School Safety Interventions: Best Practices and Programs

School Safety Interventions: Best Practices and Programs Ron Avi Astor, Heather Ann Meyer, Rami Benbenishty, Roxana Marachi, and Michelle Rosemond

An awareness of the empirical knowledge concerning school violence and programs that have been supported by research is essential for the successful adaptation of school violence prevention programs.Yet, knowledge of national trends and model programs is not sufficient. School social workers must also balance the importance of research-supported programs (which tend to be identically implemented) and “grassroots” involvement at the school level to create programs that fit the needs and intricacies of each school. The authors review some major trends and gaps concerning U.S. school violence, explore areas where school social workers could have a conceptual and practical impact, provide examples of multiple types of research-supported school safety programs, and present examples of monitoring and mapping approaches that address the need for grassroots involvement and strong empirical data. KEY WORDS : interventions; monitoring; policy; schools; violence

he social work profession has contributed to the national and international dialogue about violence prevention programs in schools, and school social workers play an increasingly important role in shaping and implementing policy, interventions, and procedures that make U.S. schools safer (for examples see Astor, Behre, Fravil, & Wallace, 1997;Astor, Behre,Wallace, & Fravil, 1998; Astor & Meyer, 1999; Astor & Meyer, 2001; Benbenishty, Astor, Zeira, &Vinokur, 2002; Jenson & Howard, 1999; Zeira, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2002). To be effective, school social workers need to be aware of current philosophical, empirical, and practice issues regarding school violence. Numerous national organizations evaluate “best practices” and “model research-supported programs” for school safety. However, one of the greatest weaknesses of uniform programs is that they are “top down”; they prescribe the solution to the problem and are usually applied in the same way to every school. The social work profession takes great pride in implementing programs that “fit” or “emanate” from community concerns.This creates a potential conflict between the integrity of research-supported programs and community-centered practice goals. Research paradigms require

T

that all program components be implemented in the same way at each site, but practice paradigms insist that a “one size fits all” approach does not address the specific needs of each school. We believe that this conflict can be resolved. This article addresses the question “How can social workers promote research-supported programs and at the same time allow for the needs and empowerment of a given school or community?” Another serious implementation problem is that best practice programs are often described in an ahistorical or acontextual fashion—almost independent of cultural, gender, or ethnic trends regarding school violence. A narrow focus on programs frequently ignores the local contextual, policy, and practical considerations that would be important in a social work paradigm. For example, most social workers and members of the general public are not aware of the sharp declines in school violence over the past 10 years. Few model programs address the highly used interventions of expulsion, suspension, and special education in response to school violence. In this article, we review some major trends and gaps concerning U.S. school violence, explore potential areas where school social workers could make an impact at the conceptual and practical levels,

CCC Code: 1532-8759/05 $3.00 ©2005 National Associationand of Social Workers Astor, Meyer, Benbenisht y, Marachi, Rosemond

/ School Safety Interventions: Best Practices/Programs

17

provide examples of multiple types of research-supported programs, and present examples of monitoring and mapping approaches that address the need for grassroots involvement and strong empirical, localized data to inform bottom-up program creation, program adaptation, and ongoing tracking of interventions. MAJOR TRENDS AND ISSUES

The Myth of Increasing School Violence Rates

Contrary to the intense media focus on the crisis of violence in schools, most categories of safety, violence, and victimization either remained constant or declined from 1995 to 2001 (DeVoe et al., 2003). Between 1992 and 2000, the rate of violent crime victimization (for example, assault) on school grounds declined 46 percent (DeVoe et al.). Fatal Victimization on School Grounds. It is important for school social workers to know that media perceptions and national norms about school violent deaths are not entirely accurate. Many misperceptions center on issues of race, socioeconomic status, and gender. Furthermore, the efforts of school personnel may not be acknowledged by the media and general public because of the perception that violent school deaths and shootings are on the rise (DeVoe et al., 2003). Research suggests that violent deaths on school grounds occurred prior to the intense media coverage of the late 1990s (Kaufman et al., 2000; National School Safety Center, 2003).Violent deaths on school grounds (including homicide, suicide, and weapons-related death) have been compiled from 1992 to the present. In the 1992–1993 school year, 57 violent deaths on school grounds were recorded. In the year of the Columbine shootings (1998– 1999), there were also 57 violent deaths on school grounds. The numbers in most other years were slightly lower. The national rates of homicide on school grounds from 1992 to 2000 have been stable, ranging from a low of 28 homicides to a high of 34 homicides. In addition, an important public myth of the postColumbine era is that school fatalities are for the first time occurring in suburban areas. The data suggest that a significant proportion of violent deaths occurred in both settings before and after the late 1990 shootings. Kachur and colleagues (1996) reported that in the 1992–1993 school year (before the Columbine shootings), 30 percent of school

18

fatalities occurred in suburbs, 62 percent in urban areas, and 8 percent in rural settings.These statistics raise serious questions as to why the media and public perpetuate unsubstantiated and potentially harmful myths that serve as proxies for racial and economic stereotyping. Weapons on School Grounds. The potential for lethal violence in schools remains high because of the availability of weapons. Nevertheless, the U.S. public is generally not aware of the decline in weapons on school grounds. Therefore, many federal, state, and district policies have focused on the reduction of weapons on school grounds (U.S. Departments of Education & Justice, 2000). It is possible that the policies implemented have had a dramatic effect. For example, between 1993 and 1999, the Department of Education reported that the percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who reported bringing a gun on school grounds during the 30 days preceding the survey dropped from 12 percent to 7 percent. In 2001 approximately 6.4 percent of students reported that they had carried a weapon on school grounds in the 30 days preceding the survey (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2002). Physical Fights on School Grounds. Physical fights on school grounds is the most common form of violence that students witness and experience (CDC, 2002; DeVoe et al., 2003). The proportion of students reporting that they had been in a fight on school grounds declined from 16 percent in 1993 to 13 percent in 2001 (DeVoe et al.). Overall rates of fights involving students also declined from 42 percent in 1993 to 33 percent in 2001.The issue of school versus community fights is important because Department of Justice statistics indicate that the highest rates of student or youth fights and assaults occur mainly on school days between 3:00 P.M. and 4:00 P.M. (much closer to 3:00 P.M. than 4:00 P.M.) near school grounds.We believe that many fights emanate from school social dynamics (that is, are potentially controllable by the school) and should be categorized as school fights. Teachers and administrators could benefit from social workers’ guidance in developing response procedures regarding school fights from an ecological and school–community perspective. Gang Activity at School. Between 1995 and 1999, extraordinary reductions in gang activity in schools were reported. With all the media hype of the late 1980s and early 1990s about the influence of gangs

Children & Schools Volume 27, Number 1

January 2005

on school violence, these reductions have gone virtually unnoticed in the national media and public awareness.The percentage of students who reported a gang presence in their school dropped significantly from 1995 to 1999, from 29 percent to 17 percent (Kaufman et al., 2000). The reduction of gang activity in schools has been strong across all settings. Urban, suburban, and rural schools have reported reductions of 16 percent, 10 percent, and 9 percent, respectively. The reduction in gang activity on school grounds has also been pronounced across ethnic groups, with 10 percent, 22 percent, and 10 percent reductions reported for African American, Hispanic, and white youths, respectively (Kaufman et al., 2000; U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice, 2000).This is yet another area where the media and general public have not acknowledged positive societal change and dramatic improvements in historically oppressed groups of students. Safety at or on the Way to and from School. The percentage of students reporting that they felt unsafe while they were at school or traveling to and from school declined steadily from 1995 to 2001 (from 12 percent to 6 percent) (DeVoe et al., 2003). Significant drops have also been documented among black (from 20 percent in 1995 to 9 percent in 2001) and Hispanic (from 21 percent in 1995 to 11 percent in 2001) students reporting that they are fearful at or on the way to and from school. A decline also occurred in the number of students who reported that they avoid one or more places in school (for example, bathrooms, hallways, and so forth). In 1995, 9 percent of students ages 12 to 18 reported avoiding one or more places in the school building; in 2001 only 5 percent of students reported avoiding a particular area (DeVoe et al.). Bullying and Bullying Victim Rates. Recently, the United States participated in a cross-national research project coordinated by the World Health Organization on the prevalence of bullying and victims of bullying on school grounds. This first U.S. representative sample consisted of students in grades 6 to 10. Nansel and colleagues (2001) found that 10.6 percent of the sample reported bullying others sometimes (moderate), and 8.8 percent admitted to bullying others frequently (once a week or more). Reports on victimization were slightly lower—8.5 percent of students reported being bullied sometimes and 8.4 percent once a week or more. About 30 percent of the sample reported

Middle and junior high school teachers were more vulnerable to violent victimization than teachers in elementary and senior high schools.

being involved in school bullying either moderately or frequently, as bullies (13.0 percent), victims (10.6 percent), or as victims and bullies (6.3 percent). Are bullying rates increasing or decreasing? According to DeVoe and colleagues (2003) the percentage of students who reported that they were bullied at or on the way to and from school increased from 1999 to 2001 (from 5 percent to 8 percent). This increase in reports of being bullied was identified for every racial and ethnic group except for black students. It should be noted that the National Center for Education Statistics has only collected national statistics on bullying in school since 1999. It may be necessary to follow these statistics over the next several years to see if this is a significant increase or an increase in the awareness of bullying behavior as a result of the national focus on school safety in the late 1990s. Teacher and School Social Worker Victimization. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (see Kaufman et al., 1998, p. 25, Figure 9.1), teachers are also the victims of theft and violent crimes. Many school violence interventions ignore the fact that teachers and school staff also need support. Between 1992 and 1996, the annual average rate of victimization (combining theft and physical violence) for teachers was 76 incidents per 1,000 teachers (Kaufman et al., 1998, p. 71, Table 9.1). Middle and junior high school teachers were more vulnerable to violent victimization than teachers in elementary and senior high schools. Also, male teachers were more likely to report being the victim of serious violent acts than female teachers (41 compared with 26 crimes per 1,000 teachers for men and women, respectively). Teachers in urban schools were much more likely than those in suburban and rural schools to report being the victim of violent acts (Kaufman et al., 1998, p. 71, Table 9.1). In a 12-month period, national data suggest that approximately 15.8 percent of teachers were threatened physically with injury or physically attacked by a student (18.6 percent compared with

Astor, Meyer, Benbenisht y, Marachi, and Rosemond / School Safety Interventions: Best Practices/Programs

19

14.7 percent for male and female teachers, respectively).The school setting appears to influence teachers’ victimization. Inner-city teachers reported being threatened or attacked more often (20.7 percent) than suburban (14.7 percent) and rural (12.9 percent) teachers. In a national study, 35 percent of school social workers in the United States reported being physically assaulted or physically threatened during the past year (Astor et al., 1997; Astor et al., 1998). Of those who reported being threatened or assaulted, 77 percent identified the assailant as a student, 49 percent identified the attacker as a parent, and 11 percent identified the perpetrator as a student gang member. (Because some social workers were attacked more than once and by more than one type of perpetrator, the total percentages are higher than 100 percent.) Not surprising, many school social workers feared for their personal safety. In fact, onethird of school social workers reported that they feared for their personal safety about once a month or more. However, there were differences in the proportion of social workers in each community setting that reported fear. Compared with social workers in urban (36 percent), suburban (37 percent), and rural (31 percent) schools, more social workers in inner-city schools (71 percent) reported that they feared for their personal safety. Astor and colleagues’ (1997, 1998) studies suggest that social workers’ fear may be related to a lack of training to handle or prevent violent situations; few school social workers received formal university training on ways to handle school violence. The vast majority said that they wish they had more training to deal with school violence (Astor et al., 1998). School social workers also expressed strong beliefs that school violence needed to be dealt with from an ecological perspective (Astor et al., 1998). Given these numbers, social workers should consider creating support and prevention programs for teachers and school staff.They also should have clear plans and programs to protect school social workers in their district. Is School Violence Still a Problem?

In general, school violence rates declined in the past six to eight years, but these rate reductions do not address how society should determine when school violence is a problem. When does a school cross the threshold from having an average level of school violence to having a high level of violence?

20

Conversely, how do we know when a school is considered a “model” safe school? These are not abstract, moral, or academic issues alone. Several state and national politicians, organizations, and task forces have declared publicly that punitive measures should be taken against schools that are unsafe (that is, shut them down, hire new staff, and so forth). Despite these movements, no one has put forth clear criteria on what constitutes an unsafe school district or school. Social work participation in these philosophical discussions could add to the national dialogue on school safety.Without a clear sense of what is considered safe or unsafe, it will be difficult to assess the success or failure of prevention or intervention programs. In the midst of this historical decline in school violence, U.S. society had the greatest increase in the number of programs supported by research. This is partially the result of the steep increase in federal and foundation funding for research after the school shootings in the 1990s. On the whole, these programs emerged from psychological paradigms that ignored ongoing educational practices designed to address school violence. To a large extent most evidence-based model programs do not address the most common interventions used to deter violence in schools. We hope that school social workers will integrate common interventions as part of a school safety program or develop interventions and procedures for responding to these issues. INTERVENTIONS

Scope of Programs

Nationwide, approximately 78 percent of principals reported that they have programs to address violence in their schools (Kaufman et al., 2000). Eleven percent of the schools had programs that lasted only one day or less, 24 percent reported that they had only ongoing violence programs, and 43 percent indicated that they had both ongoing and one-day programs. It is unclear what types of programs principals consider to be violence interventions. School social workers have reported a wide array of violence intervention programs and services, which include counseling, crisis intervention, skills training, peer programs for students, community programs, teacher programs, and security measures. (Astor et al., 1998; see Table 1).The vast majority of services, methods-based interventions (for example,


January 2005

Table 1: Percentage of School Social Workers Reporting Specific Violence Programs and Services in Their Schools (N = 576) Type of Program or Service

Counseling services Violence crisis intervention Victim assistance and support services Individual or family counseling Posttraumatic stress groups for observers or victims Services targeting ethnic, religious or racial conflicts Child abuse education Skills training Conflict management Social skills training Pro-social behavior curriculum Skill streaming Groups for aggressive children Leadership training Peer programs for students Positive peer culture Friendship clubs After school sports or clubs Community programs Anti-gang program Services that address community violence Police anti-violence program Parent support group Church group or youth group Teacher-based programs Teacher support groups or training on violence Classroom management Anti-bully campaign Academic programs aimed at aggressors, victims, or witnesses Physical plant changes Metal detectors Security guards

% of Schools with Program

% of Social Workers Involved in Program

50 30 53 15 24 58

40 24 46 12 13 41

63 66 53 35 54 41

43 53 35 25 43 19

39 31 75

24 15 15

22 15 38 21 15

8 6 7 14 3

26 60 14 8

14 34 9 3

14 37

3 6

Source: Astor, R., Behre, W., Wallace, J., & Fravil, K. (1998). School social workers and school violence: Personal safety, training, and violence programs. Social Work, 43, 223–232.

counseling, crisis intervention, and home visits), and programs implemented have not been evaluated extensively as violence reduction strategies. For example, 91 percent of social workers endorsed home visits as an effective intervention for violent children, and 82 percent of the social workers said that they conducted home visits to help reduce aggressive behaviors (Astor et al., 1998). Nevertheless, there is a paucity data on the effectiveness of

home visits or types of interventions commonly used by social workers. Common Interventions

Few evaluations have assessed the effectiveness of interventions normally used by schools (such as expulsion, suspension, referral to special education, sending the child to the principal’s office, duringand after-school detention, parent conferences, peer


21

mediation, and counseling). However, interventions such as expulsion, suspension, and school transfer are common responses to acts of school violence. During the 1996–97 school year, 39 percent of school principals said they expelled, suspended, or transferred a student because of fighting. Twentyseven percent of the nation’s principals reported that they used suspension, expulsion, or transfer for students who had a weapon on school grounds (Heaviside, Rowand,Williams, & Farris, 1998, Table 18). Other common interventions, such as contacting parents, parent–school meetings about aggressive behaviors, keeping students after school, better adult supervision in the school yard, and better monitoring of the routes to and from school and violence prone school areas, should be researched further. Data from Europe and Australia suggest that these types of interventions are easier to implement and may be highly effective in reducing some types of school violence, such as bullying (Benbenishty & Astor, 2003; Olweus, 1996; Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999; Sharp & Smith, 1994; Smith & Sharp, 1994). Some credit the zero-tolerance gun laws as the major cause for the overall decline of weapons on school campuses; many students have been expelled for bringing weapons on school grounds in recent years. However, consistent with the other data presented in this article, expulsion rates have also gone down. Rates of expulsion for firearms dropped from 5,724 in 1996–97 to 3,658 in 1998–99 (U.S. Department of Education & U.S. Department of Justice, 2000). Although school expulsions may reduce the number of students with weapons, there ought to be serious social concern about where these potentially violent students are going after they are expelled. From a social work and public policy perspective, it is unwise to deprive a potentially violent and armed youth of an education. To the detriment of society and the lives of these youths, there are no policies to provide alternative programs, track the success of these programs, or track the expelled students’ whereabouts. According to U.S. government data, 44 percent of students expelled were referred to alternative programs (Kaufman et al., 2000); however, we do not know how many students actually went or stayed in those programs or how successful those programs were. Monitoring where these expelled students end up is critical, and school social workers’ advocacy and edu-

22

cation of the public could play a vital role in this policy issue. Special Education

Another common school response to persistent and chronic aggression in individual children is special education referral, assessment, and placement. Unfortunately, the school violence literature has not examined closely the relationships between special education and violence reduction in schools. Nevertheless, it is likely that many children receive services for aggressive behavior through special education.These interventions often include counseling, parent training, contained classrooms, specialized curriculum, and day treatment facilities. This area of research should be developed further, because it is possible that social workers, psychologists, counselors, and teachers view the special education process as an important strategy with some aggressive children. SCHOOL SAFETY PROGRAMS

Examples of school safety programs that are supported by research and are available to schools and practitioners are presented in Table 2.The programs are not an exhaustive list of available programs.The programs are rated as effective, promising, or noteworthy. Effective programs are well implemented and evaluated according to rigorous standards of research, including experimental and control group or quasi-experimental designs. They demonstrate positive improvements attributed to program implementation. Promising programs have been implemented and evaluated sufficiently and are considered to be scientifically defensible, but they have not yet been shown to have sufficient rigor or consistently positive outcomes. Noteworthy programs show improvements without experimental research designs. Our program rating is a culmination of ratings from 11 independent sources that each evaluate and list violence-prevention programs. These evaluating sources have differing criteria for program rating and varying levels of program classification. Some programs that are found to be effective by evaluating sources were not included in this list because they are not traditionally considered a school-based violence intervention program (that is, Big Brother & Big Sister of America, Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, and Nurse–Family Partnership). National organizations use different criteria to rate programs.Their


January 2005

www.preventyouth violence.vcu/ index.html

(Farrell & Meyer, 1997; Farrell, Meyer & Dahlberg, 1996)

Richmond Youth Against Violence: Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways

www.cfchildren. org

(Grossman et al., 1997)

Second Step

www.peacebuilders. com

(Embry & Flannery, 1999; Embry, Flannery, Vazsonyi, Powell & Atha, 1996; Krug, Brener, Dahlberg, Ryan, & Powell, 1997)

PeaceBuilders

Program (Authors)

Grade

Participants

12 schools (49 classrooms) N = 790 students. Random assignment and matched control group for comparison.

6 of 8 middle schools in one district (N = 1,274) students. 65% attrition by time of 2nd follow up. Final sample = 452, 90% African American.

6th grade

375 schools have program in place in AZ, CA, UT, OR, OH. Evaluation in 7 schools N = 3,899 students.

2nd & 3rd grades

K–5th grade

Lecture-based curriculum focusing on imparting knowledge about ways in which the host, agent, and environment contribute to youth violence. Sessions focused on • building trust • respect for individual differences • nature of violence and risk factors • anger management • personal values • precipitants and consequences of fighting • non-violent alternatives to fighting.

Curriculum-based program (30-lessons) consisting of activities to teach empathy, impulse control, problem solving, and anger management.

Aim of program is to change school climate. Goals are to promote pro-social behavior, reduce child aggression, and improve social competence. Five universal principles taught: • praise people • avoid put-downs • seek wise people as advisers and friends • notice and correct hurts we cause • right wrongs. Adults are to reinforce and model behaviors.

Program Components

For boys, participation resulted in significant differences in frequencies of violence and other problem behaviors (post intervention). Overall there was an increase in violent behaviors, but intervention group showed less of an increase. Girls did not report benefits. large attrition (65%) calls into question validity of findings. Students who did not participate in follow-up had higher pretest scores of violent behaviors than did those who remained. *Rated promising (3, 6)

Self-report data from Violent Behavior Survey. Assessed frequency of • student being in a fight • bringing weapon to school • being threatened • skipping school from feeling unsafe (preceding 30 days) • frequency of other risk behaviors such as drug use, vandalism, shoplifting.

(continued)

Intervention group students rated (by observers) as less physically aggressive than control group. Differences more pronounced in lunchroom and playground settings. Still significant after 6 months. No significant changes reported by teachers or parents. *Rated promising (3, 4, 5, 6, 9)

Observer ratings of student behavior in classroom, lunchroom, and playground. Parent and teacher reports of student behavior (physical aggression, verbal hostility, prosocial and neutral behaviors).

Results

Used growth curve analyses. Teachers rated significant increases in social competence for K–2nd grade- and 3rd – 5th- grade students in initial intervention schools. Teacher and student selfreports showed significant decline in boys aggression over two years of intervention. Intervention schools experienced fewer student visits to nurse’s office for treatment of injuries (compared with control schools.) (Krug et al., 1997). *Rated promising (1, 5, 6, 9)

• Social competence • Aggressive behaviors • Teacher and self-reports of aggressive behavior • Fight-related visits to nurse

Outcome Measures

Table 2: Examples of Antiviolence Programs in Schools

http://depts. washington.edu/ sdrg/

(Hawkins, Catalano, Morrison, 1989)

The Seattle Social Development Project

[email protected]. edu

(Orpinas et al., 2000)

Students for Peace Project

Program (Authors)

Grade

1st–12th grades

6th graders followed through 7th and 8th grades

Participants

Students from Seattle’s elementary schools have been followed from 1st grade in 1985 until 12th grade (N = 808).

8 middle schools in large, low SES, urban setting, divided into matched pairs (N = 2,246). Random assignment of one school in pair to control or intervention.

Parents had optional training programs throughout their children’s schooling. • 1st–2nd grade parents received 7 sessions of family management training. • 2nd–3rd grade, 4 sessions encouraged communication between themselves, teachers, and students; also created positive home environments and supported their children’s academic progress. • 5th–6th grade, 5 sessions helped parents create family positions on drugs and encouraged children’s resistance skills.

Combined parent and teacher training. Teachers received instruction that emphasizes classroom management, interactive teaching, and cooperative learning. First-grade teachers taught communication, decision making, negotiation, and conflict resolution. Sixth-grade teachers taught drug refusal skills.

School Health Promotion Council (paid school coordinator, 3–10 teachers, and nurse or counselor) coordinated curriculum implementation and organized peace-related activities. Writing contest about peace, anti-gang plays, peace week, etc. Curriculum from Second Step: • Peer mediation: trained students to mediate conflicts, formally and informally, among peers. • Peers helping peers: trained students to meet one-on-one with those who request help with personal problems (alcohol or drug use, attendance, conflicts, etc.). • Parent-education newsletters: sent to parents in the intervention schools.

Program Components Outcome Measures

Data were collected annually in student self-reported measures of • aggression • antisocial behaviors • alcohol drug use • sexual promiscuity • peer groups/affiliations • family control/discipline • communication with teachers/ parents • school attachment.

Self-reports of aggressive behavior (teasing, pushing, name-calling, hitting, encouraging students to fight, kicking, threatening to hurt or hit, getting angry easily). • frequency of fights at school • frequency of injuries due to fighting • perceptions of school safety • number of days of school absences due to feeling unsafe (0–6 in preceding month) • frequency of threats received at school (0–6 or more times in the preceding year).

Table 2: Continued Results

(continued)

*Rated effective (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11)

At the end of grade 2: Project students, compared with control students, showed lower levels of aggression and antisocial, externalizing behaviors for boys, and lower levels of self-destructive behaviors for girls. At the beginning of grade 5: Less alcohol and delinquency initiation; increases in family management practices, communication, and attachment to family; more attachment and commitment to school. At the end of grade 6: High-risk youths, compared with control youths, were more attached and committed to school, and boys were less involved with antisocial peers. At the end of grade 11: Reduced involvement in violent delinquency, sexual activity, and drinking.

*Rated noteworthy (10)

Only 27% of parents read newsletters.

No intervention effect in reducing aggressive behaviors, fights at school, injuries due to fighting, missing classes due to feeling unsafe, or being threatened to be hurt. For all variables, strongest predictor of violence in 8th grade was violence in 6th grade and low academic performance.

Controlled for baseline scores, race/ ethnicity, and academic performance.

www.clemson.edu/ olweus

(Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 1999)

Bullying Prevention Program

www.devstu.org/

(Battistich, Schaps, Watson & Solomon, 1996)

Child Development Project

Program (Authors)

4th–7th grades

3rd–6th grades

Grade

This is a comprehensive model focused on creating a cooperative and supportive school environment. Classroom components include • staff training in cooperative learning • implementation of a model that fosters cross-grade “buddying” activities • a developmental approach to discipline that fosters self-control • a model to engage students in classroom normsetting and decision making. Schoolwide community-building activities are used to promote school bonding and parent involvement activities such as interactive homework assignments that reinforce the family– school partnership. Core components of the program are School Level: • distribution of anonymous student questionnaire assessing the nature and prevalence of bullying • training staff on program • adoption of schoolwide rules against bullying • development of positive and negative consequences for students’ behavior • holding staff discussion groups involvement of parents Class Level: • reinforcement of schoolwide rules • holding classroom meetings • students to increase knowledge and empathy • informational meetings with parents Individual Level: • interventions with children who bully • interventions with children who are bullied • discussions with parents.

Students in 24 elementary schools from 6 diverse districts throughout the US (N = 4,500).

Students in 42 primary and secondary schools in Norway (N = 2,500). (The program is now international and is being applied in 15 countries. The materials are translated in more than 12 languages).

Outcome Measures

Student self-report measures collected at introduction of the program, 4 months after introduction, 1-year follow-up, and 2-year follow-up: • reports of incidents of bullying and victimization • scale of general youth antisocial behavior • assessment of school climate order and discipline • measure of social relationships and attitude toward school.

Data were collected after 1 year and 2 years of intervention. Teachers were assessed through four 90-minute observations and annual teacher questionnaires. Student assessments were self-report surveys of drug use and delinquent behavior.

Table 2: Continued Program Components

Participants Results

(continued)

*Rated effective (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9)

A 33% to 64% reduction in the level of bullying and victim incidents. A 30% to 70% reduction in aggregated peer rating variables. There was no displacement of bullying to before or after school. There was also a significant reduction in antisocial behavior such as fighting, theft, and truancy. The school climate showed marked improvement, with students reporting an increased satisfaction with school in general, positive social relationships, and positive attitude toward school work and school.

*Rated effective (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9)

Statistically significant effects were found for marijuana use, vehicle theft, and carrying a weapon. By the 2nd year of implementation, students showed significantly lower rates of skipping school, carrying a weapon, and vehicle theft (ps < .01).

Students experienced a stronger sense of community and more motivation to be helpful, better conflict-resolution skills, greater acceptance of people who are different, higher self-esteem, stronger feelings of social competence, less loneliness in school, and fewer delinquent acts.

www.fasttrack project.org

PATHS curriculum presented in this program

(Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1992a)

FAST TrackFamilies and Schools Together

hudley@education. ucsb.edu

(Hudley, Britsch, Wakefield, Demorat, & Cho, 1998)

BrainPower Program

Program (Authors)

1st–5th grades over three cohorts (Results from Grade 1 findings only are reviewed here.)

7,560 total students. 845 students were in high-risk intervention or control conditions (6,715 non-high-risk students).

198 intervention classrooms, 180 control classrooms, matched by school size, achievement levels, poverty, and ethnic diversity.

Participants

African American (85%) and Latino (15%) boys (N = 384)

Grade

3rd–6th grades

PATHS (Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies). Administered to classrooms in 57 lessons (1/2 hr sessions, 2–3 times a week): • skills for understanding and communicating emotions • skills to increase positive social behavior • self-control and social problem solving. Presented through direct instruction, discussion, modeling stories, and video. Teachers attended 2.5 day training and received weekly consultation from FAST Track staff. Quality of implementation was assessed by observer rating of teachers’ • skill in teaching PATHS concepts • managing the classroom • modeling and generalizing PATHS throughout day. • Openness to consultation

Hostile attributions are thought to determine subsequent aggression among boys. Attribution retraining was focus for intervention. Two lessons with three training components were designed to • strengthen aggressive boys’ ability to accurately detect others’ intentions • increase likelihood that aggressive boys would first attribute negative outcomes to accidental causes • link appropriate nonaggressive behavioral responses to ambiguously caused negative social outcomes. Groups of 6 students met 2 times weekly in 60-minute sessions over 6 weeks. Each group had 4 aggressive boys, and 2 nonaggressive boys.

Program Components Outcome Measures

1) Teachers were interviewed about behavior of each child in class in fall and spring of 1st grade. 2) Sociometric assessments (peer nominations made by students) collected to assess • peer aggression • peer hyperactivity/disruptiveness • peer social status 3) Quality of classroom atmosphere was assessed by observer ratings of • level of disruption • ability to handle transitions • ability to follow rules • level of cooperation • use of problem-solving skills • ability to express feelings • ability to stay focused on task • criticism vs. supportiveness.

Student attributions: Each student presented with a hypothetical scenario of destruction of property, physical harm, or social rejection with ambiguous intent. Students’ judgment of intent was the outcome. “Do you think he did this on purpose?”

Teacher ratings of students’ behavior.

Table 2: Continued Results

(continued)

*Rated: effective (2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11)

Teacher skill in program implementation was also related to positive outcomes.

Three cohorts of intervention, so teachers administered curriculum, 1, 2, or 3 times. When “teacher experience” was included in analyses, teachers who taught more cohorts had higher classroom atmosphere ratings (by neutral observer).

Intervention classrooms had lower ratings of hyperactivity/disruptive behavior and aggression and more favorable observer ratings of classroom atmosphere.

Hierarchical linear modeling (accounting for gender, site, cohort, and intervention).

*Rated: promising (3, 11)

Selected participants were classified as aggressive or nonaggressive based on teacher ratings and peer nominations of aggressive behavior. Random assignment to one of three groups: • attribution retraining • attention problem-solving skills • no-attention control group. At baseline, no differences in teacher reports of behavior or suspension rates across schools. Improvements in behavior were related to changes in students’ attributions. Intervention effects were moderate to strong for many students, not evident for some. Treatment effects diminished over time.

Grade

Grades 1– 10. (ongoing)

Long term program. Three cohorts of students.

Participants

At-risk kindergartners identified from combined teacher and parent ratings of behavior on the CBCL (Achenbach, 1991). Highest 10% recruited for study. N = 445 intervention children N = 446 control group children

Program Components

Academic tutoring provided by trained tutors in 30-minute sessions 3 times/ week

Parents met in groups led by family coordinators to discuss parenting strategies, then 30-minute parent–child cooperative activity time. Biweekly home visits.

Multiple program components. Weekly enrichment program for highrisk children and their parents. Students placed in “friendship groups” of 5 to 6 students each. Discussions, modeling stories and films, role plays. Sessions focused on reviewing and practicing skills in emotional understanding and communication, friendship building, self-control, and social problem solving.

Outcome Measures

• Externalizing Scale of CBCL: oppositional, aggressive, and delinquent behaviors - parents. • Parent Daily Report: degree to which child engaged in aggressive and oppositional behaviors during previous 24 hrs (given 3 times) • Child Behavior Change • Teacher Report Form (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1986); teacher assessment of acting out behaviors in school • Scale from the TOCA-R (Teacher Observation of Classroom Adaptation– Revised) • Authority Acceptance Scale • Peer rating of aggressive and hyperactive-disruptive behaviors.

Results

*Rated effective (2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11)

Direct observation results: • Intervention group spent more time in positive peer interaction than did the control group. • Intervention group received higher peer social preference scores than did control group. • Intervention group had higher language arts grades than control group.

Intervention group had higher scores on emotion recognition, emotion coping, and social problem solving compared with control group. They found lower rates of aggressive retaliation compared with control group.

a Rated by (1) American Youth Policy Forum, (2) Blueprints for Violence Prevention, (3) Center for Mental Health Service, (4) CSAP, (5) DOE Safe Schools, (6) Communities that Care, (7) Sherman, (8) Surgeon General Report, (9) OJJDP, (10) CDC, (11) Hamilton Fish: 1) American Youth Policy Forum: Less Hype, More Help: Reducing Juvenile Crime, What Works-and What Doesn’t, by Richard A. Mendel. American Youth Policy Forum, Washington, DC, 2000. Programs are categorized as effective (refer to www.aypf.org). 2) Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Programs are divided into model and promising (refer to www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints). 3) Center for Mental Health Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Prevention Research Center for the Promotion of Human Development: Programs are divided into effective and promising (refer to www.prevention.psu.edu) 4) Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, National Registry of Effective Programs: Programs are divided into model, promising, and effective (refer to www.modelprograms.samhsa.gov). 5) Department of Education: Safe and Drug Free Schools: Programs are divided into exemplary and promising (refer to www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/index.html?src=mr). 6) Communities that Care: Posey, Robin, Wong, Sherry, Catalano, Richard, Hawkins, David, Dusenbury, Linda, & Chappell, Patricia (2000). Communities That Care Prevention Strategies: A Research Guide to What Works. Programs are categorized as effective (refer to www.preventionscience.com/ctc/CTC.html). 7) Sherman et al. (1998): Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. University of Maryland Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice. NCJ 165366. Programs are categorized as effective (refer http://www.ncjrs.org/works/). 8) Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General: Programs are divided into model and promising: Level 1-Violence Prevention; Level 2-Risk Prevention (refer to www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolence). 9) Title V (OJJDP): Effective & Promising Programs Guide. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice. Programs are divided into exemplary, effective, and promising (refer to www.dsgonline.com). 10) Centers for Disease Control: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control – Division of Violence Prevention. Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook for Community Action 2002. Programs are categorized as effective (refer to www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/bestpractices.htm). 11) Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence. Programs are divided into effective and noteworthy (refer to www.hamfish.org/programs/).

www.fasttrack project.org

Multiple components in this program?

(Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1992b)

FAST TrackFamilies and Schools Together

Program (Authors)

Table 2: Continued

criteria are most often based on evidence of effectiveness supported by a methodologically sound evaluation with an experimental or quasi-experimental design; clarity of program goals and rationale; the program content’s consideration of the characteristics of the intended population and setting; the program’s integration into schools’ educational missions; the program’s provision of necessary information and guidance for replication in other appropriate settings; and post-treatment and follow-up data collection. On the basis of our review, it appears that successful schoolwide intervention programs have the following core implementation characteristics: • They raise the awareness and responsibility of students, teachers, and parents regarding the types of violence in their schools (for example, sexual harassment, fighting, and weapon use). • They create clear guidelines and rules for the entire school. • They target the various social systems in the school and clearly communicate to the entire school community procedures to be followed before, during, and after violent events. • They focus on getting school staff, students, and parents involved in the program. • The interventions fit easily into the normal flow and mission of the school. • They use faculty, staff, and parents in the school setting to plan, implement, and sustain the program. • They increase monitoring and supervision in nonclassroom areas. In the next section we highlight some programs that are likely to be of interest to school social workers. High-Quality Early Childhood Education

From a primary prevention perspective, high-quality preschools may help reduce violence rates. For example, data from the Perry Preschool High/Scope study suggest that a high-quality preschool education can be highly effective in reducing violence throughout the life span (Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993). In this longitudinal study, researchers found that children who were randomly assigned to participate in a high-quality preschool

28

environment were far less likely to have been involved in criminal and violent activity than those who were assigned to a lower quality preschool program.These longitudinal data suggest that these effects carry through early development into adulthood (age 27 was the latest follow-up). The effects are wide-ranging and pronounced. By age 27, students who were assigned to low-quality preschool programs were five times more likely than the highquality preschool students to have been arrested five or more times (many for violent acts). A costbenefit analysis suggested that participation in a high-quality preschool saved the general public $57,585 per child on issues related to crime and victimization alone (in 1992 dollars). Researchers (Schweinhart et al.,1993) believe that preschools’ focus on social responsibility, empowerment, decision making, and conflict resolution were important contributors to the reductions in violence. In addition, Schwienhart and colleagues believed that the tripartite focus on students, parents, and teachers accounted for the lower levels of violence throughout development. School-Based Bully and Victim Intervention Programs

During the 1970s surveys in Norway found that bullying was a considerable problem for students in Norwegian schools. To reduce bully and victim problems, Dan Olweus, a Norwegian professor, developed a comprehensive nationwide anti-bullying program for children in grades 1 through 9 in Norway. The program has many simple interventions and is aimed at students, teachers, and parents in schools, classrooms, and individual settings. Strategies that targeted the individual, classroom, and school levels include clear class rules against bullying, contingent responses (that is, praise and sanctions), parent awareness and involvement in the program, regular class meetings to clarify norms against bullying, improved supervision of the playground, and teacher involvement in the development of a positive school climate. Findings from 42 schools that participated in the program showed a 50 percent reduction in rates of bullying and victimization. Furthermore, the positive effects of the program appeared to increase over time and student satisfaction with school life increased (Olweus, 1996; Olweus et al., 1999). Similar antibullying programs have been developed in Great Britain (see Sharp & Smith, 1994,


January 2005

and Smith & Sharp, 1994, for empirical evaluations and detailed practical procedures for educators and Astor, Benbenishty, Pitner, & Meyer, 2004) and Australia (Rigby, 1996). Evaluations of those programs also show significant reductions in aggressive behaviors and increases in student satisfaction with school life. PeaceBuilders

PeaceBuilders (Embry, Flannery, Vazsonyi, Powell, & Atha, 1996) is a schoolwide violence prevention program for students in grades K through 5 that operates in almost 400 schools in Arizona, California, Ohio, and Utah. Implemented by staff and students, the program incorporates strategies to change the school climate by promoting prosocial behavior among students and staff, enhancing social competence, and reducing aggressive behavior. Children learn five principles: (1) praise people, (2) avoid put-downs, (3) seek wise people as advisers and friends, (4) notice and correct the hurts they cause, and (5) right wrongs. Teachers, administrators, and parents reinforce and model these behaviors. PeaceBuilders is different from most school-based programs in that it is not curriculum based. It is described as “a way of life” (Flaxman, Schwartz,Weiler, & Lahey, 1998).The initial evaluation results were positive and demonstrated a significant reduction in aggressive behavior and a significant increase in social competence (Flannery & Vazsonyi, 1996). Also, Krug and colleagues (1997) found that inter vention schools with the PeaceBuilders program experienced fewer student visits to the nurse’s office for treatment of injuries than did control schools. Positive Adolescents Choices Training

The Positive Adolescents Choices Training (PACT) program was designed to teach African American youths social skills to aid in prevention of violence (Yung & Hammond, 1998). A unique aspect of PACT is that it is culturally relevant and aimed at reducing aggression and victimization in high-risk youths. The program components include anger management, prosocial skills training, and violence risk education.The sessions are built around videotapes that demonstrate culturally sensitive social situations. Participants learn skills needed to solve the situations peacefully. Participants improved an average of 33.5 percent in the areas of giving feedback, problem solving, and resisting peer pressure.

Teachers also observed a significant improvement in the targeted skills of trained youths (30.4 percent) compared with untrained youths (–1.1 percent). In addition, students perceived that their greatest improvement was their ability to provide negative feedback; they felt they had the least gain in problem solving. Most important, students demonstrated a significant reduction in physical aggression at school, and their overall aggressive behavior was improved during the training and maintained when they graduated from the program (Yung & Hammond). HOW TO SELECT THE RIGHT PROGRAM AND DOCUMENT OUTCOMES

Most practitioners are aware that each school is unique and may have different kinds of problems, thus requiring different approaches. School social workers can have a significant influence nationally and locally if they demonstrate with data how they adapted programs (such as the ones discussed earlier) or created grassroots interventions. For example, one school may have a problem with sexual harassment among the younger male students, whereas another school in the same district may have a problem with weapons on school grounds among older students.These two problems may require different kinds of programs. Instituting a single antiviolence program across schools with different needs is unlikely to address the specific problems effectively in each school. As obvious as this may seem, some schools select a promising program (such as the ones discussed earlier) and never collect data to assess whether they had a problem in that area or if the intervention program the school adopted actually worked. Furthermore, from a social work and intervention perspective, it is philosophically problematic that most school violence interventions and programs are moving away from grassroots and community-generated interventions. How can school violence interventions reflect social work values of community, parent participation, and student and teacher voice? Can school interventions reflect a social work belief in democracy and participation in the definition of the problem and the creation and implementation of the interventions? How do social workers empower school communities to deal with their specific school violence problems? How do school social workers know when programs work or fail?


29

Monitoring and Mapping Violence-Prone Areas

Monitoring and school mapping are qualitative methods and processes that help create a wholeschool response and help the school identify, create, or adapt programs to the site. Our monitoring and data-based approach assumes that successful programs stem from the following beliefs: that the efforts to fit a program to a school should involve grassroots participation, that students and teachers need to be empowered to deal with the problem, that democracy is at the core of a good violence program, and that schools should demonstrate a proactive vision about the violence problem in their school. The implementation of interventions could be slightly different for each school, because it is assumed that the social dynamics of each school are unique. Each school is expected to adapt the program to their unique demographic, philosophical, and organizational needs. Data are necessary for the successful adaptation and ongoing analysis of safety programs in schools. Hence, an important element of successful violence prevention programs is the use of data in an ongoing and interactive manner. Data are used to create awareness, mobilize school constituents, assess the extent of the problem, plan interventions, and evaluate effectiveness. Information is provided continually to different groups in each step of the intervention process. Introducing school-specific data to each school group allows each school to identify its needs, limitations, strengths, and resources so that the school community can debate and choose the program that fits their needs best on a continuous, cyclical basis. Monitoring and Mapping: Case Study

A high school with approximately 1,000 students from mainly middle- and upper middle-income families was not interested in conducting schoolwide surveys but wanted to involve staff and students in violence prevention. They also wanted to adapt the interventions to their specific school. Like the quantitative survey monitoring process, this qualitative mapping process was designed to document the locations and times in each school where violence occurred for that term and the perspectives of students, teachers, staff, and administrators regarding the school’s organizational response (or non-response) to the violent events.The main goal was to use qualitative data to generate clarity about

30

the nature of the problem and diverse perspectives on causes and solutions. Students, teachers, and staff (for example, administrators, hall monitors, and cafeteria workers) were interviewed in four to five separate focus groups about the physical spaces where violence had been committed and the time of day the violence had occurred. Each group was given a simple map of their school and asked to identify where events occurred and areas of the school that felt unsafe (see Astor, Meyer, & Behre, 1999; Astor, Meyer, & Pitner, 2001; Astor, Vargas, Pitner, & Meyer, 1999, for an in-depth description of the mapping process). After students and teachers individually identified these spaces, they were asked in focus groups why they thought violent events occurred there and what could be done to improve the situation. The individual maps were consolidated into one large school map that enabled students and staff to locate “hot spots” for violence and dangerous time periods. Events tended to be clustered by time, age, gender, and location. In the case of older students (11th and 12th graders), events were clustered in the parking lot outside the auxiliary gym immediately after school; for younger students (9th and 10th graders), events were reported in the lunchroom and hallways during transition periods. The map suggested that interventions be targeted toward older students directly after school, by the main entrance, and in the school parking lot. Students and teachers agreed that increasing the number of school staff in and around the parking lot for 20 minutes after school had the potential to reduce the number of violent events. Younger students experienced violence mainly before, during, and after lunch near the cafeteria. Many students felt unsafe in the hallways between classes. Teachers suggested that all teachers and support staff stand in the hallway during transitions and positively greet “by name” as many students as possible. Many staff felt that this was a more positive message to students than having security guards yet provided a high level of supervision. Students also suggested a role in monitoring the hallways. Some student leaders suggested that they could do more in their student groups to prevent fights.They especially felt they could do more to discourage their peers from forming the large circles that often formed when a fight occurs. The focus groups identified organizational issues that could improve the violence situation in


January 2005

the school.Themes from teachers included a sense of “being caught in the middle.” Some teachers expressed a personal desire to prevent violence but did not possess the skills or knowledge of how to intervene. Many staff members were unclear about their professional role outside the classroom (see Astor, Meyer, & Behre, 1999, for a detailed description of themes that can be anticipated from each group. CONCLUSION

School social workers have an important role in school violence interventions at the local, state, and national levels through educating the public, students, and staff and overseeing the collection and provision of accurate school violence data. Many myths exist about gangs, students of color, and an increase in violence in suburban and rural schools. These stereotypes about the rates of violence and groups associated with violence are potentially harmful to students and our society. If these myths are left unchallenged, interventions will not reflect the real prevention and intervention needs of schools. School social workers could initiate important conceptual dialogue in their schools and school districts regarding the categorization of a violence problem in schools. We strongly encourage school social workers to adopt the approach that the entire school setting be the focus of violence prevention strategies. In addition, data from individual schools should be the basis for selecting interventions and evaluations. One method that incorporates all of these components is creating a school violence procedure that integrates school maps to locate violent hot spots and focus groups with students, teachers, school staff, and administrators to identify reasons why violence is occurring in certain places and potential solutions. Information obtained through either the monitoring or the mapping process could improve dialogue among students, teachers, and school staff on issues of school violence, serve as an evaluation of school violence interventions already used in a school setting, and increase school involvement in violence interventions. In conclusion, a program that is adapted to the needs of the individual school and involves the entire school community is the most likely to be successful. An important role for social workers could be the facilitation of an ongoing dialogue between the school constituents about concerns

and issues related to school violence for each school. REFERENCES Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4-18,YSR, and TRF profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1986). Child Behavior Checklist–Teacher Report Form. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry. Astor, R. A., Behre, W. J., Fravil, K. A., & Wallace, J. M. (1997). Perceptions of school violence as a problem and reports of violent events: A national survey of school social workers. Social Work, 42, 55–68. Astor, R., Behre, W., Wallace, J., & Fravil, K. (1998). School social workers and school violence: Personal safety, training, and violence programs. Social Work, 43, 223–232. Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Pitner, R. O., & Meyer, H. A. (2004). Bullying and peer victimization in schools. In P. Allen-Meares & M. W. Fraser (Eds.), Intervention with children & adolescents: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 471–448). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Astor, R., & Meyer, H. (1999). Where girls and women won’t go: Female students’, teachers’, and school social workers’ views of school safety. Social Work in Education, 21, 201–219. Astor, R. A., & Meyer, H. (2001). The conceptualization of violence prone school sub-contexts: Is the sum of the parts greater than the whole? Urban Education, 36, 374–399. Astor, R., Meyer, H., & Behre, W. (1999). Unowned space and time in high schools: Mapping violence with students and teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 3–42. Astor, R., Meyer, H., & Pitner, R. (2001). Elementary and middle school students’ perceptions of violenceprone school sub-contexts. Elementary School Journal, 101, 511–528. Astor, R. A.,Vargas, L. A., Pitner, R. O., & Meyer, H. A., (1999). School violence: Research, theory, & practice. In J. M. Jenson & M. O. Howard (Eds.), Youth violence: Current research and recent practice innovations (pp. 139–172). Washington, DC: NASW Press. Battistich,V., Schaps, E., Watson, M., & Solomon, D. (1996). Prevention effects of the Child Development Project: Early findings from an ongoing multisite demonstration trial. Journal of Adolescent Research, 11, 12–35. Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2003). Cultural specific and cross-cultural bully/victim patterns: The response from Israel. In P. K. Smith (Ed.), Violence in schools:The response in Europe (pp. 317–331). New York: Routledge Falmer. Benbenishty, R., Astor, R.A., Zeira, A., & Vinokur, A., (2002). Perceptions of violence and fear of school attendance among junior high school students in Israel. Social Work Research, 26, 71–88. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002). Surveillance summaries. MMWR, 51(SS-4), 1–21. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1992a). Initial impact of the Fast Track Prevention Trial for conduct problems: I. The high-risk sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 631–647. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1992b). Initial impact of the Fast Track Prevention Trial for conduct problems: II. Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 648–657.


31

DeVoe, J., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Ruddy, S., Miller, S., Planty, M., Snyder, T., Duhart, D., & Rand, M. (2003). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2002 (NCES 2003-009/NCJ 196753). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice. Embry, D. D., & Flannery, D. J. (1999). Two sides of the coin: Multilevel prevention and intervention to reduce youth violent behavior. In D. J. Flannery & C. R. Huff (Eds.), Youth violence: Prevention, intervention, and social policy (pp. 47–72). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press. Embry, D., Flannery, D.,Vazsonyi, A., Powell, K., & Atha, H. (1996). Peace Builders: A theoretically driven, school-based model for early violence prevention. American Journal of Prevention Medicine, 12, 91–100. Farrell, A. D., & Meyer, A. L., (1997). The effectiveness of a school-based curriculum for reducing violence among urban sixth-grade students. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 979–984. Farrell, A. D., Meyer, A. L., & Dahlberg, L. L. (1996). Richmond Youth Against Violence: A school-based program for urban adolescents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12, 13–21. Flannery, D., & Vazsonyi, A. (1996). PeaceBuilders: A school-based model for early violence prevention. Chicago: American Society of Criminology. Flaxman, E., Schwartz, W., Weiler, J., & Lahey, M. (1998). Trends and issues in urban education, 1998. Retrieved January 20, 1999 from http://ericweb.tc.columbia. edu/monographs/ti20 Grossman, D. C., Neckerman, H. J., Koepsell, T. D., Liu, P.Y., Asher, K. N., Beland, K., Frey, K., & Rivara, F. P. (1997). Effectiveness of a violence prevention curriculum among children in elementary school: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 277, 1605– 1611. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., & Morrison, D. M. (1989, April). Seattle Social Development Project: Cumulative effects of interventions in grades 1–4. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO. Heaviside, S., Rowand, C., Williams, C., & Farris, E. (1998). Violence and discipline problems in U. S. public schools: 1996–1997( NCES 98-030). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics. Hudley, C., Britsch, B., Wakefield, T., Demorat, M., & Cho, S. (1998). An attribution retraining program to reduce aggression in elementary school students. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 271–282. Jenson, J. M., & Howard, M. O. (1999). Youth violence: Current research and recent practice innovations. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Kachur, P., Stennies, G., Powell, K., Modzeleski, W., Stephens, R., Murphy, R., Kresnow, M., Sleet, D., & Lowry, R. (1996). School-associated violent deaths in the United States, 1992 to 1994. JAMA, 275, 1729–1733. Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Choy, S., Chandler, K., Chapman, C., Rand, M., & Ringel, C. (1998). Indicators of school crime and safety, 1998 (NCES 98-251/NCJ-172215). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice. Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Choy, S., Ruddy, S., Miller, A., Fleury, J., Chandler, K., Rand., M., Klause, P., & Planty, M. (2000). Indicators of school crime and safety, 2000 (NCES 2001-017/NCJ-184176).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice. Krug, E. G., Brener, N. D., Dahlberg, L. L., Ryan, G. W., & Powell, K. E. (1997). A pilot evaluation of a school-

32

based violence prevention program. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 13, 459–463. Nansel, T., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R., Ruan, W., SimonsMorton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among U.S. youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. JAMA, 285, 2094–2100. National School Safety Center. (2003). The National School Safety Center’s report on school associated violent deaths. Westlake Village, CA: Author. Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems at school: Facts and effective intervention. Reclaiming Children and Youth: Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 5, 15–22. Olweus, D., Limber, S., & Mihalic, S. F. (1999). Blueprints for violence prevention: Book nine—Bullying prevention program. Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Orpinas, P., Kelder, S., Frankowski, R., Murray, N., Zhang, Q., & McAlister, A. (2000). Outcome evaluation of a multi-component violenceprevention program for middle schools: The Students for Peace project. Health Education Research, 15, 45–58. Rigby, K. (1996). Bullying in schools: And what to do about it. Melbourne,Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research. Schweinhart, L., Barnes, H., & Weikart, D. (1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry preschool study through age 27 (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, No. 10).Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Sharp, S., & Smith, P. (1994). Tackling bullying in your school: A practical handbook for teachers. London: Routledge. Smith, P., & Sharp, S. (1994). School bullying. London: Routledge. U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice. (2000). 2000 Annual report on school safety. Washington, DC: Author. Yung, B., & Hammond, R. (1998). Breaking the cycle: A culturally sensitive violence prevention program for African-American children. In L. Lutzker (Ed.), Handbook of child abuse research and treatments (pp. 319–340). New York: Plenum Press. Zeira, A., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2002). Sexual harassment in Jewish and Arab public schools in Israel. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 149–166. Zeira, A., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2003). School violence in Israel: Findings of a national survey. Social Work, 48, 471–483.

Ron Avi Astor, PhD, is associate professor, Schools of Social Work and Education, University of Southern California, MRF Building, Room 102C, 669 West 34th Street, Los Angelels, CA 90089-0411; e-mail: rastor@usc. edu. Heather Ann Meyer, PhD, is a lecturer in human development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Rami Benbenishty, PhD, is professor, Paul Baerwald School of Social Work, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Roxana Marachi, PhD, is assistant professor, Department of Child and Adolescent Development, California State University at Northridge. Michelle Rosemond, MA, is a doctoral candidate, School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Accepted February 24, 2004


January 2005