, I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Donald A. Cabana,
dissertation director, Criminal Justice, for being a friend, a boss, a teacher, and whatever
else was necessary to keep me on track throughout this project
I would also like to express appreciation to Mr. Adam McKee, Criminal Justice,
for his assistance in the statistical portion of my dissertation. I could not have succeeded
without his help.
iii
I would also like to express my gratitude to the McComb School District and the
McComb Police Department for their tremendous support and assistance in making this
research possible.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION.............................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS............................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................ vi
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. I
Statement of Problem
Purpose of Study
Hypotheses
Delimitations
Definitions
Justification
H. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.......................................................... 13
m. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................. 36
Preliminary Procedures
Operational Procedures
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA............................................................................ 42
V. SUMMARY............................................................................................. 52
APPENDDCES................................................................................................................ 58
REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 74
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. AFI Item Total Correlation 43
2. Principle Component Analysis Component Matrix for the AFI 44
3. Summary of Regression Analysis for Variable Predicting Area
of Fear Index Scores (N = 179) 45
4. 2-Way ANOVA Testing Effects of Sex and Social Group on
the Area of Fear Index 46
5. Descriptive Statistics for AFI by Sex and Group 47
6. DAI Corrected Item Total Correlations 48
7. Descriptive Statistics for DAI Scale Items 49
8. Component Matrix for DAI Items 50
9. Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Drug
Availability Index scores (N = 59) 51
vi
CHAPTER I
Human beings can be violent
when they leam not to be, its called civilization. (Dowling, 1999)
INTRODUCTION
Violence within our schools has gained increased public awareness with the advent
of highly publicized incidents that have transpired over the past few years. School
shootings in Pearl, Mississippi; West Paducha, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas; Edinboro,
Pennsylvania; Springfield, Oregon; and Littleton, Colorado, to name a few, have
heightened public awareness that incidents of violence are not restricted to the inner city
schools of large metropolitan areas. This awareness has fostered a corresponding demand
to initiate steps to eradicate the problem. Parents want their children to feel safe in school,
where concerns over personal well-being should not overshadow the educational goals.
An environment conducive to learning must be free from fear (Barton, Coley, &
Wenglisky, 1998). It may be argued that schools, under the doctrine of in loco parentis,
should strive to achieve the same level of care and protection that a parent is responsible
for.
School systems have moved quickly to work on finding solutions to problems
associated with violence within their walls. Studies have been undertaken, security
measures were implemented, and emergency response and reaction plans developed.
Early measures focused primarily on what to do if a shooting or some other violent
incident occurred. School officials moved swiftly to adopt written protocols and standard
operating procedures that would guide faculty and students alike in the event such an
1
2
incident were to take place, including evacuation procedures, notification of emergency
personnel (police, fire, medical), and briefing parents and media. Procedures were
implemented in many school districts were to keep firearms and other instruments of
violence out of the schools, as well as to monitor the activities of students while in school
(Drug Strategies Inc., 1998; Noguera, 1996; Walker & Gresham, 1997).
A number of studies have taken place, and more are currently being undertaken, to
determine factors that will assist both school officials and communities in preventing
future acts of violence in their schools (Baldauf, 1999). Disciplines in the social sciences,
as well as those in the field of education, are looking at methods that will help identify the
early warning signs of violence and aberrant behavior. School officials continue to
examine variables such as increased security systems, the addition of school resource
officers, metal detectors and video cameras.
The Department of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention have developed a number of grant programs designed to assist communities,
schools, and police departments identify and solve problems associated with the
prevention of violent acts perpetrated in schools. These programs emphasize the
utilization of professional skills available through institutions of higher education, and
establish funds within the grants for appropriate consulting and research fees (U.S.
Department of Justice, 1999). The primary thrust of these grants is to achieve cooperative
agreement between school boards, school officials, local police agencies, and experts in a
variety of academic disciplines, available through local colleges and universities
(Hernandez, 1995; U.S. Department of Education, 1998).
3
Dissemination of gained information is a key factor in the numerous studies that
have been completed, and of those that are currently in progress. This builds a
knowledge, as well as a data base of information that is available to others who are
concerned with the prevention of violence in the school setting. It also encourages the
replication of successful programs and provides for comprehensive assistance in the
technical application of such programs. It must be remembered, however, that budgetary
restrictions are a concern for many smaller school districts in rural areas. They simply do
not have the resources that larger, more urban areas have due to a greater tax base. The
ability to implement a program whose effectiveness has already been demonstrated is both
cost effective and efficient for these smaller communities. Further grant programs help
supplement available resources to purchase equipment and hire resource officers (U.S.
Department of Justice, 1999).
The purpose of individual research is to process available data in a manner that
determines the specific needs and problems of a school district or school. In order to
develop a proper needs assessment, the research tool must be designed to address local
demographics. The resulting information can then be compared to previous studies of
similar school systems to see what programs have used been utilized and how effective
they are. An effectiveness scale can be utilized in the decision making process to
determine which type of program should be put into practice, therefore increasing the
cost/benefit ratio for the school system.
The country has entered an era of uncertainty, where social change is concerned.
While schools experiment with new and innovative security measures, the fragile bond of
4
trust that exists between students and administrators is being eroded. Prevention of
random, explosive displays of violence is a complex and difficult task. It is the underlying
cause these acts of violence that must be investigated, rather than the plethora
of high tech equipment that is being installed in the nations schools. It is doubtful that
this equipment would have prevented the majority of the shootings that have taken place
over the past few years. Furthermore, post facto reactionary planning that becomes
infused with a paranoia, quickly turns to statutory lawmaking. Legislators respond to the
emotions of their constituents, proposing numerous statutory remedies aimed at appeasing
them. Many of the proposals are unenforceable and cost prohibitive.
Statement of the Problem
The problem to be addressed in this research concerns the McComb Mississippi
School District and their desire to gather information that will be useful in determining
how best to available resources. McComb is a rural Mississippi community with a small
tax base from which to glean additional revenues that would be required to implement
some of the more costly methodologies and programs. To solve this problem school
officials joined forces with the McComb Police Department to apply for, and received, a
federal Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grant This was a cooperative
agreement grant involving the city of McComb, the McComb school district, and the
McComb Police Department The grant furnished funds to supplement school resource
officers, purchase equipment and to conduct a study of the problems that existed within
the school.
The initial desire of the school was to identify existing problems, thereby
5
permitting to focus their efforts on eliminating potential future problems. Resource
officers were assigned to each of the two schools, a junior high with grades 7 and 8, and a
high school with grades 9 through 12. They also implemented more stringent policies
designed to detect and deal with students who were not in the classroom during assigned
class times. This left one major area open to question: what problems did the students
themselves perceive to exist, and where and what types of violence did they encounter
while under the locus of school control.
For school officials to eliminate violent acts within the school, they needed to
know where they were most likely to occur, and under what circumstances. Based on the
assumption that many situations occurred that were never brought to the attention of the
school staff, officials determined the need to develop a reliable method of uncovering this
information. This led them to seek help from an outside source. With the assistance of
the McComb Police Department contact was initiated with the Department of Criminal
Justice at The University of Southern Mississippi.
The McComb School District and the McComb Police Department entered into an
agreement with the Department of Criminal Justice to fund research that would assist
them in resolving their unanswered questions. The primary objectives included the
development of proper research methods, the safeguarding of student privacy rights, and a
hope for an increased level of honesty in the response of the students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the research was to determine, by measuring student perception,
where students were most fearful of acts of violence occurring on their person, which
6
student groups had higher levels of fear and why, if weapons were still present on school
grounds, and who was most likely to commit an act of violence. Other relationships dealt
with the availability of drugs, as well as gang presence and membership and how those
relate to levels of fear.
On a secondary scale, demographics were examined to determine those students
with the potential to continue their educational endeavors beyond the high school level as
compared with those who had a desire to quit school. This was examined in connection
with their perception of fear, in an attempt to determine if there was a correlation between
the two.
The ultimate objective of the study was the identification of valid problem areas, as
perceived through the eyes of the students. Once this had been accomplished, efforts and
resources could then be effectively applied to resolve the issues at hand. The information
obtained will be the catalyst for suggesting proper methodologies and program
implementation that not only address the perceived problems, but fall within the budgetary
parameter within which the school must effectively operate.
Hypotheses
A number of hypotheses were formulated prior to the inception of this research
project, and while a large number of items will be investigated through the simple
collection of frequency distribution data from the questionnaire, the below listed
hypotheses represent the main core of the research. It is hypothesized that the data
obtained to address the first five issues will manifest a statistically significant correlation
between the presence of weapons in school and the perceived availability of drugs and
7
alcohol.
1. Research hypotheses Hu there is a significant relationship between bringing
weapons to school and the perceived availability of uppers and downers in the
population.
2. Research hypotheses there is a significant relationship between bringing
weapons to school and the perceived availability of crack in the population.
3. Research hypotheses H3>there is a significant relationship between bringing
weapons to school and the perceived availability of cocain in the population.
4. Research hypotheses H4>there is a significant relationship between bringing
weapons to school and the perceived availability of marijuana in the population.
5. Research hypotheses Hj, there is a significant relationship between bringing
weapons to school and the perceived availability of alcohol in the population.
6. Research hypotheses there is a statistically significant relationship between
the Area of Fear Index and student perception of gang members within the school
when race and sex are held constant
7. Research hypotheses H7 there is a statistically significant difference between
genders on the Area of Fear Index.
8. Research hypotheses there is a statistically significant difference between
perceived social groups on the Area of Fear Index.
9. Research hypotheses H,, there is a statistically significant interaction between
gender and perceived social groups.
10. Research hypotheses Ht0 there is a significant relationship between drug
8
availability and being a victim of violence, robbery, or of theft when sex and age
are held constant
Delimitations
The primary delimitation of this research is that the results is applicable only to the
McComb School District in particular the two schools in which the study were
conducted. The results of the research were utilized for comparison purposes with other
studies, but not applied as an actual guideline to any other school. The racial make-up of
the population in the two schools to be studied was skewed, with a large presence of
African Americans, and therefore presents another delimitation to the research as it would
relate to other studies. The geographic characteristics of the schools in this research
limited comparison with research to schools that are similar in size and population. The
location of this research, in the southern United States, will reflect the traits and
characteristics of that particular population, especially in the responses to the survey itself.
The mean income of the population, industry of the area, religious make-up, as well as
average family size are all factors that effect the delimitations of this research.
Definitions
1. AFI: Area of Fear Index, an index comprised of seven items designed to measure
students fear as related to specific locations in the school environment
2. Crack: A fieebase for of cocaine that is always smoked, rather than injected or snorted.
3. DAI: Drug Availability Index, an index comprised of six items (drug categories)
designed to examine the relationship between drug availability and victimization.
4. Downers: Barbiturates, a depressant, usually injested in pill form but may also be
9
injected.
5. Uppers: Amphetamines, a stimulant, primarily methamphetamine normally injected but
I
sometimes snorted.
6. Other drugs: Includes heroin and other opium derivatives as well as designer drugs
as well as all other drugs not included in the other listed categories.
Justification
The current trend in large scale school violence as well as the increasing need of
school systems to determine causal problem areas, the perceptions of fear within the
student body, and the need to develop preventive measures was the primary justification
for studies in this area. It is paramount for school systems to pro-actively address the
problem, thereby generating effective policies and measures that will address the issues.
Superintendents of school districts must be aware of the factors that influence the
perceptions of their students as well as physical locations in which these same students
have the highest level of fear of violence taking place. While this study was based on a
single location, it is a good comparative to like studies and may be utilized in visualizing
how the results of this research are similar to the problem areas of other school systems.
The issue of school violence is not a new phenomenon. Williams, in his article
Discipline in the Public Schools: A Problem or Perception, addressed this issue and
traced it back as far as the 1950s (1979). According to the Department of Justice, public,
private, and nonsectarian schools have all experienced an increase in school violence (U.S.
Department of Justice, 1991). A 1994 survey of 1,216 school administrators by the
National School Boards Association reported that 54 percent of suburban and 64 percent
10
of urban school officials reported more violent acts in their school in 1993 than in the five
years prior (Futreil & Powell, 1994).
According to a study conducted by The American Teacher, most teachers believe
that violence occurs in the hallways or under staircases, in the lunchroom or cafeteria, or
in unattended classrooms. Students have concurred that most acts of violence occur in
these places, but add the gym and locker rooms as primes sites. Students have also
pointed out that they are victimized in restrooms and that most acts of violence occur
where adult supervision is minimal or where there are large crowds of people moving to
and fro (1993). This is one of the principal areas that was addressed in this research.
An overview of research in the area of school related violence has shown the need
for further study of the problem to determine the proper course of action for school
administrators. While some aspects of determining how to proceed with the
implementation of preventive measures are restricted to differences in demographics and
geographies, others are pertinent to all schools. An analysis of the 1993 National
Household Education Survey showed that nearly half of the students in grades 6-12
personally witnessed some type of crime or victimization at school, and that about 1 in 8
reported being directly victimized while at school (Nolin, Davies, & Chandler, 1996).
Other surveys consistently conclude that the single most frequent reason that causes to
students to carry weapons to school is for protection, rather than the intent to cause harm
to someone else (Sheley & Wright, 1993). Further analysis has shown that these problems
are not limited to urban school districts, but are occurring with increasing frequency in
suburban and rural schools as well (Rossman & Morely, 1996).
11
In a survey of elementary school students, Singer, Miller, Slovak, and Frierson
(1997) found high rates of victimization by violence and exposure to violence.
Interestingly, they found that the rates for many types of victimization were higher in both
the small city and rural samples than in the central city samples.
Historical preoccupation with control by school administrators has limited their
ability to respond in a creative manner to the crisis of increasing school violence and
disorder. The strategy that has been applied by many is to convert schools into prison-like
facilities, believing this to be the most effective way to identify students with the greatest
potential for committing acts of violence, thus excluding them from the rest of the
population. Noguera contends, however, that the schools must find ways to create more
humane learning environments if students, staff, and administrators are to feel less
alienated, threatened, and repressed (1995).
The central core to research in this area is the creation of preventive programs and
preventive measures. It is through constant research that successful programs evolve.
Due to a rash of ineffective program implementation, funding is being reduced by
Congress (Modzeleski, 1996). This is not to suggest that there is less interest in
determining the effectiveness of the efforts to reduce school violence, but rather points out
the limitations of available funding.
Any effective approach to violence intervention/prevention in our schools needs to
be a multi-component and multi-context method. To be effective, the approach must
include children, their parents, school staff, the police, community-based organizations,
businesses, and the media (Stephens, 1995). An approach that has a time element as a
12
factor or one that simply addresses a single factor have been proven to be less than
effective. Those approaches that go beyond a concentration on the individual child and
focus more on the culture and atmosphere of the entire school are more effective in the
overall scope of intervention/prevention (Tolan et al., 1995). While individual child
focused programs are a valuable tool in the prevention of violence, they do not address the
contextual, environmental, or structural characteristics of a school that may be
contributing factors in the incidence of violence. Furthermore, a program should be
operational for at least two years if it is to demonstrate a sustainable change in behavior
(Yoshikawa, 1994).
Any comprehensive strategy for violence prevention should include components
that are related to the formation and implementation of policy, training, and program
components. Schools must offer continuous training for staff and volunteers who may be
required to respond to crises. Policies should be reviewed on a regular basis with staff
regarding the protection and safety of the student, as well as issues of discipline and staff
responsibility (Walker & Gresham, 1997).
It is the totality of the issues at hand that justify long-term research in the area of
maintaining a safe and productive school with an environment that remains conducive to
the primary goal of learning.
CHAPTER D
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
According to a 1997 NBC news poll (Whats wrong, 1997), parental concerns
regarding safety in schools and the conduct of students are greater than their level of
interest in poor or mediocre achievement academically. The Federal Bureau of
Investigations Uniform Crime Reports for the United States: 1990 (1991) showed the
number of arrests for children under the age of eighteen years of age for murder and non-
negligent manslaughter offenses increased by 60 percent between 1981 and 1990, even as
the arrests for individuals over eighteen years of age only increased by five percent
During this same time period, the proportion of adolescents arrested for aggravated
assaults rose 57 percent (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1991). Serious crimes
committed by younger children was steadily increasingly, with adolescents ten to fourteen
years of age being arrested 64 percent more for homicide from 1988 to 1992 (Lacayo,
1994), than in previous years.
Self-report data indicates that as much as 98 percent of delinquent behavior is not
reflected in official data, and that many adolescent offenses never go through the court
process (Dryfoos, 1990). The William Gladden Foundation (Shoffiier, 1992) indicated
that rural and suburban areas experienced an increase in adolescent violence, similar in
severity to their urban counterparts.
While the influences of family, community, school, and peers are often cited as
factors related to delinquent activity (Borduin et al., 1995; Gamefski & Okma, 1996;
Henggler, 1996; Johnson & Johnson, 1995;Noguera, 1995,1996; Walker & Gresham,
13
14
1997) it is only recently that schools have moved to implement comprehensive prevention
programs (Corvo, 1997; Larson, 1994; Orphinas et al., 1996). A fundamental issue that
requires further attention is an analysis of the involvement of adolescents in delinquency,
an issue that must be addressed if an effective prevention program for safer schools is to
be put into place (Shoffner & Vacc, 1999).
The Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup Poll of the American Public indicated that the top
concern of the public regarding education focuses on school safety (1998). In contrast,
the U.S. Department of Education and Justice showed in their recent data that
approximately 90 percent of our schools were free from violence and criminal activity
(Chandler, Chapman, Rand, & Taylor, 1998; Heaviside et al., 1998; Kaufman et al.,
1998).
A recent study from Educational Testing Service (Barton, Coley, & Wenglisky,
1998) indicated that students in safe schools are better performers, academically, than are
students in unsafe environments. Violence, or even the perception of violence, is a
detraction from a conducive teaching and learning environment A number of initiatives,
such as metal detectors, closed-circuit cameras, dress code policies, exclusion of
backpacks, as well as numerous other security measures, that have been put into practice
in an effort to make schools a safer place have proven not to be successful (Hernandez,
1998,1995).
The National Education Association has made the creation of safe schools a top
priority. Suggesting that the following organization model: Safe schools = Safe
communities + Safe families. The requirement for making schools safe is to make the
15
community and the family safe (Hernandez, 1999). Empowering communities can reduce
the crime occurring within their boundaries and this, in turn, will reduce school crime and
violence. Research suggests a strong correlation between crime in the community and
school crime (Elliot, Hamburg, & Williams, 1998; Lawrence, 1998).
In the same vein, another article contended that a more subtle effort is to prevent
violent behavior before it starts with programs in anger-management With the increasing
levels of anti-social behavior among younger children, educators have begun to focus their
attention on primary school children, teaching them the social skills that may not have
been taught to them at home (Baldauf 1999).
Baldauf also reported that McNair Elementary School officials believed that simple
manners can make a difference, and they train children to write down their feeling rather
than fighting and fly special flags from the flagpole for every fight-free week. They state
that fights decreased by 94 percent after the first year and that a low level has been
maintained ever since (1999).
By contrast, the issue of zero tolerance programs begs the question for researchers
and policy-makers alike of, when is enough, enough? Can the zero tolerance approach go
too far? One size does not and cannot fit all (Curwin & Mendler, 1999). While zero-
tolerance does send a powerful message that violent and aggressive behavior will not be
tolerated, it is inherently an unfair policy. Any intervention program that treats dissimilar
problems with similar behavioral outcomes in a like manner is not only unfair but is
destined to fail (Curwin & Mendler, 1999).
Schools can overreact when implementing prevention programs that may be
16
founded in reactionary paranoia. Schools are using a method of profiling students as
mental detectors to furnish them with an early warning system for troublesome students.
This has been encouraged by the violence-prevention guides handed out by the U.S.
Department of Education, as well as an abbreviated profile furnished by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. Students are being reprimanded, suspended and even arrested for
things that they say in class, post on home pages on the Internet, or wear to school. Some
of the profiles are so vague that they could be applied to almost every student in the
school. One of the major problems with a program of this nature is that it is being put into
the hands of those who do not understand the material well enough to use it properly, and
the result can be irreparable harm. Student-rights advocates worry that profiling will only
lead to free-speech and privacy violations, such as occurred in the immediate aftermath of
Columbine (Lord, 1999).
Yet another article criticized zero-tolerance for having gone to the extreme. A
seven year old boy in Cahokia, Illinois, was suspended for having a nail clipper at school.
A 10thgrader at Surry County High School in Virginia was expelled for having blue dyed
hair. A Minnesota high school says no to a photo of an Army enlistee in the senior class
because it shows her sitting atop a cannon outside a Veterans of Foreign Wars post
(Cloud, Monroe, & Murphy 1999). These came about after the incident at Columbine and
demonstrated the potential extremes of zero-tolerance.
A number of schools adopted zero-tolerance policies during the 1996-97 school
year for serious student offenses. A zero-tolerance policy is that which is defined as a
school or district policy that mandates predetermined consequences or punishments for
17
specific offenses according to the Department of Education. At least nine out of ten
schools report zero-tolerance policies for firearms (94 percent) and weapons other than
firearms (91 percent). Eighty-seven and 88 percent of schools have zero-tolerance
policies for alcohol and drugs, respectively. Seventy-nine percent also have zero-tolerance
policies for tobacco (U.S. Department of Education,1997). This same report provided
data on the measures that public schools have implemented to increase security during
1996-97. It was shown that 96 percent required visitors to sign in before entering the
school building; S3 percent controlled access to their school buildings; 24 percent
controlled access to their school grounds; 19 percent conducted drug sweeps; four percent
of schools performed random metal detector checks on students; and one percent of public
schools used metal detectors daily. In addition to those measures, schools also reported
using other methods: six percent of public schools had police or other law enforcement
representatives stationed 30 hours a week or more at the school in a typical week; one
percent of schools stationed police or other law enforcement personnel from 10 to 29
hours per week, and three percent had them stationed from one to nine hours a week;
twelve percent did not have police or other law enforcement representatives stationed
during a typical week; seventy-eight percent had no such persons stationed during the past
year. A majority of public schools (78 percent) had some type of formal school violence
prevention or reduction programs in 1996-97, while four percent of all public elementary
schools required students to wear uniforms during the 1996-97 school year (U.S.
Department of Education, 1997).
The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin featured an article that included violence
18
indicators and an offender profile to aid in the implementation of a zero-tolerance policy as
well as other general warning signs. It was the opinion of the articles authors that
schools should establish a zero tolerance policy for any student who makes a threat but,
they also suggest an immediate psychological evaluation or intervention for those
students. They also emphasize educating teachers, school counselors, and parents to
recognize students who are at risk of committing violence. The authors did note,
however, that while society can prevent or minimize violence, it rarely can predict it (Band
& Harpold, 1999).
Band and Harpold listed the following general warning signs or personal
background indicators:
1. a history of violence;
2. a close family member who has committed a violent act;
3. a history of alcohol or drug abuse;
4. a precipitating event, such as a failed romance or the perception of a failed
romance, which was the case in several of the school shootings;
5. the availability of a weapon or the means to commit suicide or an act of
violence, as was the case in several of the school shootings;
6. a lack of coping skills or strategies to handle personal life crises with no
controls to prevent anger or positive ways to release it; and
7. no apparent emotional support system (1999).
The same article also included several factors, that the authors contend exist, that
may indicate an individuals potential to commit violence. They go on to state:
19
While these indicators are by no means certain or present in every case of
violence, children who exhibit these symptoms should receive counseling services
in an effort to prevent the potential of further violent acts. The indicators of
violence include the following list of traits:
1. The individuals demonstrate low self-esteem.
2. The individuals have committed previous acts of cruelty to animals. This is a
symptom of child abuse, along with setting fires, bed-wetting (beyond a normal
age), and being abusive to adults. FBI research has found that these indicators
frequently appear in the childhoods of serial violent sexual offenders and may exist
in cases of juvenile violence.
3. The individuals are fascinated with firearms. In the six cases of school violence,
the offenders used firearms, which they allegedly obtained without parental or
guardian consent or stole outright
4. The individuals mothers or other family members disrespect them. This
creates a feeling of powerlessness when coupled with chronic abuse and can
initiate the need to exert power over and control another. It also can result in
extreme anger.
5. The individuals see violence as the only alternative lefi for them. In the six
school shootings, the suspects carefully planned their crimes and thoroughly
premeditated the actual events. (1999).
The article continued by pointing out that suspects involved in the six school
shootings that the FBI reviewed for this article displayed similar traits.
20
While any one of these characteristics alone may not describe a potential
shooter, taken together, they provide a profile that may assist law enforcement,
schools, and communities to identify at-risk students.
1. The suspects were White males under 18 years old with mass or spree murderer
traits.
2. They sought to defend narcissistic views or favorable beliefs about themselves,
while, at the same time, they had very low self-esteem.
3. They experienced a precipitating event (e.g., a failed romance) that resulted in
depression and suicidal thoughts that turned homicidal.
4. They lacked, or perceived a lack of, family support Two of the suspects killed
one or both of their parents.
5. They felt rejected by others and sought revenge or retaliation for real or
perceived wrongs done to them.
6. They acquired firearms generally owned by a family member or someone they
knew.
7. They perceived that they were different from others and disliked those who
were different (i.e., self-loathing). They needed recognition, and when they did
not receive positive recognition, they sought negative recognition.
8. They had a history of expressing anger or displaying minor acts of aggressive
physical contact at school.
9. They had a history of mental health treatment
10. They seemed to have trouble with their parents, though no apparent evidence
21
of parental abuse existed.
11. They were influenced by satanic or cult-type belief systems or philosophical
works.
12. They listened to songs that promote violence.
13. They appeared to be loners, average students, and sloppy or unkempt in dress.
14. They seemed to be influenced or used by other manipulative students to
commit extreme acts of violence.
15. They appeared isolated from others, seeking notoriety by attempting to copy
cat other previous school shootings but wanting to do it better than the last
shooter.
16. They had a propensity to dislike popular students or students who bully
others.
17. They expressed interest in previous killings.
18. They felt powerless and, to this end, may have committed acts of violence to
assert power over others.
19. They openly expressed a desire to kill others.
20. They exhibited no remorse after the killings. (Band & Harpold, 1999)
The indicators and offender profile are intended only as a guide to narrow potential
perpetrators of violence and not as a method to single out students that may be perceived
to fit some of the criteria listed. Over zealous approaches to these indicators by untrained
personnel can lead to extreme cases of suspension and expulsion, as in the cases that were
noted earlier.
22
In yet another publication dealing with indicators and the early warning signs of
school violence, the U.S. Department of Educations A Guide to Safe Schools. (1998),
had listed certain principles for identifying the early warning signs of school violence as
well as the early warning signs themselves. It was quick to point out, however, the danger
that early warning signs can be misinterpreted. Nevertheless, the principles that they
contend should be adhered to by educators, parents, and in some cases students, to ensure
that misinterpretation does not happen, include:
1. Do no harm.
2. Understand violence and aggression within a context.
3. Avoid stereotypes.
4. View warning signs within a developmental context.
5. Understand that children typically exhibit multiple warning signs. (A Guide to
Safe Schools. 1998).
With respect to the to above listed principles, the primary intent should concern
getting help for the child that displays the early warning signs. Rather than a
rationalization for isolating, punishing, or excluding the child, they should be used as
indicators for referral for evaluation by qualified professionals and/or outside agencies.
There is also the potential that the early warning signs will be utilized as a checklist that
could result in the mislabeling or stereotyping of children. Additionally, this information
must be kept confidential and referrals must be done with parental consent (1998).
Emotion may be expressed in violent and aggressive behavior. If this happens
there are usually a number of antecedent factors involved. They may be factors that are
23
present in school, at home, or in the social environment Stress is often the reason why
children act out when they lack the needed coping skills (1998).
The school communities ability to both identify and help children is hampered
when stereotyping exists. False cues such as race, socio-economic status, physical
appearance, or academic ability need to be understood. Stereotypes can unfairly harm
children when the school, peers, or community act on them (1998).
It is common for troubled children to exhibit multiple signs and do so repeatedly
with increasing intensity over time. Single incidents should not be overreacted too (1998).
These guidelines for utilizing indicators of potential violence and early warning
signs stressed the importance of caution and responsibility on the part of school officials.
It is once again important to stress that none of the warning signs alone is enough to
predict violent behavior. They should not be used as a checklist in which to compare or
match individual children. The users of indicators and warning signs should always apply
the principles prior to reaching erroneous conclusions that could possibly have devastating
effects on the child.
The following early warning signs were presented with qualifications that they
were not equally significant nor were they presented in order of seriousness. The
early warning signs include:
1. Social withdrawal.
2. Excessive feelings of isolation and being alone.
3. Excessive feelings of rejection.
4. Being a victim of violence.
24
5. Feelings of being picked on and persecuted.
6. Low school interest and poor academic performance.
7. Expression of violence in writings and drawings.
S. Uncontrolled anger.
9. Patterns of impulsive and chronic hitting, intimidating, and bullying behaviors.
10. History of discipline problems.
11. Past history of violent and aggressive behavior.
12. Intolerance for differences and prejudicial attitudes.
13. Drug use and alcohol use.
14. Affiliation with gangs.
15. Inappropriate access to, possession of, and use of firearms.
16. Serious threats of violence. (A Guide to Safe Schools. 19981
Some qualifiers to the above listed indicators are important to note. The gradual
and eventually complete withdrawal from social contacts is an important indicator of a
troubled child but can stem from a number of other factors such as depression or rejection.
The majority of children who are isolated and appear to be friendless are not violent
according to research (1998).
Children who are victims of violence such as physical or sexual abuse are often at
risk of becoming violent toward themselves or others. Anger is a natural emotion,
however, anger that is expressed frequently and intensely in response to minor irritants
may be a signal for potential violent behavior toward self or others (1998).
Unmet emotional needs may be manifested into aggressive behavior. Without
25
proper support and counseling that behavior will most likely be repeated and progress into
even more violent behavior (1998).
Gangs support anti-social behavior and will usually create relationships with drugs
and alcohol, which reduce self-control and expose children to violence, either as
perpetrators, as victims, or both. This can lead to serious injury or death (1998).
The information used in A Guide to Safe Schools, and development of the
principles and early warning signs was done by an extensive multidisciplinary panel of
experts that included, medical doctors, educators (both higher education and k-12),
psychologists, psychiatrists, program directors, and law enforcement (1998).
The 1998 Annual Report on School Safety was a combined publication of the U.S.
Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Justice. It included data from
numerous studies conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the National Center for Educational Statistics, the National
Center for Health Statistics and the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan.
Much of the data used as a comparison to the data obtained in this research came from
this report Another primary source of comparative research results was the Juvenile
Offenders and Victims: 1999 National Report Applicable school based research figures
were the only ones that were considered.
The 1998 Annual Report on School Safety presented a number of studies that
dealt with the carrying of weapons to school. One such study by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, showed that there has
been an overall decrease in the percentage of students in grades 9 to 12 who reported
26
carrying a weapon on school property at least one day in the prior 30 days. It reported
that the total figures declined from 12 percent to 9 percent from 1993 to 1997. It is
important to note that under the heading of weapons are included, guns, knives, and clubs.
Also, on school property15was not defined for the questionnaire respondents. According
to the University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research,
Monitoring the Future Study. 1992 to 1996, the percentage of 12thgraders who reported
carrying a weapon to school at least one day in the past four weeks, by gender, declined
only slightly overall. This study did show a decrease in the percentage of males who
carried a weapon from slightly over 10 percent in 1992 to 9 percent in 1996 (1993 being
the highest year at 14 percent Yet this same study showed an increase in the number of
females that carried weapons to school, from slightly over 2 percent in 1992 to slightly
over 3 percent in 1996 U 998 Annual Report on School Safety).
While the overall school crime rate has decreased, students feel less safe at school
according to the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, School Crime
Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 1989 and 1995. This research
showed that while 6 percent of students ages 12 through 19 feared they were going to be
attacked or harmed at school in 1989, it increased to 9 percent in 1995. During that same
time frame, students who feared that they would be attacked while traveling to and from
school rose from 4 to 7 percent The percentage of students ages 12 to 19 who avoided
one or more places at school for fear of their own safety increased from 5 to 9 percent
during this time period. This same study also showed that the presence of street gangs
and drugs was related to school crime as well as the fear of victimization. The percentage
27
of students who reported that street gangs were present at their schools increased from IS
to 28 percent between 1989 and 199S. This percentage increased across all three
residence categories, urban from 25 to 41 percent, suburban from 16 to 26 percent, and
rural from 8 to 20 percent U998 Annual Report on School Safety).
Diversity within the school can be a contributing factor in incidents of school
related violence. School is a place where children from all backgrounds are brought
together and where they spend the greater part of their day. This brings to bear an
increase in tension due to racial and cultural differences, as well as, attitudes and behavior
(Regulus, 1995).
Safety at school may be related to the effectiveness of the school. Unsafe schools
are often characterized by disorganization and stress, lacking consistent disciplinary
measures and poor utilization of physical space. Staff are unable to effectively monitor
and supervise student behavior, therefore, contributing to increased safety concerns
among the students who perceive themselves to be potential victims of violent acts. A
safe school, on the other hand, is characterized by a more positive environment, with staff
and students alike having clear and high expectations for behavior and performance
(Morrison, Furlong & Morrison, 1994).
A number of researchers and educators have argued that schools do not operate in
either a cultural or social vacuum, and that the community context of a school is extremely
relevant to the levels of both crime and violence at that school. Absent community or
neighborhood support, altering the climate at school is virtually impossible to attain
Felson, Liska, South & McNulty, 1994; Heilman & Beaton, 1986; Menacker et al., 1990).
28
Other studies have supported this by showing that high recidivism rates for juvenile
offenders is due, in part, to their return to the same environments, peer groups, and other
social factors that were the contributing elements for their initial involvement in delinquent
and criminal behavior (Lipsey, 1992; Mulvey, Arthur & Repucci, 1993).
The primary factors that were found to be conducive to crime, disorder, and
violence included: overcrowding; high student/teacher ratios; insufficient curricular/course
relevance; low student academic achievement and apathy; poor facilities design and
portable buildings (increasing isolation and hampering communication); and adult failure
to act (Rossman & Morley, 1996; Sautter, 1995; Watson, 1995).
In reference to gang activities at school, several studies have shown that schools
are the avenue for recruitment of new members. School was considered to be one of the
first places that a child was exposed to gang activity (Walker, Colvin & Ramsey, 1995).
In Tucson, Arizona, 42 percent of children in grades K-5 reported seeing gang activity at
school. A number of third graders openly admitted to gang involvement, which included
fighting among gang members, writing or drawing graffiti on the walls of the school, or
talking about gang members and gang activities at school (Embry et al., 1996; Trump,
1996).
Gang membership is on the increase and across the nation, particularly in smaller
communities (Maxson & Klein, 1996; Curry, Ball & Fox, 1994). As a result, schools are
implementing specific safety measures to reduce gang activity and their students exposure
to gangs at school. Over 50 percent of school administrators reported that they have
banned gang clothing and insignias (Thayer, 1996). Other efforts include restricting
29
vehicle access to school parking lots to decrease both loitering and easy access to drugs.
Schools are also working with local law enforcement agencies to create violence-free
school zones. Some communities have formed special police units to address gang
activity in and around their schools, and this police presence appears to deter gang activity
(Huff & Trump, 1996).
Shof&er and Vacc (1999) conducted a psychometric analysis of the Inviting
School Safety Survey (Lehr & Purkey, 1997). They examined the instruments factor
structure, internal consistency, and comparison with the Invitational Education Model
(Purkey, 1978; Purkey & Novak, 1984,1996; Purkey & Schmidt, 1987; Purkey &
Stanley, 1991). They also determined specific factors that needed to be addressed if
prevention programs are to achieve safer schools, contending that instruments should be
developed that are valid, reliable measures of personal safety and that can readily measure
environmental influences as a prerequisite for research into the effectiveness of programs
designed to affect school and community factors. They continue to note that paradigms
should be established that address identified factors concerning school safety (Shoflner &
Vacc, 1999).
In the particular study that was examined, participants were students from an
urban high school in the southeastern United States. Demographic makeup of the schools
population was, 47 percent female, 53 percent male, 63 percent African American, 25
percent Euro American, seven percent Hispanic, and five percent other. This is relatively
similar to the makeup of participants in this authors research.
Four distinct factors resulted in exploratory factor analysis. Factor 1, valuing
30
influence of teachers and staff; Factor 2, feelings of fear and lack of safety; Factor 3,
stressors and daily discomforts; and Factor 4, positive attitude toward school environment
and school community. The instrument contained 50 items, and when using a four-factor
solution with the final 24 items, 41 percent of the total variance was accounted for, with
eigenvalues of 4.4,2.1,1.9, and 1.4. The low total variance accounted for by the four
factors indicates a need for more research. Internal consistency was computed using
Cronbachs coefficient alpha. The Cronbach alphas ranged from .61 to .73. Internal
consistency for the four factors was .73, .61., .64, and .66, respectively (Shoffiier & Vacc,
1999).
The first step that any school must take in giving the student an environment that is
conducive to both learning and socialization is to meet their basic safety needs. A
comprehensive prevention and intervention strategy must be developed, with an effective
security program as a necessary first step. At the lower grade levels the emphasis should
be to protect the safety of the students, while in the upper grade levels it is equally
important to protect teachers and school property from the students (Sabo, 1993).
Schools cannot rely on this initial step as their only measure of reducing school
violence and protecting students, staff, and property. There must be a continued and
concerted effort to maintain that sense of security, and steps to be taken further are based
upon the level of potential problem areas with which each particular school has to
contend.
When developing an intervention/prevention program, schools are concerned
about the long range aspect of them. School administrators have a number of questions
31
that must be answered if there is to be assurance that the monies and efforts will not be in
vain. Will the program produce results? What type of changes will it require? Is the
program effective? To address these questions evaluations must be made. There are four
basic types of evaluation that can be integrated into the existing structure of most schools
and programs. They are a needs assessment, an outcome evaluation, a process or
monitoring evaluation, and a cost-benefit analysis (Flannery, 1997).
A needs assessment will determine what the needs of the school are in regards to
violence reduction and prevention. This will determine an effective strategy for the school
and will avoid implementing unnecessary programs or expenditures. Plans will differ, of
course, depending on the needs and characteristics of the individual students. A plan
designed for an elementary school will not produce the same results in a high school, so
the same plan will not be equally effective in all schools, in all contexts, or for all children
(Flannery, 1997).
An outcome evaluation answers the question what changed because of the
intervention? Did the program do what it was designed to do? Did the program reduce
problem behavior, aggression, delinquency, or violence? Did attendance and grades
improve? Schools must know what the program was intended to address and whether or
not the program created positive results in that area, not in all areas. Popular programs
may not have given the desired results in changing behavior, but may produce positive
effects on attitudes and knowledge (Ringwalt et al., 1994).
Intervention programs and those designed for violence prevention are not the
same, therefore, the expectations for than cannot be the same. An outcome evaluation of
32
these programs will likely produce different results that can be clearly explicated if
intervention strategies are the focus. Program goals and desired outcomes that are clearly
defined will aid tremendously in establishing outcome assessments that clearly demonstrate
both relevance and effectiveness (Flannery, 1997).
A process evaluation attempts to determine what works the best in a program and
why it works. It answers the question what is the program effectiveness related to? An
example of this was an examination of a substance abuse prevention program by Flannery
and Torquati (1993) which found that teachers believed that parent involvement as
volunteers in the classroom was the biggest factor in determining the program success for
students.
The final method of basic evaluation is a cost-benefit analysis. This will determine
the costs per student or school, and whether it offers a saving due to related reductions in
other costs, such as vandalism. The RAND Corporation examined the cost effectiveness
of several crime prevention strategies that involved early intervention for people at risk of
pursuing a life of crime. These findings had a serious impact on the policy makers, and
refute many of the hard line approaches that are intended to reduce recidivism
(Greenwood, Model, Rydell & Chiesa, 1996).
hi a concurrent study, Hunt and McKee (1998) found relevant factors that
compared to the findings of many of the above studies. Chi-Square tests were utilized to
determine if statistically different levels of fear existed in specific areas between the junior
high and high school students. Three specific locations stood out in the test to show a
significantly different fear level between the two groups of students. The junior high
33
students expressed a significantly higher fear level in the categories of: 1) hallways or
stairs, 14.5 percent as compared to 5.7 percent of the high school students; 2) restrooms,
23.6 percent to 6.5 percent, respectively; 3) inside the school buildings, 18.2 percent to
3.3 percent, respectively. With the exception of the latter category, these are locations
that normally lack adult supervision, which may account for the higher level of fear by the
junior high students. Other locations used in the survey did not show a statistically
significant difference. The overall findings of area of fear were highly intercorrelated.
This allowed for the creation of the previously used Area of Fear Index.
The vast majority of students, from both locations, felt no fear of attack or harm
while at school or on the way to and from school; however, a Chi-Square test revealed
that students who have stayed home due to fear of attack in the past six months are more
likely to want to quit school than students who did not stay home because of fear (p<
.001).
Further, a Chi-Square test indicated that African American students felt a
statistically significant higher level of fear than did the White students (p< .01). There was
no significant difference in these results between the junior high and high school. The data
from both schools was pooled in the following analyses, indicating that there was no
statistical difference between the two groups, unless otherwise noted.
A significant negative relationship was found, using regression analysis, between
students plans to attend college and feeling safe at school, and fear traveling to and from
school. That is, students who reported fear traveling to and from school and students who
did not feel safe at school were less likely to have plans to attend college. This model
34
explains 10.0 percent of variance of students plans to attend college (p< .001).
Gang interest had a positive relationship with fear at school and having seen a gun.
When gender, school location (junior high, high school), and race were held constant, fear
at school and having seen a gun on campus are significant predictors of gang interest
This model explains 16.3 percent of variance in gang interest (p< .001).
There was a highly significant correlation (p< .01) between both perceptions of
gangs around the schools and student gang members, and clothing that is perceived to
identify gang membership. As previously discussed, there was a significant relationship
between student gang membership and fear at school. These relationships taken together
suggested that the presence of identifying clothing indirectly causes fear among students.
Discriminant function analysis was used to predict area of fear by gang
membership. The discriminant model correctly classified 84.2 percent of the grouped cases
(Lambda = .870, ><.001). It is impossible to infer a causal relationship between these
two variables. It is possible that fear contributes to gang membership. It is also possible
that gang membership contributes to fear, or that a third intervening factor contributes to
both fear and gang membership. These results do, however, show a strong relationship
between gang membership and fear.
Regression analysis was utilized to determine the relationship of gang membership
with the desire to attend college. That is, does gang membership have an impact on a
students plans to attend college. A significant negative relationship was found. When
holding gender and school location constant, 10.8 percent of the variance of plans to
attend college was explained by gang membership (p< .001).
35
In testing the family dynamics predictive relationship to the students grade point
average (GPA), the following variables were grouped in regression analysis: fathers
education level; mothers education level; do you have a close family; and do your parents
really talk to you. This model explained 11.4 percent of the difference in GPA (p< .05).
The self-perceived social group predictive relationship to GPA accounts for 5.7
percent of the difference in the GPA (p< .05). The perception of being in a popular group
was predictive of a higher GPA, and perceived membership of a rebellious group was
predictive of a lower GPA.
Utilizing evaluation methodologies is an effective way for schools to see if their
programs are working, and if they are worth the resources that are being absorbed to keep
them in place. It can also reduce the desire to put ineffective and/or unnecessary
programs into action as a result of panic response to highly publicized incidents of school
violence. A number of ineffective programs have resulted from the relatively few incidents
of mass shooting at school, as the articles addressed here have shown. This creates an
atmosphere of distrust among students and staff alike while also leading to an environment
that is far less conducive to learning. Caution, evaluation, and well designed strategy is a
far more effective and cost efficient approach to dealing with intervention and reduction of
school-based violence.
CHAPTER ffl
METHODOLOGY
Preliminary Procedures
The participants in this study consisted of students from the McComb, Mississippi
school district They were selected through the use of a computerized random digit
program and their student identification number. The participants in the study were
students from the junior high school (grades 7 and 8) and the high school (grades 9
through 12). A random selection of 75 junior high students and 175 high school students
was used. This represented approximately 17 percent of the total junior high population
and 21 percent of the total high school population (435 and 819 respectively).
Of the 435 junior high students, 324 were African American, 108 were white, and
3 were other. This group consisted of 215 males and 210 females. Of the 820 high school
students, 574 were African American, 241 were White, and 5 were other. There are 399
males and 421 females in this group.
Permission to conduct the research was granted by the McComb School District
(see Appendix 1), and notification of the upcoming study was posted in the local
newspaper.
The instrument for this survey was a modified version of a generic questionnaire
developed by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The
modifications included the addition of several questions designed to examine family
relationships., academic standing, and retention. Questions with a distinct urban bias were
eliminated from the original questionnaire. Also, gang related questions were adjusted to
36
37
fit the local demographics. It is important to note that the information obtained from this
survey instrument was self-reported by the students and based on their perceptions as well
as actual knowledge. The honesty of the participants response is a factor that was also
taken into consideration. The actual instrument consists of 85 questions that are a
combination of multiple choice and open-ended questions (See Appendix 2).
The questionnaire was administered at each of the respective schools, during
normal school hours. The randomly selected students were released from their regularly
scheduled classes in order to take part in the survey. The lunch rooms of each respective
school were used as the location in which the questionnaire was administered, under the
direction of graduate students from the Department of Criminal Justice of The University
of Southern Mississippi. A Facilitators Statement (See Appendix 3) was read to the
students prior to their participation in the study. This statement informed them that their
participation in the study was completely voluntary and that they would be free to leave at
any time during the process without penalty or prejudice. The participants were told that
all of the data and the final disposition of data would be confidential. They were also
reminded not to put their name or any other identifying information on the questionnaires.
The statement informed the students that the survey was being conducted by the
McComb Police Department and the McComb School District in conjunction with the
Department of Criminal Justice at The University of Southern Mississippi. They were
given the names and addresses of the contact people. The students were also informed
that the research had been approved by the Human Subjects Protection Review
Committee at The University of Southern Mississippi, and that it followed federal
38
guidelines. A copy of this statement was given to each student prior to their participation
in the questionnaire.
One day prior to the actual administration of the questionnaire, the selected
students were notified of their selection and given a parental information letter to take
home (see Appendix 4). This letter furnished the parents with information about the
research, why it was being conducted, and what the disposition of the collected data
would be. A copy of the facilitators statement was included in this letter as well as the
contact names.
The selection process, the questionnaire and method of administration of this
survey was submitted to the Human Subjects Protection Review Committee and approved
by them (Protocol number 99101102). It was found to fall within the guidelines and
restrictions of the Federal Drug Administration regulations (21 CFR 26.111), Department
of Health and Human Services (45 CFR Part 46), and The University of Southern
Mississippi guidelines (See Appendix 5a, 5b). Permission was granted to proceed with the
research.
Operational Procedures
Of the randomly selected students, 54 junior high and 125 high school students
actually participated in the study, the other selected students declined to participate in the
study. The gender make-up of the participants that actively took part was 49 percent
male and 51 percent female, showing an equal division. The racial division of the
participants was 71 percent African American, 21 percent Caucasian, six percent other,
with two percent missing data.
39
The statistical methods of assessment that were utilized in analysis of responses to
the survey instrument will be chi square, ANOVA, and regression analysis. Fear was
assessed for this study through the use of an Area of Fear Index. The Area of Fear Index
is a summated scale consisting of eight questions regarding the students perception of fear
in specified areas throughout the school. The scale was developed by McKee in a
concurrent study (Hunt & McKee, 1998).These areas are as follows:
1. shortest route,
2. entrances,
3. hallways or stairs,
4. restrooms,
5. inside buildings,
6. parking lot, and
7. extra-curricular activities.
Cronbachs alpha for this scale was .8402, suggesting a moderately high level of reliability.
Principle component analysis was used to test the unidimentionality of the scale.
The perceived availability of drugs was assessed through the Drug Availability
Index, which was developed by McKee in a concurrent study (Hunt & McKee, 1998).
The Drug Availability Index is a summated scale consisting of six items, which include the
following:
1. alcohol,
2. marijuana,
3. cocain,
40
4. crack,
5. uppers/downers, and
6. other illegal drugs.
Cronbachs alpha for this scale was .9154, suggesting a high degree of reliability.
Chi-Square tests were run on the hypotheses that pertain to the perceived
availability of individual drugs (uppers and downers, crack, cocain, marijuana, and
alcohol) and bringing weapons to school (H, through Hs). Regression analysis was
utilized to determine if there is a statistically significant relationship between the Area of
Fear Index and student perception of gang member with the school, when race and gender
were held constant ( H^). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) test was utilized on the
hypotheses H7, Hg, and H,. Regression analysis was employed on the hypotheses H10,
there is a significant relationship between drug availability and being a victim of violence,
robbery, or a victim of theft when gender and age are held constant
Frequency tables were run on all of the variables included in this survey and were
used in comparison to figures that were obtained in a number of other similar surveys. In
addition, correlation tables were also run for the variables. Both of these tables were run
to satisfy the specific needs of a concurrent study (Hunt & McKee, 1998).
While done to satisfy the needs of a concurrent study, variables, not included in the
hypotheses of this research, were examined and yielded some interesting results. To
evaluate the relationship between fear and students plans to attend college, a multiple
regression analysis was performed in which plans to attend college were regressed on
feeling safe at school, fear while traveling, and the Area of Fear Index. Statistically
41
different levels of fear between the two schools were measured utilizing Chi-Square tests
for specific locations within the school to determine if a significant difference exists. Chi-
Square tests were also used to determine if there is a statistically significant relationship
between those students who stayed home due to fear of attack in the past six months and
the desire to quit school. Level of fear difference between African American students and
White students also utilized a Chi-Square test.
Gang membership and gang interest was measured for relationship with the Area
of Fear Index, having seen a gun, and clothing that is perceived to identify gang
membership. Discriminant function analysis was used to predict Area of Fear Index by
gang membership. Regression analysis was utilized to determine the relationship of gang
membership with the desire to attend college. That is, does gang membership have an
impact on a students plans to gain a higher education?
Various tests were conducted on data other than what was necessary to support
the hypotheses of this study. While not having an effect on the hypotheses, this statistical
analysis of other data did have relevance to the overall study and was applicable in support
of future studies of this nature.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
A Chi-Square test was used to evaluate the relationship of bringing weapons to
school and the availability of uppers and downers (Hq,). The test result indicated that the
two variables were not significantly related (Chi-Square = 3.629, df= 2, ns).
school and the availability of crack (H^). Test results indicated that the two variables
were not significantly related (Chi-Square = .885, d f= 2, ns).
school and the availability of cocaine (H^). Test results indicated that the two variables
were not significantly related (Chi-Square = 1.74, df= 2, ns).
school and the availability marijuana (H^). The tests results indicated a statistically
significant relationship between bringing weapons to school and the availability of
marijuana (Chi-Square = 7.037, df = 2, p< .05). That is, of those that brought weapons to
school, all thought marijuana was easy to obtain.
school and the availability of alcohol (H^). Results of the tests indicate that there was no
significant relationship between the two variables (Chi-Square = 1.273, df = 2, ns).
Regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between fear of specific
areas and student perceptions of gang members within the school ( H^) Variance due to
age and sex was held constant for this analysis. The dependent variable for this analysis
42
43
was the Area of Fear Index (API). The AFI is an index comprised of seven items designed
to measure students fear as related to specific areas of the school environment. Table 1
illustrates the corrected item total correlations for each item.
Table 1
AFI Item Total Correlations
Item Correlation
Shortest Route to School .6271
Hallways or Stairs .7974
Cafeteria .4281
Restrooms .6170
Inside Buildings .7199
Parking Lots .5240
Extra-curricular Activities .5406
Cronbachs alpha for the entire scale was .8193, suggesting a moderately high reliability
for the scale.
44
The validity of the scale was assessed using Principle Component Analysis. Both
the scree plot analysis and the eigenvalue greater than one criteria were used to assess the
number of factors to extract Each of these methods suggested a unidimensional structure
for the scale items. The single factor explained 60.22 percent of the variance in the matrix
of association between the items. Table 2 indicates the component loadings (these
components are not rotated because multiple factors are not involved).
Table 2
Principle Component Analysis Component Matrix
for the AFI
Variable Component I
Hallways or Stairs .864
Inside Buildings .823
Restrooms .796
Extra-curricular Activities .752
Parking Lot .736
Cafeteria .666
45
The full regression model utilizing age, sex and perceptions of student gang
membership explained 21.4 percent of the variance in the AFI. When controlling for sex
and age, perceptions of student gang membership explained 10.6 percent of the variance in
On average, males tended to have higher levels of fear than did females. Students
who perceived gang members in school tended to have more fear than those who did not
perceive gang members in the school. The regression results are presented in Table 3. The
condition index of 8.79 indicated that none of the variables in the model are so collinear as
to be problematic.
Table 3
Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Area Fear Index Scores (N = 1791
Variable B SE B Beta
AH.
Step 1
Sex .472 .299 .162
Age -.252 .085 -.303**
Step 2
Sex .403 .283 .138
(table continues)
Table 3 (cont)
Age -.203 .082 -.244**
Student Gang Members -1.364 .402 -.332**
Note: R2 = .108 for Step 1; Change in R2 = .106 for Step 2 (p < .01).
**B<.01.
The relationships between sex, social group and fear were investigated using a 2-
way ANOVA. The results of this analysis are presented in table 4.
Table 4
2-Wav ANOVA Testing Effects of Sex and Social Group on
the Area Fear Index
Source SS df F P
Sex 1.006 1 0.739 ns
Social 2.101 I 0.514 ns
Sex x Social 12.209 3 2.987 <.05
Error 212.538 156
Total 226.506 163
47
Due to the significant interaction between social group and gender, the ANOVA
results for the main effects of those variables were unreliable and should not be
interpreted. From the profile plot, it could be inferred that, in general, females tended to
have higher levels of fear than males. However, this relationship was reversed for the
popular group. Males who considered themselves popular tended to have higher levels of
fear than females who considered themselves popular. The results of this analysis is
presented in Table 5.
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for AFI bv Sex and Group
Variable N Mean SD
Group
Popular 81 .507 1.305
Athlete 44 .432 1.065
Rebellious 14 .439 1.343
No Group 26 .269 0.827
Total 165 .442 1.176
Female 87 .391 1.016
(table continues)
48
Table 5 (cont)
Male 85 .589 1.425
Total 172 .488 1.235
To examine the relationship between victimization and the availability of drugs, the
Drug Availability Index (DAI) was created. This six item scale scores were found to be
highly reliable (alpha = .9154). Table 6 presents the corrected item total correlations for
each item.
Table 6
DAI Corrected Item Total Correlations
Item Correlation
Alcohol .6017
Marijuana .7496
Cocaine .8159
Crack .8178
Uppers/Downers .7977
Other Illegal Drugs .7917
49
The validity of the DAI was assessed using principle component analysis. Both the
eigenvalue less than one criteria and the scree plot analysis suggested a single factor
structure. Descriptive statistics for the DAI scale items are presented in Table 7, and
Table 8 presents die component loadings for each item.
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics for DAI Scale Items
Item N Mean SD
Alcohol 133 1.63 .77
Marijuana 133 1.59 .78
Cocaine 110 2.02 .81
Crack III 2.02 .82
Uppers/Downers 79 1.78 .84
Other Illegal Drugs 90 1.98 .82
Note: Minimum = 1and Maximum = 3 for all items.
50
Table 8
Component Matrix for DAT Items
Item Component I
Uppers/Downers .886
Crack .860
Cocaine .858
Other Illegal Drugs .854
Marijuana .785
Alcohol .633
Note: The matrix was not rotated due
to the single factor structure.
Regression analysis was used to evaluate the hypothesis that there was a
statistically significant relationship between victimization and DAI score when age and sex
were held constant Specifically, the indicators of victimization were physical violence,
robbery and theft of personal items. The regression results are presented in Table 9. The
full model explained 26.9 percent of the variance in DAI scores.
51
Table 9
Summary of Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting
Drue Availability Index scores (N = 591
Variable B SEB Beta
Step 1
Sex .772 1.058 .092
Age -.945 .319 -.375**
Step 2
Sex .553 1.024 .066
Age -1.239 .316 -.490**
Personal Theft -3.201 1211 -.350*
Physical Violence -1.214 2.224 -.072
Robbery -.602 2.388 -.031
Note: R2 = .134 for Step 1; Change in R2 = .135 for Step 2 (p < .05).
*P< .05. **p< .01.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY
The present research examines the link between the availability of drugs and
bringing weapons to school. Researchers have found that the long established association
that is found between violence and drugs in adult populations also seems to be present, at
least in part, in juvenile student populations; however, the link cannot be generalized.
That is, only one drug was found to be related to bringing weapons to school in this study;
marijuana. Given the slight occurrence of incidences of students bringing weapons to
school, it is possible that other significant relationships would have been found, utilizing a
much larger sample size. This suggests a line of fruitful research in larger districts where
such a sample would be feasible.
The research demonstrating that only marijuana was related to bringing weapons
to school, which was somewhat surprising to this researcher. It was assumed, prior to
conducting this study, that drugs like crack, cocaine, and methamphetamine (uppers),
would have shown a significant relationship. In the literature, other research had shown a
link between drugs and weapons, particularly when the variable of gang membership was
added (National Crime VictimiTatinn Survey. 1995; 1998 Annual Report on School
Safety)
The high degree of internal consistency found in the Area Fear Index suggested
that student fear is more general than specific to place. Contrary to some theorizing by
prior researchers, the construct of fear appears to be unidimensional. That is, the AFI
measures only one facet, not several related facets. More significant than location in
52
53
predicting fear (as measured by the AFI) were gender of the respondent and perception of
gang activity within the school. This suggests that programs that forbid students wearing
gang-specific clothing and other means of gang identification may well reduce fear within
the school environment This is again supported by the literature in several of the studies
n 998 Annual Report on School Safety). The fact that males tended to have higher levels
of fear than females suggests that policy makers should pay special attention to the
specific needs of male students and attempt to understand the underpinnings of this
disparity.
The high degree of internal consistency in the Drug Availability Index suggests that
in general there is little disparity in the availability of specific drugs. The availability of
specific drugs is highly related to the availability of drugs in general. This suggests that
substance availability among students may be dependent on student subgroups. That is,
the presence of delinquent subcultures may explain drug use patterns among students.
Age and theft of personal property were the best predictors of drug availability index.
This relates to the literature in studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics (National Crime Victimization Survey. 1992-1996). These
findings suggest that younger students become more likely to be involved with drugs as
they age. It further suggests that drug abuse prevention efforts are more likely to
to be successful when started early in students school experience. These results also
suggest that drugs are not the only criminal activity encountered in subgroups that
consider drugs easy to obtain.
Specific locations within the school which students are the most fearful seem to
54
coincide with other research. It is the researchers conclusion that this research supports
the conclusions of other studies that are indicative of hallways, stairways, and restrooms
being locations of fear (Purkey &Novak 1984,1996; Purkey & Schmidt, 1987; Shafiher &
Vacc, 1999). This would suggest that schools place more emphasis on adult supervision
in these locations. It was assumed prior to conducting this research that extracurricular
activities would be a location in which students would be fearful; however, this research
did not support that assumption.
The indication of this research that African American students felt higher levels of
fear than did White students also suggested the need for further research into the reasons
behind this. It may simply be due to the racial makeup of this studys population.
Some significant relationships pertaining to a students plans to go to college
suggest the need for further research in this area as well. Both fear traveling to and from
school and gang membership demonstrated significant relationships to the students desire
to go to college. They were significant at the p< .001 level (a negative relationship for
gang membership). It would also suggest that school administrators should place more
emphasis on determining reasons why students do or do not plan on continuing their
education. This is supported in the literature by research conducted in a number of
schools (Barton, Coley, & Wenglisky, 1998; ] 998 Annual Report on School Safety).
Family dynamics indicated a predictive relationship to a students grade point
average. This suggests that there may be a need for schools to implement programs that
are geared to increase parental involvement with students, particularly at the lower level.
Parental involvement in a substance abuse program (DARE) was perceived by teachers to
55
be a major intervening factor in the success of the program (Flannery & Torquati, 1993).
The availability of socio-economic data on the participants in this research would
have been a valuable addition to the determination of a number of variables. While the
original survey instrument included questions that would have supplied that data, those
variables were eliminated by the school administration and considered questionable by the
Human Subjects Protection Review Committee. The school administrators suggested that
questions on that order would be either degrading or inaccurate due to the students lack of
knowledge about family income levels, or that parents would protest such questions. The
Human Subjects Protection Review Committee also thought that the students would not
be knowledgeable about the topic (especially the younger students). It seems that the
anonymity of respondents would have negated those concerns.
Perceived social group status was predictive of grade point average, which
suggests that further research may be necessitated in this area. If the perceived
membership in a rebellious group is predictive of a lower GPA, then school officials may
need to place more emphasis on issues of self-esteem for students who feel that they are
not in what is perceived to be a so-called popular group. It is believed by this researcher
that a great deal more research is needed in the area of a student's perceived social status
in the school environment Indicative factors for potential perpetrators of violent acts list
demonstrating low self-esteem as a primary trait (Band & Harpold, 1999).
Students lacking a sense of belonging and those who feel that they are being
persecuted by others or groups (i.e. athletes), fit one of the profile traits that was present
in all of the alleged incidents of school shootings, up to the time this research was
56
conducted. While this suggests a definite need for further investigation, it is not intended
to imply that every student who lacks self-esteem or feels persecuted is a potential
perpetrator of violence to fellow schoolmates or staff. Erroneous judgement calls by
untrained staff members can leave the door open for many more problems than it may
solve. There is the risk of permanent psychological damage to the singled out student, law
suits, and potentially pushing an at-risk child to the point that they will commit an act of
violence or suicide.
A weakness of the study was format of the open-ended questions. While
furnishing information that was useful to the school, the questionnaire allowed for too
wide a range of responses. This indicates a need for a more qualitative research design in
developing the questionnaire. While these types of questions may not lend themselves
well to quantitative analytical methodologies, they can be valuable in a well designed
qualitative research instrument Responses from other types of questions, such as those
that are numerically scaled, could be more easily measured in a quantitative instrument
It is the researchers belief that more research is needed in the area of parental
involvement with their children in aspect of behavioral problems. If a child exhibits any or
a few of the early warning signs or indicators of potential violence or if a child is perceived
to be a bully by peers or school staff then the parents should be contacted and some
form of intervention enacted. This is not to imply that school staff single out or label such
a student but, rather should observe more closely and interview the parents to see what
behavior is exhibited at home. Responsibility for a childs behavior starts in the home.
A final aspect of implementing programs that may not have been throughly planned
57
and evaluated is that of the legal rights of the child. While school administrators must be
concerned for the welfare of their entire student population, individual rights must also be
respected. Schools acting in loco parentis are not under the same restrictions as is a
police officer, however, there still remains limitations to abridgements of the constitutional
rights of the student Caution, rather than impulsive actions, should be applied before
putting overly stringent security measures into place. Evaluation of ill-planned measures
often proves them to be inefficient and ineffective. Proper program evaluation and well
conducted research can save a school both time and money, as well as eliminating the
potential for creating a problem where one did not previously exist The potential for
being the cause of irreparable harm due to overzealous profiling or screening of individual
students must be paramount in the mind of school superintendents.
In conclusion, with the exception of a relationship of drug availability and weapons
(except marijuana, which did have a significant relationship), all of the hypotheses of this
research were supported by the literature as noted. The literature has shown a link
between drugs and weapons at school, particularly when there was also gang involvement.
While this research did not support any drugs, other than marijuana, statistically related to
weapons, that may be due to the limited number of the survey population or the
truthfulness of the respondents. At the time of this research McComb School District had
a zero-tolerance policy in effect for weapons and drugs and that may well have been a
factor. It is the belief of this researcher that continual research is necessary to map our
progress in making schools a safer environment for our children.
APPENDIX 1
McComb School District
P.O. Box 868.693 Minnesota Avenue
Mct.'omh. MS 39649
September 22,1999
Mr. Robert B. Hunt
Department of Criminal Justice
Southern Station
Box 5127
Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5127
Dear Mr. Hunt;
This letter is to inform you that you (through the Department of Criminal Justice) have the
permission of the McComb School District to conduct the research you requested.
It is our understanding th*t you will administer a random student safety survey to our
students in grades 7 - 12. We have examined this survey and the method of administration
and are assured that it wQl be anonymous and will preserve the privacy of those students who
participate, ft is also our understanding that you will conduct the survey, score it, and share
the results with us by December 1,1999.
Parents of McComb School District students will be informed about the survey through a
notice in the local newspaper.
If you have any questions, please call.
Sincere!'
Superintendent
dm
I ax (601) 249-4732
Phone (6011684-4661
58
APPENDIX 2
School Partnership Questionnaire
Please answer the questions on this questionnaire as honestly as possible. The results of this survey are
intended to make your school a safer place and with a better environment for learning.
You are NOT required to put your name or social security number anywhere on this form.
Questions about you:
I. What grade are you in school?
1. Seventh
2. Eighth
3. Ninth
4. Tenth
5. Eleventh
6. Twelfth
2. How old are you?
1. Eleven
2. Twelve
3. Thirteen
4. Fourteen
5. Fifteen
6. Sixteen
7. Seventeen
8. Eighteen
9. Nineteen
10. Older
3. What race are you?
1. African American 4. Caucasian
2. Hispanic 5. Other
3. Asian
4. What is your gender?
1. Male
2. Female
5. What is your grade point average?
1. A average 3. C average
2. B average 4. D average
6. How do you consider your social standing at school?
1. In a popular group 3. In a rebellious group
2. In an athletes group 4. As a loner, not in any group
7. Are you a member of any gang?
1. Yes
2. No
8. Would you like to be a member of a gang?
1. Yes
2. No
9. Would you like to quit school?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Unsure
10. Do'you intend on going to college?
1.Yes
2. No
3. Unsure
59
About your family
60
11. What is your parent's marital status?
1. Married, living together
2. Married, living apart
12. Do you live with both of your parents in the same home?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Legally separated
4. Divorced or unmarried
13. How many brothers and sisters do you have?
I. None
2.1 to 3
3.4 to 6
4.7 or more
14. Do you have a dose family?
1. Yes
2. No
15. Do your parents take time to really talk to you?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Sometimes
16. What is the educational level of your mother?
1. Less than high school
2. High school
3. Some college or Associates degree
4. College graduate. Bachelor's degree
17. What is the educational levd of your father?
1. Less than high school
2. High school
3. Some college or Associates degree
4. College graduate, Bachdors degree
5. Graduate school. Masters degree
6. Graduate school. Doctorate
7. Dont know
5. Graduate school. Master's degree
6. Graduate school. Doctorate
7. Don't know
About School
18. How away from your home is the school you attend?
1. Less than I mile
2.1 to 5 miles
3.6 to 10 miles
19. How do you get to school most of the time?
1. Walk
2. School bus
3. Parents bring you
20. How do you get home Grom school most of the time?
1. Walk
2. School bus
3. Parents bring you
4.11 to 25 miles
5. More than 25 miles
6. Dont know how far
4. Car
3. Bicycle; motorbike; or motorcycle
6. Other
4. Car
5. Bicycle, motorbike, or motorcycle
6. Other
21. Are most students at your school allowed to leave the school grounds to eat lunch?
I .Yes 3. Only certain grades
2. No 4. Dont know
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
61
22. In the past six months, have you participated in or attended any extra-curricular school activities?
1. Yes
2. No
23. Do you spend most of the school day in the same classroom?
1. Yes
2. No
24. During the class changes, do teachers stand in the doorways and monitor the halls?
1. Yes
2. No
25. Does anyone else patrol the halhvays during school hours?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
26. Are visitors to your school required to report to the school office?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know-
27. Is it safe to store money or valuables in your locker at school?
1. Yes 3. Dont have lockers
2. No 4. Don't know
The following has to do with what happens to students who get caught doing these different things in
your school. (Mark all that apply)
28. Being disrespectful to teachers?
1. Nothing
2. Student disciplined by teacher
3. Student sent to the principal's office
4. Students parents are notified
5. Detention
29. Fighting with other students?
1. Nothing
4. Student's parents are notified
5. Detention
30. Drinking or being drunk at school?
1. Nothing
2. Student disciplined tty teacher
3. Student sent to die principal's office
5. Detention
31. Cutting classes?
1. Nothing
5. Detention
6. In school suspension
7. Out of school suspension
8. Other
9. Dont know
8. Other
9. Dont know
8. Other
9. Dont know
6. fit school suspension
8. Other
9. Dont know
62
32. Have you attended any drug education classes in your school in the last six months?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't know
33. Does your school try' to prevent students from having drugs or alcohol in school in any of the following
way? (Mark all that apply)
1. Locker searches 4. Surprise restroom checks
2. Security guards S. Other
3. Teachers or principal patrolling halls, school grounds 6. No preventive action
34. Arc there any street gangs at your school?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
35. How many times do street gang members light with each other at school?
1. Never or almost never 5. Almost every day
2. Once or twice a year 6. Dont know
3. Once or twice a month 7. There are no street gangs at my school
4. Once or twice a week
36. In the last six months, did a student attack or threaten to attack a teacher in your school?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
37. This question has to do with the availability of drugs and alcohol in school. If you do not know what the
drug is, please mark that answer.
How easy or hard is it for someone to get the following things at your school?
Easy Hard impossible Dont Know Dont know drug
A. Alcoholic beverages 1 2 3 4 5
B. Marijuana 1 2 3 4 5
C. Cocaine 1 2 3 4 5
D. Crack 1 2 3 4 5
E. Uppers/Downers 1 2 3 4 5
F. Other illegal drugs 1 2 3 4 5
Victimization
38. During the past six months, did anyone take money or other property DIRECTLY FROM YOU by force,
weapons, or threats at school?
1. Yes
2. No
39. If yes, how many times did this happen during the last six months?
1._____________
2. Has not happened
40. If yes, how many of these times was your-total loss worth mare than $10?
1 . _____________
2. Has not happened
63
41. If yes. where exactly did this talcg place?
42. During the last six months, did anyone steal something from your desk, locker, or some other place at
school (other than directly from you)?
1. Yes
2. No
43. If yes, how many times did this happen during the last six months?
1 . ______________
2. Did not happen
44. If yes, how many times was your total loss worth more than SI 0?
1. ________________
2. Did not happen
45. If yes, where exactly did this take place?
46. Other than the incidents just mentioned, did anyone physically attack you at school during the last six
months?
1. Yes
2. No
47. If yes, how' many times did this happen?
1. ________________
2. Did not happen
48. If yes, did you go to a doctor as a result of (this/any of these) attacks?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Did not happen
49. How many times did you receive injuries in any of these attacks at school that led to a visit to the
doctor?
1. ______________
2. Did not happen
50. How many of these attacks were just fights?
1. ___________
2. Incident was an attack
3. Did not happen
51. If yes, where did this happen?
52. Have you stayed home from school any time during the last six months because you thought someone
might stuck or harm you at school?
1. Yes
2. No
64
53. How many times did you stay away from school because you thought someone might attack or harm
you?
1. _______________
2. Have not stayed away from school
Do You stay away from any or the following places because yon thought someone might attack or harm
you there?
54. The shortest route to school?
1. Yes
2. No
55. The entrances into the school?
1. Yes
2. No
56. Any hallways or stairs in school?
1. Yes
2. No
57. Parts of the school cafeteria?
1. Yes
2. No
58. Any school restrooms?
1. Yes
2. No
59. Other places inside the school building?
1. Yes
2. No
60. School parking lot?
1. Yes
2. No
61. Other places on school ground?
1. Yes
2. No
62. Extra-curricular school activities?
1. Yes
2. No
63. How o f t e n are you afraid that someone will attack or harm you on the way to and from school?
1. Never 3. Sometimes
2. Almost never 4. Most of the time
64. How often are you afraid that someone will attack or harm you at school?
1. Never 3. Sometimes
2. Almost never 4. Most of the time
65
65. Whal did you bring to school to protect yourself from being attacked or harmed? (Mark all that apply)
1. Gun 6. Mace
2. Knife 7. Kunchucks
3. Brass knuckles 8. Other
4. Razor blade 9. Nothing
5. Spiked jewelry
66. Did bringing the weapon to school make you feel any safer?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Did not bring weapon
67. (low long does it take you to get from your home to school most of the time?
1. Less than 15 minutes 4.45 to 59 minutes
2. IS to 19 minutes 5.60 minutes or longer
3. 30 to 44 minutes
68. Do any members of street gangs come around your school?
1. Never 4. Most of the time
2. Almost never 5. Dont know
3. Sometimes
69. Do any of the students at your school belong to a street gang?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
70. If street gangs exist at your school, or come around your school what are their names?
71. Do they wear clothing or other items to identify their gang membership?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
72. Do you know of any students who have brought a gun to school in the last six months?
1. Yes
2. No
73. Have you actually seen another student with a gun at school in the last six months?
1. Yes
2. No
74. Do you know any student that has made a bomb threat in the last six months?
1. Yes
2. No
75. Ifycs, was it against the school or a teacher?
1. School 3. Dont know
2. Teacher 4. Was no threat
76. If yes. do you thick that the person making the threat was capable of carrying it out?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't know
77. Do you know any students that make pipe bombs?
1. Yes
2. No
What can yon tell us about the students that cause problems at school?
78. What is their school social status?
1. Popular group 4. Loner
2. Athlete group S. Gang member
3. Fringe group 6. Don't know
79. What do you think that their grade point average is?
1. Upper 25% of class 3. Lower 50% of class
2. Upper 50% of class 4. Don't know
80. Is there anything that distinguishes them from other students?
81. Are the trouble makers in any particular group? If so name the group.
82. Do they wear any identifying clothing or other markings?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
83. If yes. what are they?
84. Do these people often make threats against the school or teachers?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
85. Do you feel safe at school?
1.Never 3. Most of the time
2. Hardly ever 4. All of the time
APPENDIX 3
Facilitators Statement
This is the statement that was read to the students prior to their participation in the
survey. It was read to the participants by one of the graduate students administering the
survey.
Facilitators Statement
The following Statement must be read to the participants in the study prior to
giving them the questionnaire.
We would like to thank you for participating in this study. This is completely
voluntary on your part, if you do not want to take part in this study you are free to leave
at any time without penalty or prejudice to you. At any point during the survey that you
do not want to continue, you may do so without penalty or prejudice to you. All of the
data and the final disposition of data will be held in total confidentiality. You are not
required to put your name, social security number, or any other identifying information on
this questionnaire. Please do not put your name or any other identifying information on
the questionnaire form.
Please answer all questions as honestly and completely as possible. The results of
this survey are to benefit both you and your school in making it a safer place for you, the
student. This study is for research purposes and is being conducted in order to examine
67
68
ways to eliminate school violence from your school district. This study is being conducted
by the McComb Police Department and the McComb school system in conjunction with
the Criminal Justice Department at the University of Southern Mississippi. If you have any
questions about the research you may contact Mr. Robert Hunt, Criminal Justice
Department at the University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5127,
(601) 266-4509 or Sergeant Gregory Martin, McComb Police Department, P.O. Box
1911, McComb, MS 39649, (601) 684-3023.
This project has been reviewed by the Human Subjects Protection Review
Committee which ensures that research projects involving human subjects follow federal
regulations. Any questions or concerns about rights as a research subject should be
directed to the Director of Research and Sponsored Programs, University of Southern
Mississippi, Box 5157, Hattiesburg, MS 39406, (601) 266-4119.
A copy of this statement will be given to you. Once again, please do not put your
name or any other identifying information on this questionnaire.
APPENDIX 4
PARENTAL INFORMATION LETTER
This is a copy of the content of the letter that was given to the selected student the
day prior to the administration of the survey. They were instructed to take this letter
home and give it to their parent or guardian so that they would know that their child had
been selected to participate in the survey, the details of what would be taking place, and
their right to deny their child from participating in the survey.
Dear Parent:
My name is Robert Hunt, and I am a researcher with the University of Southern
Mississippi. We are conducting a study within the McComb School system that is a joint
effort of the McComb Police Department and the school. The University has been
contracted with to administer a survey questionnaire to the students in an effort to
determine factors in school safety issues.
Your child has been randomly selected to participate in this study. The selection
process is completely random and done without any prior considerations. The study itself
will be anonymous and absolutely nothing will identify the student with the questionnaire.
It does not require them to put their name or any identifying number on it and can not be
related back to the person that fills it out. This is a voluntary survey in which the student
69
70
may refuse to participate or discontinue at any point in the questionnaire. The data
collected from the survey is confidential and will be used to address issues of student
safety within the school.
This letter is meant to inform you of the survey and to assure you that the
anonymity and privacy rights of your child will be protected under federal regulations and
the approval of the Human Subjects Review Committee. The following statement will be
read to the student and a copy of it will be furnished to them:
We would like to thank you for participating in this study. You have been randomly
selected to take part in this research, it is completely voluntary on your part, if you do not
want to take part in this study you are free to leave at any time without penalty or
prejudice. Do not put your name or any other identifying information on the
questionnaire form.
This research is being funded by the Department of Justice and is being conducted by
the University of Southern Mississippi, Department of Criminal Justice under contract
with the McComb Police Department and the McComb School System through a federally
funded grant. The information that will be obtained from this research will be given to
both the police department and the school. The data analysis will also be made available
to the Department of Justice and will be utilized in a dissertation by Mr. Robert Hunt of
the criminal justice department of USM.
This project has been reviewed by the Human Subjects Protection Review
Committee which ensures that research projects involving human subjects follow federal
regulations. Any questions or concerns about rights as a research subject should be
71
directed to the Director of Research and Sponsored Programs, University of Southern
Mississippi, Box 5157, Hattiesburg, MS 39406, 601-266-4119.
Please answer all questions as honestly and completely as possible. The results of
this survey are intended to benefit you and your community by helping to make your
school a safer place for you, the student. This study is for research purposes and is being
conducted in order to examine ways to assist in eliminating violence from your school
environment. If you have any questions about the research, you may contact Mr. Robert
Hunt, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Southern Mississippi, Box 5127,
Hattiesburg, MS 39406, 601-266-4509, or Sergeant Gregory Martin, McComb Police
Department, P.O. Box 1911, McComb, MS 39649, 601-684-3023.
A copy of this statement will be given to you. Once again, please do not put your
name or any other identifying information on this questionnaire.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Hunt, M.S.
APPENDIX 5a
THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI
HUMAN SUBJECTS PROTECTION REVIEW COMMITTEE
NOTICE OF COMMITTEE ACTION
The project listed has been reviewed by the University of Southern Mississippi Human
Subjects Protection Review Committee, in accordance with Federal Drug Administration
regulations (21 CFR 26.111), Department of Health and Human Services (45 CFR Part 46),
and university guidelines to ensure adherence to the following criteria:
The risks to subjects are minimized.
* The risks to subjects are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits.
* The selection of subjects is equitable.
Informed consent is adequate and appropriately documented.
* Where appropriate, the research plan makes adequate provisions for
monitoring the data collected to ensure the safety of the subjects.
Where appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of
subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of all data.
* Appropriate additional safeguards have been included to protect vulnerable
subjects.
If approved, the maximum period of approval is limited to twelve months.
Projects that exceed this period must submit an application for renewal or
continuation.
PROTOCOL NUMBER: 99101102
PROJECT TITLE: Partnership Against Violence in School (under a COPS grant -
School Partnership: McComb School System/McComb Police Department)
PROPOSED PROJECT DATES: 8/15/99 to 12/1/99
PROJECT TYPE: New Project
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(S): Robert B. Hunt
COLLEGE/DIVISION: Liberal Arts
DEPARTMENT: Criminal Justice
FUNDING AGENCY / SPONSOR: Sub-contracted by McComb Police Department
HSPRC COMMITTEE ACTION: Expedited Review - Approved
PERIOD OF APPROVAL: 10/18/99 to 10/18/00
HSPRC Co-Chair
RESEARCH AND SPONSORED PROGRAMS
Box 5157 Hattiesburg MS 39406-5157
Phone (601)266-4119 Fax (601)266-4312
72
APPENDIX 5b
THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI
TO: Robert B. Hunt
Box 5127
Hattiesburg, MS 39406
FROM: Gregory Eells, Ph.D.
HSPRC Co-Chair
PROTOCOL NUMBER: 99101102
PROJECT TITLE: Partnership Against Violence in School (under a COPS grant -
School Partnership: McComb School System/McComb Police Department)
Enclosed is the University of Southern Mississippi Human Subjects Protection Review
Committee Notice of Committee Action taken on the above referenced project proposal. If
I can be of further assistance, contact me at (601) 266-4829, FAX at (601) 266-5146, or
you can e-mail me at Gregory.Eells@usm.edu. Good luck with your research.
RESEARCH AND SPONSORED PROGRAMS
Box 5157 Hattiesburg, MS 39406-5157
Phone (601)266-4119 - Fax (601)266-4312
73
REFERENCES
Baldauf, S. (1999). Programs to prevent violence before it starts. Christian Science
Monitor. 91 (105). 3-4.
Band, S., & Harpold, J. (1999). School violence: Lessons learned. FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin. 68(91. 9-16.
Barton, P., Coley, R., & Wenglisky, H. (1998). Order in the classroom: Violence,
discipline, and student achievement Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Borduin, C., Mann, B., Cone, L., Henggeler, S., Fucci, B., Blaske, D., & Williams,
R. (1995). Multisystemic treatment of serious juvenile offenders: Long-term prevention of
criminality and violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63.569-578.
Chandler, K. A., Chapman, C. D., Rand, M., & Taylor, B. M. (1998). Students
reports of school crime: 1989 and 1995. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Cloud, J., Monroe, S., & Murphy, T. (1999). The Columbine effect Time.
154(231.51-52.
Corvo, K. N. (1997), Community-based youth violence prevention: A framework
for planners and funders. Youth and Society. 28.291-316.
Curry, G. D., Ball, R. A., & Fox, R. J. (1994). Gang crimes and law enforcement
recordkeeping. Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
74
75
Curwin, R., & Mendler, A. (1999). Zero tolerance for zero tolerance. Phi Delta
Kappan. 81(21.119-120.
Dowling, C. (1999). What can we do. Life. 22(7). 112.
Dryfoos, J. G. (1990). Adolescents at risk: Prevalence and prevention. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Elliot, D. D., Hamburg, B. A., & Williams, K. A. (Eds.). (1998). Violence in
American schools. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Embry, D. D., Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Powell, K. E., & Atha, H. (1996).
Peace builders: A theoretically driven, school-based model for early violence prevention.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 12 91-100.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1991), Uniform crime reports for the United
States: 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Felson, R. B., Liska, A. E., South, S. J., & McNulty, T. L. (1994). The subculture
of violence and delinquency: Individual vs. school context effects. Social Forces. 73(0.
155-173.
Flannery, D., & Torquati, J. (1993). An elementary school substance abuse
prevention program: Teacher and administrator perspectives. Journal of Drug Education.
23(41.387-397.
Flannery, D. (1997). School violence: Risk, preventive intervention, and policy.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement,
Washington, DC.
Futrell, M., & Powell, L. (1994, January). Violence in the schools. National
76
School Boards Association. Alexandria, VA.
Gamefski, D. C., & Okma, S. (1996). Addiction-risk and aggressive/criminal
behavior in adolescence: Influence of family, school, peers. Journal of Adolescence. 19.
503-512.
Greenwood, P., Model, K., Rydell, P., & Chiesa, J. (1996). Diverting children
from a life of crime: Measuring costs and benefits. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Corporation.
Heaviside, S., Rowland, C., Williams, C., Farris, S.,Bums, S., & McArthur,
E.(1998). Violence and discipline problems in U.S. public schools: 1996-97. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Heilman, D. A., & Beaton, S. (1986). The pattern of violence in urban public
schools: The influence of school and community. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency. 23.102-107.
Henggeler, S. W. (1996). Treatment of violent juvenile offenders, we have the
knowledge. Journal of Family Psychology. 10. 137-141.
Hernandez, T. (1995). School safety: Promising initiatives for addressing school
violence. Report to Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Children and Families,
Committee on Labor and Human Resources, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC.
Hernandez, T. (1998). Safe schools, safe students: A guide to violence prevention
strategies. Drug Strategies Inc. Washington, DC.
Hernandez, T. (1999). Community building in South Florida to promote school
safety. Education and Urban Society. 31(31.368-374.
77
Huff, C. R., & Trump, K. (1996). Youth violence and gangs: School safety
initiatives in urban and suburban school districts. Education and Urban Society. 28(41.
492-503.
Hunt, R., & McKee, A. (1998). Student safety survey: Results & findings. Office
of Research and Sponsored Program, The University of Southern Mississippi.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Why violence prevention programs
dont work, and what does. Educational Leadership. 52. 63-67.
Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Choy, S. P., Chandler, K. A., Chapman, C. D., Rand, M.
A., & Lawrence, R. (1998). School crime and juvenile justice. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lacayo, R. (1994). When kids go bad. Time-119 (6). 60-63.
Larson, J. (1994). Violence prevention in the schools: A review of selected
programs and procedures. School Psychology Review. 23.151-164.
Lawrence, R. (1998). School crime and delinquency. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lehr, J., & Purkey, W. (1997). Inviting School Safety Survey. Unpublished survey,
The University of North Carolina at Greensboro: International Alliance for Invitational
Education.
Lipsey, M. W. (1992). The effect of treatment on juvenile delinquents: Results
from meta-analyses, hi F. Losei, & T. Bliesener (Eds.).(216-241). Psychology of law.
New York: DeGruyter.
Lord, M. (1999). The violent-kid profile. U.S. News & World Report 127 (14).
78
56-58.
Max son, C. L., & Klein, M. W. (1996). Defining gang homicide: An updated look
at member and motive approaches. In C. R. Huff (Ed.), Gangs in America. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Menacker, J., Weldon, W., & Hurwitz, E. (1990). Community influences on
school crime and violence. Urban Education. 25(11.68-80.
Modzeleski, W. (1996). Creating safe schools: Rolls and challenges, a federal
perspective. Education and Urban Society. 28(41.412-423.
Morrison, G. M., Furlong, M. J., & Morrison, R. L. (1994). School violence and
school safety: Reframing the issue for school psychologists. School Psychology Review.
23(21.236-256.
Mulvey, E., Arthur, M., & Reppucci, N. (1993). The prevention and treatment of
juvenile delinquency: A review of the research. Clinical Psychology Review. 13133-167.
Noguera, P.A. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A critical analysis of
response to school violence. Harvard Educational Review. 65(2). 189-212.
Noguera, P. A. (1966). The critical state of violence prevention. School
Administrator. 53. 8-13.
Nolin, MJ., Davies, E., & Chandler, K.. (1996). Student victimization at school.
Journal of School Health. 66(6). 216-221.
Orphinas, P., Kelder, S., Murray, N., Foumey, A., Conroy, J., McReynolds, L., &
Peters, R., Jr. (1996). Critical issues in implementing a comprehensive violence prevention
program for middle school: Translating theory into practice. Education and Urban Society.
79
2L 456-472.
Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup Poll. (1998). [On-line]. Available: http://www.ndkintl.
ore/appan/kp9809-3.htm.
Purkey, W. (1978). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach to teaching
and learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Purkey, W., & Novak, J. (1984). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach
to teaching and learning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Purkey, W., & Novak, J. (1996). Inviting school success: A self-concept approach
to teaching, learning, and democratic practice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Purkey, W., & Schmidt, J. (1987). The inviting relationship: An expanded
perspective for professional helping. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Purkey, W., & Stanley, P. (1991). Invitational teaching, learning and living.
Washington, DC: National Education Association Professional Library, National
Education Association.
Regulus, T. A. (1995). Law, violence, and school. Update on Law-Related
Education. 19(21. 9-10.
Ringwalt, C., Green, J., Ennett, S., Iachan, R., Clayton, R., & Leukfield, C.
(1994). Past and future directions of the DARE program: An evaluation review. Draft of
final report Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Rossman, SB., & Morely, E. (1996). Introduction. Education and Urban Society.
28(41. 395-411.
Sabo, S. R. (1993). Security by design. American School Board Journal. 180(11.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
80
37-39.
Sautter, R. C. (1995). Standing up to violence. Phi Delta Kappan. 76(51. K.1-K12.
Sheley, J.F., & Wright, J.D. (1993). Gun acquisition and possession in selected
juvenile samples. OJJDP Research in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice.
Shofiher, M. (1992). Violence in Americas schools. William Gladden Foundation.
York, PA.
Shoffiier, M., & Vacc, N. (1999). Psychometric analysis of the inviting school
safety survey. Measures & Evaluation in Counseling & Development 32.(2). 66-75.
Singer, M., Miller, D., Slovak, K., & Frierson, R. (1997). Mental health
consequences of childrens exposure to violence. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve
University, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences.
Stephens, R. (1995). Safe schools: A handbook for violence prevention.
Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.
Thayer, Y. (1996). The Virginia model: School to community intervention
techniques to prevent violence. In A. Hoffinan (Ed.), Schools, violence and society.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Tolan, P., Guerra, N., & Kendall, P. (1995). A developmental perspective on
antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: Toward a unified risk and intervention
fiamework. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 63.579-584.
Trump, K. (1996). Gangs and school safety. In A. M. Hoffinan (Ed.), Schools,
violence and society. (97-115).Westport, CT: Praeger.
81
The American Teacher. (1993). Violence in Americas public schools: The
Metropolitan Life survey. New York: Louis Harris and Associates, Inc.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics. (1991, September). School crime: A national crime victimization survey report
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Education (1997). National Center for Education Statistics,
Fast Response Survey System, Principal/school disciplinarian survey on school violence,
U.S. Department of Education (1998). A guide to safe schools. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Justice (1998). 1QQ8 Annual
report on school safety. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 National report. Washington, DC.
Walker, H. M., Colvin, G., & Ramsey, E. (1995). Anti-social behavior in school:
Strategies and best practices. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Walker, H. M., Gresham, F. M. (1997). Making schools safer and violence free.
Intervention in the School and Clinic. 3 2 .199-204.
Watson, R. (1995). A guide to violence prevention. Educational Leadership. 55(5).
57-59.
What's wrong, and right, with our schools. (1997). Wall Street Journal. March 14.
R1-R7.
Williams, J. W. (1979). Discipline in the public schools: A problem of perception.
Phi Delta Kanpan. 60 (5T 385-387.
82
Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family
support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin. 115.

Determinant Factors For School Violence A Study of The McComb, Mississippi School System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Determinant Factors For School Violence A Study of The McComb, Mississippi School System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

You might also like