ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - UNICEF · child rights representing 74.6% of the target that was achieved. •...

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you to UNICEF, the Dispute Resolution Foundation and the Ministry of Education Youth and Culture, Guidance Counselling Unit for their assistance.

Thank you to the schools and the professionals that kindly participated in the process and graciously accommodated the evaluation team at short notice.

Thank you to the parents that took time out of their busy days to come and talk to us.

Thank you to my good friend Althea Bailey for kindly assisting me with the analysis.

And special heartfelt thanks to all the wonderful children and young people for sharing their stories and their opinions with clarity, honesty, sadness, laughter and maturities well beyond their years.

Audrey BrownProject Evaluation Consultant

May 2011

iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

• AM-Anger Management

• CR-Conflict Resolution

• CSPL-Creating Safe Places for Learning in Schools Project

• DRF-Dispute Resolution Foundation

• FGD-Focus Group Discussion

• MOH-Ministry of Health

• MOE-Ministry of Education

• PCG-Primary Caregiver (parent/guardian)

• PJC-Peace and Justice Centre

• RGCEO-Regional Guidance and Counselling Education Officer

• SBMT -School Behaviour Management Teams

• SBP-School-Based Professional

• SSP-School Suspension Programme

• UNCRC-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989

• UNICEF-United Nations Children’s Fund

• VPC-Violence Prevention Clinic

• YPF-Youth Peace Facilitator

iv

JAMAICAN PATOIS/STANDARD ENGLISH TRANSLATION

JAMAICAN PATOIS TRANSLATION TO STANDARD ENGLISH

• ah=at

• barekilla=a lot of killers

• bwoy=boy

• dawg=dog

• de=the

• deh=there

• dehwid=want to be with sexually in the context that is was said

• dem=them (on its own) Placed after a noun, e.g. teacher dem, it pluralizes the noun, placed after before a noun it becomes their

• fi=to or for

• fren=friend

• han=hand

• im=him

• ina=into

• likkle=little

• madda=mother

• mi=me or my

• minuh=I am not

• neva=never

• nuh=not, or don’t or doesn’t

• pickney=children

• pon=on

• seh=say

• tek=take

• tump=to thump or to hit

• underneat=underneath and in the context that it is said it refers to genitalia

• waan=want

• wha=what

• wi=us or we

• yuh=you or your

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................................................... iiLIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................iiiJAMAICAN PATOIS/STANDARD ENGLISH TRANSLATION ....................................................................... ivEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................021. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................042. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION ......................................................................................063. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................074. FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................114.1 Findings and Analysis ................................................................................................................................114.1.1. Summary of Quantitative Findings...................................................................................................114.1.2 Findings of Students’ Survey ...............................................................................................................194.1.3 Findings of School Based Professionals’ Survey ...........................................................................284.1.4 Findings of Parents/Primary Caregivers’ Survey .........................................................................294.1.5. Summary of Qualitative Findings .....................................................................................................304.2 CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................................................................................................365. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................................37Sustainability Plan ............................................................................................................................................39BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................................41Appendix I ............................................................................................................................................................42Appendix II ...........................................................................................................................................................44Appendix III .........................................................................................................................................................45Appendix IV .........................................................................................................................................................46Appendix V ...........................................................................................................................................................55Appendix VI .........................................................................................................................................................66Appendix VII ........................................................................................................................................................77Appendix VIII ......................................................................................................................................................82Appendix IX .........................................................................................................................................................84Appendix X ...........................................................................................................................................................85Appendix XI .........................................................................................................................................................86Appendix XII ........................................................................................................................................................93

02

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Development of the Creating Safe Places for Learning in Schools Project (CSPL), which was piloted in thirty schools in Kingston, St Catherine and St James, was a response to an urgent need to address the increasing problem of violence among Jamaican school children. The project was a collaboration of the Ministry of Education, (MOE), the Dispute Resolution Foundation (DRF) and the Violence Prevention Clinic (VPC) at the University of the West Indies and was supported by UNICEF between July 2007 and December 2010.Thirty schools were selected for the CSPL Project based on the number of incidents of conflict and violence reported in schools, geographical proximity to the DRF Peace and Justice Centres in the Education Regions I, IV and VI covering schools in Kingston, Montego Bay and Spanish Town and their proximity to volatile communities. The primary objectives of the project were to equip school-based professionals (SBPs), primary caregivers (PCGs) and students to better manage anger and mitigate conflict and violence, create a safer school environment and promote child rights and responsibilities. A baseline study was conducted to assess the situation at the start of the project (2008) and an interim assessment was conducted in February 2010.

A mixed methodology approach was applied to the evaluation. Seventeen purposively selected target schools and the Peace and Justice Centres were the sites where surveys, interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) among students, SBPs and PCGs were conducted.

The key findings are:

• The project exceeded its target by training more than double the number of SBPs (472) originally targeted (200).

• The Anger Management and Conflict Resolution toolkit was critical in meaningfully engaging SBPs in this project and ensuring a measure of standardization on tackling the issue of violence in schools.

• Two thousand four hundred and thirty five (2,435) parents were trained in anger management, conflict resolution and alternate disciplinary practices which represented only 40.6% of the target.

• Approximately 20,387 children and young people were trained in anger management and conflict resolution.

• Two hundred and eighty (280) school based professionals were equipped with knowledge of child rights.

• One thousand, four hundred and ninety-two (1,492) primary caregivers were sensitized in child rights representing 74.6% of the target that was achieved.

• Twenty-seven thousand, eight hundred and eighty (27,880) young people were positively motivated by behavioural messages supporting violence prevention through diverse media.

• Two thousand, three hundred and twenty three (2,323) students completed the DRF School Suspension Programme (SSP) during the life of the project this programme was considered very effective by students and school-based professionals in positively modifying behaviour.

• A Safe Schools Policy was drafted, the purpose of which was to provide an “agenda for action

03to enable the creation of safe, secure, child-friendly and stimulating learning environments in schools.

The Creating Safe Places for Learning in Schools (CSPL) project undoubtedly played a critical role in the broader Safe School Programme which is a partnership between the MOE, the Ministry of National Security and the Ministry of Health. It appears to have contributed to transforming the landscape of schools from being that of conflict reactive to conflict proactive with the introduction of preventative measures beginning in the early years to mould and shape the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of young children away from violent conflict.

Although 42% of respondents said that they consider the communities they live in to be violent and students in focus groups recounted countless stories of witnessing murders and shootings, there appeared to be positive changes in the perceptions about school safety, as more persons report that violence is decreasing in schools than not and the majority feel safe at school. However the project did not succeed in capturing critical incidence data in the pilot schools to support this perception, which was a missed opportunity that limits the evidence of effectiveness.

The Creating Safe Places for Learning in Schools Project (CSPL) achieved significant success in meeting the majority of the project indicators and expected outcomes and should continue to be implemented in targeted schools.

As violence impacts education, health and security, investment from the MOE, the MOH, the Ministry of National Security and the Ministry of Justice, whose partnership has already been established through the Safe Schools Programme is advised, to support different aspects of this behavioural intervention. In addition, there is a need to build strong partnerships with key duty bearers, the private sector, parents and communities to maximize home and school safety initiatives to support violence prevention. Effectiveness of this critical school intervention requires a joint sector approach that can provide a holistic and balanced approach to implementation and long-term sustainability. Therefore a plan proposing the steps for key duty bearers to take to strengthen the governance, legislative and policy framework for implementation of this initiative include establishing a shared vision, strategies and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to track violent incidents in schools. If the approach is not comprehensive and multi-faceted, no matter how well delivered or theoretically unassailable behavioural interventions are, they will yield limited results to children engulfed in community violence.

04

1. BACKGROUND

Jamaica is one of the most violent societies in the world1 and as a consequence Jamaican school-children, especially those living in what are often referred to as ‘inner-city’ communities are highly exposed to violent acts, including stabbing, shooting and sexual assault. Many studies in recent years have reported the high percentage of Jamaican children that have witnessed a murder or seen a dead body in mainly the Kingston Metropolitan, St James and St Catherine areas, where a multiplicity of criminal gangs control whole communities. This increasing phenomenon is numbing the senses of Jamaican children to violence and in turn bringing about both a fear and an acceptance of violence as a way to resolve conflicts. Jamaican children have therefore been seen playing next to and eating food in close proximity to newly murdered corpses1 demonstrating inappropriate social responses to this kind of trauma. There is no doubt that exposure to violence among Jamaican youth is a public health crisis that is thwarting the efforts of parents and educators to positively mould and shape the attitudes and behaviours of young people and divert them away from violence. The CSPL Project was piloted in 30 schools between July 2007 and December 2010 and was a collaboration of the Ministry of Education, (MOE), the Dispute Resolution Foundation (DRF) and the Violence Prevention Clinic in the University of the West Indies (VPC)

Despite the challenges that Jamaica faces with crime and violence, the World Health Organization asserts that violence is preventable. Jamaica must therefore proceed as such if it is to respect the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (CRC) for which it is a signatory and abide by the Child Care and Protection Act 2004, which places a statutory obligation on society to protect its children wherever they happen to be. The WHO Report on Violence and Health also outlines the substantial and crippling financial costs to society of violence that affects social welfare, criminal justice, health and education sectors and results in, loss of productivity, disability, decreased quality of life, premature deaths, and pervasive psychological trauma.

In the view of Professor Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, a leading world expert on violence and author of the 2006 UN Study on Violence Against Children, “In an environment where violence breeds more violence, the ways in which Jamaican children are subjected to violence are inextricably linked to the unrelenting levels of crime and violence affecting the island.” In February 2008 he urged the Jamaican government do all it can to end the cycle of violence.2

Thirty schools were selected for the CSPL Project based on three main factors. Incidents of conflict and violence reported by the schools, geographical proximity to the DRF Peace and Justice Centres, that were established in a first phase of a project supported by UNICEF in 2006, to assist schools with conflict resolution and mediation in Peace and Justice Centres (PJC) facilitated by trained Youth Peace Facilitators (YPF) located in or near to communities with elevated levels of crime and violence. Schools were selected from Education Regions I, IV and VI covering schools in Kingston and St Andrew, St James and St Catherine. The primary objectives of the project were to promote child rights and responsibilities, foster the skills among 200 school-based professionals, 6000 parents and 6000 students to better manage anger and mitigate conflict and violence and to ultimately create a safer school environment. It also sought to promote alternative forms of discipline in schools the culturally accepted method of corporal punishment that was prohibited in schools by the MOE in 1 Perceptions and experiences of violence among secondary school students in urban Jamaica-Julie Meeks Gardner, Christine A. Powell, Joan A. Thomas and Doreen Millard2 Montego Bay weeps - Children hurting-Gleaner Report March 20093 UNICEF Assessment of the Child Abuse Mitigation Project at the Bustamante Hospital for Children, Jennifer Jones and Audrey Brown

052008, but is yet to be formally abolished under the Education Regulations Act 1980.

The Dispute Resolution Foundation’s primary role in the project was to work with students, school-based professionals and parents on fostering anger management, conflict resolution and mediation strategies in schools to reduce violence. This was delivered through a Schools Outreach Programme and a School Suspension Programme (SSP) that offered a safe and controlled environment for schools to refer students who were suspended from school.

The Ministry of Education Guidance Counselling Unit in partnership with the DRF’s Peace and Justice Centre’s primary function was to deliver the school-based component of the project. This included training teachers in conflict resolution and anger management techniques and training master trainers who could train other school-based professionals in the subject and deliver lessons using the Anger Management and Conflict Resolution toolkit (See Violence Prevention Clinic) They also worked alongside Ashe Perfoming Arts Company to deliver a live dramatic production in schools entitled ‘Curfew’ that tackles the issues of violence and conflict resolution that was accompanied by small group discussions. The MOE also sought to change the disciplinary environment in schools from the pro corporal punishment approach to zero-tolerance of its use through a process of legislative reform. In addition to this the MOE was to, sensitize school-based professional, students and parents on child rights and responsibilities.

With UNICEF’s technical and financial support the Violence Prevention Clinic (VPC) developed the Anger Management and Conflict Resolution toolkit, which has lessons plans and activity sheets that cover four thematic areas; Understanding My Feelings, Understanding Anger, Anger Triggers, Skills and Techniques in Managing Anger. This material is also supported by a range of print material, such as flash cards, posters, story books that are connected to the workbooks and cover ages 5-7, 8-11 and 12 years and over and is underpinned by the cognitive Behavioural Therapy Model of behaviour change. The toolkit also contains a Peer Mediation manual and a Parenting Toolkit that also contains lesson plans and activity sheets. The VPC delivered the training to school-based professionals.

The project was guided by a performance framework that was developed from the results of the Conflict Resolution as a Solution - Creating Safe places for Learning, Baseline Assessment and Performance Framework, conducted in February-June 2008 prior to implementation of the schools component of the pilot project. The baseline provided data on some critical areas for the project and a performance framework that set out over thirty (30) indicators (outlined in the Evaluation Framework, Appendix VII) for which the project should monitor and evaluate.

From the total target school population of 33,445, 41% (13,571) of students were exposed to the CSPL project. Some students were selected based on their teacher’s perceived risk of them, while some schools applied a universal approach to project implementation in their classes. There was a marked difference in the proportion of children who participated in the project in Region I, cover-ing Kingston and Region IV covering Montego Bay, compared to Region VI covering the schools in Spanish Town.

06Figure 1. Percentage of Target School Population who Participated in the CSPL Project (Source MOE)

2. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

This evaluation of the Creating Safe Place for Learning Project June 2008-December 2010 is guided by the indicators outlined in UNICEF’s Multifaceted Activity Proposals with the Ministry of Education and the Dispute Resolution Foundation and UNICEF’s Creating Safe Places for Learning Project- Terms of Reference for the Consultant to meet the following objectives:

1. Ascertain the % change in the incidence of violence and violence-inflicted injuries in the target schools

2. Ascertain knowledge and skill levels of school professionals, caregivers and students in conflict resolution and mediation.

3. Ascertain the attitudes of school professionals, caregivers and students to violence in schools.

4. Ascertain the attitudes of school professionals, caregivers and students to the use of corporal punishment.

5. Determine the impact of the project to promote and improve efforts to detect, manage, mitigate and refer children as perpetrators or as victims of violence and violence related injuries for the purpose of informing future policy and programmatic efforts.

07

3. METHODOLOGY

An assumption underpinning the evaluation and methodology was that a baseline assessment was conducted encompassing all 30 schools to ensure that valid data exists on which to measure specific indicators and assess the impact of this project.

In an attempt to answer the critical questions inherent in the objectives, a mixed methodology approach was applied. Quantitative research used primary and secondary data to measure numerical and proportional changes that have taken place from the baseline study, anticipating a percentage reduction of 15% in violent incidents in 30 target schools that received the intervention. The methods for collecting post intervention quantitative data and qualitative data were closely linked to the questions posed in the baseline survey and the methods to provide some consistency of measurements and reliability and in order for comparisons to be made from the baseline position. The Anger Management and Conflict Resolution Manual3 was also used as a guide to question development to ensure that the language and subject areas in the investigative tools reflected this material and were readily identifiable to the respondents. Tailor-made instruments for focus group discussions (FGD) with students, interviews with SBPs and key informants and survey questionnaires for SBPs, students and PCGs were developed (See Appendices I to VI. The process is outlined in detail in the Evaluation Framework in Appendix VII).

Originally it was proposed that random sampling of schools and beneficiaries of the 30 target schools in the pilot be applied to this evaluation. However, based on the views of the Technical Working Committee, it was advised that not all schools had implemented the programme extensively, as the in-school component using the manual started in January 2010. Additionally not all students were selected for this intervention as some schools focused their efforts on ‘at-risk’ students. Therefore it was unlikely that any impact of the project could be measured from random sampling. Therefore it was agreed that 17 purposively selected target schools and the Peace and Justice Centres that were actively engaged in implementation be used as the sites for which surveys, interviews and FGD among students, SBPs and parents would take place (See Table 1, List of Pilot Schools, Appendix X).

Letters requesting participation in the evaluation were sent to 17 School Principals from the MOE along with parent consent forms. (See Appendices VIII & IX) Schools were requested to identify the students that were exposed to the CSPL pilot and seek written consent from their parents to participate in the evaluation.

The following information outlines the proposed sample:

a. Focus group discussions in 6 of the 17 selected target schools and 3 Peace and Justice Centres stratified by parish, type of school and population size exposed to intervention. Purposive selection of boys and girls in schools was applied based on exposure to the CSPL intervention.

b. Administered survey of 153 purposively selected students in 14 of the 17 purposively selected target schools and 3 Peace and Justice Centres, stratified by parish, type of school and exposed to intervention. Students in FGD were excluded.

c. Administered survey of 28 purposively selected school based professionals (Prinicipals, Vice Principals, Teachers, Guidance Counsellors, Deans of Disciplines) in 14 target schools stratified by parish and type of school.

4 Violence Prevention Clinic, UWI, Anger Management and Conflict Resolution Manual for Schools, Claudette Crawford-Brown.

08d. Administered survey of 28 purposively selected parents (mothers, fathers etc, guardians) in

14 selected target schools, stratified by parish, type of school.

e. Interviews with 9 purposively selected SBPs and or Peace & Justice Centre (PJC) Staff in 6 of the 17 purposively selected target schools and 3 of the PJC stratified by parish, type of school and grade level.

f . Key Stakeholder Interviews (13) were held with the Technical and Management Leaders as follows:

• Child Protection Specialist-UNICEF

• Project Lead- MOE

• Project Lead–DRF

• Interviews - Youth Peace Facilitators (5)

• Regional Guidance Officers (Region 1, 6 & 4) (3)

• Claudette Crawford-Brown-Project Lead –VPC, UWI (1)

Student Profile

A total of 130 students, 85% of the original proposed sample were surveyed. Forty-three percent (43%) were male and 57% were female. The full sample complement was not achieved because two of the 17 schools selected did not engage in the evaluation process and one Peace and Justice Centre selected did not have any boys and girls registered in the SSP when data was being collected.

Fifty six boys and 74 girls who were selected by the schools were surveyed from primary, primary junior high and high schools in Kingston, Spanish Town and Montego Bay.

(See figures 2 & 3 and Table 2)

Figure 2. Students Surveyed By Sex

09Figure 3. Number of Students by Grade Levels

Table 2. Students Surveyed by Parish

STUDENTS SURVEYED BY PARISH

Parish Frequency Percent

Kingston & St. Andrew

61 46.9

Spanish Town & St. Catherine

27 20.8

Montego Bay, St. James

41 31.5

Total 129 99.2

Missing value 1 0.8

Total 130 100.0

There were no particular trends in relation to the number of children coming from a single community. With the exception of Flankers in St James, where 8 children came from, Jones Town, 7 children and Vineyard Town, 4 children, all other communities across the three parishes had three or less children. The largest group of children (51) reported living with a single mother (39.2%), which is slightly lower than the national average (approx 45%), only 11% of the children lived with both biological parents. Children were two and a half times more likely to live with a mother and a step father (11.5%) than a father and a step mother (4.6%). Grandmothers in female headed households accounted for 8.5% of the childcare profile. The second largest proportion of children (16.2%) does not live with either biological parent or a grandparent. These children have ‘other’ arrangements and live with aunts, uncles, brothers or sisters, step mothers or step fathers or a guardian. (See figures 4 & 5, Appendix XI) The differences in living arrangements among the student population is not significant (p= 0.162) and number of rooms tends to correlate to the number of persons in the household. (See figure 5, Appendix XI)

10Primary Caregivers: Twenty-one PCGs were interviewed. Twenty out of 21 (95.2%) of these parents were also female. Thirty eight percent (38.1%) of the parents were lone females raising their children and a similar proportion to the students.

School Based Professionals: Twenty-one SBPs were also interviewed, 85.7% of whom were female-a similar proportion to students and PCGs.

Analysis

Primary and secondary quantitative data was compared pre and post test, matched against baseline data where available. Thematic analysis was then applied to qualitative data to assess compatibility between qualitative and quantitative findings and to what extent the project is responsible for the outcomes and knowledge and attitudes to violence, conflict resolution and anger management in schools. Quantitative data was entered in SPSS 6. and the appropriate statistical tests of association and significance performed.

Limitations

• Purposive sampling had to be used because the schools component was not fully implemented with students; therefore random sampling was unlikely to show any impact the programme may have had.

• The size and variation in the sample of boys and girls in the baseline (2,477) that were randomly selected and post test (153) that were purposively selected means that comparisons between the two groups are likely to be unreliable This may also mean that with a purposive sample the responses are more favourable and the impact of the project is overstated

• There were challenges with some of the baseline data for schools insofar as it was inconsistent and the survey findings for students was not summarised

• The Performance Framework for the project contained far too many indicators that overlapped and which were not a part of the monitoring evaluation system Also baseline data was absent for many of the indicators

• There was no clear division of labour on this project in relation to the expected outcomes, so it is unclear on some of the shared targets what the MOE were responsible for or the DRF were responsible for and how each of these partners performed against them.

• Only 17 out of 30 schools were appropriate targets for the evaluation as they had delivered at least one full component of the programme and delivery started in January 2010, eight months prior to the start of the final project evaluation.

• Lack of synergy between MOE critical incident reporting and project indicators and a lack of baseline data for critical incidents in schools, coupled with the absence of a clear definition of a critical incident or a violence related incident meant that quantitative analysis of a % reduction in critical incidents was not possible and therefore assessment comes from the perceptions of students, school-based professionals and parents in the survey and focus groups.

• A short-time-frame to complete evaluation meant that some schools were unable to participate and some schools did not engage with the evaluation process at all, narrowing down the sample size somewhat.

11

4. FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Findings and Analysis

4.1.1. Summary of Quantitative Findings

The following matrix outlines the progress of the project towards meeting the indicators and expected outcomes from project reports.

Table 3.

Expected Outcome/Indicators BASELINE* OUTCOMEExpected Outcome:15%Re-ductioninViolentIncidentsin30targetSchoolsfromBaselinepositionbyendofproject(De-cember2010)

INDICATORS

1. #Studentsinvolvedinviolencerelatedincidents(VRI)

2. #&%ofviolencerelatedinjuriesintargetschoolsinflictedbyaweapon

3. #ofweaponsconfiscatedfromstudents

4. #ofhourslostduetoschoolbasedviolence

Baseline:

1. Data shows that there were approximately 1237 students involved in VRI in schools in 2007.

(This denominator was calculated for consistency as there was a mixture of absolute figures or percent-ages used for schools in the baseline. (65% of 415 males=270, 35% of 328 females=115 + 852=123)

2. Baseline: 495

3. Baseline: 531

(but individual types of weapons confiscated from 21 schools adds up to 603, therefore this data may be unreliable)

4. Baseline: No data

As percentages were given for two schools, the baseline data is likely to be inexact. An indica-tor for this particular variable was not included in the monitor-ing and evaluation framework, hence the data was not collected and there is no post test data to compare it with.(SeeRelevanceofCriticalIncidenceonpage17)

1. Post test: No data collected



*Baseline: Source - Conflict Resolution as a Solution-Creating Safe Places for Learning, Baseline As-sessment and Performance Framework.

12

Expected Outcome/Indicators BASELINE OUTCOMEExpectedOutcome:200(100in2008&100 in 2009) pro-fessionals and school based professionals equipped with the knowledge and skills in conflict resolution and media-tion through 1 day training exercises.

5.#ofschoolbasedprofession-alstrainedinconflictresolutionandmediationskills(MasterTrainers)

6.#ofschoolbasedprofession-alstrainedinskillstodetect,managemitigateandreferchil-drenasperpetratorsorvictimsofviolence

Expected Outcome: 6,000 parents equipped with the knowledge and skills to better manage conflict in their homes and use alternate disciplinary practices for peaceful conflict resolution and discipline

7. #ofparentstrainedincon-flictresolutionandmedia-tionskills

8. #ofparentsknowledgeableaboutangermanagementtechniques%ofparentsknowledgeableofconflictresolution

4. Baseline: 391

6. Baseline: 83

7. Baseline: It is not possible to make a comparison from the baseline position as no quan-titative data was captured at baseline for indicators 7-10 as parents were not included in the baseline survey.

5. Trained: 472 SBPS

Source: MOE September 2010 Report, yr to date, herein referred to as (MOE)

Post test: 863 (this includes Mas-ter Trainers)

6. Trained: 472 (MOE) (these SBPs are the same as the above)

Post test: 555.

Representing an approximate 7 fold increase of SBPs trained to detect, manage, mitigate and refer children as perpetrators or victims of violence in schools.

7. Post Test: 2435

Only 40.6% of the target was met up to December 2010. (361 (MOE-Dec 2010) Trained: 2074 DRF: Sources: DRF Report on Achievements 2008-May 2010 and Report Jan-December 2010

8-10 See Survey Findings

139. % of parents knowledge-able of conflict resolution

10. % of parents knowledge-able of alternate disciplinary practices

Expected Outcome: 6,000 children equipped with the knowledge and skills to bet-ter resolve conflicts peacefully and promote peaceful solution building in homes; schools and communities

11.#ofchildrentrainedinconflictresolutionandmedia-tionskills

12. %ofstudentpopulationprovidedwithangerman-agementandconflictresolu-tionclasses

11. Baseline: 30% of students in the survey of 2477 stu-dents said they had partici-pated in conflict resolution session, which is equal to 743 students.

12. Baseline: 6792

Trained: 275 (MOE) (Peer Me-diators)

Trained: 20,112(DRF) (4381 in 2008, 6238 in 2009, 4501 in Jan-May 2010, and 3217 in July-September 2010, 1775 Oct-Dec 2010 (Schools and communities & Outreach)

Sources: DRF Report on Achievements 2008-May 2010 and Report July-September 2010 and report for Oct-De-cember 2010.

11. Post test: Approximately 20,387 students were trained.

The project exceeded the target of 6000 by over three-fold and represents 61% (20,387/33,445) of the total target school popula-tion, although not all of these students that were reached would have been in the target schools, as many would be in the surrounding communities and engaged through the outreach activi-ties.

12. Trained: 13,683 (MOE Report Sept 2010)

Post Test: 20,475

An increase of 101.46% of students provided with conflict resolution classes since the baseline in 2008 and representing 61.2% (6792+13,683/33,445 x 100) of target school population.

14

Expected Outcome/Indicators BASELINE OUTCOME13.%oftotalnumberofchil-drencompletingallworkshopdays

14.%ofchildrenreportinglessuseofviolencetoresolveconflict

13. Baseline: Not applicable


13. Post test: No data was col-lected on this indicator

14. Post test: No data was col-lected on this indicator

Expected Outcome: 100 School Based Professionals equipped with knowledge on Child rights

15.#ofSchoolbasedprofes-sionalsabletonamethreerightsandcorrespondingresponsibilitiestobetterprotectchildren

15. Baseline: No data 15. Sensitized: 280 (MOE Dec 2010)

SBPs were equipped with knowledge of child rights, almost three times that of the target of 100. It is not possible from these figures however to deduce the number that can name three rights and corre-sponding responsibilities, but the survey attempts to assess this knowledge in a small sample .(See Section III)

Expected Outcome:2,000 pri-mary caregivers equipped with knowledge on child rights

16.#ofprimarycaregivers,abletonamethreerightsandcorrespondingresponsibilitiestobetterprotectchildren

16. Baseline: No data 16. Sensitized: =1492 (MOE Dec 2010)

1492 Primary caregivers were sensitized in child rights rep-resenting 74.6% of the target that was achieved. The survey attempts to assess the extent of this knowledge (See section III)

15Expected Outcome/Indicators BASELINE OUTCOME

Expected Outcome:15,000 children equipped with knowl-edge on child rights

17.#ofchildren,abletonamethreerightsandcorrespondingresponsibilitiestobetterprotectchildren

Expected Outcome:150,000 children and young people aware of and positively moti-vated by positive behavioural messages supporting violence prevention through diverse media

18.#ofedutainmentsessionsdelivered

19.#ofpost-performancefocusgroupdiscussions




17. There were no children sensi-tized in child rights and this tar-get was not met (MOE) However the survey attempts to assess this knowledge among sampled stu-dents.

** It is important to note that the expected outcome of 15000 students equipped with knowledge of child rights was an initial activity of a Child Rights Campaign to be coor-dinated through this programme. However UNICEF decided to re-move this activity from the proposal because students were exposed to child rights and responsibilities through their regular Guidance classes.

18. 29 Edutainment sessions were delivered to 27,880 young people were positively motivated by behav-ioural messages supporting violence prevention through diverse media, representing 18.6% of original target. The rationale for setting such a high target (4.5 times that of the target school population) could not be ascertained. But this outcome represents a reach equivalent to 83.4% of the target school popula-tion.

19. No data was collected for this indicator

16Expected Outcome/Indicators BASELINE OUTCOMEExpected Outcome:150,000 adolescents in St. James; St. Catherine; Kingston and St. Andrew aware of the avail-ability and location of child friendly conflict resolution and mediation services

20.#ofadolescentsaccessingconflictresolutionandmedia-tionservicesateachofthe5ChildfriendlyPeaceandJus-ticeCentres

21.%increaseinthenumberofadolescentsin2008and2009accessingtheservicesoftheChildfriendlyPeaceandJus-ticeCentres



20. Post test: = 2323 (109 in 2008, 957 Jan-Dec 2009 & 1257 Jan-Dec-2010)

Two thousand, three hundred and twenty three (2323) students in total completed the School Suspension Programme (SSP) during the life of the project. However as the Peace and Jus-tice Centres broadened their SSP to schools outside of the original 30 target schools and covered approximately 60 schools, it is not possible therefore to calcu-late an average number of stu-dents per pilot school, per year, who were referred to the Peace and Justice Centres.

21. Between 2008 and 2009 there was an almost 9-fold increase in access to this service but in 2010 the increase had slowed down and the increase in 2009 was only 31.4% up on 2008.

17Expected Outcome/Indicators BASELINE OUTCOME

Expected Outcome: White Paper on Safe Schools Policy incorporating provision per-taining to the abolition of cor-poral punishment approved by Parliament by December 2010.

22.StatusofWhitePaper

23.#ofschoolssigningapledgetozerotolerancetotheuseofcorporalpunishment

22. Baseline: No Safe School Policy in place

23. Baseline: No Zero tolerance pledges to use of corporal pun-ishment in schools in place

22. A desk review and a con-cept paper were completed and a Safe Schools Policy drafted, along with drafting instructions for amendments to the Educa-tion Acts 1980. Twenty focus group consultations on the use of corporal punishment in schools were held across the island with SBPs, parents and children to allow for stakeholder input into the development of the policy.

23. No Zero tolerance pledges to use of corporal punishment in schools in place at end of project (Dec 2010).

Relevance of Critical Incidence Reporting

It was assumed that the indicators above would have been reported to the MOE in the critical incident data for the entire 30 target schools. However as this data was not provided by the MOE it is impossible to quantify a percentage reduction in violence related incidents in the pilot schools. The baseline data captures ‘school-based conflict’ but for only 21 of the targeted schools that were willing to provide information. Of the 21 schools featured in the baseline, 10 of them requested anonymity. It is not clear whether these reported school-based conflicts were violent and comparable with critical incident data if it were available, or whether the source of the data came directly from the schools via verbal reports or from reports to the MOE. The reliability of the baseline data is also questionable as it contains anomalies that include one school being responsible for approximately 70% of all the data outlined in Table 4 in 2005, 2006 and 2007 (See Appendix X). If it can be assumed that ‘school-based conflict’ is synonymous with violent incidents, then prior to the project, violent incidents in schools would appear to be on the increase before the project began, but increases slowed down in 2007 compared to 2006. However an assumption of such magnitude would be wholly unreliable given the issues with definition and reliability.

18The MOE provided critical incident data for 7 of the target schools for the evaluation although this covers years 2006, 2007 and 2008 and only one of these schools can be identified and compared to baseline figures. As the project began implementing the training of teachers in 2009 and imple-menting the Anger Management and Conflict Resolution lessons in schools in January 2010, it is unlikely that any major changes in violent incidents can be attributed to this phase of the interven-tion. If data from the MOE were current and up to date, there would also be a problem with the definition of a critical incident that would not allow for a comparison to be made with indicators that were set for the project. From the MOE Critical Incident Reports it may be deduced that criti-cal incidents are made up of 23 categories as follows:

Table 5. Critical Incident Reporting Categories

1. SUSPENSION 6. DEATHS 11. ABUSE 16. TRUANCY 21. BRAWLS

2. EXPULSION 7. THEFT 12. INSOLENCE 17. SEXUAL ASSAULT 22. EXPLETIVES

3. REFERRAL 8. WEAPONS 13. CELLPHONE 18. DISRUPTING CLASS 23. FORGERY

4. FIGHTS 9. DRUGS 14. OTHER 19. DRESS CODE VIO-LATION

5. STABBINGS 10. SCHOOL INVASION 15. VANDALISM 20. EXTORTION

Source: Critical Incidents in Schools Report (Undated) MOE, Received by email December 2010.

Apart from categories 4, 5, 15, 17, 20 and 21, no other categories can be assumed violence related. The inclusion of cell phone use and dress code violations, while clearly breaching school regulations cannot be considered a critical incident, likewise referrals that most certainly would be for any number of reasons. However an explanation of the rationale for categorizing critical incidents as such could not be ascertained from the MOE despite numerous requests.

In relation to the number of injuries in schools inflicted by a weapon and the number of weapons confiscated from students in schools, the baseline does show this for 21 schools, 495 and 531 respectively in 2007. However similar concerns about how this data was sourced and reliability apply, especially as the MOE was not able to provide any post intervention data on this and it is not included as a category in their critical incident reporting.

194.1.2 Findings of Students’ Survey

Forty-two percent (42%) of boys and girls said that they considered the community that they live in to be a violent one.

Figure 6. Do You Consider The Community You Live In To Be A Violent One?

Ninety-eight percent (98%) of the boys and girls surveyed said that they enjoy going to school and 76.2% of SBPs said they enjoy teaching at the school, although 14.3% said they do not enjoy it.

Among the boys and girls it is encouraging to note that 75% said that they feel safe at school and only 4.6% said that they do not feel safe at school. Eighteen percent ( 17.7%) said that they feel safe at school sometimes, but that this depends on the circumstances at any given time in relation to community violence in the area. When boys and girls were asked whether they thought that violence in schools had decreased, increased or stayed the same, the views were mixed.

Figure 7. Perception of Changes in Violence in School

One hundred and twenty-two (122) boys and girls responded to this item. Twenty three or18.9% felt violence had increased; 51 or 41.8% felt violence had decreased and 38 or 31.1% boys and girls felt

20that violence remained the same; 8.2% did not know whether violence had increased or decreased.

Among males and females who said violence had decreased in schools 36.36% were boys and 47.29% were girls, however a one sample t test of comparison of these percentages showed that this is not significant (P=.1740). Similarly among Primary school boys and girls (7-11 years) and Secondary (12-18) when a two sample t test was performed there was no statistically significant difference at 40% and 43.9% respectively. (P=.6735).

Differences were also analysed by parish and there appears to be a significant difference between Kingston (26.22%) that say violence has increased in schools compared to Montego bay (10%) who say that violence has increased (P=0.0482). However these differences are more than likely due to sampling error as the groups in Kingston and Montego Bay were different, as the Montego Bay group contained an all girl’s school where they reported that violence had never been a problem at their school. There were also no statistically significant differences between Kingston and Spanish Town (14.15%) on perceptions of increased violence (P=.2420) even though these groups also differed slightly, as there were no boys and girls surveyed in a high school in Spanish Town, but the high school students in Spanish Town that were surveyed attended the P&J Centre.

On examining the boys and girls referred to the PJC and others to see if their attitudes to violence in schools differed to the other boys and girls: The relationships between the referral of boys and girls to the PJC and their perceptions of violence in the school in the last year were not significant (P=0.063). The correlation co-efficient is 0.007 also suggesting that there is weak positive relationship between referral to the PJC and perception of violence in schools.

Of the total number of respondents (172) 49.1% believe violence has decreased in school, 26.9% say it has stayed the same, 15.2% says it has increased and 8.8% say that they do not know. A one sample t test revealed the difference between those who say that violence has decreased in schools and those that say it has increased is significant (P=.0007)

Boys and girls were asked who they thought conflicts occurred mainly between and a list of options was read out to them to answer yes or no to each category. The majority 85.4% of the boys and girls believed that conflicts in schools took place primarily between the boys compared to 72% in the baseline, but conflict between girls was the second most cited group at 63% which was higher than those that reported this at baseline (51%). This was followed by conflict between girls and boys 56.9%. Only 4% said that conflicts at their school occurred mainly between parents and teachers.

21Figure 8. In your view what would you say are the things that are most likely to cause conflict in your school ?

Eighty-two percent (82%) of boys and girls thought that conflict occurs mainly in the upper years of the school compared to 26% who reported this at baseline.

Figure 9 .Students-Does the conflict occur mainly in upper or lower areas of the school ?

22The following figure shows some interesting patterns in relation to boys’ and girls’ perceptions of the times of day when conflict occurs throughout the school day.

Figure 10 .Time-Trends Of Conflicts In Schools According To Students

The majority of boys and girls 65.4% said that conflict mainly occurs after school and this was more than double the proportion of boys and girls (32%) that reported this at baseline. This was also true of conflicts taking place at lunchtime, 57.7% compared to 20% at baseline, during classes 33.8% compared to 20% at baseline, during break 32.3% compared to 6% at baseline and before school 16.2% compared to 5% at baseline. Both the baseline instrument and the survey questionnaire allowed for multiple responses, therefore increases in reponses in all categories might be due to the smaller sample size surveyed or purposive sampling. However the pattern of times when violent conflict occurs at baseline and in the survey are consistent, suggesting an escalation of violence throughout the school day that peaks after school.

Interviewers were allowed to record three unprompted responses out of a list of possible sources of conflict. The most frequently cited categories were other 51.5%, followed by rumour and gossip 42.3%, jealous fights over girls/boys 37.7% and theft 33.1% as the causes of conflicts in schools among boys and girls. The main responses under the category of other were ‘argument/cussing and mix up’, teasing and ‘dissin’(disrespect).

For students, these results differed from the baseline results in which anger was cited as one of the main causes of conflict (78%), property being destroyed (73%) unwillingness to work with schoolmates (65%) and frustration (65%). What remains consistent however is rumour and gossip which was also 51% in the baseline. (See figure 8)

Again three unprompted responses were recorded to capture boys’ and girls’ perceptions of the main weapons used in schools. Thirty six percent (36.2%) said that knives are the main weapons used in schools compared to the baseline (63%) followed by scissors 30% compared to 56% at baseline. This followed the third largest category other (12.3%), with the use of pencils and then fists being the most frequently cited weapons.

23Chi Square testing revealed that there were no correlation by sex between males and females in their perception of the use of knives in schools (P=.518).

Figure 11. What are the main weapons used in schools

The questionnaire sought to assess how boys and girls view other students who are involved in conflict and violence at their schools. Seventy five percent (74.6%) said that these boys and girls are not respected, 46.9% think they are feared, but more than half the students say that they are popular. (See figures 12, 13, 14, Appendix XI)

Of the total sample of 165 (n=7 missing values) 55.2% believe that boys and girls involved in violent conflict are popular.

Students were then asked their views on school rules and whether they thought they were effective or not. More boys and girls (88.5%) said that there were rules in place at school to deal with conflict compared to 64% at baseline and fewer boys and girls (33.1%) did not believe that the rules are working compared to 50% in the baseline. (See figures 15, 16, Appendix XI)

The majority of the boys and girls surveyed (70.8%) had never been suspended from school or referred to the PJC. Of the 26.7% suspended, 22.3% had been referred to the PJC. Of those referred to the PJCs there was 100% attendance. (See figure 17, Appendix XI)

Of the 29 boys and girls that attended the PJC 10 (34.5%) had been referred there more than once and 6 (20.7%) had repeated their attendance at the PJC. (See figure 18, Appendix XI)

24Table 6. Referrals to and Repeat Attendance at Peace and Justice Centre

REFERREDTOPJCMORETHANONCE FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Yes 10 34.5

No 23 79.3

Repeated attendance at PJC

Yes 6 20.7

No 23 79.3

Of the boys and girls that attended the PJC 28 out of 32 (87.5%) thought that their behaviour has improved. The additional 4 persons are boys and girls that were not referred to the SSP but attended the PJC on their own volition. Of the 29 students that were referred to the P&J Centre 16 were boys and 13 were girls. There were no differences observed by sex in boys and girls views on improved behaviour as a result of attending the P&J Centre. One hundred percent (100%) of males thought that their behaviour had improved and 92.3% of females thought that their behaviour had improved. No statistically significant differences were observed by parish either on perceptions of improved behaviour (Kingston 94.11%, Spanish Town 77.77% and Montego Bay 100%) when two sample t tests were performed. (Kingston versus Spanish Town P=.2130 and Kingston versus Montego Bay P=.5847).

Figure 19. Do you think your behaviour improved as a result of attending the P&J Centre?

25Conflict Resolution and Anger Management

Sixty four percent (64.1%) of the boys and girls participated in conflict resolution classes using the anger management and conflict resolution workbooks which were a part of this project. Only 38.5% said that lessons are held on a weekly basis, all other responses ranged from less than once per month to once per year. (See figure 20, Appendix XI)

The proportion of boys and girls that could correctly define conflict resolution in their own words however was only 28.5% (n=37/130) and 45.4% (n=59/130) said that they could not. However of those who could not define CR this represents a 32 percentage point reduction from the baseline position of 77% of boys and girls who said that they could not define CR.

In-depth analysis of the impact of conflict resolution and anger management lessons in schools found the following results:

Figure 21. Can you tell me one positive message about conflict resolution and anger management that you have learnt?

• Sixty-four (64) (50.8%) boys and girls could recall a positive conflict resolution message and 62 (49.2%) could not. (There were no recorded values for 4 students)

• 80 (63.5%) boys and girls had participated in conflict resolution classes and 46 (36.5%) had not.

• Of those who could tell a positive message 42 or 65.6% participated in conflict resolution classes while 22 or 34.4% did not.

• Of those who participated in CR classes 38 (61.35%) could not tell a positive CR message.

26• Of those who had not participated in CR classes 24 (38.7%) could not tell a positive CR

message.

• Of those that couldn’t recall a positive CR message 47.5% had participated in CR classes and 52.2% had not.

• 33.3% of the total sample could tell a positive CR message and had participated in CR classes.

• 17.5% of the total sample could tell a positive CR message but had not participated in CR classes

• 30.2% of the total sample could not tell a positive CR message although they had participated in CR classes

• 19% of the total sample could not tell a positive CR message and had not participated in CR classes

These differences in recall of conflict resolution messages among boys and girls that were exposed and boys and girls that were not exposed to the anger management and conflict resolution lessons was not significant (p= 0.613), which suggests that among these boys and girls the ability to tell a positive CR message had no significant relationship with exposure to CR classes. The correlation coefficient was 0.045 which also shows a weak positive relationship between exposure to CR classes and being able to recall a positive CR message.

A greater proportion (74.6%) of boys and girls than those exposed to the anger management and conflict resolution workbooks said that they could state some anger management styles. (See figure 22. Appendix XI)

On closer examination of the responses it was evident that there was a better grasp of anger management than conflict resolution as 67.7% (n=88/130) of the boys and girls could correctly state some anger management styles, the most frequently cited were walk away, calm yourself down and count (some said to 10 and others to 100).

On further analysis when an association between whether boys and girls felt more able to manage conflict and anger now and whether this was related to exposure to the CSPL programme the results showed that this was significant (P=0.000) with a positive linear association) (r= 0.51)

70.1% of the persons who responded felt that the sessions provided them with skills to better manage anger and conflict

85.2% of those who think the sessions gave them skills to manage anger and conflict participated in the lessons

The difference in results is likely because the word ‘anger’ was added to the question and they are more familiar with this concept than conflict resolution.

Mediation

Knowledge of mediation among the student population was very poor as 78.5% (n=102/130) said that they did not know what mediation was, which was higher than at the baseline when 76% in a random sample said they did not know what mediation was. Eighty-three percent (83.1%) said that they had never participated in any mediation sessions at school and only 7.7% of the boys and girls said that they had peer mediators at their school.

27Figure 23. Have you participated in mediation session in schools?

Figure 24.Do you have trained peer mediators in your school?

Child Rights and Responsibilities

Fifty percent (50%) of the boys and girls said that they could name three rights and responsibilities to better protect children and 39.2% said they could not and 8.5% said that they did not know if they could or could not. (See figure 25, Appendix XI)

On examining the responses of the boys and girls however 84 or 64.6% could in fact correctly state a child right, although only 9 could state a responsibility and all of these were ‘have manners and respect’.

Corporal Punishment

Fifty percent of boys and girls say that corporal punishment is used in their schools and this is consistent with the baseline when 53% of boys and girls said that they had been beaten by a teacher. (See figure 26, Appendix XI) There was no statistically significant difference between males

28and females who said corporal punishment is used in schools, with 58.9% and 43.2% respectively, (P=0.786).

4.1.3 Findings of School Based Professionals’ Survey

Forty-two percent of SBP (42.1%) considered the community that they live in to be violent. Perceptions of school safety were on par with the boys and girls, as 76.2% of SBPs thought that boys and girls were safe at the school and a higher proportion than boys and girls or parents (76.2%) believed that violence at their school had decreased. When SBPs were asked if they feel safe at school, 66.7% said that they do feel safe which was higher than at baseline when only 48% said that they feel safe at school.

Among SBPs 76.2% said conflict occurred mostly between boys with the same proportion answering mostly between girls and boys, 61.9% said between girls, 9.5%, more than double that of boys and girls and PCGs, said it occurs between parents and teachers. Of the SBPs, 61.9% said that conflict occurs mainly in the upper years of the school, but they were of the view that it occurs mostly at lunchtime (52.4%) and during class (57.1%).

SBPs were of the view that rumour and gossip were the main causes of conflict 47.6%, followed by frustration 33.3%.

SBPs share an identical perception of use of pencils (23.8%) as PCGs, but their perception of the use of knives was fewer than boys and girls and PCGs at 14.3%.

When compared to the baseline when 64% of teachers said that knives were the weapons most used in conflicts at school, it would appear that boys and girls and SBPs saw significant percentage point reductions (27 and 50 respectively) compared to the baseline in their perceptions of the use of knives in schools.

SBPs perception of how boys and girls viewed other boys and girls involved in violent conflict in school was more in keeping with the boys and girls views themselves, 23.8% said that they thought they were respected , 57.1% thought that students feared them and 52.4% thought that these boys and girls were considered popular among the other students.

All of the SBPs said that there were rules in place at school to deal with conflict compared to 76% in the baseline. SBPs had a less optimistic view of their effectiveness than boys and girls and PCGs, as only 23.% said that they thought they were working, 57.1% said that they work sometimes with other responses split between ‘no’ and ‘don’t know’.

Fourteen out of 19 (n=2 missing values) (73.7%) SBPs said that they referred boys and girls to the PJC and in their view 12 out 14 (85.7%) said that the students’ behaviours had improved as a result of their attendance at the PJC.

Conflict Resolution and Anger Management

Among SBPs 15 out of 20 (75%) had been trained in CR as part of the CSPL programme and 25% had not been trained. Nineteen (19) out of 20 (90.5%) had taught the material to their students. In the baseline 36% had not received any CR training. More than double the proportion of SBPs than boys and girls said that these lessons are taught on a weekly basis (82.4%). All of the SBPs (100%) could correctly define CR compared to 78% at baseline.

Among the SBPs 17 out of 18 (94.4%) were also able to correctly state anger management styles and these strategies were similar to PCGs and boys and girls with counting to ten and walking away

29most frequently cited.

Among SBPs, 100% could correctly define mediation compared to 31% at baseline who could not define mediation and 84.2% said that there are trained mediators at their school. When SBPs were asked ‘Have you participated in delivering mediation lessons in this school? 68.4% answered yes.


All SBPs (100%) were familiar with child rights and could correctly state them, but again knowledge of corresponding responsibilities were not stated at all despite the question ‘Can you name three rights and corresponding responsibilities to better protect children?’

Corporal Punishment

Thirty-two percent (31.6%) of SBPs said that corporal punishment is used in their schools, but 68.4% said that they do not. Forty percent (40%) believe that corporal punishment should be used in schools, 55% say that it should not and 5% say that they do not know. In the baseline 24% of teachers admitted to beating their students.

4.1.4 Findings of Parents/Primary Caregivers’ Survey

Thirty eight percent (38.1%) of PCG considered the community they lived in to be violent. Fewer PCGs (61.9%) thought that their child’s school was safe compared to the boys and girls, but a higher proportion (also 61.9%) believed that violence has decreased at the school compared to the boys and girls. Although 19% said it had stayed the same and 19% said that they did not know.

Similar views to boys and girls were reported among PCGs, 85.7% thought conflict occurred mostly between boys, 38.1% said it occurs between girls, 42.9% said between boys and girls and 4.8% said it occurs between parents and teachers. Of the PCGs, 71.4% said that it occurs mainly in the upper years of the school and mostly (42.9%) after school.

PCGs thought that almost anything (category other) could cause conflict at schools (57.1%) but rough play was one of the reasons most mentioned under this category and then competition (38.1%).

Twenty four percent (23.8) were of the view that knives and pencils equally were the main weapons used in schools.

PCGs perception of how boys and girls viewed other students involved in violent conflict is quite different to that of the boys and girls. They believed that boys and girls viewed them as more popular, more feared (61.9% for each) and more respected (38.1%) than the boys and girls reported.

Among PCG 85.7% said that there are rules in place at their child’s school to deal with conflict and none of these PCGs were of the view that these rules were not working. Fifty seven (57.1%) said that they thought that rules were working, 28.6% said that they worked sometimes and 9.5% said that they did not know.

Conflict Resolution and Anger Management

Among PCGs only 37.5% (6 out of 16) said that they had received training for parents in conflict resolution and anger management. Two had received it once, one each had received it twice and three times and two persons had received it more than five times. Although there was a small number

30of PCGs who had received CR 14 out of 21 (66.7%) were able to correctly define conflict resolution.

Among PCGs, 15 out of 19 (78.9%) said that they could correctly state some anger managements styles, but 17 out of 19 based on their responses correctly defined strategies, such as taking a deep breath and walking away being the most frequently cited.

Mediation

Among PCGs only 5 out of 21 (23.8%) could correctly define mediation, 33.3 said that there were trained mediators at their child’s school, 23.8% said there was not and most (42.9%) said that they did not know.


Six out of 21(28.6%) parents could correctly state a child right and none stated any corresponding responsibilities.

Corporal Punishment

Sixty-five percent of PCGs said that they used corporal punishment at home with their children but 64.7% said that they use it less now and the reason most frequently cited for the decrease in their view is because it doesn’t work. Eighty-five percent (85.7%) said that they could name harmful effects of corporal punishment and the majority of these responses were related to serious physical damage to the child’s body. Only one person said that it can affect them (‘mentally’) psychologically.

4.1.5. Summary of Qualitative Findings

The perception of violence in schools and how it is managed was mixed. In one single-sex female high school, students said that violence was not and has never been a problem at their school. Primary school boys and girls at schools in Spanish Town and Kingston said that violence was decreasing because the older boys in particular that caused problems had left the school. But the other boys and girls in the high school and the primary schools believed that violence was increasing in their schools and is a major problem.

When boys and girls were asked about how they thought the schools were managing violence, many boys and girls at the secondary level thought teachers are unable to manage because they are afraid of the students and their associations, especially when they come from known reputed ‘bad areas’. Primary school children were much more positive about teachers ‘capabilities to manage violence and conflict and although it was seen as a problem, they thought that they managed it well. A common theme throughout all groups however was the resignation to violence and the fundamental belief that it is inevitable and that it cannot be prevented.

Several boys and girls in the groups whose schools had Deans of Discipline brought up this category of staff and their views on them were predominantly negative in relation to their contribution of handling violence and discipline. They questioned their suitability for working with children in schools, their credentials, their modus operandi, perceived lack of professionalism and motives. The majority of the boys and girls were of the view that their approach to discipline is meting out physical punishment. In one student’s words, “They love lick.” Discussions about Deans of Discipline and disciplinary methods in general, including the introduction of police in schools, brought out some statements of concern that are included in the full report of the qualitative findings in Appendix XII.

31The younger children in particular said that they thought that things sold at the school gates to the children were a major source of conflict, the toys in particular. They said that plastic toys guns, water pistols, party stuff. In their view if these items were not available the children would be less excitable and less likely to enter into rough play that leads to fighting. However the things that were most frequent and common were fighting because of disrespectful communication. The majority of boys and girls talked about everyone talking harshly to everyone else and everyone trying to ‘diss’ everyone else.

Discussions in five out of the seven focus groups were subdued when the boys and girls were asked about the lessons that assisted them to deal with violence, anger and conflict at school. Many said that they had not been exposed to the CSPL programme at all and said that they had never seen the books. Students that were aware of them in these groups were very positive about the books and their effectiveness, and said that thought that they were very useful and would assist in reducing violent conflict in schools.

Across all groups, with the exception of the all girls’ school, there was very limited knowledge and understanding of child rights and responsibilities. Correct responses came as the result of a lot of probing. The three main child rights that children were aware of, was the right to food, the right not to be abused and the right to privacy.

Without exception when the children were asked about their Guidance Counsellors and their relationships with them, there were glowing responses. The words they most used to describe them were kind and loving and very nice. However they gave the impression that the guidance counselors while kind and helpful are powerless to protect them from the harsher forms of discipline or teachers at the school and that even when they do advocate on their behalf their views were disregarded.

All of the school-based professionals interviewed had taken part in the training and the feedback from them was excellent. This related to the content of the training, the material, the methodology, which they said included a lot of questions and answers and role play. They thought that this training equipped them to better deliver the material in the manual (See Table 7, Appendix X).

Problems of limited capacity of schools to deliver a wealth of school-based initiatives around healthier lifestyles emerged as the single most prohibitive factor to the success in delivering the entire programme or in delivering components of it consistently in schools. It was clear that it was for this reason and not opposition or reluctance, that the progress was hampered in many schools.

When interviewees were asked if they thought violence was increasing or decreasing in schools, all of the primary school SBPs were of the view that fighting among boys and girls was decreasing. However several SBPs said that it could not be attributed to the CSPL programme alone, as other initiatives under the Safer Schools Programme had been put in place, such as better security and management of entrances and exits and the fixing of perimeter fencing which generally made for a safer and more peaceful school environment.

Many SBPs alluded to the dire challenges that the majority of the parents face, they used phrases such as distraught, at their wits end, out of their depth, in relation to trying to protect their children from exposure to violence. A GC said that while these boys and girls may be academically challenged, they are sophisticated to the ways of the street and are extremely smart, which makes the parenting and tutoring role that much more difficult.

32When the topic of critical incidents emerged, one GC said, it is very subjective. There appeared to be a lack of knowledge about the definition of a critical incident or reporting protocols, although they said that this was the responsibility of the Principal.

Staff at the PJC believe that the absence of set criterion by the DRF, the MOE or individual schools for referral to the SSP allows for subjective referrals and suspensions and that there is a need for an established criteria. With regards to effectiveness of the SSP, staff are emphatic that it has resulted in behaviour change and that boys and girls are less likely to continue fighting at school after going through this process. They said that the ‘Time Out’ approach allows a period of reflection for the young people and an opportunity to relate to their peers in what one person termed “a non conflicted environment”. Overall PJC staff are of the opinion that with some adjustments to improve the service, it should be expanded and mainstreamed.

The Regional Guidance and Counselling Education Officers (RGCEO) said that while they were informed of the Creating Safe Places for Learning project, both had very minimal involvement in it. They were not a part of the Technical Committee for the project and they received very little feedback from the teachers on the progress, implementation or the impact of it. However it would appear from their limited knowledge, that the CSPL workbooks have had a greater impact at the primary level and that more emphasis should be placed on intensive interventions at this stage to prevent the escalation of problems as boys and girls get older.

Key informants are of the view that the CSPL project has much strength. It provides an opportunity to meaningfully tackle violence and conflict in schools by providing teachers with a structured approach and tools to go about this, which is essential given the many demands on teachers’ time. They are very enthusiastic about the project because of the significant challenges that the children face that are frequently linked to violent conflict in the classrooms. In relation to the issue of corporal punishment in schools, which is central to the project they said that legislative reform of the Education Act 1980 is required to meaningfully implement the Safe Schools Policy.

Dr. Crawford-Brown noted that the training of SBPs is critical to the authentic delivery of the AM & CR programme. She explained that themes I –III (Understanding My Feelings, Understanding Anger and Anger Triggers) can be applied universally to the school population. This approach allows for emergent emotional, psychological and behavioural needs in individual students to be identified and directed toward more in-depth work under theme IV (Skills and Techniques in Managing Anger) utilizing the workbooks that reinforce some of the earlier material, hence the deliberate repetition. In her opinion, training for users of the manual is optimally delivered to small groups, as this better accommodates discussion and exploration of the material, including anticipating the possible consequences of working with students on topics that may elicit complex issues or emotions requiring skilled management. According to Dr. Brown, the programme was designed to be delivered by school Guidance Counsellors primarily, who are trained in counseling children and young people. She also distinguished between the discrete components of the project, AM, CR and mediation and noted that the Peer Mediation model which is aimed at peer delivery requires separate training sessions. (See Appendix XIII for Complete Report of Qualitative Findings)

The Creating Safe Places for Learning in Schools (CSPL) project undoubtedly played a critical role in the broader Safe School Programme which is a partnership between the MOE, the Ministry of National Security and the Ministry of Health. It appears to have contributed to transforming the landscape of schools from being that of conflict reactive to conflict proactive with the introduction of preventative measures beginning in the early years to mould and shape the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of young children and divert them away from violent conflict. This was possible because

33the project trained the SBPs in anger management and conflict resolution and as a consequence they now possess a greater knowledge and understanding of anger triggers, how to mitigate and manage violent conflict among their students, that was assisted by the requisite tools to do this.

The project, unlike some of the other initiatives that schools are tasked to implement had the unfortunate but added advantage of tackling a highly publicized phenomena of increasing violence among school children, set against a backdrop of a student-on-student murder in 2007 in a rural school and a school stabbing incident in the same year at a Kingston high school.4 Therefore the soil was ripe for an intervention that sought to divert young people away from violent conflict and there was universal acceptance of its need. The project also revolutionalized pilot schools’ approaches to suspension by providing structured safe places that students could be referred to complete a period of suspension and participate in a behavioural intervention with trained Youth Peace Facilitators (YPF) at the PJC. From all accounts this appears to have had a positive impact on the students’ behaviour when they return to school. However from the stories of the students in the focus groups and the attitudes that were displayed by many students towards violence, coupled with the extreme violent experiences that the majority of these children have witnessed, unless there is a radical turning of the tide in communities for which 42% of all respondents believe are violent, then interventions no matter how well delivered or theoretically unassailable will yield limited benefits to children engulfed in violence.

Whether it is true or not, there has certainly been a positive change in perceptions about school safety, as more persons report that violence is decreasing in schools, than not. However as other safety issues have been addressed in schools and it appears that people feel safer now than they did at the baseline, one should guard against any grand pronouncements in the absence of evidence, which in this regard the project failed to capture. This type of evidence would at least strengthen the argument for and against mainstreaming of the programme as originally intended. It is in fact true that the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms of the project were not adequately aligned to the indicators and expected outcomes which weakened the potential of the project to prove its effectiveness to some extent.

The Anger Management and Conflict Resolutions manual and workbooks greatly enhanced the way in which SBPs approach conflict in schools, but it appears that a greater appreciation of the cognitive behavioral therapy approach necessitating positive reinforcement, evident in the workbooks, is not fully understood or the universal and targeted components of the programme either. Therefore correct application of the tools may correct and improve the impact of the programme in schools. The workbooks are also deceptively simplistic, hence their effectiveness in uncovering complex issues as noted by the SBPs. In this regard they were not intended to be used in a vacuum, but to be accompanied by appropriate interventions that ensure that the student is fully supported after disclosing difficult issues. This is where it would have been beneficial to have more proactive inclusion and involvement of the Child Guidance Clinic in supporting the, students and parents in the project. It was noted that referrals to other agencies or professionals were not a part of the monitoring and evaluation framework, which is a weakness. For continuity and synergy it would be useful perhaps to consider training the Child Guidance Clinic practitioners to also use the workbooks as a conduit for newly referred students of the CSPL programme in an attempt to foster a stronger partnership, towards more-in depth clinical work for students in need.

It is very unfortunate that there was no progress made towards zero tolerance for corporal punishment in schools. Parents are also still in favour of its use. Attitudes preferring this method of discipline are culturally entrenched and outlawing its use in schools is probably the only answer to 5 http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20070405/news/news7.html

34ending it. However we must ask the question why is it that we like this method so much and how can we authentically deliver a programme that seeks to divert students away from violent conflict when they are schooled and housed in environments where adults use physical violence as the primary method for resolving conflict? Calling it Corporal Punishment does not change the fact that it is a violent act inflicted on a child. Are we giving mixed messages? We must acknowledge the SBPs concerns, when they say that they are impotent without it. They too must be taught alternative disciplinary practices as professional and responsible custodians of the nation’s children. We cannot assume that they know how to command respect and display authority without it. We must not set up the Guidance Counsellors as a variety apart from the norm, whose real skills, knowledge and direction could benefit more students if they worked in an environment more akin to their professional philosophies. We must also examine the evidence if the aim is to improve behaviour.

‘There is little research evidence that physical punishment improves children’s behavior in the long term. In contrast, there is substantial research evidence that physical punishment puts children at risk for negative outcomes, including increased aggression, antisocial behavior, mental health problems, and physical injury’5.

As part of the transforming schools agenda, it must go a step further from zero tolerance of corporal punishment to Violence Free Schools, where there is zero tolerance towards all perpetrators of violence. The issue of respect and disrespect must also feature, as it was this issue that set apart the YPF from the SBPs in the eyes of the students. This must be fostered in schools among SBPs and students, because fundamentally it is about positive role modeling and good manners that in most cases attracts like responses.

Consistencies exist throughout the data from both secondary and primary sources in relation to implementation, participation and exposure to different aspects of the programme. Knowledge and understanding of anger management outweighs that of conflict resolution and correct knowledge of conflict resolution does not equate with exposure to the programme. However it may be the case that conflict resolution is not fully explored until the Peer Mediation part of the programme, which most students said they had not been involved with; therefore few were able to define it. Themes I-IV are more heavily weighted around anger triggers and anger management styles. On further analysis of an association between feeling better able to manage conflict and anger now and participation in anger management and conflict resolution lessons, the results were significant. Students who were exposed were more likely to feel that they could better manage conflict and anger, which is an indication of the effectiveness of the programme.

However the inconsistencies lie with the reported numbers of Peer Mediators trained and the students limited understanding of this, which needs to be examined. Alternatively it may be that the ad-hoc style of delivery and the quality of instruction was fundamentally flawed and compromised the learning experience.

Likewise lack of knowledge of child rights was weakest as only 50% of students said they could name a child right and only 29% of parents, said that they could, despite 100% of SBPs being able to. Knowledge of corresponding responsibilities was poor among all groups. Therefore it is evident that more work needs to be done in this area to transfer the knowledge of child rights from SBPs to students and parents and for all parties to be trained in the corresponding responsibilities that are important in delivering a balanced child rights education package.

6 Report on Physical Punishment in the United States: What Research Tells us About its Effects on Children. Elizabeth T. Gerschoff, Ph.D, Phoenix Children’s Hospital, Child Abuse Prevention

35There is a time-trend pattern to violence in schools that is consistent with the baseline in which violence increases throughout the school day. It may be prudent for the MOE to explore this in more detail to establish the reasons for this. Some possible reasons could be that boredom and restlessness are more likely to occur at these times. There may be less supervision of students later in the day. There could be a nutritional factor involved with the types of foods that the students can purchase throughout the day that adds to hyperactivity and behavioural disorders. The goods and toys that are sold at the school gates as stated by the students and or the use of Ganga, which students say is mostly smoked during lunchtime in ‘smoking areas’ on the school compound, or a combination of factors that may require better management in order to create a healthier school environment. The upper years of primary and secondary schools also appear to be most prone to violent conflict and should be targeted for prevention. Students violent behaviour in the primary years begins with stabbing with pencils and cutting with sharpener blades and this must be addressed severely at this level, as it is evident that this behaviour leads to stabbing with knives, which is the most frequently cited weapon used in schools and is clearly still a problem.

The problem of violence in schools is also a gender issue, given that the overwhelming majority of students involved in violent conflict and suspended from schools are males. These vulnerable males are primarily parented and taught by females in the absence of positive male role models, the effects of which have long been established. Therefore in intervening there must be gender specific interventions not only with the students but also with parents and SBPs, to begin to divert young males away from socially accepted and often desired macho behaviour, that is ‘best’ proved through ones’ ability to physically defend oneself. From the responses in the survey it is also clear that the students involved in violence and conflict are very popular and recognition of how their notoriety and popularity together can be put to good use as peer leaders for positive change should be considered.

The findings suggest that the limited conflict between parents and SBPs is the norm, despite common discourse about parents coming into schools to beat teachers. If this lack of reported conflict between them is true, then maybe this is what should be stressed more often in public forums about parents and parenting, as this will go a farther way in strengthening the necessary partnerships between them.

It was interesting that students did not mention extortion, but talked about theft of lunch money, however this was not as much a source of conflict as ‘dissin ‘, rumour and gossip and jealousy over boyfriends and girlfriends were. However one notes that the MOE in its critical incident reporting refers to this practice as extortion. Likewise there was little evidence from the students that criminal gangs are operating in schools, which can appear misleading when groups of friends are referred to as gangs. The merits of ascribing such severe terminology to normal adolescent behaviour, even though it may have the potential to become so, is exaggerating and over-glamorizing an already serious problem and both demonizing a generation of adolescents and providing them with an undeserved notoriety.

The MOE and DRF also need to come together and decide on a common philosophy for the SSP as the approaches of the SBPs to referring students to the SSP and the DRF to accepting students into the programme appear diametrically opposed. Is referral to the SSP punishment or rehabilitation and are SBPs, students and parents clear about which it is? In terms of its effectiveness, is it best geared towards the latter? Can schools begin to better manage discipline within the schools with the view to minimizing school expulsions and can the role of the Deans of Discipline be reviewed to ensure that their disciplinary practices are strategic, evidenced based and respect the rights of the child? If they were fewer inappropriate referrals to the SSP, DRF could concentrate its limited resources on

36working with high-risk students that have exhausted all the schools avenues of discipline and are in need of behavioural interventions. This could then be for an increased time-period to enable YPF to do more in-depth work with these students and their parents working towards rehabilitating them back into school. A review of the localities where the SSP are placed is also necessary, along with a method for proper school targeting to ensure that schools with the greatest challenges are prioritized. However despite the need to focus efforts on high-risk locations in Kingston, Montego Bay and Spanish Town, these programmes must be located in safe and non-stigmatizing environments, which also afford the students from these areas the opportunity of time out from these communities to gain alternative perspectives.

4.2 CONCLUSIONS

The Creating Safe Places for Learning in Schools Project (CSPL) achieved significant success in meeting the majority of the project indicators and in many instances exceeded them. In reviewing again the primary objectives of the project and its impact on the promotion of alternative forms of discipline in schools, child rights and corresponding responsibilities, fostering skills among SBPs, parents and students to better manage anger and mitigate conflict and to create a safer school environment, it was partially successful.

The skill set of SBPs to deliver anger management and conflict resolution activities to children 5-18 years and to understand and observe the rights of the child has undoubtedly been enhanced. They are also more equipped to manage, mitigate and refer children as perpetrators or as victims of violence than they were in 2008.

Students 5-7, 8-11 and 12, likewise have a better understanding of their emotions, how to manage their anger and strategies that they can employ to do this. Half the students understand the rights of the child although not the responsibilities, but this could be improved upon as all children in school should be taught this.

The excellent Anger Management and Conflict resolution toolkit that was used by the target schools and the training that was provided was critical in meaningfully engaging SBPs in this project and ensuring a measure of standardization, even though this can be improved by the schools. And it appears that this methodology is effective in positively changing behaviours and empowering students to better manage their anger.

The project greatly complemented school-based activities with specific interventions focused on parents, providing information and assistance to them to better manage anger; promote positive disciplinary tools and reinforce the lessons learnt by children within the school environment, although weaknesses existed in sensitizing parents to the rights and responsibilities of the child.

One of its strongest features was the promotion of conflict resolution and mediation through its Peace and Justice Centres in Kingston and Spanish Town and Montego Bay that provided students at greatest risk of school suspension due to violent behavior with the necessary skills and support. The programme did not however adequately equip students as peer mediators to facilitate conflict resolution and mediation sessions in their schools, despite the reported numbers that were trained.

There was some amount of progress towards the development of a policy and amendments to the Education Regulations and Education Act 1980 to address the use of corporal punishment in schools and the promotion of the child’s rights to be protected from all forms of violence including

37physical punishment. A concept paper was drafted and a desk review was completed out of which a draft safe schools policy was submitted to Cabinet along with draft legislation. Twenty focus group consultations were also held on the issue. However supporting attitudes towards the eradication of corporal punishment according to this evaluation have not changed and the majority of persons remain in favour of its use.

It was not possible to quantify the percentage reduction in violence-related incidents in schools due to lack of data, but SBPs, students and parents alike felt that their schools were now safer than they were in 2008.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Creating Safe Places for Learning project should continue to be implemented in targeted schools using the same methodology and incorporating all of the partners that have contributed to its success thus far, namely MOE, DRF and Ashe Performing Arts Company, with advice from the Violence Prevention Clinic and Dr. Crawford-Brown. It is also necessary that the programme is expanded to strengthen its capacity to provide students in need with the emotional and psychological interventions through the Ministry of Health, Child Guidance Clinics. These very complex and pervasive needs among children who live in high-risk communities require urgent and specialized attention, thus the recommendation for a continued targeted approach rather than a mainstream approach, that may dilute the effects and divert resources away from those most in need.

As violence is an issue that impacts on education, health and security, it would be advantageous to seek investment from the MOE, the MOH, the Ministry of National Security and the Ministry of Justice whose partnerships have already been established through the safe schools programme, to see how best these line ministries can support different aspects of the project in relation to their own ministerial goals. Likewise these agencies must also expand their efforts to reduce the number of children in communities that are witnessing murders and shootings, whether that is at the hands of gunmen or the security forces, as the levels are grossly unacceptable.

The MOE has already proposed a programme of infusion for CSPL that provides a framework for which the project can be absorbed within its three behaviour change programmes, Guidance and Counseling in schools, the Programme for Alternative Student Support (PASS) which primarily addresses behavioural challenges and the Health and Family Life Curriculum. This is commendable and all of these programmes do offer a foundation for supporting this additional programme if the project is mainstreamed to all schools. At this stage however and based on the findings, it would be advisable to move forward by establishing a shared vision and philosophy among partners, establish the legislative and policy framework to support it, strengthen the capabilities of the project and minimise the deficits. The project must also establish methods for the effective targeting of high risk schools and students, and implement robust surveillance, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to track violence in schools. In this instance its effectiveness could be better established before rolling out the model widely.

This project must not be viewed as another element of the school curriculum to be infused, it is not. It is a behaviour modification programme that must be applied accordingly if it is to reduce violence among school-children. Mainstreaming will undoubtedly result in the fragmentation of the

38intervention and result in limited or even harmful effects that could be construed as a weakness of the methodology rather than implementation. Evidence based research also supports this assertion:

“Researchers find that quality of program implementation is critical. Schools that experience problems in fully implementing a program experience less success, and programs that are implemented as part of a demonstration project--where presumably great attention is given to program fidelity--are more successful than programs operating under routine conditions (Wilson, Lipsey, & Derzon, 2003). In their survey of 3,691 school-based prevention programs, Gottfredson and Gottfredson (2001) found that typical prevention efforts are not well integrated into normal school operations and that the school staff who implement these programs are in need of better training, support, and supervision” 6

In addition to this there is a need to build partnerships with key duty bearers, the private sector, parents and communities to maximize home and school safety initiatives for violence prevention. The following measures should be taken to ensure that this critical school intervention is effectively instituted as a joint sector initiative that will provide a balanced approach to its implementation.The following Sustainability Plan outlines the steps that are recommended as a way forward: (See Table 8).

7 Youth Violence Prevention-http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/prevention/home.html

39

Sustainability Plan Table 8.

STEP ONEVISION AND MISSION

• Establish a shared vision and philosophy among line ministries and key duty bearers partnering on the CSPL Project.

STEP TWO GOVERNANCE

• Establish proper multi-sectoral governance arrangements for the project with robust technical and advisory capabilities.

• Recruit a Programme Manager who reports to a multi-sectoral body to oversee all aspects of the intervention.

STEP THREELEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

• Lobby for the speedy resolution of a legislative framework that will support safer school initia-tives and violence free schools and support the rights of the child.

• Whilst corporal punishment is not outlawed the MOE must consider the use of other legislation that outlaws physical assault on individuals to discourage this practice.

• Mandate all schools that are in receipt of public funds to report violence related incidents under the Code of Regulations 1980 which says that schools have the responsibility to make reports as requested by the Hon. Minister of Education) or consider use of the Access to information Act 2003.*

*Source-MOE

40STEP FOURCAPABILTIES AND PRIORTIES

• Establish mechanisms to identify and prioritize schools at highest risk and likewise students at highest risk.

• Track school suspensions and repeat referrals and expulsions

• Revise current critical incident reporting mechanisms and definition

• Identify the capability needs of the project in relation to expertise skills and management, and address the training needs.

• Establish 2 SSP services each in Kingston, Spanish Town and Montego Bay

Identify additional staff needs and Recruit YPF with immediate effectSTEP FIVESTRATEGIES

• Agree on holistic strategies to be employed by partners to support targeted work in schools and communities and work with parents and SBPs to reduce violence in schools.

• Develop a strategic plan

• Develop work plans for targeted community action with key partnersSTEP SIXFUNDING

• Rationalize line ministry responsibilities and non-governmental agency responsibilities and identify funding to meet recruitment, services, and training and materials costs.

• Seek alternative funding sources through the private sector and other funding agenciesSTEP SEVENIMPLEMENTATION

• Implement the project in 30 target schools (correctly identified as high-risk) over a period of one year

STEP EIGHTMONITOR AND EVALUATE

• Recruit a monitoring and evaluation officer to track violence related incidents in target schools using passive surveillance mechanisms

• Monitor and evaluate effectiveness in target schools on an individual basis, refine and again identify high-risk schools in a rolling programme

41

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1,3Perceptions and Experiences of Violence Among Secondary School Students in Urban Jamaica-Julie Meeks Gardner, Christine A. Powell, Joan A. Thomas and Doreen Millard

2 Montego Bay Weeps - Children Hurting-Gleaner Report March 2009

4 UNICEF Assessment of the Child Abuse Mitigation Project at the Bustamante Hospital for Chil-dren, Jennifer Jones and Audrey Brown

5UNICEF Conflict Resolution as a Solution-Creating Safe Places for Learning Baseline Assessment and Performance Framework, Bridgette B. Barrett

6 UNICEF Pilot Project Assessment-Creating Safe Places for Learning in Schools, Kevin St Croix Morrison

7 Violence Prevention Clinic, UWI, Anger Management and Conflict Resolution Manual for Schools, Claudette Crawford-Brown.

8 Health Promotion Practice, Open University Press 2005 ,Wendy Macdowall, Chris Bonell & Mag-gie Davies

9.http://Jamaica-Gleaner.com/gleaner/20070405/news/news7.html

10 Report on Physical Punishment in the United States: What Research Tells us About its Effects on Children. Elizabeth T. Gerschoff, Ph.D, Phoenix Children’s Hospital, Child Abuse Prevention11 Youth Violence Prevention-http://youthviolence.edschool.virginia.edu/prevention/home.html

42Appendix I

CREATING SAFE PLACE FOR LEARNING

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE

Good morning/afternoon! Welcome to our discussion group. We are doing an evaluation of the Creating Safe Place for Learning Project for UNICEF.

We want to hear your views on violence and safety in schools and some of the things that your school is doing to prevent violence from taking place and making the school safer. We have some questions that we want to ask you, but we want you to feel free tell us about anything else that you think is important in relation to the issue. What you say in this group is confidential, so no one will know who said what, but in our report we will tell them about the views that you have in general. Is that ok with you?

Just so we don’t miss anything that you say during our discussion we will be taking some notes.

So can we start now?

INTRODUCTION

1. If you wanted to tell persons (like us) that don’t know anything about your school, how would you de-scribe it in one or two words?

PERCEPTION OF VIOLENCE IN SCHOOL

2. Would you say violence is a problem at this school?

3. Do you think violence is increasing or decreasing at this school?

4. How well is the problem of violence managed at this school by the teachers?

5. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being smallest and 10 being highest, how do you rate violence in your school?

ANGER MANAGEMENT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

6. What are the things that usually create conflict at school?

7. Have you ever been involved in conflict or violence at school?

8. Can you tell me about any classes/lessons/programmes that have assisted you with dealing with vio-lence, anger and conflict at school?

9. As a result of these sessions do you think that you react less violently/aggressively when faced with conflict now?

10. Do you use any particular skills that you have learnt and that you can you tell me about?

CHILD RIGHTS

11. Are you familiar with Child Rights and responsibilities and can you tell me any that you know of?

12. Do you think the rights of the child are respected at your school?

13. Are there any individuals/ agencies/organisations that you think do not respect the rights of the child?

43RECALL OF POSITIVE MESSAGES

14. Can you tell me any positive messages about anger, management and conflict resolution that you can recall from the project?

OTHER COMMENTS

15. Is there anything else that you would like to share that is relevant to the discussion?

44Appendix II


INTERVIEW GUIDE-SCHOOL BASED PROFESSIONALS

Good morning/afternoon! We are doing an evaluation of the Creating Safe Place for Learning Project for UNICEF.

As you were one of the school based professionals involved in the project we would like to hear your views on how the project has gone and if there have been any changes as a result of the project. What you say is confidential, so no one will know what you said but in our report we will capture the views of all the school-based professionals (9) that we are interviewing, across region one four and six. Is that ok with you?

Just so we don’t miss anything that you say during our discussion I will be taking some notes.

So can we begin?

INTRODUCTION

1. Can you tell me a little bit about the Creating Safe Place for Learning Project?

2. How easy or difficult has it been to implement the project?

PERCEPTION OF VIOLENCE IN SCHOOL

3. Would you say violence has increased or decreased at this school over the last year?

4. What are some of the factors contributing to a decrease/increase?

ANGER MANAGEMENT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

5. Can you tell me a little bit about your training in anger management and conflict resolution?

6. How have you applied this training to your teaching practice?

7. Do you think that anger management and conflict resolution techniques should be taught to students?

8. Do you think teachers and students alike contribute to conflict in schools?

9. Can you tell me about the strategies that the school has in place to manage violence?

10. As a result of the CSPL project do you think that you manage conflict and violence with and among stu-dents better than before?

11. Are there any particular skills that you have learnt that you would say are most helpful?

CHILD RIGHTS

12. Can you name three child rights and corresponding responsibilities that better protect children?

13. Finally in your view what would you say the impact of the project has been?

45Appendix III


INTERVIEW GUIDE-KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Good morning/afternoon! We are doing an evaluation of the Creating Safe Place for Learning Project for UNICEF.

As one of the key stakeholders for this project we would like to hear your views on how the project has gone and if you think that there have been there have been any changes as a result of the project. What you say is confidential, so no one will know what you said but in our report we will capture the views of all the stake-holders. Is that ok with you?

Just so we don’t miss anything that you say during our discussion I will be taking some notes. May we begin?

Semi-Structured question guide

1. Can you tell me a little bit about the Creating Safe Place for Learning Project?

2. In your view how easy or difficult has it been to implement the project?

3. How well do you think the MOEY and the schools have taken on board this initiative?

4. What do you think of the Anger Management and Conflict Resolution Manual, is it user friendly and practical?

5. What would you say have been some of the strengths and some of the weaknesses of the project?

6. What are your views on the school suspension intervention project and the Peace and Justice cen-tres?

7. Do you think that this pilot project has the right approach to preventing violence in schools?

8. Are there ways in which you think the project can be improved?

9. Do you think that it should be adopted by the MOEY and mainstreamed?

10. Is there anything else that you think is important to this evaluation that you would like to share?

46Appendix IV

PRIMARY CAREGIVER SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

INTERVIEWER NAME:…………………………………………………………………………

QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER: [_P_]_C_][G__]__]__]

DATE COMPLETED:……………………………..

NAME OF SCHOOL/TYPE:……………………………………………………………………

Checked by…………………………. Dated……………………………………………………..

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hello. I’m ___________ and I’m a member of the team carrying out an evaluation of the Creating Safe Places for Learning Project (CSPL) for UNICEF. The purpose of the evaluation is to find out whether the CSPL (state in full) project has impacted positively in your school and your views on this. We will be interviewing 153 students, 34 teachers and 34 parents in 17 of the 30 schools that have participated in the project and you have been selected to be one of the people that we would like to talk to. If there is any question that you do not want to answer, you can just say so and we will leave it out. Your name will not be put on the questionnaire so the information you tell us is anonymous. All the answers will be put together for the evaluation. Are you ok with this? Can we begin?

1. DEMOGRAPHICS

No. Questions Coding categories

Q1 SEX OF RESPONDENT

Circle 1 or 2

MALE……………………….1

FEMALE……………………2

Q2 What age range do you fall into?

Do not write age, tick box. If PCG declines to answer question please note

Please Tick Box

18-24 [__]

25-29 [__]

30-35 [__]

36-40 [__]

40-49 [__]

50 + [__]Q3 What grade are your child/children in at this

school?

(Please circle all that apply for this school only)

Grade………………………………… 5

Grade………………………………… 6

Grade………………………………… 7

Grade………………………………… 8

Grade………………………………… 9

Grade……………………………….. 10

47Q4 What are the ages of your children attending this

school?

Write down the ages of children at this school only

1. [__][__]

2. [__][__]

3. [__][__]

4. [__][__]

Q5 Can you tell me about your family structure, is it?

Read some examples from top of list to give some examples

Mother (single parent, female headed)……...1

Father (single parent, male headed)………..2

Mother and Father (nuclear) ……................3

Mother and Step Father…………...............4

Father and Step Mother…………….…….5

Grandmother and Grandfather……………..6

Grandmother(single female headed)………..7

Grandfather (single male headed)..………....8

Other (specify)………………………………9

48Q6 How many persons live in your home

Please Circle

1………………………………

2………………………………

3……………………………….

4………………………………

5………………………………

6……………………………….

7………………………………..

More than 7……………………Q7 How many rooms do you have in your house,

excluding the bathroom and kitchen?

Please Circle

1………………………………

2………………………………

3……………………………….

4………………………………

5………………………………

6……………………………….

More than 6……………………Q8 Where do you live? (Community)

Please write the, community and the parish

e.g. Flankers, St James

STATECLEARLY

Community……………………………………….

Parish…………………………………………….

Q9 Do you consider the community that you live in to be a violent one?

Yes………………………..1

No…………………………2

Sometimes/depends………3

Don’t Know……………….4

2. PERCEPTION OF CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

Q10 Do you think your child’s school is safe?

(Please circle one only answer)

Yes ……………………………1

No……………………………..2

Sometimes/Depends…………..3

Capture comments for sometimes/depends:

49Q11 Over the last year, do you think violence at

your child’s school has:

Probe why for all answers and capture com-ments in brief

E.g. No information, don’t go to PTA meet-ings,, CSPL programme etc.

Increased …………………………….1

Decreased …………………………....2

Stayed the same……………………..3

Don’t Know………………………….4

(Unprompted knowledge of CSPL)

Q12 At your child’s school, who do conflicts mainly occur between?

DO NOT READ OUT OPTIONS

(Circle only 2 options)

Between boys……………………………1

Between girls……………………………2

Between girls and boys………………….3

Between male teachers and boys……………………………………..4

Between male teachers and girls………………………………………5

Between female teachers and boys…………………………………….6

Between female teachers and girls…………………………………….7

Between teachers………………………8

Between parents………………………..9

Between parents and teachers…………10

Between parents and students………….11

Other…………………………………..12

Please state:

Q13 Does conflict occur mainly in the upper or lower years of the school?

Circle 1 or 2

Upper Years…………………………..1

Lower Years…………………………..2

50Q14 In your view what times of the day/places do

conflicts occur?

(Read out the 5 choices first)

Before School starts…………………………………………......1

During Break……………………........………………….2

During Lunchtime………………………………3

During Classes…………………………………..4

After School……………………………………..5

Other…………………………………………… 6

Pleasestateforother:

Q15 In your view what would you say are the things that are most likely to cause conflict at your child’s school?

Circle 2 only

Damage to Property………………………………1

Rumour/Gossip…..……………………………….2

Competition………………………………………3

Frustration…………………………………………4

Not wanting to work with other students………...5

Theft………………………………………………6

Fights over a girl/boy(jealousy)…………………………………7

Other……………………………………………...8

Q16 What are the main weapons used by the chil-dren in schools?

Circle no more than2

Knives……………………………………1

Machetes…………………………….…..2

Scissors………………………………......3

Screw drivers…………………………….4

Razors……………………………………5

Other……………………………………..6

Pleasestateclearlyallexamplesgivenforother:

51Q17 How do you think students involved in con-

flict and violence in schools are viewed by the other students?

Circle 1 or 2

Circle 3 or 4

Circle 5 or 6

They are respected ………………………1

They are not respected…………………..2

They are feared……………………………….3

They are not feared…………………………...4

They are popular………………………………5

They are unpopular……………………………6

Other comments……………………………….7

(Pleasestate)

Q18 Are there rules at your Childs school to deal with conflict?

If yes go to Q20

If no skip Q29 and go to Q21

Yes…………………………………..1

No…………………………………...2

Don’t know………………………….3

Q19 In your view, are the rules working? Yes…………………………………..1

No…………………………………...2

Don’t know………………………….3

Sometimes/depends………..………..4

(please capture comments for sometimes/depends)

Q20 Is corporal punishment used as a form of punishment at your child’s school?

Explain the term corporal punishment if they don’t know.

Yes………………………1

No………………………..2

Don’t Know………………3

Q21 Has your child ever been referred to the P&J Centre?

Yes………………………1

No………………………..2Q22 Did you child attend the P&J Centre? Yes………………………1

No………………………..2Q23 Do you think that your child’s behaviour

improved as a result of attending the P&J Centre?

es………………………1

No………………………..2

Don’t Know

Capture comments for d/k

523. KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES IN RELATION TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION, ANGER MANAGEMENT AND MEDIATION

Q24 Have you participated in any CSPL training for parents in conflict resolution and anger management?

Describe CSPL programme

Circle one only

If yes go to Q23, If no skip 23 and go to Q24

Yes…………………….1

No……………………..2

Q25 How often have you participated in these ses-sions?

Once……………………………………….1

Twice ………….………………………….2

Three times………………………………..3

Four Times………………………………...4

Five Times…………………………………5

More than 5 times………………………….6

Q26 What is conflict Resolution? Write exactly what the PCG says:

Q27 Can you tell me some anger management styles or techniques:

If yes write down what is said.

Yes…………………….1

No……………………..2

For yes please state what is said:

Q28 What is Mediation? Write exactly what PCG says:

Q29 Do you know if there are trained mediators at your child’s school?

Circle one answer only

Yes……………………..1

No………………………2

Don’t Know……………..3

53Q30 Do you think the use of corporal punishment

is harmful to children?

Circle one answer only

Go to next question whether they answer yes or no

Please circle yes or no

YES………..……………1

NO……………………...,2

Q31 Can you name any harmful effects of corpo-ral punishment?

Stop after for 3 responses, but do not prompt if there are less than 3 responses

Yes……………………..1

No………………………2


If yes

1.-------------------------------------------------

2.--------------------------------------------------

3.--------------------------------------------------

Q32 Do you use corporal punishment at home now?

Yes…………………1

No…………………...2

Q33 Do you use corporal punishment less at home now?

Yes………………….1

No…………………...2

If yes, probe as to why?

Please Tick

Exposure to CSPL Programme conflict resolution and anger management training [__]

Child too big now [__]

Other [__]

544. CHILD RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Q34 Can you name three rights and corresponding responsibilities to better protect children?

(Show an example if the books)

Yes…………………….1

No……………………..2


Ifyesstateexactlywhatthestudentsays:

1.

2.

3

Many thanks for spending this time and helping us with this evaluation.

55Appendix V

STUDENT SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

INTERVIEWER NAME:…………………………………………………………………………..

QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER: [_S_]_N_][__] [__][__]

DATE COMPLETED:…………………………………..

NAME OF SCHOOL/TYPE:………………………………………………………………………

Checked by…………………………. Dated

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hello. I’m ___________ and I’m a member of the team carrying out an evaluation of the Creating Safe Place for Learning Project (CSPL) for UNICEF. The purpose of the evaluation is to find out whether the CSPL (state in full) project has impacted positively in your school and your views on this. We will be interviewing 153 students, 34 teachers and 34 parents in 17 of the 30 schools that have participated in the project and you have been selected to be one of the people that we would like to talk to. (Your parent(s) or guardian has agreed that we can interview you) If there is any question that you do not want to answer, you can just say so and we will leave it out. Your name will not be put on the question-naire so the information is anonymous and all the answers will be put together for the evaluation. Are you ok with this and can we begin?

1. DEMOGRAPHICS

No. Questions Coding categoriesQ1 SEX OF RESPONDENT

Circle 1 or 2

MALE……………………….1


Q2 How old were you at your last birthday? Age in completed years [__]__]Q3 What grade are you in?

Please circle

Grade………………………………… 5

Grade………………………………… 6

Grade………………………………… 7

Grade………………………………… 8

Grade………………………………… 9

Grade……………………………….. 10

56Q4 Who do you live with?

Please circle

Mother (single parent, female head-ed)…………………………………………...1

Father (single parent, male headed)……………..2

Mother and Father (nuclear) ……..........................3

Mother and Step Father………….........................4

Father and Step Mother………………………….5

Grandmother and Grandfather………………….6

Grandmother(single female head-ed)…………………………………………..7

Grandfather (single male head-ed)..………………………….........................8

Other (specify) __________________________9

e.g. Children’s home

Q5 How many persons live in your home

Please Circle

1………………………………

2………………………………

3……………………………….

4………………………………

5………………………………

6……………………………….

7………………………………..

More than 7……………………Q6 How many rooms do you have in your house,

excluding the bathroom and kitchen?

Please Circle

1………………………………

2………………………………

3……………………………….

4………………………………

5………………………………

6……………………………….

More than 6……………………Q7 Where do you live? (Community)


E.g. Flankers, St James

STATE CLEARLY

Community……………………………………….

Parish…………………………………………….

57Q8 Do you consider the community that you live

in to be a violent one?Yes…………………………1

No………………………….2



Q9 Do you enjoy coming to school? Yes………………………..1

No………………………...2Q10 Do you feel safe at your school?

Please circle one only answer

Yes ……………………………1

No……………………………..2

Sometimes/Depends………….3


Q11 Over the last year, do you think violence at your school has:

Please circle one only answer

Increased …………………………….1

Decreased …………………………....2


Don’t Know………………………….4

Probe why for Increased or decreased and capture comments


58Q12 At your school, who do conflicts mainly oc-

cur between?


Circle no more than 3











Between parents ans students………….11

Other…………………………………..12

Please state:

Q13 Does the conflict occur mainly in upper or lower years of the school

Circle 1 or 2


Lower Years…………………………..2Q14 At what times of the day/places do conflicts

mainly occur?

Read out options



During Break……………………........………………….2

During Lunchtime……………………………….3


After School……………………………………..5

Other…………………………………………… 6


59Q15 In your view what would you say are the

things that are most likely to cause conflict at your school?





Frustration…………………………………………4


Theft………………………………………………6


Other……………………………………………...8Q16 What are the main weapons used in schools?


Knives……………………………………1

Machetes…………………………….…..2

Scissors………………………………......3


Razors……………………………………5

Other……………………………………..6

Pleasestateclearlyallexamplesgivenforother:Q17 How do you think students involved in con-

flict and violence at schools are viewed by the other students?

Circle 1 or 2

Circle 3 or 4

Circle 5 or 6

They are well respected ……………………….1

They are not respected………………………...2

They are feared………………………………..3

They are not feared…………………………....4




(Pleasestate)

60Q18 Are there rules at the school to deal with

conflict?

If yes go to Q19

If no or don’t know skip Q19 and go to Q20

Yes…………………………1

No………………………….2

Don’t Know………………..3


No…………………………………...2

Don’t know………………………….3


(please capture comments for sometimes/de-pends)

Q20 Is corporal punishment (beating) used as a form of punishment at this school?

Yes………………………1

No………………………..2Q21 Have you ever been suspended from school? Yes………………………1

No………………………..2Q22 Were you referred to the P&J Centre

If yes go to Q23

Yes………………………1

No………………………..2Q23 Did you attend the P&J Center Yes………………………1

No………………………..2

61Q24 How many days did you spend at the P&J

Centre1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

> 10Q25 How you been referred to the P&J Centre

more than once? Yes………………………1

No………………………..2

Q26 Have you repeated your attendance at the P& J Centre more than once?

Yes………………………1

No………………………..2

Q27 Do you think your behavior improved as a result of attending the P&J Centre

Yes………………………1

No………………………..2

Don’t know


Q28 Have you participated in any conflict resolu-tion lessons at this school using these work-books?

(ShowanexampleoftheCSPLbooks)

Circle one only

Please probe for attendance at P&J Cen-tre

If yes or at P&J Center go to Q22

Yes……………………………..1

No………………………………2

At Peace and Justice Centre (School Suspension Programme) …………………………………..3

Q29 How often are these sessions held? Weekly……………………………………….1

At least once per month…………………….2

At least twice per month…………………….3

Once per term………………………………..4

Once per year………………………………..5

Other…………………………………………6

E.g. at SSIP (School Suspension Intervention Programme)

Q30 What is conflict Resolution? Write exactly what the student says:

63Q31 Can you tell me some anger management

styles

Ifyeswritedownwhatissaid.

Yes…………………….1

No……………………..2


Q32 What is Mediation? Write exactly what students says:

Q 33 Have you participated in Mediation session in schools?

Yes……………………..1

No………………………2

Don’t Know……………..3Q34 Do you have trained mediators in your

school?Yes……………………..1

No………………………2


64Q35 Do you think as a result of these sessions you

have learnt skills to better manage conflict and anger now?

Ifyesorno,probeastowhy

YES………..……………1

NO……………………...2

Don’t Know……… 3

WHY? (Please state comments)

Q36 If you are involved in a conflict with a stu-dent in school what would you do?

State what student says:

(Testing the applying of techniques)

Q37 Can you tell me one positive message about conflict resolution and anger management that you have learnt

Yes…………………1

No…………………...2

If yes, write exactly what the student says:


Q38 Can you name three rights and corre-sponding responsibilities to better protect children?

Yes…………………….1

No……………………..2


Ifyesstateexactlywhatthestudentsays:

1.

2.

3.


66Appendix VI

SCHOOL BASED PROFESSIONAL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

INTERVIEWER NAME:…………………………………………………………………………

QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER: [__S]_B_][_P_]__][__]__]

DATE COMPLETED:……………………………………..

NAME OF SCHOOL/TYPE:…………………………………………………………………….

Checked by…………………………. Dated

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hello. I’m ___________ and I’m a member of the team carrying out an evaluation of the Creating Safe Place for Learning Project (CSPL) for UNICEF. The purpose of the evaluation is to find out whether the CSPL (state in full) project has impacted positively in your school and your views on this. We will be interviewing 153 students, 34 teachers and 34 parents in 17 of the 30 schools that have participated in the project and you have been selected to be one of the people that we would like to talk to. If there is any question that you do not want to answer, you can just say so and we will leave it out. Your name will not be put on the questionnaire so the information is anonymous and all the answers will be put together for the evaluation. Are you ok with this and can we begin?

1. DEMOGRAPHICS

No. Questions Coding categoriesSEX OF RESPONDENT

Circle 1 or 2

MALE……………………….1


What age range do you fall into?

Do not write age, tick box. If SBP declines to answer question please note

Please Tick Box18-24 [__]

25-29 [__]

30-35 [__]

36-40 [__]

40-49 [__] 50 + [__]

67Q3 What grades do you teach?

(Please circle all that apply)

Grade………………………………… 5

Grade………………………………… 6

Grade………………………………… 7

Grade………………………………… 8

Grade………………………………… 9

Grade……………………………….. 10

Grade……………………………….. 11

Other…………………………………..12

Please note other

Q4 Where do you live? (Community)


e.g. Flankers, St James

STATE CLEARLY

Community……………………………………….

Parish…………………………………………….

Q5 Do you consider the community that you live in to be a violent one?

Yes………………………..1

No…………………………2



Q6 Do you enjoy teaching at this school? (Please circle one only answer

Yes…………………………1

No……………………….....2

Sometimes…………………3Q7 Do you feel safe at this school?

(Please circle one only answer)

Yes ……………………………1

No……………………………..2

Sometimes/Depends…………..3


Q8 Do you think the students are safe at this school?

(Please circle one only answer

Yes ……………………………1

No……………………………..2

Q9 Over the last year, do you think violence at this school has:

(Please circle one only answer

If no go to the next question

Increased …………………………….1

Decreased …………………………....2


Don’t Know………………………….4

Capture comments for Increased or decreased


69Q10 At your school, who do conflicts mainly oc-

cur between?













Between parents and students………….11

Other…………………………………..12

Please state:

Q11 Does the conflict occur mainly in upper or lower years of the school?


Lower Years…………………………..2

70Q12 At what times of the day/places do conflicts

mainly occur at this school?

Read out the 5 choices



During Break……………………........………………….2

During Lunchtime………………………………3


After School……………………………………..5

Other…………………………………………… 6


Q13 In your view what would you say are the things that are most likely to cause conflict at this school?

Do not read options and circle no more than 3




Frustration…………………………………………4


Theft………………………………………………6


Other……………………………………………...8

Q14 What are the main weapons used in this school?


Knives……………………………………1

Machetes…………………………….…..2

Scissors………………………………......3


Razors……………………………………5

Other……………………………………..6

Pleasestateclearlyallexamplesgivenforother:

71Q15 How do you think students involved in con-

flict and violence at this school are viewed by the other students?

Circle 1 or 2

Circle 2 or 3

Circle 5 or 6

Or 7 for other and comments

They are well respected ………………………1

They are not well respected…………………..2

They are feared……………………………….3

They are not feared…………………………...4




(Pleasestate)

Q16 Are there rules at this school to deal with conflict?

If yes go to Q17

If no or don’t know skip Q17 and go to Q18

Yes…………………………………..1

No…………………………………...2

Don’t know………………………….3


No…………………………………...2

Don’t know………………………….3


(please capture comments for sometimes/de-pends)

Q18 Is corporal punishment (beating) used as a form of punishment at this school?

Yes………………………1

No………………………..2Q19 Do you think that corporal punishment

should be used in schools?

Circle 1 or 2

Yes………………………1

No………………………..2

72Q20 Do you refer students to the P&J Centres? Yes………………………1

No………………………..2

Q21 Do you think that their behaviour improves as a result of attending the P&J Centres?

Yes………………………1

No………………………..2

Don’t Know

Capture comments for d/k


Q22 Have you been trained in conflict resolution and anger management as part of the CSPL programme?

Yes…………………….1

No……………………..2

Q23 Have you taught any of the CSPL conflict resolution lessons to students using these workbooks (Showanexampleofthebooks)Circle one only

Yes…………………….1

No……………………..2

Q24 Is the CSPL conflict resolution programme being taught at this school using these work-books?

Show example of material

Circle one only

Yes…………………….1

No……………………..2


Q25 Do you know how often these sessions are held?

Weekly……………………………………….1

At least once per month…………………….2

At least twice per month…………………….3

Once per term………………………………..4

Once per year………………………………..5

Other…………………………………………6

e.g. at SSIP (School Suspension Intervention Programme)

Q26 Can you define Conflict Resolution for me? Write exactly what the SBP says:

74Q27 Can you tell me some anger management

styles?

Ifyeswritedownwhatissaid.

Yes…………………….1

No……………………..2


Q28 What is mediation? Write exactly what SBP says:

Q 29 Have you participated in delivering mediation lessons in this school?

Yes……………………..1

No………………………2

Don’t Know……………..3Q30 Do you have trained mediators at this school? Yes……………………..1

No………………………2

Don’t Know……………..3Q31 Do you think as a result of these sessions you

have learnt skills to better manage conflict and anger now?

Ifyesorno,probeastowhy

YES………..……………1

NO……………………...2

Don’t Know……… 3

WHY? (Please state comments)

75Q32 If you are involved in a conflict with a student

in school what would you do?State what student says:

(Testing the applying of techniques)

Q33 Do you think that the students have learnt new skills to better manage conflict and anger now as a result of the CSPL programme?

Circle only one answer

Yes…………………..1

No…………………...2

Don’t Know………….3

Capture comments


Q34 Can you name three rights and corresponding responsibilities to better protect children?

Yes…………………….1

No……………………..2


IfyesstateexactlywhattheSBP says:

1.

2.

3


77Appendix VII

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

Objectives Expected Results

July 2007 – Dec 2010

Measurable Indicators Data Collection

Methodology & Source2. 1. To as-certain the % change in the incidence of violence and vi-olence-inflicted injuries in the target schools

15% Reduction in Violent Incidents in 30 target Schools from Baseline position by end of project (December 2010)

# of incidences of school based violence;

# & % of violence related in-juries in target schools inflicted by a weapon;

# of weapons confiscated from students;

# of hours lost due to school based violence

Secondary quantitative data

Project reports ,School based incident reports, Peace and Justice intake forms (MOE & Schools)

and Baseline study


July 2007 – Dec 2009


Methodology/ and Source2:2 To ascer-tain knowl-edge and skill levels of school profession-als, caregivers and students in conflict resolution and mediation.

200 (100 in 2008 & 100 in 2009) professionals in school based professionals equipped with the knowledge and skills in conflict resolution and me-diation through 1 day training exercises

6,000 parents equipped with the knowledge and skills to better manage conflict in their homes and use alternate disci-plinary practices for peaceful conflict resolution and disci-pline

# of school based profes-sionals trained in conflict resolution and mediation skills (Master Trainers)

# of school based profession-als trained in skills to detect, manage mitigate and refer chil-dren as perpetrators or victims of violence

# of parents trained in con-flict resolution and mediation skills

Secondary quantitative Data

Project quarterly Reports /Re-ports of Training and Evalua-

tion Reports

78Objectives Expected Results

July 2007 – Dec 2009


Methodology/ and Source2.2 contd:

6,000 children ( at risk ado-lescents )equipped with the knowledge and skills to better resolve conflicts peacefully and promote peaceful solution building in homes; schools and communities

# of primary caregivers knowledgeable about anger management techniques

% of parents knowledgeable of conflict resolution

% of parents knowledge-able of alternate disciplinary practices

# of children trained in con-flict resolution and mediation skills

% of student population pro-vided with conflict resolution classes;

% of total number of children completing all workshop days

% of children knowledgeable of conflict resolution and mediation skills

% of children equipped with anger management skills

% of children reporting less use of violence to resolve conflict

Primary quantitative data-Survey

Secondary quantitative data-Project Reports

Primary qualitative/quan-titative data- Survey & FGD

Secondary data-Project quar-terly Reports


July 2007 – Dec 2010


Methodology & Analysis2:3To ascer-tain the atti-tudes of school p r o f e s s i o n -als, caregivers and students to violence in schools.

Improved attitude of school based professionals, parents and children towards the risk of violence in schools com-pared to baseline*

Students, school based profes-sionals and parents percep-tions of risk of violence and perception of the overall safety of the school environ-ment.

Primary qualitative & quan-titative data (Survey, FGD stu-dents and Interviews professionals)

Secondary qualitative data (Baseline and Project reports)


July 2007 – Dec 2010


Methodology & Analysis2:4To ascertain the attitudes of school professionals, caregivers and students to the use of corporal punishment.

6,000 parents equipped with the knowledge and skills to better manage conflict in their homes and use alternate disci-plinary practices for peaceful conflict resolution and disci-pline

% of parents able to name three harmful effects of cor-poral punishment

% of parents reporting re-duced use of corporal punish-ment in the home

Primary qualitative & quan-titative data-Survey Project quarterly Reports (Project Coordinator and YPF)

*My emphasis


July 2007 – Dec 2010


Methodology & Analysis2.5 To assist with determin-ing the impact of the project, to promote and improve efforts to de-tect, manage, mitigate and refer children as perpetrators or as victims of violence

100 School based professionals equipped with knowledge on Child rights

2,000 primary caregivers equipped with knowledge on child rights

15,000 children equipped with knowledge on child rights

2 primary schools and 2 sec-ondary schools in Kingston and St. James will have singed a pledge to zero tolerance to the use of corporal punish-ment in their schools guaran-teeing more protective envi-ronments for optimal learning

7,500 (6,000) adolescents receiving child friendly services and access to information in a safe, non-judgmental space to make positive lifestyle choices.

# of School based profession-als able to name three rights and corresponding responsibil-ities to better protect children

# of primary caregivers, able to name three rights and cor-responding responsibilities to better protect children

# of children, able to name three rights and corresponding responsibilities to better pro-tect children

# of edutainment sessions de-livered

# of post-performance focus group discussions

# of schools signing a pledge to zero tolerance to the use of corporal punishment

# of adolescents accessing conflict resolution and me-diation services at each of the 5 Child friendly Peace and Justice Centres

Primary qualitative & quantitative data-Survey

Secondary quantitative data-Project Reports

812.5 contd: 150,000 adolescents in St.

James; St. Catherine; Kingston and St. Andrew aware of the availability and location of child friendly conflict resolu-tion and mediation services

150,000 children and young people aware of and positively motivated by positive behav-ioural messages supporting violence prevention through diverse media

White Paper on Safe Schools Policy incorporating provision pertaining to the abolition of corporal punishment approved by Parliament by December

#of children referred to and successfully completed School Suspension Intervention pro-gramme**

% increase in the number of adolescents in 2008 and 2009 accessing the services of the Child friendly Peace and Jus-tice Centres

# of IEC materials produced and disseminated

% recall of positive behav-ioural messages in end of project evaluation on repre-sentative sample of 150,000 targeted

Status of White Paper

Secondary Quantitative data-Project Reports

Primary quantitative/quali-tative data (Survey, FGD)

MOE report

82Appendix VIII

SENT ON MOEY LETTERHEAD

Dated October 22, 2010

Dear (Insert Principal’s Name)

Re: Evaluation of Creating Safe Places for Learning Project

UNICEF has engaged the services of Ms. Audrey Brown to evaluate the Creating Safe Places for Learning Project in which was piloted in 30 schools in Kingston, St. Catherine and St. James. The methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of this project will be a combination of qualitative and quantitative research that include a survey, focus group discussions, interviews and examination of critical incident reports.

Seventeen schools (please see list below) out of the thirty pilot schools have been purposively selected for the qualitative aspect of this evaluation and this was based on your progress at implementing the project. Ms. Audrey Brown, along with her team, would like to interview 2 school-based professionals that have been involved in the implementation of the project, 2 parents whose children have been recipients of the project, conduct one focus group discussion with 10 students at your school who have been exposed to the project, as well as carrying out an administered survey with 9 students who have also been exposed to the project and who are not a part of the focus group discussion.

UNICEF requires the field work to be completed by the second week of November 2010, therefore we are kindly requesting your cooperation in this regard. Would you be so kind as to provide the following information:

1. The names of 2 school-based professionals involved in the project who can be interviewed.

2. The names of two parents who can be interviewed.

If possible we would like to conduct all the interviews on the same day and each interview will take no more than 20 minutes.

3. The names of 10 students who can take part in a Focus Group discussion and a date and time for this activity (This will require approximately 45 minutes)

4. The names of nine (different) students that can answer the survey questionnaire (perhaps on the same day that the focus group discussions are being held if that is convenient (Interviewers will ask the questions and it should only take about 10 minutes to administer per student)

This information should be sent to Mrs. Yvonne Eubank, Project Coordinator, Guidance and Counselling Unit at the MOE at [email protected] and copied to Ms. Audrey Brown at [email protected]. Please also send telephone contact details so that Ms. Brown can contact the appropriate persons directly.

We are also attaching a consent form for parents to sign, giving permission for their children to participate in focus group discussions and the survey.

Thanking you in advance for your kind cooperation.

83Yours sincerely,

Clement Radcliff (Mr.)

Deputy Chief Education Officer

Schools Operation

The List of schools Selected:

Region One

1. Ellestson Primary

2. Holy Trinity High

3. Jones Town Primary

4. Mountain View Primary

5. Norman Gardens All Age

6. Whitfield All-Age

Region Six

7. St Catherine High

8. St Catherine Primary

9. Spanish Town Primary

10. White Marl All-Age

Region Four

11. Cornwall College

12. Flankers Primary

13. Granville High

14. Montego Bay High

15. Ruseas High

16. St James High

17. Spot Valley

84Appendix IX

PARENT CONSENT FORM

Dear Parent/Guardian

Re: Evaluation of Creating Safe Places for Learning Project

UNICEF is carrying out an evaluation of the Creating Safe Places for Learning Project in schools, lead by Ms. Audrey Brown, an evaluation consultant. The evaluation is seeking to find our if the project that was implemented in your child’s school has had a positive impact on preventing violence in schools and making the school environment a safer place.

As your child is one of the children who has participated in the project, through either the sessions on anger management and conflict resolution or through the Peace and Justice Centre, we would like him/her to participate in the evaluation by either participating in a Focus Group Discussion about the issues of violence in schools or by answering a survey questionnaire. What they say is confidential however and will be put together with all the other responses from students, teachers and parents to give an overall picture of any changes that have taken place at the school since the project began.

Can you please sign the form below authorising your child to participate in this evaluation and return it to the Guidance Counsellor at the school?

Parents Consent

Name (PLASE PRINT)…………………………………………………………………

Signature………………………………………………………………………………..

Thanking you in advance for you kind cooperation.

Audrey Brown (Evaluation Consultant)

85Appendix X

Table 1. List of Pilot Schools in CSPL Project

Region One Region Four Region Six1. August Town Primary 1. Cornwall College 1. Jonathon Grant2. Boys’ Town 2. Flankers PJH 2. Mc Auley Primary3. Charlie Smith 3. Granville High 3. St Catherine High4. Elletson Primary 4. Montego Bay

High4. St Catherine Primary

5. Holy Trinity 5. Mount Alvernia High

5. Spanish Town High Pri-mary

6. Jones Town Primary 6. Ruseas High 6. Spanish Town Primary7. Kingston College 7. St James High 7. Tredegar Park8. Kingston Technical 8. Spot Valley High 8. White Marl All Age9. Mountain View Pri-

mary10. New Day Primary11. Norman Gardens PJH*12. Trench Town High13. Trench Town Primary14. Whitfield PJH

*Primary, Junior High

Table 4. Baseline Finding of School Based Conflict in 21 Target Schools

BASELINE FINDINGS-School Based Conflict in 21 Target Schools

2005=-26112006= 3029 (up by 16%)2007=3486

(up by 15.10%, a decrease of 0.9 on previous years increase)

Source: Conflict Resolution as a solution - Creating Safe places for Learning, Baseline Assessment and Performance Framework- defined as ‘School- Based Conflict’.

Table 7. Breakdown of Master Trainers

Breakdown 81 Master TrainersGuidance Counsellors 35Deans of Discipline 13Principals 10Vice Principals 04Teachers 19TOTAL 81

Source: Verbal report from Meeting with MOE CSPL Project Coordinator, September 27, 2010

86Appendix XI

Figure 4. Family Structure

Figure 5. Number of Rooms in House Excluding Kitchen and Bathrooms

87Figure 12. How do you think students involved in conflict and violence at school are viewed by the other students? - Respected by students

Figure 13. How do you think students involved in conflicts and violence at school are viewed by the other students? - Feared by students

88Figure 14. How do you think students involved in conflict and violence at schools are viewed by the other students? - Popularity among students

Figure 15. Students awareness of school rules: Are there rules at the school to deal with conflict?

89Figure 16. Students views on whether school rules are working

Figure 17. Have you been suspended from school/ were you referred to the PJC/did you attend the PJC?

90Figure 18. Referrals and Repeat Attendance at Peace and Justice Centre

Figure 20. Have you participated in any conflict resolution lessons at this school using these workbooks?

91Figure 22. Can you tell me some anger management styles ?

Figure 25. Can you name three rights and corresponding responsibilities to better protect children?

92Figure 26. Use of Corporal Punishment

93Appendix XII

QUALITATIVE DISCUSSIONS

The Views of Students

IndividualschoolsinvolvedintheFGD,surveyorschoolswhereteacherswereinterviewedarenotnamed inorder tomaintainanonymityaspromised.However thecategoriesand locationsareasfollows:

• 2 High Schools (Kingston and Montego Bay)

• 3 Primary Schools (Kingston, Spanish Town and Montego Bay)

• 2 Peace and Justice Centres (Kingston and Spanish Town)

The opening question for the focus groups “If you wanted to tell someone like me that doesn’t know anything about your school, how would you describe it in one or two words?”, appeared to be a successful opener that generated much debate about the student’s experiences of their school and the stark contrasts between primary and secondary school students, from school to school, from teacher to teacher and their attitudes to violence and discipline in schools. Examples of this include a high school in Kingston where the students were extremely critical of their school. They said:

“There are lots of fights”

“Teachers need to show more respect and manners”

Compared to a Montego Bay High School where the students gave glowing accounts of the school and the teachers:

“The teachers don’t encourage conflict like in some schools”

“We have very little violence here”

The primary school children similarly shared very different sentiments about their schools. The children at a primary school in Spanish Town referred to their school in the following way:

“It’s fun”

“Principal makes sure everything is ok and we fix ourselves properly”

“Teachers are strict”

A Kingston Primary school shared similar positive feedback:

“Teachers inform us about our teen years” (It was World AIDS Day week)

“The teachers are very responsible”

“Teachers tell you not to keep malice”

94

An 11 year old student said;

“The only bad side about this school is the environment”

Following on from this comment when the children were asked to describe their environment, individual comments were:

• “Warring and gunmen”

• “Quarreling and fighting”

• “Nasty words and people crying”

To a Montego Bay Primary school where the students were very critical:

“I like the school but not the teachers”

“Look pon mi han miss, teacher do mi dis miss” (her hand was swollen)

“The teachers’ dem wicked”

On checking the extent to which these sentiments were shared among the group, 7 out of 10 students were in agreement that they do not like the teachers at this primary school. When probed further, they admitted that there were only two teachers that they considered to be very wicked and who beat the children, but these teachers impacted their view of the school and teachers on a whole.

Students who were part of the FGD at the Peace and Justice Centres were not included in the groups at the schools; therefore they gave their views on their individual schools and on the P&J Centres that they were attending. Similarly there were very different views of their respective schools, primarily along the same lines as the school groups about their views on the attitudes and behaviours of teachers towards students. What was evident from this first question is that a lot of tension and anger exists among students about how they perceive teachers interact with them. Several students in different groups made similar or identical statements to a student who said “miss dem handle wi like dawg” However reports from their experiences at both P&J Centres were outstanding with praise and this was largely related to the respect that they felt that they received from the staff there, although one student in a group said “mi nah lie, it rough miss” other students agreed, but said that discipline is easier to accept when you are treated with respect:

“Dem tell you what to do when you get upset”

“I learn more here about my behaviour”

“They come on time” (this was in contrast to teachers at their schools they said)

“I wish the Peace and Justice centre was my school”

When questioned further as to whether the P&J was too nice and that it might make them want to get in trouble again so they could return, in both groups there was a resounding ‘no miss’ when this was suggested. When further probed as to why they would not want to return, they made it clear that they understood the seriousness of this and the future implications, some were of the view that they would not be allowed to take their exams or to graduate, some said that they thought it would affect future opportunities to get into other academic institutions and some thought that it would

95hamper their ability to get a job, so they definitely did not want to be suspended from school again. In both PJC the students expressed unprompted views about the Youth Peace Facilitators and of this being a comfort to them to know that they could go to the centres after school or call a YPF if they had a problem at any time, or just to go there and talk. Also many students at the PJ C thought that their suspensions from school were unwarranted and unjust and gave examples. One boy said he was trying to part a fight and he was sent there, which was corroborated by a YPF, he was prior to that a model student and he felt very aggrieved. He said “

“They tell you to try and intervene and mediate in fights and then they say they don’t business is who fault, they suspend the two of you, they don’t listen”

Another child said she was suspended because her skirt was too short. Although a YPF said that in this instance this was probably the last straw for the school in a series of incidents. Two students in a group had not been suspended at all, but their mother on hearing a presentation put on by the P&J Centre was so impressed that she decided to be proactive and take her two children out of school for a week to learn about conflict resolution and anger management.

Some students bought to my attention the cost implications on their parents when they were suspended from school. One girl was in a black tunic, likewise in another group a male student had a dark grey uniform on. This they said was the schools policy to ‘brand you.” Their parents were asked by the school to buy the material and have these ‘alternative uniforms’ made and the students are instructed to wear them for an arbitrary length of time and on the discretion of the school as part of their punishment. Students clearly were unhappy about this and felt humiliated. Referring to having to wear a red or a blue shirt one boy said, it have de sign, devil pon it”, but they also said that putting their parents to such extra costs is likely to bring serious consequences including further humiliation or a beating. When asked if this was a policy of the MOE, students said that they did now know, but it appeared to be on an individual school basis, because of the few students that had these uniforms on.

Perception of Violence in School

The perception of violence in schools and how it is managed was also mixed. In one single-sex female high school, students said that violence was not and has never been a problem at their school. Primary school students at one school in Spanish town also said that violence was decreasing because the older students that caused the problems the year before had left the school. But the other students in the high school and the primary schools believed that violence was increasing in their schools and is a major problem. It was also very noticeable that the atmosphere of the schools on entering mirrored the views of the children. Some schools appeared very calm and orderly and some felt extremely chaotic. When students were asked about how they thought the schools were managing violence, many students at the secondary level thought teachers are unable to manage because of them are afraid of the students and their associations, especially when they come from known reputed ‘bad areas’. Primary school children were much more positive about teachers ‘capabilities to manage violence and conflict and although it was seen as a problem, they thought that they managed it well. A common theme throughout all groups however was the resignation to violence and the fundamental belief that it is inevitable and that it cannot be prevented, from their perspective, violence is everywhere, it happens every day and that no one is exempt from involvement in it. When asked to define ‘everyone’ they said; students, teachers, parents, pastors, police, soldiers and politicians and artistes: A Quote: “Every one miss, everyone in Jamaica then miss”

Several students in the groups whose schools had Deans of Discipline brought up this category of

96staff and their views on them were predominantly negative. They questioned their suitability for working with children in schools, their credentials, their modus operandi and perceived lack of professionalism and motives. The majority of the students were of the view that their approach to discipline is meting out physical punishment. In one student’s words, “They love lick.” Discussions about Deans of Discipline and disciplinary methods in general, including the introduction of police in schools, brought out some statements of concern:

• “The Deans of discipline don’t come to discipline, they come to chat and run up dem mouth”

• , Dem breed of discipline is lick”

• “They abuse their power”

• “The Dean of Discipline take sides and it look like she encourage fighting”

One student said that the Dean of Discipline at his school, who he says is an ex-uniformed person, said to him:

“Anyone you want to bring for me, bring dem come, I have my gun, he overdoes it”. (It was later discovered that this student was from a school that is not a part of the CSPL pilot project)

There were stark contrasts between the Spanish Town schools and the Kingston schools on the role of what the students termed ‘Peace Police’ in schools. (School Resource Officers) The majority of Kingston students who were in schools where these officers were placed praised them highly. They said they were very helpful to the students and respectful and also helped teachers too. In their view these Police Officers were definitely needed in schools and made them feel much safer. They welcomed their presence. However students from the Spanish Town schools gave a completely different picture of these officers. These quotes reflect the general consensus:

• “Police all ah cuss bad words to de pickney dem”

• “Some ah dem prey pon de likkle pickney dem”

When asked to expand further on this statement she said “

“Dem waan deh wid de school pickney dem and dem ah all tell yuh bout yuh underneat an how much man been deh… dem shouldn’t send dem ina school fi look bout wi”

Spanish Town students unlike the majority of Kingston students felt that the Police contributed to conflict in the schools and made some worrying allegations about abuses of Police powers. However one student who was actually from a Kingston school and in the minority said:

“I witness police brutality right ina de school yard at …(school name withheld) high school, one time dem used to come every day”(However it was established that these Police were not the ones placed in schools)

The students that had negative views of their schools were more likely to say that violence was on the increase. The parish by itself was not a predictor of this response, (although later discussions show it is in relation to witnessing violence in communities) but poor relationships between students and staff most definitely was.

Another interesting account, perceived or real, from a student was that his school principal brought the local don and his cronies into the school for a week when things were getting out of hand. He

97said these men patrolled the corridors of the school and that teachers would turn students out to them if they misbehaved. In the students words,“these were bare killa” He went on to say, “they kick up an tump up de pickney and teachers deliberately put children in corridors fi de don beat up” This student said, mi sure dem get pay fi do it.”

The student’s experience of community violence was an unprompted topic in every group, spontaneously being expressed as soon as violence was mentioned. The following stories are from the primary school children in Spanish Town, who recounted these experiences with painful and graphic detail. Out of a group of 10 small children, nine had these stories to tell. All of these students were 9 years old. (See Appendix X11)

Anger Management and Conflict Resolution

When the discussion began to look at the causes of conflict in schools, three key themes emerged. Certain types of disrespecting (‘dissin’) of each other (‘‘s’ yuh madda’*’S’ is used to substitute the word ‘suck’*) being the phrase that was most used consistently across all groups and ages, with the exception of the all female group, groups of friends, and goods sold at the school gates.

The term ‘groups of friends’ is used instead of ‘gangs’ because with the exception of the students at the P&J Centre in Spanish Town, most of the students did not think of these groups as real gangs, but groups of friends and the word gang was never spontaneously mentioned by the students themselves until prompted by the use of the word by the facilitator. When they were asked to define gangs in schools some comments that summarised their views are:

• “Miss when wi say gangs ah some likkle foolishness, dis gang waan fight dat one”

So not criminal gangs then?

• No miss (a spontaneous majority response)

Are they politically affiliated?

• “No miss, pickney nuh care bout dem something deh”

Is it based on the community that you come from?

“Sometimes, but nuh really, everyone mix up with them friends, it nuh really matter which part yuh live”

• Sometimes miss it’s just between the gamblers and the smokers”

The students explained that there are places on the school compound where some will go to gamble and some will go to smoke. They said a lot of weed smoking goes on during lunchtime and sometimes when the students come back to class ‘charged’ they pick fights with other students. They also said that they can buy weed from the vendors at the school gates and some students bring it from home as their parents also smoke it and give it to them.

Spanish Town PJC however, whilst also not raising the topic or using the word gang spontaneously said when probed on gangs, that the violence in schools in their view is not simply the gaza/gully thing (referring a long standing feud between Jamaican dancehall artistes Vybz Kartel and Mavado and of which was suggested by the facilitator) but related to the two well known criminal and politically aligned gangs operating in Spanish Town. In their view association with adult gang members provided the younger boys in schools with the bravado to take on bigger students and

98even adults, knowing they have, as one student said “bad man ah back dem.” Another student said:

• “The likkle ones are the badda ones”

He shared an example of a grown man that was walking in the school yard when the children were playing outside and he accidently stepped on a child’s Clarks shoes and the little boy (as he referred to him) said to the grown man “hey bwoy mine wha yuh ah do!”

The following are some individual quotes from some of the students who admitted to being involved in fighting at school, which was the overwhelming majority in all of the schools and the PJC again with the exception of the all female school group:

The Primary School Children

• “Boy slam mi in mi two ears an mi fight”

• “One bwoy tell mi fi ‘s’ mi madda and I tell im back and wi fight”

• “…If im neva come part di fight miss (pointing to another boy in the group) im woulda dead”(referring to a boy that was not in the group)

Question: “Wouldn’t you be sad if you killed him?”

“No miss!”

Secondary School Children

• “Miss mi tek a chair an lick im in im head miss”

• “Mi fight miss and mi love see two man ah fight”

Question: Can you tell me why that is?

“It’s the adrenalin rush miss, if a man ah go beat my bredrin, me ina it”

Question: Have you ever tried to part a fight?

“Yes miss, mi ah go part and lick ,if mi fren ina it”

Causes of Violence

The younger children in particular said that they thought that things sold at the school gates to the children were a major source of conflict, the toys in particular. They said that plastic toys guns, water pistols, party stuff, ‘pop shot’ and other things are sold to everyone and these in turn are used to shoot each other with, one child said: “One use lick a boy ova im eye”

They also said that Rizla* sold at the school gates can be used with wood or sand to make what they called a ‘Chi Chi boom’ (sounds like a small hand-made explosive, like the ‘bottle boom’ that is made with gas and sand) and the selling of Ganga that was already mentioned. In their view if these items were not available the children would be less excitable and less likely to enter into rough play that leads to fighting.

*Rizla-A brand named cigarette rolling paper usually used in Jamaica to make a Ganga spliff

However the things that were most frequent and common were fighting because of disrespectful

99communication. The majority of students talked about everyone talking harshly to everyone else, everyone trying to ‘diss’ everyone else to make themselves look big, and as one girl said:

• “Because everyone has something to prove”

Students were of the view that there is, in one’s words, “too much aggressive talking from teachers and students” and that many students learn this style of communication from their parents.

Other less common reasons cited as causes of conflict among students and consistent with the survey findings where this was hardly mentioned, were bigger students taking away younger students’ lunch money. Again the word extortion that has recently been ascribed to a practice formerly known as ‘grubbing’ and used in the MOE Critical Incident Reports was not used at all by the students, which was also the case in the survey. However some of the students in a Spanish Town primary school recalled a worrying scenario. They said that some of the older students in the school place two handkerchiefs over their faces, one to cover the mouths and one to cover their heads along with dark glasses to disguise their faces. One person referred to the practice of taking away students lunch money as “tax collection’.

The other cause of conflict among the high school students was fights over boyfriends and girlfriends or what the students’ call ‘yuh man or yuh woman’. One girl at a PJC said: “When dem gyal ah fight ova man, yuh wonder if ah sugar cane im have” However this did not appear to be the dominant feature, but one that must be acknowledged.

Knowledge of CSPL and Application of Strategies

Discussions in five out of the seven focus groups were subdued when the students were asked about the lessons that assisted them to deal with violence, anger and conflict at school. To remind students of the topics and material, the workbooks were shown to them and the titles were read out. Many said that they had not been exposed at all and said that they had never seen the books. Students that were aware of them in these groups were very positive about the books and their effectiveness, but most had only been exposed to one topic area and the two most frequently mentioned were, ‘Express Yourself With Words and ‘Tell Someone you Trust’ which was also reflected in the survey findings. They said that they liked the material and thought that they were useful and that they would assist in reducing violent conflict in schools. In two schools however, (the all girls high school in Montego Bay and one Kingston primary school) the recall and discussion on the CSPL workbooks was excellent and it was immediately evident that these schools had put a lot of effort into delivering the lessons, mainly through their Guidance classes. The most frequently cited strategies for dealing with conflict among all groups were walk away, count to 10 or talk to someone, which also was consistent with the responses in the survey when students were asked to tell the interviewers some anger management styles. The students in the two schools that were exposed to the entire programme were able to discuss the topics much more fully and talked about the content in the books, such as kerosene oil words and gully water words. The only theme that emerged as a criticism of the material was that some of the older students thought that the material was not age-appropriate and that they would prefer different mediums for this material such as use of DVD, computer programmes, drama or music, which they said would make it more interesting, attractive and current.

The exceptions were a primary school in Montego Bay and a Kingston high schools, who in line with their negative perceptions of their schools and violence, did not think that the programme could make a difference. One student said: “All we ah read bout it, dem still a fight and mi mother seh the PJC is pure foolishness and mix up” (referring to the PJC in Montego Bay)

100In relation to Peer Mediation the primary school where the children had been taught the entire CSPL conflict resolution and anger management programme they were also able to talk about their mediation programme, but this was the only school. Four of these children proudly showed off their Peer Counsellor badges.

Child Rights

Across all groups and with the exception of the all girls’ school that named nearly all of the child rights, there was very limited knowledge and understanding of child rights and responsibilities. Correct responses came from a lot of probing. The three main child rights that children were aware of, was the right to food, the right not to be abused and the right to privacy.

Guidance Counsellors

Without exception when the children were asked about their Guidance Counsellors and their relationships with them, there were glowing responses. The words they most used to describe them were kind and loving and very nice. However they gave the impression that the guidance counselors while kind and helpful are powerless to protect them from the harsher forms of discipline or teachers at the school and that even when they do advocate on their behalf their views were disregarded.

Views of School-Based Professionals

Interviews took place with 6 school based professionals (SBPs) from 6 of the 17 schools selected for focus in the evaluation. As with students, the schools and the interviewees will remain anonymous for reasons of confidentiality.

1. Kingston –A High School

2. Kingston – An All Age

3. Kingston – An All Age

4. Spanish Town – A Primary School

5. Montego Bay-A High School

6. Montego Bay-An All Age

A Kingston Primary School Vice Principal said:

“This programme has done great things in my school… we used to have a lot of fights, but since this programme I would say the fights have been reduced by about seventy percent...the Dispute Resolution Foundation has really helped us, we have referred about thirty students to them and the manual really helps” She went on to say that “the manual allows children to look at themselves”

A GC in another Kingston primary School said:

The Manual is easy to understand and well set out so the children like it, it is very interactive. My only criticism of it is that there are a lot of missing pages and the printing quality needs to be addressed, but the content is good” She said however that the information across the different themes tends to be

101repetitive. She gave examples of seeing the same text in different books, so it does not lend itself to progression. She was the only person to mention these things and the reason for this was obvious, hers was the only school of those included in the focus groups and interviews that had succeeded in delivering the programme in its entirety, which was also apparent from the discussions with her students.

All of the school-based professionals interviewed had taken part in the training and the feedback from them was excellent. This related to the content of the training, the material, the methodology, which included a lot of questions and answers and role play. They thought that this training equipped them to better deliver the material in the manual. They were also appreciative of the fact that they also received certificates on completion. One GC said:

“It was enlightening, finding peaceful ways to resolve conflict”

A Teacher in Montego Bay said he found the content of the CSPL programme is easily incorporated into his business classes and finds it fun to work with. He went on to say that the methods in the manual can also be adopted to make teaching practice more interactive in general.

A high school GC in Kingston said he used the books but he found that there were challenges because of the literacy levels at his school. He gave an example of where this was a problem with the level three workbook, ‘Bullying and Teasing’ on page 5 that he had been using. The book outlines a list of words for students to express how they are feeling. He said that many of the words in the list his students were unable to read, such as anxious or embarrassed, which poses a problem because frequently the students that display maladaptive behaviours at school, are also the students with acute literacy challenges. He suggests additional or other mediums such as DVDs to work with these students.

One GC at a Spanish Town primary school said: “to be honest we didn’t really follow the book, we picked out parts of the books, we thought the classroom teachers would do it as the guidance programme is different from the Health and Family Life Education (HFLE) we are supposed to but be a resource”

Problems of limited capacity of schools to deliver a wealth of school-based initiatives around healthier lifestyles emerged as the single most prohibitive factor to the success in delivering the entire programme or in delivering components of it consistently in schools. It was clear that it was for this reason and not opposition or reluctance, that the progress was hampered in many schools. Paradoxically and understandably, the schools that spent less time handling violent conflict were much more successful in delivering the programme.

In the three schools, (1 high and 2 primary schools) where I was taken to the guidance counselling rooms, I noted that they were very well set out with the CSPL posters on anger management and conflict resolution material displayed.

Violence in Schools

When interviewees were asked if they thought violence was increasing or decreasing in schools, all of the primary school SBPs were of the view that fighting among students was decreasing. However several SBPs said that it could not be contributed to the CSPL programme alone, as other initiatives under the Safer Schools Programme had been put in place, such as better security and management of entrances and exits and the fixing of perimeter fencing which generally made for a safer and more peaceful school environment. One SBPs at a high school said violence at their school had never been a problem (an all girls school) so the question was not relevant. The only other high school in

102Kingston where a SBPs was interviewed said:

“It is increasing; we had 14 fights last week Thursday, 14 in one day!” He went on to say “as soon as there is a fight at school it causes a huge commotion and then the police and the hospital all becomes involved. If you tell them to turn the other cheek they say ‘sir mi nuh Christian’”

It was clear that some schools were much more challenged with violent conflict than others. The schools in which violence was not a problem said that the gender and background of students is a likely critical factor (the all girls school) as more students come from more affluent homes and are less likely to live in vulnerable situations or violent communities. One primary school however that is situated in a very volatile community expressed (like the high school) what they felt is the importance of daily school devotions, which they said some schools do not have. In their view this is an opportunity each day to talk about peace, love and Christian principles and is an important element in shaping young lives. They feel that the harsh circumstances that the children are faced with and their exposure to such violence requires that at least the school gives them an opportunity to develop spiritual or religious barriers to enable them to cope. The other important factor in their view is the provision of extra-curricular activities, that also assist in channeling young people’s energy into positive areas of interest, which they say is also lacking in many schools.

Many of those interviewed alluded to the dire challenges that the majority of the parents face, they used phrases such as distraught, at their wits end, out of their depth, in relation to trying to protect their children from exposure to violence. A GC said that while these students may be academically challenged, they are sophisticated to the ways of the street and are extremely smart, which makes the parenting and tutoring role that much more difficult. Some students he said have adopted the stance that:

“Dem a fool up black man and mi nah pay fi no exam, cos di money a go go ina Bruce pocket”

He went on to say many of these same students aspire to become soldiers so they can take revenge on the people killed in West Kingston. “To them the school is the training ground to start the extortion and it simply mirrors what is going on outside of school” as he says children are paying protection money in school, as they are told if you give me your money no one will trouble you. He said that the sad truth is that children without an education can and are surviving without an education and these are the role models that troubled young men in particular follow. He said: “When you say to students, badness doesn’t pay, they say “wha do yuh sir, badness pay!’”.

When told of the students glowing reports of them (Guidance Counsellors) he said: “This may not be such a good thing because as we don’t discipline, which is right, but I think they take our sweetness for weakness”. He went on to say that he also thought that this may be the case with the SSP and the YPFs. He said while the PJC offers an alternative, he does not think that it is effective in transforming behaviour, because the stint of 5 days at the centre is too short. He also raised concerns about the YPF, whilst acknowledging their unusual role, thought that they must be careful not to try too hard to become the friends of the students and then the school and the PJC centre becomes a ‘them and us’ situation, which in his view would be counter-productive. Most SBPs interviewed also acknowledged the negative role that some teachers play in contributing to conflict in schools by their inappropriate approaches to disciplining and communicating with students.

When the topic of critical incidents emerged, one GC said, it is very subjective, there appeared to be a lack of knowledge about the definition of a critical incident or reporting protocols, although they said that this was the responsibility of the school Principal.

103Views of Staff at the Dispute Resolution Foundation-Peace And Justice Centres

Interviews and discussions took place with 6 members of staff from the PJCs covering Kingston Spanish Town and Montego Bay.

“A lot of students have been stigmatized as bad, but when you get to know them one on one you get to understand they are victims that have just reached a point where they are lashing out”

From the discussions with the staff, this quote from one staff member in my opinion sums up well the approach of the PJC to working with young people.

In their view the workload for the Youth Peace Facilitators (YPF) is heavy as they provide a 5 day a week SSP and deliver outreach activities to schools on anger management and conflict resolution. Originally DRF were focused on the 30 target schools in the pilot, but in response to the demand from schools, it opened its services to additional schools in Kingston, St Catherine and St James. Staff spoke of the difficulties of balancing the in-centre services with outreach activities and the need to provide one-to-one counseling for students and parents. In their opinion there is a need to increase the cadre of Youth Peace Facilitators in order to deliver the services more effectively.

A typical day at the PJC includes intake sessions which are conducted with a parent and a student who has been suspended by their school and referred to the PJC. YPFs try to elicit background information about their school and home life, traumatic experiences that they may have had, family migration or any other factor that may explain the behaviour that has led them to a school suspension. The daily programme is well structured and the DRF has a manual of activities that is used by the YPF to guide the SSP process, although centres do tend to operate differently. All are guided by the core topics of conflict resolution and anger management, and mediation nevertheless, and groups get to choose a topic of their choice on one day. Some of the students are only referred for 2 days and when asked whether reducing the length of intervention is really effective, staff said that they make up for this by conducting more one-to-one sessions with these students, but acknowledged that it is difficult to build rapport with students in just two sessions, so the intervention is likely to be superficial. The reduced number of days is stipulated by the referring school. One YPF felt that they are more likely to elicit better information about incidents in schools when they work with students in group settings over a week rather than individually, as this is less threatening, more interactive and they gain a greater insight into the personalities and how some of the students have come to be suspended from school.

The YPFs also report that the reasons for many of the referrals appear seem to be inappropriate and arbitrary. One person said:

“The Deans of Discipline suspend students for the simplest things”

He went on to say a student was suspended and referred to the PJC for not wearing his school crest, because someone else at the school had stolen it. They were concerned about the effect this has on students that are normally well behaved, as was this student, and the manner in which minor disciplinary matters are dealt with in the schools. They are concerned that students unjustly end up with a suspension on their school record that reflects badly on their character overall. In another staff member’s view she said, “I don’t think that the disciplinary measures available to teachers in schools are being followed before they suspend students...for example, detention, counselling, talking to parents…it’s just my observation”. They also felt that the Guidance Counsellors in schools could be better utilized for students with emotional and psychological problems, so the school is more proactive in the prevention of violence, but recognise that there are a limited number of guidance

104counselors in schools.

The staff believes that the absence of set criterion by the DRF, the MOE or individual schools for referral to the SSP allows for subjective referrals and suspensions. The team said that they previously drafted criteria suggesting the possible reasons for referral to the SSP, although the DRF did not sanction this, because of concerns about limiting the services. However the DRF do feel that there is a full partnership with the schools that engaged in the pilot and importantly with the MOE. They also raised the need to gain greater clarity on the role of the Dean of Discipline because in their view it appeared to be duplicitous with the role of the Guidance Counsellor, although they acknowledged that School Behaviour Management Teams (SBMT) currently being implemented in schools may result in clearer role definitions, functions and disciplinary protocols and procedures.

Conversely in their view a number of schools in the pilot have not engaged at all with the PJC or referred students to the SSP and it is generally felt that there has been some resistance to the approach. They think that this resistance is due to the process of mediation that takes place between students and teachers , which has an equalizing effect, which some may feel threatens the power dynamics that exist between schools, teachers and students.

With regards to the staff views on the effectiveness of this intervention, staff are emphatic that it has resulted in behaviour change and that students are less likely to continue fighting at school after going through this process. They say that the ‘Time Out’ approach allows a period of reflection for the young people and an opportunity to relate to their peers in what one person termed “a non conflicted environment”. They said evidence of the effectiveness is the low return rate for suspension, but students can return to the PJC voluntarily to speak to a YPF when they just need someone to talk to or they are having difficulties with anger and conflict at school. One staff member said “for me that is the reward”. Another went on to say “Teachers want to be listened to, but they don’t listen to the students”.

On the note of gang violence that some of the students in Spanish Town alluded to, a YPF said : “If it erupts in school they send them here straight away and often the two sets come in. We had three cases of this and in each case they were all friends but they were aligned to different gangs, but here we saw a complete turnaround. We did this by using role plays”.

Staff acknowledged the importance of the DRF outreach programme to schools, in providing the support to the schools in relation to conflict resolution and anger management and continuing to highlight the SSP. However they said the programme tends to be sporadic, which casts doubt on the impact of the sessions in shaping the behaviour of students at school and that with limited staff, the time may be better applied to more in-depth work at the centre with students at greater risk of getting involved in violence at school. The general opinion is that the service is unique and the additional work with parents through one-to-one sessions, parent child mediation and parenting workshops adds to the effectiveness of the programme.

Some of the weaknesses of the SSP in the staffs’ view are the follow-up of students when they complete the process of suspension at the centre. Whilst the DRF is required to send students back to school with a confirmation letter of successful completion of the programme (the school will not accept them back without it) thereafter communication is minimal, so there is no real feedback on how an individual student is doing as a result of the intervention and the DRF do not have the capacity to take on this function, although they recognize its importance.

Other concerns are the location of the PJC, not only for schools but also for parents. They said that parents whose children do not live in Flankers are particularly reluctant to send their children to

105the PJC there. Also it was acknowledged that some centres are more structured, they have more volunteers and they are better managed, hence the attendance levels tend to reflect this.

Overall PJC staff are of the opinion that with some adjustments to improve the service, it should be expanded and mainstreamed, but say to date a paucity of funding remains the critical factor, hence the sole reliance on UNICEF to date. The MOE previously rejected a proposal of support because the national education budget was already overstretched. This has also resulted in some level of frustration among staff whose future jobs are in jeopardy as well as the SSP itself.

Views of Regional Guidance Counselling Education Officers

Two Regional Guidance and Counselling Education Officers were interviewed from Education Regions I and IV.

The Regional Guidance and Counselling Education Officers (RGCEO) said that while they were informed of the Creating Safe Places for Learning project, both had very minimal involvement in it, although both were invited to the training. Only one of these persons attended (the other person had prior commitments) and reported that the training was excellent. Both said that they were not a part of the Technical Committee for the project and they had received very little feedback from the teachers on either the progress of implementation or the impact of the project. One RGCEO said: “As Regional Guidance Officers, supervising the Guidance Counsellors, who were expected to implement the programme, you would expect that you would also be asked to participate in the process”. This region would have liked to have been informed about the site visits by the Project Lead to the schools that they are responsible for and they were particularly unhappy about this.

The other RGCEO was less dissatisfied because she had attended the training and was fully aware of the content and acknowledged that with all of the other interventions that the schools are expected to implement, it was not a problem. The material was generally considered by this person to be excellent, but she said that some concerns about the age appropriateness of the material for the secondary school children had been raised by the teachers. There was also what she termed “implementation challenges” given the demands of other programmes, so the consistency of delivery was problematic.

When asked about the SSP, one RGCEO said she was of the view that compared to the alternative of sending students home without a meaningful intervention, this was something that was critical and worthwhile and in her view appears to have a positive impact on students’ behaviour when they return to school.

When RGCEOs were asked whether they believed violence was decreasing in schools, neither said that they were in possession of any critical incident data to be able to answer this definitively. One RGCEO said: “In the first term we didn’t have many incidents, but this is usual as it escalates as the year progresses, so it is not fair to make a knee jerk assessment”

One RGCEO said that from feedback that she has had, it appears that the CSPL workbooks have a greater impact at the primary level and that more emphasis should be placed on intensive intervention at this stage to prevent the escalation of problems as students get older.

Observations of Schools at Time of Data Collection

From the teams visits to schools to collect the data it is important to share some observations that were noted by interviewers. The schools where the children were most positive about anger management and conflict resolution, rules and regulations and whether violence was decreasing

106or increasing in the school, on entering these schools the atmosphere appeared calm and orderly. Children appeared to be where they should be and were polite to their visitors and teachers. On the other hand the schools where the students were most negative were the schools that appeared loud, chaotic and disorderly and the students were more difficult to manage in discussions. At one of these primary schools a teacher was also seen wielding a stick at the children, in an apparent attempt to steer them towards their classrooms.

Observations from Visits to the Peace And Justice Centres For The Purpose Of Data Collection

The team only managed to visit two PJC in Kingston and Spanish Town. The atmosphere in both centres was calm, controlled and distinctly youth friendly. The centres had posters and leaflets displayed on a range of topics pertinent to young people, such as HIV prevention, drugs and anger management, conflict resolution and mediation. At the time of visiting, both centres were involved in delivering group work sessions to the students. In one centre I observed that the sessions were very participatory and the students appeared to be treated with respect, evident in the style of communication of staff. At the other centre a student and his aunt came into the centre to speak to a YPF because of some continuing problems at school and it was apparent that they were seeking early intervention from the YPF before the situation escalated. Their comfort in making an un-scheduled visit and the response from the YPF conveyed the fact that both students and parents are made to feel welcome at the PJC.

Views of Key Informants

With regards to the governance of the project the DRF and the MOE worked in partnership to implement the project and reported to a technical committee that consisted of representatives from UNICEF, DRF, MOE Guidance and Counselling Unit and the Violence Prevention Clinic (UWI). The Regional Guidance Officers from Regions I, IV and VI, the personnel responsible for supervising guidance and counseling in the pilot schools, were not included in the technical committee, but the committee advised the schools to inform their school boards about their inclusion in the project. However as this was not done at the start of the project, there was minimal involvement from them in relation to guidance and monitoring of the implementation. It was the view of both partners DRF and MOE albeit, that the project had achieved a good measure of success in partnership working.

From the interviews with key informants the CSPL project has much strength. It provides an opportunity to meaningfully tackle violence and conflict in schools by providing teachers with a structured approach and tools to go about this, which is essential given the many demands on teachers’ time. This was achieved through the provision on the Anger Management and Conflict Resolution in Schools Manuals to the pilot schools. A large scale training of teachers was held to raise their awareness of anger, conflict and mediation and also to teach these educators new skills to deal with these issues more effectively in schools and how to use the manual with its associated lesson plans, activities and workbooks with their students.

In their view schools were very enthusiastic about the project because of the significant challenges that the children face that are frequently linked to the violent conflict between students that is displayed in the classrooms. However the schools have limited time-tabling freedom as the time is spent on a set curriculum that must be delivered and is geared towards academic progression and examination. Therefore delivery of the material in some schools was sporadic. They also said that the author of the manual (Dr. Claudette Crawford-Brown) advised that the programme can be delivered in one school term, but teachers on delivering these sessions report that the activities result in an unearthing of serious and complicated issues from the children that make it impossible for them to move quickly through the material. They also raised challenges with some older students who are

107low literate and unable to read many of the words in the workbooks.

In relation to the issue of corporal punishment in schools, which is central to the project they said that legislative reform of the Education Act 1980 is required to meaningfully implement the Safe Schools Policy. Current legislation does not outlaw the use of corporal punishment in schools, despite a directive to cease corporal punishment in schools, handed down by the MOE in 2008.

Views of Dr. Claudette Crawford-Brown

Some of the questions that were raised by the evaluator and the issues that were raised by the SBPs and students were brought to the attention of the originator and principal author, Dr. Claudette Crawford-Brown. These were:

• What was the theoretical framework that was used to develop the Anger Management and Conflict Resolution Manual for Schools?

• What are her views about the concerns raised in relation to age appropriateness of the material and on the literacy challenges raised by SBPs?

• What are her views on the repetitious nature of the material according to SBPs and students?

• What are her views on how the project has been implemented by the SBPs?

Dr. Crawford-Brown explained that the Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) model of behaviour change underpinned the development of the CR and AM manual. The essence of CBT is to break the habitual cycles, of unhealthy behaviour and thinking and to replace these with more adaptive healthy ones 7 through positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement according to the behaviour practiced. In this regard she said that this element of the programme of reward through school assembly, by giving the students a pen or a small token of recognition for practicing the desired behaviour is critical in a behaviour change intervention applying CBT.

On age appropriateness and literacy challenges, Dr. Crawford-Brown went on to say that the manual and its associated materials are extensive and varied and underwent rigorous testing for a period in excess of 3 years. She acknowledged that these were the same concerns that came out of this process and as a consequence the material was modified accordingly. She gave an example in the workbooks where instead of instructing students to write about things, an alternative was added so that students could either write or talk about the issues and that SBPs should be au fait with the individual needs of the students to facilitate this accordingly. I also noted the lyrics by popular deejay artist Baby Cham in his song Ghetto Story, in ‘Express Yourself with Words’ which was evidently using popular culture to appeal to adolescents who would immediately identify with the artist and the song. She went on to say that the manual and workbooks are just a part of an extensive package of material that can be used effectively and that additional support materials were developed that include a puppet package, anger balls, puzzles and colouring sets. However she noted that the entire package was not utilized for the CSPL project, but the manual contained pointers on how to be creative in the delivery of the material, such as making sock puppets or using drama. Other initiatives such as the Peace Warriors Programme and the Behaviour Hype Zone that have been successfully implemented in other schools also provide additional opportunities to positively influence and impact the environment of students in schools.

Dr. Crawford-Brown noted that the training of SBPs is critical to the authentic delivery of the AM & CR 8 Wendy Macdowall, Chris Bonell & Maggie Davies, Health Promotion Practice, Open University Press 2005

108programme. She explained that themes I –III ( Understanding My Feelings, Understanding Anger and Anger Triggers) can be applied universally to the school population. This approach allows for emergent emotional, psychological and behavioural needs in individual students to be identified and directed toward more in-depth work under theme IV (Skills and Techniques in Managing Anger) utilizing the workbooks that reinforce some of the earlier material There is deliberate repetition in the package which is a feature of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. In her opinion, training for users of the manual is optimally delivered to small groups, as this better accommodates discussion and exploration of the material, including anticipating the possible consequences of working with students on topics that may elicit complex issues or emotions requiring skilled management. According to Dr. Brown, the programme was designed to be delivered by school Guidance Counsellors primarily, who are trained in counseling children and young people. She also distinguished between the discrete components of the project, AM, CR and mediation and noted that the Peer Mediation model which is aimed at peer delivery required separate training sessions. Peer Mediation training was however, delivered as a segment of the broader training programme.

In relation to the choice of pilot schools, Dr. Crawford-Brown said that she had no influence in the selection of these schools as this was done by the MOE. However in her experience she knows of schools, such as those in Denham Town and Tivoli that suited the criteria for such a critical intervention to reduce violence in schools and thought that those schools could also have been selected.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - UNICEF · child rights representing 74.6% of the target that was achieved. •...

Documents

Transcript of ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS - UNICEF · child rights representing 74.6% of the target that was achieved. •...