PROMOTING SAFETY IN SCHOOLS - National DD–BX–K001,awarded by the Bureau of Justice...

PROMOTING SAFETY

IN SCHOOLSINTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE

AND ACTION

C R I M E P R E V E N T I O N S E R I E S

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

PROMOTING SAFETY


AND ACTION

#3

MonographMonograph

01-Covers For PDF 8/31/01 11:28 AM Page yelC1

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531

John AshcroftAttorney General

Office of Justice ProgramsWorld Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Bureau of Justice AssistanceWorld Wide Web Home Page

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

For grant and funding information, contactU.S. Department of Justice Response Center

1–800–421–6770

This document was prepared by Community Research Associates, Inc., under grant number95–DD–BX–K001,awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,Office of Justice Programs,U.S.Department of Justice. The opinions,findings,and conclusions or recommendations expressedin this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official positionor policies of the U.S.Department of Justice.

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

01-Covers For PDF 8/31/01 11:28 AM Page C2

PROMOTING SAFETY


AND ACTION

August 2001

NCJ 186937

Prepared by Margaret ShawInternational Centre for the Prevention of Crime

02-Text For PDF 8/31/01 11:32 AM Page i

This monograph was prepared for the Bureau of Justice Assistance byMargaret Shaw, with the assistance of Kathie Oginsky, and the help andknowledge of Bernard Arsenault, Frantz Denat, Lily-Ann Gauthier, DanielSansfaçon, Claude Vezina, and Irvin Waller at the International Centre for the Prevention of Crime. We would like to thank all those in the UnitedStates who gave advice on the development of the project and acted as anadvisory group, including Janet Chiancone and Kellie Dressler Tetrick at theOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Jane Grady at theCenter for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Paul Kingery at theHamilton Fish Institute, Wesley Mitchell at the Los Angeles School PoliceDepartment, Colleen Minson at the National Crime Prevention Council, BillModzeleski at the U.S. Department of Education, Ronald Stephens at theNational School Safety Center, Bill Bond at the National Association ofSecondary School Principals, and Principal Steven Edwards of East HartfordHigh School in Connecticut.

We would also like to thank the many people outside the United Stateswho provided information and assistance for the project, in particularFrancine Charlebois and the National Crime Prevention Centre in Canada;Wendy Taylor and Michael Kennedy in British Columbia; Fritz Prior in theNetherlands; Marie-France David in France; Lesley and John Noaks, JohnPitts, and Samantha Leahy in the United Kingdom; and Dorothy Mdhuli and Margaret Roper in South Africa. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge thesupport and advice of Patrick Coleman, former Deputy Director at theBureau of Justice Assistance, during the development of the monograph.

iiiBUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

Acknowledgments

02-Text For PDF 8/31/01 11:32 AM Page iii

vBUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

Contents

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

America Is Not Alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Audience for This Monograph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

How Can This Happen? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

What Should Happen? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II. The Problem and the Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Scope of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Safety Issues for Girls and Boys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Social Exclusion, Minorities, Hate Crimes, and Harassment . . . 10

Safety Concerns. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Overall View of School Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

III. International Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

European Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Initiatives Beyond Europe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Trends in Approaches to School Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

IV. Critical Elements of a Comprehensive Approachto School Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

From School Violence to School Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Interventions With Unintended Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Earlier Intervention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

What Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Developing Comprehensive Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Other Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

V. What To Look Out For . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

02-Text For PDF 8/31/01 11:32 AM Page v

PROMOTING SAFETY IN SCHOOLS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE AND ACTION

vi

VI. Examples From Practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Clustering Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Changing the Whole School and Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Conflict Resolution Plus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Provincewide Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

National Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

VII. Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

VIII. Bibliography/References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

IX. Resources and Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

X. For More Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

02-Text For PDF 8/31/01 11:32 AM Page vi

1BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

DESPITE THE PREVALENCE OF GUN CARRY-ING IN SCHOOLS, SCHOOL SHOOTINGS STILL

REMAIN RELATIVELY RARE EVENTS. SINCE

1992, APPROXIMATELY 190 SHOOTINGS

HAVE OCCURRED IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS

(BOTH STUDENT AND FACULTY/STAFF).WHILE CLEARLY A SERIOUS ISSUE, IT MUST

BE NOTED THAT THESE 190 SCHOOL-RELATED DEATHS REPRESENT ONLY ABOUT

1 PERCENT OF ALL YOUTHS KILLED BY GUNS

AT THE PRESENT.

—The Youth Violence Problem, Fact Sheet, Center for the Study and

Prevention of Violence, 1999b

America Is Not AloneAmerica is not alone in its concern

with school violence and schoolsafety. Countries as far apart asAustralia, Belgium, France, SouthAfrica, and the United Kingdomhave, in recent years, experiencedtragic events in schools that havealarmed communities and govern-ments alike. Schools and schoolsafety have become the focus ofmuch attention and action.

The tragic deaths of pupils atColumbine High School in Littleton,Colorado, in April 1999, at BuellElementary School in Flint, Michi-gan, in February 2000; at W.R.

Myers High School in Taber,Alberta, Canada, in 1999; thekilling of a teacher and 16 pupils by an intruder at Dunblane primaryschool in Scotland in 1996; andthe killing of Headmaster PhilipLawrence in London, England, in1995 have underlined a number ofthings. They have shown that vio-lent events can happen both in andoutside the school community; inelementary, middle, and highschools; in urban, suburban, andrural communities; among youngchildren and teenagers; and to bothpupils and staff.

These events have had a pro-found impact, resulting in policiesand programs that aim to protectstudents and prevent the occur-rence of such tragedies. New legis-lation, initiatives, organizations, andcenters have emerged with the spe-cific purpose of ensuring safety inschools.

The tragic events have also dis-torted reality. Schools remain safeplaces. Young people are generallyat greater risk outside their schoolsthan inside. In the United States,less than 1 percent of all youthkilled by guns since 1992 havebeen in school or at school-relatedfunctions.1 But school safety is alsoabout less traumatic events, suchas bullying, aggression, intimida-tion, and exclusion. These can alsohave serious short- and long-term

I. Introduction

02-Text For PDF 8/31/01 11:32 AM Page 1

consequences for children byaffecting their willingness to stay inschool, their academic achieve-ment, their future job skills, andtheir social relationships. Schoolsafety is about having plans inplace to prevent crises and to dealwith those that arise. It is abouthaving day-to-day practices thatreduce violence and intimidation,providing safe places for victims,and responding swiftly to perpetra-tors. School safety involves morethan simply building fences,installing television cameras ormetal detectors, and expelling vio-lent students. Prevention involves awidening range of approaches andoffers many tangible rewards.

Audience for ThisMonograph

This monograph brings togetherinformation on school safety trends,policies, and projects from variouscountries around the world. It hasbeen written for school principals,superintendents, administrators,boards of governors, school-parentbodies, and others in leadership

positions who are concerned aboutschool safety issues. It discussesthe range of approaches that arebeing developed and adapted in dif-ferent countries.

The most successful approachesare those that see the school withintheir community. They focus notjust on aggressive or violent inci-dents but also on health, use arange of policies and programs,and consider not only the roles andneeds of individual pupils but alsothose of teachers, support staff,administrators, school operations,families, and the community aroundthe school. They use a community-based approach to promotingschool safety.

How Can This Happen?“How can this happen?” seems

to be the universal response whensomeone is killed or injured in aschool. In Dunblane, Scotland, andTaber, Alberta, it led to task forcereports and subsequent activityasking both why it happened andwhat could be done to ensure futureschool safety (Alberta, 2000).

2


Two Hurt in Teenage ShootoutNew Orleans: Two teenage boys shot and wounded each other with the same

gun during a fight at their middle school yesterday after a 13-year-old expelledstudent slipped the weapon to one of them through a fence . . . . Witnesses saidthe eighth graders had argued before the shootings at the school where studentsmust pass through a metal detector to enter . . . . The boy accused of providingthe handgun was arrested . . . at his home in a nearby housing project, part ofan economically mixed neighborhood . . . . The school recently expelled the boyfor fighting . . . .

—Associated Press, September 27, 2000


Until recently, school safety activ-ities in many countries consistedlargely of school-police liaison workand some protection of schoolproperty from vandalism or intru-sion. The initial response after aserious event has been to increasesecurity by hiring guards, installingfences and television cameras, andsearching lockers. There has alsobeen an increase in the immediatesuspension of students using vio-lence or in possession of guns ordrugs.

Media responses to these eventshave helped increase awareness ofproblems, but also have raised lev-els of fear and led to overreaction.There is a general concern that violence by young people hasincreased, which has been substan-tiated by police reports in manycountries from the late 1980s.Demographic changes and migra-tion in European countries and theexclusion of whole populations fromthe benefits of a good education,jobs, and social services have allcontributed to concerns with vio-lence in and around schools.Reports of school violence haverisen, and much of this increaseseems to be attributable to changedattitudes about the use of violence.

What Should Happen?Schools work with children and

young people during their formativeyears. A long history of researchillustrates the importance of schools


Introduction

in helping children avoid delinquen-cy and that factors such as pooracademic achievement can lead toserious problems (Gottfredson,2001). There is clear evidence thatthe climate and ethos of a schoolcan be changed. In the past,schools have been seen as institu-tions separate from other local ser-vices and often blamed for theirproblems. Yet schools are stronglyinfluenced by their surroundingcommunities and the lives andhealth of the families whose chil-dren they teach. One of the mostcompelling reasons for thinkingabout the prevention of violenceand school safety is that, in manycountries, children and young peo-ple experience higher levels of vic-timization than other groups in thepopulation. Globally, the 1990s wit-nessed a transformation in respons-es to school violence and safety.Much more attention is now givento school safety by the public andby schools, spurring growth in inter-vention and research. Security pro-visions or police-school liaisonprojects are now only part of theresponse. Awareness of the linksbetween safety and violence andother school problems, such as bul-lying, suicide, truancy and dropoutrates, and academic failure, hasincreased. The focus is now lesson reacting to school violence andmore on promoting school safetythrough prevention, careful predic-tion, planning, and preparation(U.S. Departments of Educationand Justice, 1999a).



4

Many countries are using com-prehensive, whole-school projectsthat involve a wider range of profes-sionals from the health, education,and criminal justice systems, aswell as from schools and their

neighborhood communities. Moreaccurate information is being collected about school violence andsafety, which stimulates new andcreative solutions.



II. The Problem and the Trends

Scope of the ProblemIt is difficult to compare levels of

school-related violence amongcountries because

• Many countries do not collectnational information aboutreported school violence.

• Countries use different definitionsof school violence.

• Differences in language and cul-ture can make it difficult to com-pare even similar behaviorsamong countries.2

• Within most countries, reportingpractices can vary a great deal.

• Sources range from small, self-report school studies to area sur-veys of victimization to police orschool reports of incidents.

• Sources vary across differentages of pupils, types of school,and periods of time.

• Schools often are reluctant toadmit there are problems.

• Peer pressures intimidate stu-dents from reporting incidents.

Nature of the ViolenceDefining school violence. In the

United States, discussions aboutschool violence and aggressioninclude combinations of bullying,

fighting, gang activity, weapons atschool, school shootings, violenceagainst authority figures or schoolstaff, violence against peers, racialor bias-motivated violence or intim-idation, and vandalism. The vio-lence can occur on school propertyor on the way to or from school. Inother countries, there is little agree-ment on what constitutes schoolviolence. In other countries, muchof what is referred to as violence isin fact bullying, most of it nonphys-ical, and can include nonviolentevents such as graffiti or theft.What many countries have in com-mon is the rise in reported schoolincidents over the past decade,often linked to increases in police-recorded violence by young peopleand, in some countries, to concernsabout increases in gang activity,weapons, and drug use amongyoung people (Pfeiffer, 1998;Estrada, forthcoming).

Reporting practices. A reportingproblem has arisen. Because ofconcerns about violence, schoolsnow report far more incidents to thepolice. Consequently, increases inschool violence may not indicateactual changes in students’ behav-iors. A Swedish study suggests this(Estrada, forthcoming).

Up to the mid-1980s, only seri-ous violent incidents in Swedishschools were reported to the police.The schools dealt with all others



6

other age group. Most of it comesfrom their peers, in and out ofschool, and there are strong peerpressures not to report it. Somechildren are both victims of abuse,whether at home or school, and victimizers.

• A survey of 12- to 18-year-oldsin Alberta, Canada, found greatervictimization in school than outof it, among younger childrenthan older ones, and amongmales than females (Gomes etal., 2000). In addition, studentswho had been suspended or whohad thought of dropping out ofschool reported higher levels ofvictimization and were the leastlikely to report incidents, espe-cially if they belonged to racialand ethnic minority groups.

• In the United States, childrenages 12 to 18 are more likely tobe victimized away from schoolthan at school. Nevertheless,children ages 12 to 14 are morelikely to be victims of crime atschool than older students.National data show that 6 per-cent of 12- to 14-year-olds werevictims of violence comparedwith 3 percent of 15- to 18-year-olds (U.S. Departments ofEducation and Justice, 2000b).4

• In South Africa, a national surveyfound that 40 percent of rapesand 43 percent of indecentassaults were against girls underage 17 and often at school.

6

internally. From the mid-1980s on,it has become school practice toreport all incidents to the police. Sowhile there has been a 300-percentincrease in reports of school vio-lence in Sweden since 1993, theseare all minor assaults that would nothave been reported before. Seriousviolence has not increased.

In some countries, teachers havereported increased violence inschools against students and staff,and the verbal abuse of staff. In theearly 1990s, Canadian teachersreported increases in the occur-rences of weapons (usually knives),ethnic conflicts, and extortionamong elementary school children.3

Outside the United States, therecognition of bullying as a majorschool problem has led to manymore reports of incidents (Smith etal., 1999).

AS RECENTLY AS 5 OR 6 YEARS AGO, BULLYING WAS A NONISSUE IN SCOTTISH

SCHOOLS. NOW IT IS WELL AND TRULY ON

THE AGENDA.

—Action Against Bullying in Scottish Schools,

Mellor, 1995

Young victims and victimizers. Itis now recognized that children andyoung people experience higherlevels of victimization than any


The Problem and the Trends


Current Picture of SchoolViolence

The international information wedo have about school violencecomes from studies in individualschools, national or school-basedvictimization surveys, health andeducation studies, and policereports.

• In France, a national survey(1998–99) of violence in middleand secondary schools identified88,500 incidents among the 3.5million students. The most com-mon was verbal abuse, followedby theft, attempted robbery, andphysical violence. Only 2 to 3percent of the incidents wereserious enough to report to thepolice, and 93 percent of theincidents were caused by stu-dents.5 Other students were tar-geted in 67 percent of thesecases, the staff in 17 percent,and school property in 15 per-cent. The survey rated 2.6 per-cent of the incidents as serious.

• In Japan, school violence againstpupils, staff, or property wasreported in 2 percent of elemen-tary schools, 30 percent of mid-dle schools, and 37 percent ofhigh schools (U.S. Departmentsof Education and Justice,1999a).

• In South Africa, 62 percent ofviolence among young peopleinvolved racial incidents, andschool-based sexual assault ofgirls has increased. A 1999 studyfound that more than 30 percentof rape cases among 15- to 19-year-old girls involved aschoolteacher.

• In Canada, 20 percent of violentcrimes committed by 12- to 17-year-old urban youth, reported tothe police in 1998, occurred onschool property and seldomresulted in serious injuries. Only20 percent of the incidentsinvolved a weapon (CanadianCentre for Justice Statistics,

Incidents in French Schools by Type

Verbal Physical Theft

Colleges (ages 10–15) 47% 20% 11%

Secondary Schools(ages 15–19) 39 14 15

Technical High Schools(ages 15–20) 27 10 23

—Ministry of National Education, Research, and Technology, Paris, France



8

1999). In the Province ofQuebec, 9 percent of youth inschools are victims of extortion—although 15 percent are inMontreal (Tondreau, 2000).

• In the United States, the levelsof school crime and violencehave been decreasing since theearly 1990s. The majority of allincidents (61 percent) involvedtheft. In 1997, this meant thatonly 8 out of 1,000 students werevictims of violent crimes at or ontheir way to or from school.Four teachers in every 1,000were victims of serious violencein 1994–98 (U.S. Departments ofEducation and Justice, 1999a).Nevertheless, much of the dropin violence relates to serious vio-lence and current levels are stillabove those in the early 1980s.One study suggests that there ismore weapon-carrying in schoolsthan school administrators areaware of (Hamilton Fish Institute,2000).6

International surveys allow us tomake some comparisons betweenlevels of insecurity and bullying andother behaviors in schools acrosscountries. The 1999 Annual Reporton School Safety, for example, sug-gests that 12th grade students in theUnited States were more likely to bethreatened by another student inthe past month than those in 7 othercountries. On the other hand, re-ports of being bullied and feelings ofinsecurity among 15-year-olds in 22countries suggested that Americanstudents were around the average.

In almost all those countries, whilethe majority of students did notreport being bullied in the currentterm, fewer students reported theyalways felt safe at school. Levels ofinsecurity at school are clearly aconcern. These comparisons mustbe set against the fact that theUnited States has much greaterproblems with gun-related crimesamong young people than othercountries (Hamilton Fish, 2000).7

Who Are the Bullies?Gender: More boys report bullyingthan girls.

Age: In Canada, 11- to 12-year-oldsreport bullying others more thanyounger and older students.

Temperament: Bullies tend to behyperactive, disruptive, impulsive,and overactive.

Aggression: Bullies are generallyaggressive toward their peers,teachers, parents, siblings . . .and tend to be assertive and easilyprovoked.

Physical strength: Boys who bullyare physically stronger and have aneed to dominate others; girls whobully tend to be physically weakerthan others in their class.

Lack of empathy: Bullies have littleempathy for their victims and showlittle remorse about bullying.

—Adapted from Bullying and Victimization: The Problems and

Solutions for School-Aged Children,National Crime Prevention Centre, 2000




BullyingBullying is one type of aggression,

common in schools, that is deeplyembedded in peer culture and oftenunderreported. A widely used defini-tion describes it as an aggressiveact with an imbalance of power andsome element of repetition that canbe physical, verbal, or indirect, suchas social exclusion.

Reported levels of bullying inschools vary across countries,although there are many similar pat-terns.8 Older children tend to bullyyounger ones, and boys are bulliedmore than girls.9 Studies in Norwayfound 9 percent of children hadbeen bullied over the past year; inBritain it ranged from 4 to 10 per-cent (Sharp and Smith, 1994). InSpain, a study in Seville found15 percent of secondary school children were bullies and victims(Ortega and Mora-Merchan, 1999).In Japan, studies show that bullyingis most common in elementary andmiddle school and that students intheir first year of middle schoolreport the highest level of bullying(Morita et al., 1999).

Most bullying involves verbal orindirect, rather than physical, inci-dents (23 percent).10 Canadian sur-veys of children up to 8th gradefound 6 percent of children admitbullying others, and 15 percentadmit being victimized (NationalCrime Prevention Centre, 2000).In the United States, 26 percent of15-year-olds said they had beenbullied in the current term (U.S.

Departments of Education andJustice, 1999a), and a study ofjunior high and high school studentsfound 77 percent had been bulliedin their school careers (Arnette andWasleben, 1998). In Australia, aself-report study in the mid-1990sestimated 1 in 6 or 7 children werebullied on a weekly basis (Rigbyand Slee, 1999). In Germany, stud-ies found that 4 to 12 percent ofstudents experienced frequent andpersistent bullying, depending ontheir age, area, and type of school(Lösel and Bliesener, 1999).

Not everyone recognizes bullyingas an important aspect of the schoolsafety problem. A 1999 Americansurvey by the National Crime Pre-vention Council found that almost50 percent of parents did not seebullying as serious.11 In many coun-tries, including the United States,studies show that children who arebullies or are victimized repeatedlyare more likely to develop otherproblems as they grow older, includ-ing dropping out of school and tru-ancy, delinquency and crime,unemployment, and depression.

Bullying occurs in all types ofschools and can have short- andlong-term effects on students—from increasing fear and insecurityto medical conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Studentscan be so afraid after an intimida-tion, whether or not it is physical,that they avoid going to school.Bullying has links, therefore, withother forms of school violence, seri-ous events that occur, and health



10

and well-being. It helps to explainsome of the most serious acts ofviolence, including suicides. In somecountries, suicides have been thecatalyst for work on bullying andschool safety.12

Safety Issues for Girls andBoys

School safety issues affect girlsand boys differently. Girls are lesslikely to use aggressive behaviorthan boys and tend to use exclu-sionary or verbal tactics. They aremore subject to sexual harassment.In South Africa, the incidence ofsexual assault among girls is in-creasing, and 40 percent of rapecases nationally involve girls underage 17. Projects specifically tailoredto girls’ needs are being developedin Australia, Canada, South Africa,Sweden, and the United Kingdom.

A FOCUS ON PERPETRATORS [OF VIOLENCE]IS IN DANGER OF IGNORING THE FACT THAT

HIGH LEVELS OF VIOLENCE, AND THE THREAT

OF VIOLENCE, IN A SCHOOL WILL HAVE A

MARKED EFFECT UPON ALL SCHOOL STU-DENTS, SOMETIMES . . . UNDERMINING

THEIR ABILITY TO CONCENTRATE IN CLASS,DISRUPTING THEIR ATTENDANCE, AND CAUS-ING SOME OF THEM TO FEIGN SICKNESS IN

ORDER TO AVOID THE HAZARDS OF SCHOOL.

—Reducing the Violent Victimizationof Young People in a London Neighbourhood,

Pitts, 1999

Social Exclusion,Minorities, Hate Crimes,and Harassment

Concentration of poverty andsocial problems in some Europeancountries has focused discussionson social exclusion. In France,social exclusion refers to those whoare excluded from the benefits ofparticipating in mainstream societybecause of long-term unemploy-ment and poverty. They are usuallyconcentrated in areas of publichousing, and schools in these sub-urbs and inner cities have had prob-lems with violence. A recent surveyshows a growing sense of insecurityamong pupils and teachers in suchschools in France since 1995.13 Thisis attributed to increases in groupviolence and extortion and violencein elementary schools. The inci-dence of group extortion, swarming,and mobbing has increased in anumber of countries, and drug usehas become much more prevalentamong young people.14

The pace of migration and immi-gration is affecting many countries.Germany, where reunification andimmigration rapidly changed demo-graphic patterns and standards ofliving in the 1990s, and SouthAfrica, which has experienceddecades of conflict, have both facedproblems of racial violence andharassment among young people.Schools and their communitieshave had to cope with an influx offoreign-born students and with fami-lies struggling to adapt to a new




A SURVEY OF 663 TEENAGERS IN A

BRITISH CITY SCHOOL FOUND BOYS’ LEVELS

OF FEAR DECREASED BETWEEN THE AGES

OF 11 AND 16 (30 PERCENT OF

16-YEAR-OLDS EXPRESSED FEAR WHEN

OUTSIDE) WHILE AMONG GIRLS IT

INCREASED (TO 68 PERCENT AT 16).

—“Fear of Crime,” Goodey, 1995

culture and language. Some schoolpopulations have changed so fastthat racism and gang activity havebeen exacerbated, educational stan-dards have fallen, and the turnoverin pupils and staff has accelerated.

In many European countries,there has been a shift from seeingschools as safe places with a fewdelinquents to seeing them aspotentially dangerous places.

Safety ConcernsThere are different definitions and

understandings of school safety andviolence prevention. The overlap-ping concerns for both students andstaff include

• Safety from accidents andinjuries.

• Safety from self-harm.

• Safety from intrusion.

• Safety from fear of victimization.

• Safety from vandalism.

• Safety from theft.

• Safety from bullying and intimidation.

• Safety from sexual and racialharassment and assault.

• Safety from violence and aggression.

• Safety from group mobbing orextortion and drug and gangactivities.

Overall View of SchoolViolence

Attitudes about youth violencehave changed and now providegreater recognition of the extent ofyoung people’s victimization bytheir peers and its variation amonggirls and boys and different minoritygroups. School-based incidents arereported more often. In some coun-tries, school violence is concentrat-ed in areas plagued by poverty andsocial problems, which are exacer-bated by population changes andimmigration, and by drug useamong young people. Schools havebeen invaded by street crime andviolence, which have focused atten-tion on the areas and schools mostat risk. Observations about the cur-rent situation include the following:

• Most countries report problemsof aggression, minor assaults,and bullying in all types ofschools.

• Some countries perceive thatschool violence has increased in



12

recent years; others attribute thatperception to changing attitudestoward violence and greaterawareness of its extent.

• Frequent and persistent problembehaviors are restricted to aminority of pupils, or are wide-spread in schools in areas withserious social and economicproblems.

• A few countries have seriousproblems of youth violence andracism that have had an impacton schools.

• Most aggressive and violentbehaviors are inflicted by stu-dents against their peers, muchless often against teachers, andrarely by teachers against students.

• Levels of insecurity in schools inmany countries are quite high.



III. International Developments

European InitiativesThe European Commission, the

administrative body of the 15 coun-tries that make up the EuropeanUnion, launched a Violence inSchools Initiative in 1997 in responseto growing concerns about schoolsafety. The 2-year project fundedinformation and data collectionabout current policies and projects,and intercountry project develop-ment and networking as they relateto school safety. It recommended amultidimensional approach involv-ing schools, pupils, and their fami-lies to promote prosocial behaviors.

The initiative was followed by aSafer Schools conference held inUtrecht, Holland, in 1997, and a1998 European Conference onInitiatives To Combat SchoolBullying held in London. In the past10 years, inspired by successfulNorwegian projects (Olweus, 1993),bullying prevention has become amajor area of intervention. TheEuropean Network on the Natureand Prevention of Bullying is devel-oping a 4-year comparative projectwith research teams in Germany,Italy, Portugal, Spain, and theUnited Kingdom.15 A number ofschool violence projects have beendeveloped in Germany to respondto crime, racism, and violence inurban and rural schools.16

NetherlandsThe national government has

launched a series of initiatives topromote school safety. A safety-at-school campaign ran from 1994 to1999 to encourage schools to devel-op social competence, deal withincidents, and provide safe premis-es. Another school safety and secu-rity campaign was launched in 1998by the Ministry for Education,Culture, and Science that providesschools with support to tackle crimeproblems in partnership with localyouth services, the police, andyouth justice. A new national cam-paign will be launched in 2001 bythe Ministries of Interior, Education,Care and Welfare, and Justice aspart of a wider focus on behavior inpublic domains. Its focuses will beyouth participation in adoptingschool codes of behavior, and creat-ing initiatives and interactive work-shops on substance abuse andweapons.

In The Hague, a 3-year curricu-lum for teachers on the preventionof delinquency and bullying hasbeen developed. Each school willbe required to send two staff mem-bers to the course. They will beresponsible for analysis, develop-ment, and evaluation of an actionplan in their school and for trainingother school staff.17


publishing guidelines on developingpolice-school partnerships andusing the law to protect pupilsand staff.

IN ENGLAND, A WHOLE-SCHOOL, ANTIBUL-LYING APPROACH IN 23 SCHOOLS IN

SHEFFIELD INCLUDED SETTING OUT PRECISE

PROCEDURES FOR PREVENTING AND

RESPONDING TO BULLYING, IMPROVED PLAY-GROUND SUPERVISION, AND IMPLEMENTING

COURSES FOR IMPROVING PROBLEM-SOLVING

SKILLS AND ASSERTIVENESS. THE PRO-GRAMME WAS SUCCESSFUL IN REDUCING

BULLYING IN PRIMARY SCHOOLS, BUT

HAD RELATIVELY SMALL EFFECTS IN SEC-ONDARY SCHOOLS . . . . ANOTHER INITIA-TIVE IN TWO HIGH CRIME PUBLIC HOUSING

ESTATES . . . TARGETED TWO PRIMARY AND

TWO SECONDARY SCHOOLS . . . . TWO

YEARS LATER, LEVELS OF BULLYING HAD

DECREASED IN THREE OF THE SCHOOLS.

—“What Works in Preventing Criminality,”Graham, 1998

Joint initiatives from governmentdepartments encourage or directlocal authorities to work in commu-nity partnerships such as theChildren and Youth PartnershipProgramme and Schools Plus:Building Learning Opportunities.They target at-risk schools and chil-dren in disadvantaged areas inresponse to recent reports on youth


14

Additional innovations include

• An antibullying project in 22 ele-mentary schools funded by theMental Health Agency (Junger-Tas, 1999).

• Adoption by many schools ofa National Education ProtocolAgainst Bullying, developedby Dutch education and parentorganizations.

• The SPRINT project Duiven-drecht that combines teachingand treatment with research todevelop competency in elemen-tary school children (Bendit etal., 2000).

United KingdomWork on disruptive and violent

school behavior has a long historyin England and Wales, much of itconcerned with its links to schooldrop-out and delinquency ratesrather than school safety (Graham,1988). In the 1990s, a number ofwhole-school antibullying projectshave been evaluated (Sharp andSmith, 1994; Pitts and Smith,1995).18 Guidelines and teachingpackages to aid practitioners, par-ents, and children have been pub-lished in various languages (Sharpand Smith, 1994; Home Office,1996; Johnson et al., 1992; Mellor,1995).

Following the school deaths inDunblane, Scotland, in 1996,greater attention is being paid tothe physical security of schools inthe United Kingdom.19 This includes


International Developments


crime, truancy, and school exclu-sion (Social Exclusion Unit (SEU),1998). Local and police authoritiesare now required to develop crimeprevention strategies with commu-nity partners such as school andyouth offender teams. A number ofcommunity-based partnership pro-jects involving schools have beenset up in the past 5 years andinclude the following:

• Using Mentors To ChangeProblem Behavior in Primary

School Children—an early inter-vention project in London thattargets 5- to 11-year-old children(Roberts and Singh, 1999).

• Meeting Needs and ChallengingCrime in Partnership WithSchools—provides home-schoolsupport and crisis managementto reduce truancy (Vulliamy andWebb, 1999).

• Moss Side Youth College,Manchester—provides out-of-school education for the exclud-ed, a community bus, 8-til-latehomework clubs, and Internetliteracy (SEU, 1998).

• Morpeth School, TowerHamlets—provides afterschoolmath and literacy supplementalteaching for 11- to 16-year-oldchildren, in collaboration withbusinesses.

• Computer Gym—provides amobile classroom for low-income public housing estates.

• Schools Plus—develops supple-mentary school activities, suchas breakfast clubs, homeworkcenters, Saturday school, men-tors, and family literacy projects(SEU, 1998).

• Crime Reduction in SecondarySchools (CRISS)—a nationalpilot project that addresses bully-ing, truancy, and crime in 103secondary schools as part of agovernment target to reduceschool exclusions by one-thirdby 2002.

HAEC TeacherCurriculum: Preventionof Delinquency andBullying• Analysis of school problems,

strengths, and weaknesses.

• School contribution to the devel-opment of desired values.

• School teaching climate andcharacteristics.

• School role in truancy, dropouts,bullying.

• Classroom teacher skills.

• Teaching special skills—self-esteem, behavioral choices.

• Integration of program with othercommunity youth agencies.

• Developing an action plan andevaluation.

—Adapted from The Nature of SchoolBullying: A Cross-National Perspective,

Junger-Tas, 1999



16

ScandinaviaThe pioneering work on the pre-

vention of bullying in schools wasdeveloped in Norway (Olweus,1993).20 Now referred to as thewhole-school approach, it combinesspecific rules about bullying, cur-riculum projects, reporting of inci-dents, and better playgroundsupervision. Bullying and otherforms of antisocial behaviordeclined by 60 percent, and stu-dents felt more secure.

Many schools in Sweden haveadopted whole-school antibullyingprograms and prevention projects,some supported by the nationaleducation agency. Annersta Schoolin Huddinge developed a programto improve social relations in schooland with the community to curbviolence, mobbing, racism, andgang organization. After 2 years,parental and local business linkshad increased, and vandalism andviolence among pupils had de-creased (ECPA, 1999). RinkebySchool in suburban Stockholm useda comprehensive range of initiativesthat resulted in major reduction inschool violence and other problems.The Children’s Ombudsman hasrecommended strengthening theschool law against bullying, placingan obligation on school staff to pre-vent it, making the reporting of inci-dents the duty of all members of theschool community, and improvingteacher training.

Finland has a new education billrequiring all schools to interveneand take action to prevent bullying.

France

TO FIGHT VIOLENCE AND INSECURITY

IS ALSO TO FIGHT INEQUALITIES AND A

SENSE OF INJUSTICE . . . .

—Claude Bartolone, Minister for Cities,France, March 1999

France has always taken a pre-ventive approach to school vio-lence. Phase I of a joint nationalplan to combat violence in schoolswas announced in 1997.21 Its focusis educative, preventive, and reac-tive, and it emphasizes the collec-tive role of the school and the needto find solutions that benefit allpupils, parents, and staff.22 Amongthe initiatives are

• Establishing observatories to collect local statistics on a rangeof social, economic, and healthindicators to identify schools inproblem areas.23

• Increasing the use of mediationin schools.

• Developing clear and appropriateresponses to violent incidents.

• Setting up intervention projectsin the 26 regions (départements)most at risk of school violenceand delinquency.

• Developing a number of projectsin partnership with schools oncitizenship and antiviolence




education through victims assis-tance organizations.

• Creating a system of OpenSchools (Écoles Ouvert) thatenables students and adultsto use school premises forboth study and recreationduring evenings, weekends,and holidays.

Phase II of the national planwas announced in 2000. It includesthe recruitment of 7,000 educationassistants and social workers whowill receive training in mediationand conflict resolution. The educa-tion assistants will help maintainpeace on school premises andbuses, and will provide individualeducational support and teaching.The school social workers and nurses will provide greater supportto individual children and their families.

Solutions to SchoolViolence—1999 FrenchPublic Survey• 32 percent: fight school failure.

• 32 percent: help parents fulfilltheir education role.

• 27 percent: teach the young citizenship.

• 9 percent: reform juvenile justicesystem.

—Ministry of National Education, Research,and Technology, Paris, France

A joint national framework forintervention was initiated in 1999.24

Youth Violence in Schools focuses

Initiatives Beyond EuropeSouth Africa

In South Africa, violence amongyoung people, especially in schools,has become a major prevention pri-ority. Young people under age 25make up 53 percent of the popula-tion. High levels of violence, racism,crime, poverty, and lack of jobs andjob skills have focused attention onthe need to develop a preventivestrategy through schools to counterviolence in schools.

WITH 39 PERCENT OF SOUTH AFRICANS

AGED BETWEEN 14 AND 35, YOUNG PEO-PLE COMPRISE A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF

SOUTH AFRICAN SOCIETY. HOWEVER, DUE

TO THE POLICIES OF PAST GOVERNMENTS, A LARGE NUMBER OF YOUNG MEN AND

WOMEN HAVE NOT HAD THE CHANCE TO

DEVELOP THEIR FULL POTENTIAL. THEY

HAVE EXPERIENCED POOR HOUSING CONDI-TIONS, LIMITED AND RACIALLY-BIASED

ACCESS TO EDUCATION AND TRAINING, LIMITED JOB OPPORTUNITIES, HIGH LEVELS

OF CRIME AND VIOLENCE, AND A GENERAL

DISINTEGRATION OF SOCIAL NETWORKS

AND COMMUNITIES.

—Youth Policy 2000,National Youth Commission, 2000



18

on tackling the underlying causes ofyouth violence by targeting thoseschools with the greatest problems,developing community policingaround schools, and developingcommunity action around schools.These objectives are aided by adata engine—improved national andlocal information—to monitor andevaluate problems and progress.

Projects based on the model andother work include the following:

• The Crime Reduction in SchoolsProgram (CRISP) in Durban.25

• The School Watch program inKwa Zulu-Natal, which has had amarked impact on the preventionof offending and victimization.

• The Safer Schools programsbeing developed by the federalDepartment of Education andprovincial governments.

• The comprehensive Safe SchoolPolicy in 40 schools, which wasdeveloped by the Centre forthe Study of Violence andReconciliation (CSVR).26

• The guides, training, resources,and programs on school violenceprevention being produced bynational and provincial govern-ments and nongovernment organizations.

AustraliaA report on school violence in

Australia was published in 1994.Much current work is preventive,stressing early intervention andschool-community partnershipswith a focus on including youngpeople in the design of projects.27

National Crime Prevention (NCP) isfunding a number of school-baseddevelopmental projects that targetat-risk children and families. Otherinitiatives include healthy schoolapproaches such as the HealthPromoting Schools Association,which is sponsoring the InteragencySchools as Community CentresPilot Project. This project involvesthe identification of local needsthrough community consultation,with funding from local school,education, health, and communityservices.

A growing network of programs,strategies, and resources exists toprevent bullying or teach conflictresolution and peer mediationskills,28 including helplines andintervention programs such as thePEACE (preparation, education,

Tools that allow children to remainbuoyant in the nonviolent streaminclude

• School competency.

• Feelings of support and care.

• Self-esteem and identity.

• Philosophical grounding.

• Problem-solving skills.

• Confidence with adversity.

• Involvement.

—Youth Violence in Schools, South Africa, 1999




action, coping, evaluation) Pack(NCP, 1999), Dr. Ken Rigby’sBullying Pages (Rigby, 1995),and Oz Problem Solver: TeachingStudents Peer Mediation (Stern,1996).

New ZealandA New Zealand report on school

violence looked at the links betweenbullying and other forms of violenceand intimidation in children’s livesand at accidents and health prob-lems (Lind and Maxwell, 1996).Although there is no national initia-tive on school violence prevention,a well-developed antibullying net-work exists, including a police-business partnership campaign thathas sponsored a resource kit pro-gram, Kia Kaha, for 8- to 14-year-old children, the Cool SchoolsPeer Mediation Programme, and ananger management program calledEliminating Violence, all of whichhave been evaluated (Sullivan,1999).

CanadaThe public’s and teachers’ con-

cerns about school violence result-ed in a number of studies andguides in the early 1990s and anincrease in police-school initia-tives.29 A national survey of schoolpolicies identified a need for schoolboards to focus much more on pre-vention and community policies(Solicitor General, 1995). Schoolswere still seeing themselves as sep-arate from their communities.30 Stafftraining, better data collection, andevaluation of programs and policies

were needed; specific programs foraggressive or violent students werecalled for that were supportive andcorrective rather than punitive,inflexible, or demoralizing.31

The National Crime PreventionCentre32 has funded researchand guides on school bullying,an inventory of resources on safeand healthy schools (Shannon andMcCall, 1999), and a Web-basedcompendium of evaluated practicesemphasizing the links betweenschool safety and health.33 ItsInvestment Fund is financing pilotprograms targeting at-risk schools.School safety policies and protocolsare being developed by a nationalworking group, and the Council ofMinisters of Education is developinga school indicators program to pro-vide comprehensive data across thecountry and promote comprehen-sive afterschool programming.Other initiatives are

• A whole-school bullying programpiloted in four Toronto schools(Smith et al., 1999).

• Conflict resolution programs inToronto elementary and sec-ondary schools (Brown et al.,1996; Network, 2000).34

• A teacher’s violence preventionkit for Quebec secondary schoolsand an inventory of tools andresources (Tondreau, 2000).35

• British Columbia’s Safe SchoolsInitiative piloted safe school pro-grams in 22 schools in 5 differ-ent languages. The project is



20

being evaluated over 5 years andincludes the British ColumbiaSafe Schools Centre.

• A nongovernment Safe SchoolsNetwork includes the NovaScotia League of Safe Schools,the Safe and Caring SchoolsNetwork set up by the AlbertaTeachers Association, and theCanadian Safe Schools Network,which develops projects primari-ly in Ontario.

United StatesThe Federal Government funds

an array of work on school safetyprojects that monitor trends, pro-vide research and evaluation, andsupport technical assistance.36

Since 1998, it has published thestatistical report Indicators of SchoolCrime and Safety and the AnnualReport on School Safety, which pro-vide a comprehensive survey oftrends, initiatives, and good prac-tices. An inventory of federal initia-tives on school violence has beenpublished by the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention.37

Recent major initiatives include Safeand Drug-Free Schools and SafeSchools/Healthy Students. Federaldollars fund the Hamilton FishInstitute on School and CommunityViolence, a technical assistancecenter, which is developing andtesting the effectiveness of school-based strategies; the NationalResource Center for Safe Schools,which works with schools and statesto develop comprehensive safeschool plans; and the National

School Safety Center (NSSC), aresource and training center thatprovides training for the CommunityOriented Policing Services (COPS)in Schools program.38

Past initiatives have focused onreducing school violence with pro-grams that target the facilitatorsof violence: drugs, gangs, andguns.39 Among these programsare the School-Related CrimePrevention and Safety Initiativethat funds police partnerships withschools and communities, Schooland Community Action Grants thatfund the application of tested pro-grams to curb violence, and COPSin Schools that funds communitypolice-school partnerships.

More recent initiatives stress com-prehensive school-committee ap-proaches. The Safe and Drug-FreeSchools Initiative provides resourcesto every state and most school dis-tricts. It funds school-communityprojects and supports training andtechnical assistance, including satel-lite telecasts.40 The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative funded54 demonstration programs in 1999and another 22 since then.41 In eachcase, local education authorities areworking in partnership with publicmental health providers, justice andlaw enforcement authorities, andfamilies and students. Compre-hensive plans based on best prac-tices are being developed topromote students’ health and pre-vent violence. Technical assistancehas been provided and a nationalevaluation is being undertaken.




State initiatives include statewideprogram development in Colorado,New York, and North Carolina. TheCenter for the Prevention of SchoolViolence is based at the Universityof North Carolina and the Centerfor the Study and Prevention of Vio-lence is based in Colorado. In 1998,the U.S. Conference of Mayors pub-lished Preventing School Violence:Best Practices of Mayors in Collab-oration With the Police, Schools andthe Community and the NationalCrime Prevention Guide to SaferSchools.

Trends in Approaches toSchool Safety

The examination of approachesto school safety employed by con-cerned countries has revealed anumber of emerging trends. Theseinclude the following:

• Framing the issues more onschool safety and less on schoolviolence.

• Linking school safety with theneeds of victims and victimizersand to healthy behaviors.

• Changing emphasis from a reac-tive or punitive focus on perpe-trators of school violence toproactive approaches.

• Shifting from physical, situationalprevention, or school expulsionto comprehensive approachesthat use a range of policies andprograms.

• Using programs geared both toproblem students and to theentire school population, teach-ers, and families.

• Developing school-communitypartnerships.

• Targeting at-risk schools usingevaluated model programs.

• Involving young people in theassessment of problems and project design.



IV. Critical Elements of aComprehensive Approachto School Safety

From School Violence toSchool Safety

Although the extent and types ofproblems experienced by schoolsvary in different countries, somecommon strategies and methods fortackling them have emerged. Theapproaches emphasize four majorissues:

• Perceiving the school within itscommunity setting by openingschool premises to local resi-dents and pupils after schoolhours, inviting community mem-bers to participate in schoolactivities, and creating links withlocal businesses and other pro-fessional groups.

• Focusing on the school atmos-phere, not just physical securityor individual students.

• Using a partnership problem-solving model.

• Employing multiple strategies,not single programs.

Some of the major programs andintervention strategies currentlybeing used around the world arediscussed below.

Interventions WithUnintended Consequences

An Australian report (NCP,1999) classifies three major typesof intervention with young people:coercive, developmental, andaccommodating. Many pastapproaches to school violencehave focused on the first type.

In some countries, the long-termproblems of excluding studentsfrom school because of violence ordrug use are being recognized. Theproblems with expulsions and sus-pensions are that they raise thelikelihood that those students willbecome even more involved indelinquency, drugs, and violence,which can affect the school byincreasing street crime in the sur-rounding neighborhood. The short-term gains for the school do notadd up to the long-term costs forthe excluded students and theircommunities.

Zero-tolerance policies are anoth-er approach, but there is consider-able confusion about what theyare. They are often taken to meantough, uniform punishments for anyincident, such as automatic andimmediate expulsion. Many school



24

boards in Canada, for example, saythey have zero-tolerance policies,but in practice they mean that anyincident has consequences of somekind, ranging from curfews andextra work to suspensions andexclusion.

In the United States, federal lawrequires schools to expel pupils car-rying firearms. Since passage of the

Approaches to YouthCrime PreventionCoercive approaches:

• Emphasize crime control, deter-rence, reducing opportunities,and exclusion.

• Young people are seen as prob-lem or threat.

Developmental approaches:

• Emphasize social problems,youth participation, inclusion ofall young people, and opportuni-ty enhancement.

• Young people seen as part of thecommunity and the solution.

Accommodating approaches:

• Emphasize dealing with immedi-ate conflicts using negotiation,mediation, and multiagencycooperation.

• Young people seen as legitimatestakeholders and users of publicspaces.

—Hanging Out: Negotiating Young People’s Use of Public Space

NCP, Australia, 1999

law in 1994, the number of pupilsexpelled doubled in some states, buthas now declined overall (AnnualReport on School Safety, 2000;Hamilton Fish Institute, 2000).Countries such as France explicitlyavoid using terms such as zero tol-erance because they imply a lack offlexibility. They prefer to talk aboutimmediate or alternative responsesrather than a single one. This meansa clear, rapid, appropriate responseproportionate to the seriousness ofthe incident, and includes aid tovictims.

WHETHER ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICIES AND

THE CORRESPONDING INCREASE IN EXPUL-SIONS HAVE MADE STUDENTS SAFER IN

SCHOOL, AND AT WHAT COST TO THOSE

EXPELLED AND TO SOCIETY IN GENERAL,REQUIRE A CLOSER LOOK . . . . THE HEAVY

USE OF SUSPENSION AND EXPULSION CAN BE

SEEN AS AN EXPENSIVE PRACTICE FOR THE

COMMUNITY EVEN WHEN IT IS COST EFFEC-TIVE FOR THE SCHOOL . . . . IF STUDENTS

WHO ARE SUSPENDED OR EXPELLED DO NOT

REENTER SCHOOL RIGHT AWAY, THEY ARE

LIKELY TO FALL FARTHER BEHIND ACADEMI-CALLY AND ARE AT INCREASED RISK OF

FALLING INTO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE

COMMUNITY.

—Zero Tolerance: The Alternative Is Education,Kingery, 2001

In America, intervention projectsoffering alternatives to school


Critical Elements of a Comprehensive Approach to School Safety


suspension and expulsion are beingdeveloped by the Department ofEducation, which is spending $10million to identify model programs,and the Hamilton Fish Institute.Many school projects in Englandand Wales are specifically con-cerned with preventing expulsionor working with the excluded to getthem back in school or in the jobstream. One English project refersstudents to a special school supportworker after serious verbal or physi-cal incidents instead of using exclusion.

Earlier InterventionDevelopmental studies have

shown that the earlier we can inter-vene in children’s lives the betterthe chances are of reducing therisks of behavioral problems, delin-quency, bullying, and school truan-cy and dropping out (NationalInstitute of Justice (NIJ), 2000;Gottfredson, 2001).42 Such studieshave documented impressivereductions in problem behaviors,improved scholastic achievement,better parent management skills,and higher employment levels forboth young people and their par-ents. Effective intervention strate-gies show that risk factors can beturned into positive points for inter-vention and prevention and that

• The earlier the intervention, themore effective it is.

• Programs that target multipleproblems are more effective thanthose that deal with only one riskfactor.

• Long-term interventions are bet-ter than short-term ones.

• Preadolescent interventions arethe most effective.

Early intervention programs inelementary schools have the resid-ual effect of helping to improveschool safety in secondary schools.This has led many countries to tar-get at-risk schools and to use evaluated programs with provensuccess records. It has also beenshown to be much less costly tointervene early.43

What WorksThe most successful prevention

plans combine programs, addressthe entire school population, designspecial projects to target at-riskgroups and individuals, and solicitteacher support. (See chapter VI forthe range of prevention approachesbeing used and their targets.) The1999 Annual Report on SchoolSafety provides good examples ofmodel prevention programs in theUnited States that use well-designedprojects, have proven effectiveness,are adapted to local school andcommunity needs, and are used aspart of a comprehensive plan.

These plans include codes of con-duct and protocols to define schoolnorms and deal with daily eventsand situations, safety plans to dealwith serious events, support forpupils with particular problems, anda curriculum and other projectsfor teachers to improve conflict



26

resolution and mediation skills.Some countries, such as Canadaand the United Kingdom, havedeveloped police-school protocols(Bala et al., 1994).

A COMMON FEATURE OF RECENT PREVEN-TION CONCEPTS IS THAT PROGRAMS SHOULD

NOT BE TOO NARROW, BUT SHOULD

ADDRESS SCHOOL LIFE IN GENERAL.

—“Germany,”Lösel and Bliesener, 1999

Mediation. A lot of school violence is about relationships.Developing negotiating skills, peergroup mediation, conflict resolution,and restorative approaches are alltactics being used internationally.Some countries have good, evaluat-ed training programs. In France,school assistants in classrooms andon playgrounds and school busesprovide additional mediation andmonitoring support.

The range of mediators hasgrown to include peers, adults inand outside the school, and the twoparties themselves. In the UnitedStates, good practice guidelinessuggest that peer mediators shouldnot be restricted to “natural” problem-solvers but should includestudents from different ethnic groupsand those who are shy, have angermanagement problems, or havelearning disabilities (Edwards,

1997). Group conferencing thatbrings together family members,friends of victims, and perpetratorsis used in Canada to resolve seriousschool incidents (see Network,2000; Correctional Service Canada(CSC), 1999).

Education. A wide range of skillsdevelopment programs addressingsocial skills, assertiveness, angermanagement, conflict resolution,and general education programson civics, antiviolence, antidrugs,racism, and sexism is being used. Insome countries, courses and work-shops can be taught by specialistsfrom outside organizations such asthe National Victim Support andMediation Institute (INAVEM) inFrance and CSVR in South Africa.

Targeted individual pupil support.This concept includes individualcounseling and group work, men-toring, and programs for expelledand suspended students. The sup-port can be inside the school, suchas student assistance centers andschool social or health workers, orin the local community. The pro-grams work with victims, aggres-sors, and those at risk.

Teacher training and support.This can include special trainingworkshops and basic teacher train-ing. Specialized school social work-ers or medical staff in England,Wales, and France help relievestress on teachers and studentsaffected by class disruption.




Whole-school antibullying pro-grams. These are good examples ofcomprehensive plans. They consistof a general school policy writtenwith the active collaboration ofpupils, teachers, and parents thatincludes implementation and evalu-ation plans. With the very young,no-blame approaches are oftenused to encourage children to talkabout incidents.

Helplines. Helplines, such as KIDSCAPE and CHILDLINE in theUnited Kingdom, are being usedin many countries, especially toreport bullying. Antiviolence hot-lines encourage children to reportincidents and to name places andindividuals without fear of reprisal.

Teaching aids, such as theAustralian antibullying PEACEPack, provide guidance to schoolson how to raise awareness of bully-ing, develop school policies to dealwith it, counsel children in class togain support, work with parents,and evaluate interventions. Schoolsthat use the pack have experienceda 25-percent reduction in bullying(Rigby and Slee, 1999).

Developing ComprehensiveApproaches

Detailed outlines for developingcomprehensive school-communityplans are provided in the UnitedStates by the Education and JusticeDepartments, the Hamilton FishInstitute, and the Center for theStudy and Prevention of Violence.South Africa’s Youth Violence in

Seven Steps ForDeveloping andImplementing aComprehensive School Safety Plan1. Partnership.

2. Identify and measure.

3. Set goals.

4. Research programs and strategies.

5. Implement.

6. Evaluate.

7. Revise plans.

—Annual Report on School Safety, 1998,U.S. Departments of Education

and Justice, 1998

Schools is another example. Manyprojects in England and Wales use asimilar multiagency, multimethodstrategy. The 1998 Annual Reporton School Safety sets out sevensteps for developing and imple-menting such plans.

School safety partnershipsinclude the school community, parents, social and youth services,police, courts, volunteer organiza-tions, faith communities, local busi-nesses, and residents. Checklistsof warning signs and risk factorsfor school problems and violence,such as the National School SafetyCenter’s Mosaic of 20 Questions orthe U.S. Departments of Educationand Justice’s Early Warning, Timely



28

Response: A Guide to Safe Schools,have been developed for use byschool staff. They need to be usedcarefully as a guide and as part of abroader comprehensive plan. Goalsand targets are being used increas-ingly, such as in the prevention pro-jects in England and Wales.

Other SupportA major feature of prevention

programs is helping schools andcommunities to develop sound safe-ty plans. Experience has shown thata program that reduces violence inone country or city may not workin another. Good programs needgood implementation. Schools havelittle time to spare and developinggood plans requires leadership,energy, and experience. Increas-ingly, technical training and supportare available.

One approach is clustering, orbringing together groups of schools,to train or develop and evaluateprojects. It is an efficient and effec-tive way to promote project devel-opment. Variations of the modelinclude

• Clustering of schools in projectdevelopment, assisted by aresearch, university, or technicalcenter, as is done in the GautengTownships of South Africa.

• Clustering of teachers from allschools in an area who traintogether in a series of workshopsand seminars, such as TheHague curriculum.

• Provincial or statewide initiativesto provide support, training, andtechnical help, along the linesof the British Columbia SafeSchools Initiative.

• Cross-national training and support, such as the Europeanantibullying project that providestraining seminars over a 3-yearperiod to project researchers andpractitioners and offers short-term placements in differentcountries.

Other approaches include spe-cialized institutes and resource cen-ters and safe school networks thathave been established in a numberof countries to act as resource andsupport systems. A number ofguides that use comprehensiveapproaches are now available.American examples include Creat-ing Safe and Drug-Free Schools: AnAction Guide (U.S. Departments ofEducation and Justice, 1996); andEarly Warning, Timely Response: AGuide to Safe Schools (Dwyer et al.,1998).

Media attention to school safetyissues is another concern, giventhe dangers of increasing fear whenthe media reports tragic events.Schools should have protocols thatdetail who should speak to thepress after serious incidents (Balaet al., 1994). Good project resultsalso need to be shared with thelocal community. Many countriespost project information on theInternet. In the United States, arange of videos, online workshops,




and listservs provides training incomprehensive plan developmentand media protocol development.Other resources include theNational School Safety Guide:America’s Safe School Week;Educated Public Relations—SchoolSafety 101 (Greenbaum et al.,1986); and Preventing SchoolViolence (NIJ, 2000).

SummaryThe critical elements of a com-

prehensive approach to school safe-ty include44

• Identifying and mobilizing keypartners in the school communi-ty, including parents, local agencies, community organiza-tions, residents, and the privatesector.

• Developing a careful assessmentof local school and communityproblems to determine policiesand priorities based on partner-ship consensus.

• Developing local action plans toaddress the causes of school vio-lence and victimization, not justits symptoms, and promotehealthy schools.

• Implementing and evaluatinglong- and short-term preventionprojects.

• Remembering that this is a long-term process and the necessityof educating the public that pre-vention is a normal part of localschool and community life.

Responsibility Center• Leadership• Mobilizing Sectors• Gender and Diversity• Engaging Citizens

Action Plan• Priorities/Resources• Actions v. Risk Factors

Evaluation• Process• Results

Implementation• Coordination• Benchmarks/Timeline

Safety Diagnosis• Challenges From Crime• Risk Factors

Figure 1Elements of Approach to School Safety



V. What To Look Out For

In spite of good guidelines andmodels, experience in many coun-tries shows that developing andimplementing good safety plans toprevent or reduce school violenceand fear is not always a straightfor-ward process. Some of the pitfallsinclude the following:

• Raising awareness about schoolsafety and the risks of violencecan increase fears and insecurityamong students, staff, and families.

• Better reporting and data collec-tion may result in apparent in-creases in incidents, so theremust be careful monitoring andevaluation of other indicators.

• The media can inflame anxieties,leading to exaggerated and rigidresponses.

• International comparisons can beuseful but it must be remem-bered that there are differencesin languages, cultures, local cus-toms, and even explanations.45

• Projects must be appropriate tothe culture of their school com-munities, as have been shownby the experiences with theAboriginals and Maori inAustralia and New Zealand(Sullivan, 1999).

• New problems can arise thatrequire plans to be flexible andsometimes revised. A recentproblem in the United Kingdomstemming from the phenomenalgrowth in mobile phone useamong children has resulted inan increase in robbery of mobilephones by young people, muchof it around schools.

• The challenge of developingpartnerships and engaging thelocal community can be com-pounded when a school is notlocated in the community fromwhich it derives most of its students.

• Schools that are receptive todeveloping projects often are notthose with the most problems(Lösel and Bliesener, 1999).

• Forming packs and adoptingguides is not sufficient for developing effective, sustainableprograms; a clear policy com-mitment is needed at the localschool level.46

• Schools need financial supportfrom national, regional, and localgovernments for policy develop-ment; although the competitionfor funding can stimulate goodplans, it can demoralize schoolsthat lose out.



32

Student insecurity and fear of vio-lence have become central concernsin many countries so reducing fearand lessening the likelihood of vio-lence or injury are major goals. Butit also is recognized that risk cannotbe eradicated entirely. The bestapproach is good planning and pre-vention developed and shared bycommunities. This approach is morebeneficial and less costly than react-ing after tragic events.

Good leadership from the princi-pal affects the ethos, climate, andorganization of a school. It affectspupils, teachers, and school supportstaff. Internationally, the school inits community is seen as having acrucial role in promoting a safe,healthy environment and preventingdelinquency, violence, and victim-ization. It cannot do so in isolation.



VI. Examples From Practice

This chapter describes examplesof current school safety projectsthat use multiple methods and part-nerships. The projects are in vary-ing stages of development and allinclude evaluation, although finalproject outcomes are not alwaysavailable. Sources and contactinformation are given for followup.The examples include individual,comprehensive school-communityprograms in elementary and sec-ondary schools, clustering projects,provincial and statewide initiatives,and projects built around conflictresolution approaches. They usevarious research teams and partner-ships to assist the schools. Infor-mation about school safety projectsin the United States can be found in the Annual Reports on SchoolSafety and other publications of theU.S. Departments of Education andJustice and from the Hamilton FishInstitute and the Center for theStudy and Prevention of Violence.

Clustering Schools Safe Schools Policy and TiisaThuto (Gauteng Townships,South Africa)

The problem. A 1997 conferencefound that adult crimes such asrape, theft, and assault were preva-lent even in primary schools andthat the average age of youth in the11th and 12th grade was 18 to 20

with few graduating with job skills.A need to belong, lack of homesupport, boredom, and lack ofprospects made violence, crime,and youth gangs attractive. Victimsupport was needed, given the highincidence of violence.

The projects. The Centre for theStudy of Violence and Reconcili-ation (CSVR) has developed a SafeSchools Project using a community-based model of intervention. Fortyelementary and secondary schoolsare clustered in a supportive net-work, allowing them to shareresources. A project newsletterhas been established, students areinvolved in strategy and projectdevelopment, and parents areinvolved in problem solving. Theproject acts as an umbrella foractivities by providing safety teamsto research, document, monitor,and evaluate project activities;teacher training and support pro-grams; student training and supportprograms; student-run communitysafety projects; parent education;and training for student governingbodies. A government monitoringprogram maintains links amongprograms, services, and govern-ment departments at the local andnational levels.

CSVR is also part of Tiisa Thuto,a modular training course for pupils,teachers, parents, and communities



34

in the same schools. Run by a busi-ness consortium, it combines theexpertise of police, educators, andorganizations that specialize insports, mediation and conflict reso-lution, peer counseling, trauma andabuse, and victim issues.47 Eachpartner provides its specific skillstraining, resources, and modules.CSVR trains parents, teachers, andschool governors in trauma man-agement, provides peer counseling,and helps develop school safetyteams.

Outcomes. Improved parent-teacher-child relations, betterteacher support, and a swifterresponse to children’s needs.Overall, reported abuse hasdeclined.

Sources: CSVR, www.wits.ac.za/csvr (Internet). Dorothy Mdhuli(Project Director), Safe Schools,[email protected] (e-mail). TiisaThuto, Business Against Crime—Gauteng, Tenji Mayekiso (ProjectDirector).

Changing the WholeSchool and CommunityLycée Professionel “LesCanuts” (Vaulx-en-Velin,France)

The problem. This vocationalsecondary school with 428 studentsin a Lyon suburb had deterioratedover a 15-year period. By 1994,levels of violence in the school hadsoared. It had acquired a negative

reputation in the community andmany of its immigrant and minoritystudents were unable to get job-training placement. Sixteen percentof the pupils were of foreign nation-ality, mostly North African. Themajority of pupils faced a combina-tion of educational, social, and economic disadvantages, with 80percent receiving financial aid.

The project. To reduce school violence and mobilize communitypartners, school rules, rights, andresponsibilities were delineated forpupils, adults in the school, and par-ents. Mediation training was intro-duced, specific projects targetedincoming pupils to help them settlein the school, and teacher teamsdeveloped projects to improve classcohesion. An end-of-year festival,twinning with a large engineeringschool, partnerships with communi-ty organizations to promote youthenterprise, and individual caseworkwere initiated. The school workedwith justice, police, and localauthorities to develop better linkswith local citizens. Key componentsincluded respect for the individualcompetencies of all partners, listen-ing to pupils and valuing their views,giving students greater autonomyand responsibility, stressing theimportance of maintaining energyand dynamism, and adapting tonew needs and problems.

Outcomes. By 1999, reformefforts had paid off with reportsof violence in the school down 60


Examples From Practice


percent, verbal abuse 50 percent,physical violence against adults 100percent, and the cost of repairs 70percent. There was a reduction inintrusions into the school, a rise instudent work placements to a totalof 7,540 days, fewer school expul-sions, a stabilization and increasein the school population, and animprovement in the school’s reputation.

Sources: Mme. Marie-FranceDavid, Academie de Paris, CollègeMaurice Utrillo, 100 Boulevard Ney,Paris, 75018 France; 33–42–58–82–90, 33–42–59–53–00 (fax).Lycée Professionel “Les Canuts,”2 Ho Chi Minh, Vaulx-en-Velin,69120 France; 33–437–45–2001, 33–437–45–2019 (fax),[email protected] (e-mail).

Durham District School Board(Ontario, Canada)

The problem. This school districtincludes large industrial and manu-facturing urban centers and ruralareas and has experienced rapidgrowth. Crime in the area hasincreased; 62 percent of the popu-lation is under age 39. In at-riskschools, there are considerableproblems of instability with highturnover rates, behavioral and fami-ly difficulties, and low educationalachievement.

The project. A demonstration pro-ject was initiated involving studentsages 4 to14 at 4 at-risk schools.The school-based program relies onthe commitment of community part-ners and strong community-school

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Suspensions

Bullying

Fighting

January 2000December 1999November 1999October 1999September 1999

Nu

mb

er o

f In

cid

ents

Month/Year

Figure 2The Incidence of Bad Behavior and Suspensions for Pupils in Four Pilot Schools



36

links. It is based on a successfulapproach developed in anotherschool in the region in the 1990s.South Simcoe Public School hadmany at-risk pupils, severe prob-lems of bullying, fighting, suspen-sions, a high student turnover, loweducational achievement, and apoor reputation in the community.It became one of the top educationperformers in the region within 5years. The principal opened up theschool to the community and estab-lished what she termed a “village-like” atmosphere and a philosophyof respect, which affected all rela-tionships within the school, includ-ing that with teachers. Parents wereinvited to join her, local police offi-cers, and others to read to the chil-dren. She instituted a progresstracking system, to report back toparents on a weekly basis, andeach class adopted a local busi-ness. Academic achievement im-proved and bullying, fighting, andsuspensions were all reduced.

Outcomes. Early evaluation ofthe pilot schools shows clear reduc-tions in fighting, bullying, and sus-pensions over a 4-month period.

Sources: Investment Fund,National Crime Prevention Centre,Department of Justice, 123 SlaterStreet, Eighth Floor, Ottawa,Ontario, K1A 0H8 Canada;877–302–6272, 613–952–3515(fax); [email protected] (e-mail),www.crime-prevention.org/english/main.html (Internet).Sandra Dean (2000), Hearts andMinds: A Public School Miracle,Toronto.

Sydney Burnell School(London Borough of Walford,England)

The problem. This secondaryschool, in an economicallydepressed area, had undergonerapid decline. There were increasingnumbers of poor immigrant familiesin public sector housing and a highrate of neighborhood and schoolpopulation turnover. The neighbor-hood had a history of escalatingcrime, interracial violence, intimida-tion between whites and Bengalis,and more recent influxes of immi-grants fleeing the turmoil of theBalkans. By 1997, the school popu-lation of 1,043 students included 85nationalities. Forty-four percent ofstudents described themselves aswhite and British, 17 percent asblack, and 17 percent as SouthAsian. More than half the studentsqualified for free school meals. Ahigh proportion of students hadlearning and behavioral difficulties.Levels of truancy and feigned sick-ness had risen. The school wasrequired to accept some older,white adolescents expelled fromother schools, often for racial incidents. When racial incidentsoccurred, mobile phones were used to call up “reinforcements.”

The project. The Walford YouthAction Team is a multiagency groupcomposed of senior chief executiveofficers, youth service workers,youth justice staff, education per-sonnel, police, students, parents,and school governors. It works witha university-based research team




to support development, implemen-tation, and evaluation. Togetherthey have undertaken an assess-ment of the issues and formed aschool-based action plan for devel-oping school and local communitystrategies, which involve safetywithin and beyond the school; amultiagency, multimethod interven-tion approach; and changes toschool policies and organization.Projects include a Headstart pro-gram, which provides intensivementoring to at-risk children in pri-mary school and through the first 2 years of secondary school, anexclusions prevention project, andthe joint creation with local youthservices of separate male andfemale student groups to explorevictimization, violence, and genderissues.

Outcomes. In their interimevaluations, teachers and schoolinspectors have reported improvedstudent behavior in classrooms,corridors, and on the playground.There has been a decline in staffturnover, an increase in pupilsselecting the school as their firstchoice for secondary education,and improved scores on nationaleducation certificate exams. Head-start and the exclusion preventionprogram also have been evaluatedpositively.

Source: Professor John Pitts,Department of Applied SocialStudies, University of Luton, ParkSquare, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU13JU England; 44–1582–743085,

44–1582–734265 (fax); [email protected] (e-mail).

Meeting Needs andChallenging Crime inPartnership With Schools(North Yorkshire, England)

The problem. Difficult pupils withpersistent truant, offending, and dis-ruptive behavior that had adverseimpact on classrooms were raisinglevels of teacher stress. There was aneed for better crisis management,teacher and pupil support, alterna-tives to school exclusion, and morecohesive local authority strategies.

The project. The program, begunin 1996 in seven urban secondaryand middle schools and steered bya multiagency advisory group,based five full-time social workersin the schools to provide targetedassistance to at-risk children. Theassistance includes home visits,

Parents feel that both they and theirchildren benefit considerably fromhome-school support workers’ will-ingness to listen and to providepractical help. Support workers areseen as unique in their

• Access to information about chil-dren’s lives at school.

• Neutrality in relation to schoolvalues.

• Unconditional help not tied tostatutory obligations.

—Meeting Needs and ChallengingCrime in Partnership With Schools,

Vulliamy and Webb, 1999



38

help with special needs, befriending,counseling and support, and indi-vidual and group work on angermanagement, peer relations, self-esteem, advocacy, mediation, staffeducation, parent support, youthforums, and crisis management.Pupils involved in school violenceor disruption are referred to thesupport workers rather than beingexpelled, which helps calm pupilsin inflammatory situations and prevents further deterioration inbehavior.

Outcomes. There has been areduction in school exclusions,improved crisis management, andbetter parent-school relationships.The key mechanisms include long-term and indepth casework, short-term support for other children,school staff understanding of pupils’home circumstances, crisis man-agement, and reducing stress onschool staff. All schools have notbeen equally successful and devel-oping regional policies has been dif-ficult without involvement of higherlevels of authority. School prerequi-sites for success included explicitproject support by head teachersand locating the social workers inthe school as staff members withfull involvement in senior manage-ment meetings, giving them anoffice, and clearly communicatingthe support workers’ role to allschool staff.

Sources: Home Office ProgrammeDevelopment Unit (PDU) andGraham Vulliamy and RosemaryWebb, Department of Educational

Studies, University of York. SeeVulliamy and Webb (1999).

Cities in Schools (England andWales)

The problem. The challenge wasto provide alternatives for childrenexcluded from school, assist withreintegration, and prevent thedevelopment of problem behavior.

The project. Cities in Schools’Bridge, Reintegration, and Preven-tion courses have been establishedin 75 projects across England andWales. Bridge courses work with14- to 19-year-old students ingroups of 10, providing a personaltutor or mentor while they attendlocal study programs. Tutors keepin contact with students’ familiesand the project aims to reintegrate80 percent of out-of-school stu-dents. Reintegration courses target8- to 14-year-old students whohave been permanently excludedfrom school. Prevention courses usehome-school links to work in disad-vantaged areas, build partnershipswith parents, and provide teachertraining in behavior management.They assist development of whole-school antibullying programs. Eachproject is run as a separate charityorganization with a local partnershipboard composed of educators,police, social service workers, jobtrainers, and local business leaders.

Outcomes. The Bridge coursesresulted in marked improvement inschool attendance, up 80 to 100percent. Most eligible students




achieved national awards and 75percent of students had positive jobor further education placements.The courses were cost-effective,offering better value for the moneythan alternatives.

Source: Utting (1996).

The Wetzlar Model Police-School Project (Giessen, Hesse,Germany)

The problem. Violence, includingracial incidents, in schools and sur-rounding areas had become a seri-ous issue in Giessen, as in otherareas of Germany. There was drugdealing in schoolyards, blackmail-ing, and a stolen goods trade, andstudents, teachers, and parents wereall afraid of reporting these inci-dents. There was also a lack of trustin the local police force. A taskforce report recommended a bal-anced community and public healthapproach to developing safeschools.

The project. Wetzlar Model Projectwas initiated by the police 5 yearsago in partnership with school staff,pupils, parents, school boards, doc-tors, youth welfare, and other localgroups in 5 secondary schools and6 vocational colleges. Most initia-tives stress prevention, but includerapid responses to violent incidents.Police now respond immediately tocalls from the schools and deal with cases swiftly. Other initiativesinclude a hotline for reporting inci-dents, break-time activities for stu-dents, police training on protocols

for responding to incidents, media-tion and conflict resolution training,organized sports nights, youth wel-fare office support for students withbehavior problems, monthly meet-ings among the police, school offi-cials, and other key leaders. Projectnights are held with pupil represen-tatives and foreign students andtheir parents. A school safety coun-cil has been established.

Outcomes. Trust in the police hasbeen reestablished, reducing fear inthe schools. The number of report-ed incidents has risen from 178 in1995 to 395 by October 2000, illus-trating an increased trust in thepolice, and there has been a de-crease in the amount of violence inschools. The Wetzlar Model is beingdeveloped in other regions of thestate, and video and trainingmanuals have been produced.

Source: Helmut Lenzer,Polizeihaupkommissar,Polizeipraesidium Giessen,Ferniestrasse 8, 35394 Giessen,Hesse, Germany.

Ringeby School (Stockholm,Sweden)

The problem. In the 1970s,Ringeby School in suburbanStockholm had an elementaryschool student enrollment of 400,a poor reputation, extensive graffiti,and damage. Bullying and racismwere rife and a small group ofpupils exerted a negative influenceon the school climate. Pupils feltunsafe and half the board of



40

management had resigned. In thelocal community, more than 80 per-cent of its 14,500 residents were offoreign origin, representing morethan 100 nationalities, uneducated,with high unemployment and wel-fare dependence and little knowl-edge of Swedish.

The project. In 1989, a Centerof the Community plan to revital-ize the school began by coordinat-ing local municipal departmentresources. Activities, such as thelocal music school, were movedinto the school, and a culture anddance program started, in whichtwo-thirds of the students partici-pate. In collaboration with the socialwelfare department, a school day-care center with two specializedteachers, recreational staff, and twosocial workers was set up for chil-dren with serious problems. Theyonly study there for subjects wherethey are troublesome in class. Thisavoids transferring the student outof the school and reduces disrup-tion in classes. The offices of socialservices fieldwork staff were trans-ferred to the school, reducing costsand improving contact with youngpeople. Homework support is pro-vided. Municipal youth clubs movednearer the school and are openevery day from 4 p.m. to midnight.Unemployed youth have access tothe school gym, and other activitieshave been provided for them. Amajor project was to involve pupilsand parents in organizing a home-school association, managementboard, pupil council, and cultural

awareness program. Students weregiven responsibility for keeping theschool in good repair. Computeraccess has been a major priority.An action plan against bullying, violence, and racism was intro-duced with clear rules, studentagreements, followup of incidents,and better supervision and parent contact.

Outcomes. Pupil involvement inschool activities has increased andthere has been a radical reductionin school damage and pupil insecu-rity. In 1998, 84 percent of parentsand pupils said they were satisfiedor very satisfied with the school,which has become the natural cen-ter of Ringeby. Considerable costsavings have resulted from thecoordination of resources in theschool, improving opportunities forintervention with students.

Source: Nominated project forEuropean Crime PreventionAwards 1998. National CrimePrevention Council, Sweden;[email protected] (e-mail);www.bra.se (Internet).

Conflict Resolution PlusIndependent Project Trust(Kwa Zulu Natal, South Africa)

The problem. Urban schools inthe Durban area had high levels ofviolence. Gang activity, carrying ofweapons, and bullying and victim-ization of students and teacherswere endemic in the schools andthe local community. The difficulty




of ensuring the effective develop-ment of a single Schools, Medi-ation, and Reconciliation Training(SMART) program led to the broad-er Community Alliance for SafeSchools (CASS) team approach.

The projects. Independent ProjectTrust (IPT) developed the SMARTprogram in the early 1990s. It trainspupils, teachers, and school gov-erning bodies to develop democrat-ic dispute and conflict managementskills. It stresses discipline practices,cultural diversity, and accountabilityfor actions. Students are trained inpeer mediation. The difficulty ofusing these skills because of vio-lence and gang activity led to thecreation of CASS in 1997. Thisprovince task team involves themajor stakeholders to build a senseof community ownership throughpartnerships, mobilize communities,protect school children, and createsafe schools through effective governing bodies. Using a clusterapproach, IPT has produced a manual for head teachers and hasfacilitated workshops and trainingsessions in three pilot schools.The three schools are within a 10-kilometer radius and join for workshops on data collection, diag-nosing school safety problems,developing a school security plan,and related issues. School safetycommittees have been set up,resulting in better security, monitor-ing, counseling, police relations, andcommunication.

Outcomes. By 2000, two of theschools had moved into a bettercategory of security. They were feltto be safer places, and levels ofreporting of violence had increasedas fear of reprisals diminished. Thecluster approach was particularlyimportant. Schools felt they wouldhave been unable to effect changewithout the facilitation support ofIPT. Clustering also had provedvaluable for collective problem solv-ing as the three schools had suc-cessfully lobbied for a change inschool bus routes, something theyhad failed to do independently.

Sources: Safer Schools mono-graph, Secretariat for Safety andSecurity, South Africa. MargaretRoper: [email protected] (e-mail),www.webpro.co.za/clients/ipt(Internet).

East Hartford High School(East Hartford, CT, U.S.A.)

The problem. East Hartford is an urban high school of 2,100 stu-dents, with 72 percent students ofcolor and 28 percent Caucasian.They represent 70 countries of ori-gin and speak 40 languages. By1992, there were increases in vio-lence in the school, drug use, ethnictensions, and gangs, coupled withan overloaded school guidancecapacity and limited social services.

The project. Preventing Violencein Our Schools: A Blueprint forConflict Resolution targets truancy,



42

violence, discipline, and poor aca-demic performance (see Edwards etal., 1999). A Student AssistanceCenter (SAC) was established withstrict rules and regulations. It is runby a full-time certified staff mem-ber, 30 teachers who volunteer ona rotation basis, 1 full-time andup to 9 part-time interns fromthe University of Connecticut, asubstance abuse counselor, andtrained student mediators. Conflictresolution and mediation are offeredby peers, adults, and through self-mediation. Peer mediators are across-section of students whoreceive a 3-day training program.A student assistance team of volun-teer staff oversee students referredto SAC by anyone. Alcohol anddrug counseling is offered 5 days aweek, Alcoholics Anonymous holdsmeetings, and other groups for at-risk students exist. Police outreachruns drug and gang resistance inter-vention programs. Other initiativesinclude probation links, career men-toring for at-risk children, work-shops on college preparation with a consortium of local high schools,and a cultural enrichment program.SAC funds come from federal,state, and local grants.

Outcomes. In 5 years there havebeen no expulsions, a 60-percentdrop in suspensions, a 40-percentreduction in fighting, and a schooldropout rate below 4 percent. Theproject attributes part of its successto flexibility in identifying problems,

designing programs that have con-tinuous monitoring and adaptation,and strong links outside the school.

Sources: Dr. Steven Edwards,Principal, 869 Forbes Street,East Hartford, CT 06118. 860–622–5203; 860–622–5337 (fax);[email protected] (e-mail).

Provincewide ProgramsSafe Schools/CommunitiesInitiative (British Columbia,Canada)

This Safe Schools/CommunitiesInitiative is a partnership betweenprovincial government ministriesand schools and their communities.It includes the British Columbia SafeSchool Centre—a resource centerthat disseminates support and train-ing, examples of best practice, andstrategies such as a Safe SchoolKit, Safe School Planning Guide,and a resource catalogue. Otheraspects of the approach includeYouth Taking Action Workshops,peer mediation training manualsand resources for elementary andsecondary schools, and a mobiletrainer who visits schools. Everyschool board has Safe SchoolDistrict Contacts. They offer trainingand facilitate communication anddissemination of material and bestpractices. Safe School RegionalTraining sessions bring togetherschools, youth workers, and otherprofessionals. Focus on Bullyingis a prevention program for




elementary and secondary schoolssupported by a cadre of trainersacross the province.

The project. Begun in 1995 with5 schools, All Together Now is apilot project in 22 elementaryschools across British Columbia.The project is an early interventionand crime prevention initiative thatidentifies school and communityneeds. It implements a range ofprojects to develop resiliency, problem-solving skills, and aware-ness among children, and offerstraining for adults working with at-risk youth. Specific projects includebullying programs, mediation, con-flict resolution, youth-lead videos,and multicultural and antiracismtraining. The project focuses onevaluation and sustainability. A finalreport on 15 schools is expected in2001.

Outcomes. Early indications sug-gest a reduction of in-school vio-lence, vandalism, graffiti, andgreater multicultural awareness andtolerance, more positive attach-ments to school, improved mentor-ing and conflict resolution skills,and greater youth involvement inschool and community projects.

Sources: Wendy Taylor, Director,Community and Youth Programs,Community Programs Division,Ministry of the Attorney General,British Columbia, Canada, 5021Kingsway, Suite 401, Barnaby, BC,V5H 4A5 Canada; 604–660–2605,

604–775–2674 (fax). BC SafeSchool Centre: 604–660–7233;www.safeschools.gov.bc.ca(Internet).

National ProgramsNational Fight AgainstViolence in School (France)

The problem. The universal con-cern with school violence in Francewas supported by a 1998 survey offour schools in high-risk areas thatfound growing insecurity amongstudents and staff. Between 1995and 1998, the proportion of teach-ers who thought there was a lot ofviolence in their schools rose from7 percent to 49 percent and amongstudents from 24 percent to 41 per-cent. It was felt that violence in theclassroom and group violence hadreached crisis proportions and thatmore students were using violence,even in elementary schools.

The project. Phase I of the 1998prevention plan targeted severalareas in France with the greatestproblems of violence: Amiens, Aix-Marseille, Créteil, Lille, andVersailles. Phase I covered 411 sec-ondary schools and colleges and1,742 nursery and elementaryschools. In 2 years, appointmentswere made for 400 nurses andmedical social workers, 100 schooldoctors, 100 education and trainingadvisers, and 5,000 educationalassistants. Each area used a rigor-ous process of project development



44

that encompassed diagnosis of theproblems, planning and implement-ing initiatives, evaluation, andrefinement. A national partnershipamong education, state and localpolice, and the courts and localsecurity contracts have changed theresponse to youth violence, provid-ing schools with guidance on han-dling incidents and enabling judgesto act more quickly. Contracts weresigned in 14 departments withINAVEM to provide services inschools. National SOS and hotlineswere set up to report bullying, sexual assault, and extortion.

Outcomes. After 1 year there wasan overall stabilization of schoolviolence and a 10-percent declinein colleges. The violence hasdeclined in most of the experimen-tal zones, although in some areasthere was an increase in aggressivebehavior toward teachers. In thedepartment Bouches des Rhône,there was a reduction in violenceof 27 percent in the experimentalschools and 15 percent for thedepartment as a whole. In someregions, such as the Paris suburbs,it has increased. An evaluation ofthe educational assistants foundthat they had a positive effect onthe school climate, reducing corri-dor and playground problems. Theadditional specialized staff were jus-tified, but there needs to be stabilityamong staff. Much depended onthe local teams. Schools with thelongest experience of working inpartnership with local teams hadthe most success.

Source: Report on qualitative andquantitative evaluation, Plan delutte contre la violence à l’ecole,Ministry of National Education,Research, and Technology, Paris,France; www.education.gouv.fr/discours/2000/violenceb.htm(Internet).

Crime Reduction in SecondarySchools (England and Wales)

The problem. The CrimeReduction in Secondary Schools(CRISS) initiative recognizes thestrong links between poor scholasticachievement, bullying, truancy,school exclusions, and offendingand the importance of targetinghigh-risk areas and schools withresult-based programs and strate-gies. The initiative is part of thenational Crime Reduction Pro-gramme and government plansto reduce school exclusions.

The project. CRISS is a 2-yearnational pilot project (2000–01)to respond to school exclusions,bullying, truancy, and local crimeproblems. Local authorities andsecondary schools across Englandand Wales were invited to competefor £12 million in funds to developa set of required programs with targets for reduction of problems.Contracts for implementation andevaluation teams were also put outto competitive tenders. About £1.5million has been allocated for theevaluation. A total of 38 projectsinvolving 103 secondary schoolswere selected from applications in




both single school projects andclusters of schools in an admin-istrative area. Projects have createdmultidisciplinary teams. Inter-ventions include whole-school bullying programs, electronic moni-toring of attendance throughout theday with immediate followup, an in-school behavioral unit to workwith troubled students, peer media-tion training, curriculum changes,key literacy and numeracy projects,improved afterschool clubs, coordi-nators to develop parent-schoollinks, and antidrug and offendingprograms run by local YouthOffender Teams. Each school hasthree teams assisting in implemen-tation and evaluation: a local pro-ject initiation and developmentteam, a local evaluation team,and the national evaluation team.Projects are expected to meettarget reductions.

Outcomes. Evaluations of imple-mentation process and outcomes

will be available at the end of 2001.Each project has set targets toachieve by the end of the pilot peri-od, such as reducing bullying by 40percent, truancy to 1 percent, andpermanent exclusions to 15 percentand maintaining 93-percent atten-dance levels. Schools vary in theirproject approaches and links withlocal authority and communityorganizations. Problems of datacollection, data sharing, and confi-dentiality have been a learningexperience and a challenge forsome. The national evaluation teamis ensuring comparability of datacollection and will look at overalloutcome evaluation, including costreductions and benefits.

Sources: Home Office, Police andReducing Crime Unit, Clive House,London, SWIH 9HD England; 020–7273–4000, 020–7271–8344 (fax),www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds(Internet).



VII. Notes

1. The U.S. Department of Educa-tion and the Centers for DiseaseControl and Prevention have beencollecting data on school-associatedviolent deaths (homicides and sui-cides) since 1992. Although notfinalized, the number of studentskilled in schools appears to be lessthan 1 percent, of which about 85percent were killed by firearms.

2. Many different expressions areused to refer to bullying behaviors,such as ijime in Japan and mob-bing in Scandinavia, but they arenot always exactly the same andthere is no German word for bully-ing (Smith et al., 1999).

3. The Ontario Teachers Federationreported a 50-percent increase inserious and minor school violencebetween 1988 and 1990 (Bala etal., 1994); see also Walker (1994).

4. An earlier study by Dr. PaulKingery, Director of the HamiltonFish Institute, analyzed the resultsof the National Crime VictimizationSurvey for 1993–95. He found that12-year-old children were at greaterrisk of victimization at school thanaway from it: 61 percent of girlsand 47 percent of boys who werevictims of violence by a strangerwere injured on school property.See press release of 2/29/00 atwww.hamfish.org.

5. One in 44 incidents in collegeswas serious enough to be reportedto the police, 1 in 28 in general sec-ondary schools (lycées généraux),and 1 in 31 in technical highschools (lycées professionnels),according to the Ministry ofNational Education, Research, andTechnology, Paris.

6. The Hamilton Fish Institute studyfound that anonymous student sur-veys report 100 times more gunsin schools than school principalsdo in their annual reports underthe 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act.Some 287,000 high school studentsreported carrying a gun to school ina 30-day period in 1995, but only2,317 high school students wereexpelled for doing so in the entire1996–97 school year (see HamiltonFish Institute press release andreport of 9/14/00 on www.hamfish.org).

7. These include the World HealthOrganization Health Behavior ofSchool Children survey carried outin 28 countries every 4 years (theUnited States took part in the mostrecent 1997–98 sweep); and theThird International Maths andScience Study (see the U.S. AnnualReport on School Safety, 1999). Amajor difficulty, however, is that wecannot be sure that “feeling inse-cure” in schools in Ireland or NewZealand means the same as in



48

American schools. (See also Akiba,et al., 2001.)

8. Most studies are based on self-reports by children, some on parentor teacher reports. The ages of chil-dren in reported studies vary con-siderably, as does the time period.

9. Not all studies agree. In oneBritish school, there were higher lev-els of bullying experienced by girls(25 percent) than boys (7 percent)(Noaks and Noaks, 2000).

10. In Japan, there has been muchpublic and press focus on ijime fol-lowing a series of suicides by schoolchildren.

11. See Arnette and Wasleben(1998) for information on bullyinglevels and The 1999 National CrimePrevention Survey. See NationalCrime Prevention Council (1999) forparent views on its seriousness.

12. This has been the case inCanada, England, Norway, andJapan.

13. Ministry of National Education,Research, and Technology, Paris.

14. An international survey of 14- to20-year-olds in 12 countries (Killiasand Ribeaud, 1999) found increasesin drug use in many Europeancountries, with links to offending.A Canadian school survey notedincreases in hard and soft drug usein the 1990s (Centre for Addictionand Mental Health, 2000).

15. The teams are working in eightcountries under the direction of nineuniversities. Part of the projectinvolves a training and exchangeprogram for team staff on the back-ground and origins of school bully-ing and methods of interventionand evaluation.

16. Two examples are theRoncallistrasse Elementary Schoolproject (Bendit et al., 2000) andthe Wetzlar Model Police-Schoolpartnership (see chapter VI).

17. This is being developed by TheHague Advisory Educational Centre(Junger-Tas, 1999).

18. Two major projects have evalu-ated the whole-school, antibullyingprogram—in 23 schools in Sheffield(Sharp and Smith, 1994) and 4schools in Manchester and London(Pitts and Smith, 1995). Other pro-jects to make schools safer includeda police SchoolWatch program anda Safer School Safer Cities projectin Wolverhampton (Noaks andNoaks, 2000).

19. For example, Report of theWorking Group on School Securityand Improving Security in Schools.Department of Education andEmployment, 1996. SchoolSecurity: Dealing With Trouble-makers. Home Office andDepartment of Educationand Employment, 1997.

20. It was developed by DanOlweus in 42 middle and primaryschools in Bergen, Norway, in the1980s.



Notes

21. It was launched by the Ministryof Education, together with Justice,the Interior, Defense, Culture, andYouth and Sports. A 1994 report,La violence a l’école, by the Ministryof Education Inspectorate had high-lighted many of the problems.

22. In France, the concept of soli-darité is central to understanding allsocial problems. It stresses that allcitizens are linked together collec-tively and are dependent on oneanother. Problems such as schoolviolence, therefore, require a collec-tive and community response.

23. A National Observatory for theSafety of Schools and Institutions ofHigher Education was set up in1995. It undertakes school safetysurveys and helps schools assessthemselves. A 1996–2001 programin the Créteil school district set upan observatory to measure schoolviolence and to counterbalancemedia reporting. It is developingeducational, preventive, and judicialresponses.

24. The national framework wasdeveloped by the National YouthCommission, the Department ofEducation, and the Secretariat forSafety and Security. It uses themetaphor of a river with violent andnonviolent streams that encourageor protect children from violence asthey grow up.

25. CRISP includes the IndependentProject Trust and the University ofNatal who are piloting the approachin Cape Town and Durban schools.

26. Initially CSVR provided servicesto victims in townships such asSoweto, but its work has evolvedinto a more comprehensive com-munity approach.

27. Sticks and Stones: A Reporton Violence in Schools. ACT: Com-monwealth of Australia (1994).

28. Resource materials are beingdeveloped by the Australian Councilfor Education Research.

29. Education is a provincialresponsibility in Canada, and prac-tices vary considerably across thecountry. See Bala et al. (1994).Other work has reviewed school-based police programs (Ryan andMathews, 1995), zero-tolerancepolicies (Gabor, 1995), weaponsin schools (Walker, 1994), and apolice-school partnership to devel-op an antiviolence communityschool (Ryan, Mathews, andBanner, 1994). The province ofQuebec published a comprehensiveguide to preventing violence inschools (Roy and Boivin, 1989).The Ontario Ministry of Education,teachers unions, and school boardsalso have produced a number ofguides and tools on school violenceprevention.

30. Only 4 percent involved theircommunity in prevention plans.

31. In the 1995 survey, 116 out of210 school boards in large urbanareas in Canada were surveyed.Small towns and rural boards wereexcluded.



50

32. The National Crime PreventionCentre promotes community safetythrough social development andfunds initiatives throughout Canada.Its Investment Fund is set up to fos-ter and evaluate demonstration pro-jects based on exemplary practice.On school issues, the Centre hascollaborated with a variety of othergovernment departments such asHealth Canada and nongovernmentorganizations such as the CanadianAssociation of School Principals.

33. A gateway Web site (www.safe-healthyschools.org) is being devel-oped for a coalition of federalgovernment and national educationand health organizations to providelinks to comprehensive community,school, and health initiatives.

34. A number of nonprofit organiza-tions also offer conflict resolutionworkshops for teachers and stu-dents in the province (e.g.,Alternative to Violence Project).

35. Trousse de prévention de la violence au sécondaire (1996)Montreal: Foundation Philip Pinel; J.Tondreau (2000) Inventaire d’outilssur la violence. Montréal: Centraledes syndicats du Québec.

36. See CDC (2000) for a completelist.

37. This inventory summarizesmore than 100 current projectsfunded by 15 federal agencies: surveillance/monitoring, evaluationresearch, other research, researchsynthesis and application, programs,

resource development activities,and resource and technical activitycenters.

38. See NSSC Web site:www.nssc1.org.

39. Many successful programs toprevent drug and gun use and gangactivity in schools and to protectstudents from recruitment or expo-sure have been developed and eval-uated over the past 10 years, e.g.,Gang Resistance Education andTraining Program; Drug-FreeCommunities Program; and HandsWithout Guns. See also PreventingSchool Violence (NIJ, 2000). For anoverview of U.S. research on therole of the school in reducing delin-quency, see Schools andDelinquency (Gottfredson, 2001).

40. The Safe and Drug-Free SchoolsInitiative is funded by the Depart-ment of Education in collaborationwith the U.S. Departments ofJustice and Health and HumanServices.

41. This includes the U.S. Depart-ments of Education, Justice, andHealth and Human Services.

42. Risk factors include family fac-tors such as poor parenting skills,poverty, abuse, and conflict; individ-ual factors such as early aggressivebehavior; school factors such as lowachievement, bullying, and truancy;and community factors such as poorhousing, high resident turnover,poor facilities, and lack of job op-portunities. Projects with preschool,



Notes

elementary, and adolescent agegroups often work to improve par-enting skills, provide intensive sup-port, and change thinking andbehavior patterns.

43. See International Centre for thePrevention of Crime (ICPC), CrimePrevention Digest II (1999a) for areview of risk reduction projects andcost savings in crime prevention.

44. This diagram is taken fromCrime Prevention Digest II (ICPC,1999a) and is the model that isincreasingly used to develop suc-cessful crime prevention initiativesin other areas, such as cities,households, and on the streets.

45. Europeans tend to talk aboutpoverty, housing, and unemploy-ment levels to explain school andinner-city problems. In the UnitedStates, there has been a greatertendency to emphasize family

and individual problems and race(Pitts, 1999).

46. In England and Wales, a fol-lowup on the use of antibullyingpacks found that the majority ofschools have some form of bully-ing policy and had tried out otherinterventions, the most popularbeing playground projects (60 per-cent). Most interventions were ratedby schools as “reasonably satisfac-tory” (Smith and Madsen, 1997).

47. The partnership is led byBusiness Against Crime and in-cludes the Centre for the Study ofViolence and Reconciliation, BothSides of the Story, the IndependentMediation Service of South Africa,Sport for Peace, Save Our Schools,the South African Police Service,community police forums, and theprovincial Departments ofEducation.



VIII. Bibliography/References

Akiba, M., Le Tendre, G. andBaker, D. (2001). SchoolVictimization: The Impact ofEducational Systems on SchoolViolence in 37 Nations. WorkingPaper. University Park, PA:Education Policy Department:Pennsylvania State University.

Alberta (2000). Start Young StartNow! Report of the Task Force onChildren at Risk. Edmonton,Canada: Government of Alberta.

Arnette, J.L., and Wasleben,M.C. (1998). Combating Fearand Restoring Safety in Schools.Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention.

Bala, N., Weiler, R., Copple, P.,Smith. R.B., Hornick, J.P., andPaetsch, J.J. (1994). A PoliceReference Manual on Youth andViolence. Ottawa, Canada: Ministryof the Solicitor General.

Bendit, R., Erler, W., Nieborg,S., and Schäfer, H. (eds.) (2000).Child and Juvenile Delinquency:Strategies of Prevention andIntervention in Germany and theNetherlands. Utrecht, Netherlands:Verwey-Jonker Institut andDeusches Jugenintitut e. V.

Benioff, S. (1997). A SecondChance: Developing Mentoring andEducational Projects for Young

People. Swindon, England: CrimeConcern.

Brown, R., Arbus, J., Harris, K.,and Kearns, T. (1996). Safety andSecurity/Conflict Resolution:Elementary and Secondary Schoolsin the Toronto Board, 1995. ReportNo. 219. Toronto, Canada: TorontoBoard of Education.

Canadian Centre for JusticeStatistics (1999). “Youth ViolentCrime.” Juristat 19(13). Ottawa,Canada: Statistics Canada.

Centers for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC) (2000). FederalActivities Addressing Violence inSchools. Atlanta, Georgia: CDCDivision of Adolescent and SchoolHealth.

Center for the Study andPrevention of Violence (1999a).Safe Communities—Safe Schools:Colorado School Violence PreventionPartnership Proposal. Boulder, CO:Center for the Study and Preventionof Violence.

Center for the Study andPrevention of Violence (1999b).The Youth Violence Problem. FactSheet. Boulder, CO: Center for theStudy and Prevention of Violence.

Centre for Addiction and MentalHealth (2000). “Centre forAddiction and Mental Health:Survey of Substance Abuse in



54

Ontario Schools.” Canadian MedicalAssociation Journal (June).

Correctional Service Canada(CSC) (1999). The 1999 CanadianRestorative Justice Inventory.Ottawa, Canada: CorrectionalService Canada.

Dean, S. (2000). Hearts andMinds: A Public School Miracle.Toronto, Canada: Penguin Books.Department of Education andEmployment (1994). Bullying:Don’t Suffer in Silence. An Anti-Bullying Pack for Schools. London,England: HMSO.

Dwyer, K., Ocher, D., Warger, C.,and American Institutes for Re-search (1998). Early Warning,Timely Response: A Guide to SafeSchools. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education, Office ofSpecial Education and Rehabilita-tion Service.

ECPA (1999). European CrimePrevention Awards 1999.Stockholm, Sweden: SwedishNational Council for CrimePrevention.

Edwards, S.W. (1997). “Imple-menting the Student AssistanceCenter.” In Investing in Our Youth:Pooling Community Resources, edit-ed by D. Rea and R. Wartenkin.New York, NY: McGraw Hill, Inc.

Edwards, S.W., Gwozdz, K., andMeggie, M. (1999). PreventingViolence in Our Schools: ABlueprint for Violence Prevention.Creating a Student Assessment

Center. East Hartford, CT: EastHartford High School.

Estrada, F. (forthcoming).“Juvenile Violence as a SocialProblem: Trends, Media Attentionand Societal Response.” BritishJournal of Criminology.

Gabor, T. (1995). School Violenceand the Zero Tolerance Alternative.JS 42–67/1995. Ottawa, Canada:Ministry of the Solicitor General ofCanada.

Gomes, J.T., Bertrand, L.D.,Paetsch, J.J., and Hornick, J.(2000). The Extent of YouthVictimization, Crime andDelinquency in Alberta, 1999.Calgary, Canada: CanadianResearch Institute for Law andthe Family.

Goodey, J. (1995). “Fear ofCrime.” In Gender and Crime, editedby R.E. Dobash, R.P. Dobash, andJ.D. Noaks. Cardiff, Wales: Univer-sity of Wales Press.

Gottfredson, D.C. (2001). Schoolsand Delinquency. Cambridge,England: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Graham, J. (1988). Schools, Dis-ruptive Behaviour and Delinquency.Home Office Research Study No.96. London, England: HMSO.

Graham, J. (1998). “What Worksin Preventing Criminality.” InReducing Offending, edited by P.Goldblatt and C. Lewis. Home


Bibliography/References


Office Research Study No. 187.London, England: HMSO.

Greenbaum, S., Gonzalez, B., andAckley, A. (1986). Educated PublicRelations—School Safety 101.Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Pro-grams, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention,National Institute of Justice.

Hamilton Fish Institute (1999).Comprehensive Framework forSchool Violence Prevention.Washington, DC: www.hamfish.org(Internet).

Hamilton Fish Institute (2000).Press release and report 9/14/00Guns in Schools; press releases2/29/00 and 3/24/00 on risk of vic-timization; 1/3/00 Effective ViolencePrevention Programs. Washington,DC: www.hamfish.org (Internet).

Home Office (1996). PreventingSchool Bullying: Things You CanDo. London, England: PoliceResearch Group.

International Centre for thePrevention of Crime (ICPC)(1999a). Crime Prevention Digest II.Montreal, Canada: InternationalCentre for the Prevention of Crime.

International Centre for thePrevention of Crime (ICPC)(1999b). 100 Crime PreventionPrograms. Montreal, Canada:International Centre for thePrevention of Crime.

Johnson, M., Munn, P., andEdwards, L. (1992). Action AgainstBullying: A Support Pack forSchools. Edinburgh, Scotland:Scottish Council for Research inEducation.

Junger-Tas, J. (1999). “TheNetherlands.” In The Nature ofSchool Bullying: A Cross-NationalPerspective, edited by P.K. Smith, Y.Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R.Catalano, and P. Slee. New York,NY: Routledge.

Killias, M., and Ribeaud, D.(1999). “Drug Use AmongJuveniles: An International Survey.”Studies on Crime Prevention, 8(2):189–207.

Kingery, P. (2001). Zero Tol-erance: The Alternative Is Edu-cation. Washington D.C.: HamiltonFish Institute.

Lind, J., and Maxwell, G. (1996).Children’s Experience of Violence atSchool. Wellington, New Zealand:Office of the Commissioner forChildren.

Lösel, F., and Bliesener, T.(1999). “Germany.” In The Natureof School Bullying: A Cross-NationalPerspective, edited by P.K. Smith, Y.Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R.Catalano, and P. Slee. New York,NY: Routledge.

Mellor, A. (1995). Bullying atSchool: Advice for Families.Edinburgh, Scotland: ScottishCouncil for Research in Education.



56

Morita, Y., Soeda, H., Soeda, K.,and Taki, M. (1999). “Japan.” InThe Nature of School Bullying: ACross-National Perspective, editedby P.K. Smith, Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R. Catalano, and P.Slee. New York, NY: Routledge.

National Crime Prevention(NCP) (1999) Hanging Out:Negotiating Young People’s Use ofPublic Space. Australian CapitalTerritory: National CrimePrevention, Attorney General’sDepartment.

National Crime Prevention Centre(2000). Bullying and Victimization:The Problems and Solutions forSchool-Aged Children. Ottawa,Canada: National Crime PreventionCentre. (Available online:www.crime-prevention-org.)

National Crime PreventionCouncil (1998). Safer Schools.Washington, DC: National CrimePrevention Council.

National Crime Prevention (NCP)(1999). Pathways to Prevention:Developmental and Early Interven-tion Approaches to Crime inAustralia. Appendices. Canberra,Australia: National Crime Preven-tion Council.

National Youth Commission(2000). Youth Policy 2000. Pretoria,South Africa: Office of the DeputyPresident.

National Institute of Justice (NIJ)(2000). Preventing School Vio-lence: Plenary Papers of the 1999

Conference on Criminal JusticeResearch and Evaluation.Washington, DC: National Instituteof Justice.

Network (2000). The NetworkProgram on Youth and Schools.Waterloo, Canada. (E-mail:[email protected]; Web site:www.nicr.ca.).

Noaks, J. and Noaks, L. (2000).“Risk, Safety and Fear of Crime.”Educational Psychology in Practice,16(1): 69–75.

Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying atSchool: What We Know, What WeCan Do. Oxford, England:Blackwell.

Ortega, R. and Mora-Merchan,J.A. (1999). “Spain.” In The Natureof School Bullying: A Cross-NationalPerspective, edited by P.K. Smith, Y.Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R.Catalano, and P. Slee. New York,NY: Routledge.

Pfeiffer, C. (1998). “JuvenileCrime in Europe.” In Crime andJustice: A Review of Research, edit-ed by M. Tonry. Chicago, IL: Univer-sity of Chicago Press, pp. 23,255–328.

Pitts, J. (1999). Reducing theViolent Victimization of YoungPeople in a London Neighbourhood.Leuven, Belgium: Paper presentedto Eurogang III, Catholic University,October 1999.

Pitts, J., and Smith, P. (1995)Preventing School Bullying. Crime



Bibliography/References

Detection and Prevention SeriesPaper 63. London, England: HomeOffice Police Research Group.

Rigby, K. (1995). “What SchoolsCan Do About Bullying.” TheProfessional Reading Guide forEducational Administrators 17(1):1–5.

Rigby, K., and Slee. P.T. (1999).“Australia.” In The Nature of SchoolBullying: A Cross-NationalPerspective, edited by P.K. Smith, Y.Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus, R.Catalano, and P. Slee. New York,NY: Routledge.

Roberts, St.J., and Singh, C.S.(1999). Using Mentors To ChangeProblem Behaviour in PrimarySchool Children (5–11). ResearchFindings No. 95. London, England:Home Office RDS.

Roy, J., and Boivin, G. (1989).Preventing and Controlling Violencein Schools. Quebec, Canada:Ministry of Education.

Ryan, C., and Mathews, F.(1995). National Directory ofSchool-Based Police Programmes.Ottawa, Canada: Ministry of theSolicitor General of Canada.

Ryan, C., Mathews, F., andBanner, J. (1994). The Anti-Violence Community School.Summary Report 1994–04. Ottawa,Canada: Ministry of the SolicitorGeneral of Canada.

Shannon, M., and McCall, D.(1999). Safe, Secure, Healthy

Schools: An Inventory of Resourcesand Research. Ottawa, Canada:Canadian Association of SchoolPrincipals.

Sharp, S., and Smith, P.K. (eds.)(1994). Tackling Bullying in YourSchool: A Practical Handbook forTeachers. London, England:Routledge.

Smith, P.K., and Madsen, K.(1997). A Follow-Up Survey of theDEE Anti-Bullying Pack for Schools:Its Use and the Development ofAntibullying Work in Schools.London, England: HMSO.

Smith, P.K., Morita, Y., Junger-Tas, J., Olweus, D., Catalano, R.,and Slee, P. (eds.) (1999). TheNature of School Bullying: A Cross-National Perspective. New York, NY:Routledge.

Social Exclusion Unit (1998).Bringing Britain Together: Truancyand Social Exclusion. London,England: Social Exclusion Unit.

Solicitor General (1995). School-Based Violence Prevention inCanada: Results of a NationalSurvey of Policies and Programs.Report 1995–2. Ottawa, Canada:Ministry of the Solicitor General ofCanada.

South Africa (1999). YouthViolence in Schools. Pretoria, SouthAfrica: Secretariate for Safety andSecurity.

Stern, F. (1996). Oz ProblemSolver: Teaching Students Peer



58

Mediation. (Secondary schools).Australia: Barwon YouthAccommodation Committee.

Sullivan, K. (1999). “Aotearoa/New Zealand.” In The Nature ofSchool Bullying: A Cross-NationalPerspective, edited by P.K. Smith,Y. Morita, J. Junger-Tas, D. Olweus,R. Catalano, and P. Slee. New York,NY: Routledge.

Tondreau, J. (2000). Inventaired’autils sur la violence. Montreal,Canada: Centrale des syndicats duQuebec.

U.S. Conference of Mayors(1998). Preventing School Violence:Best Practices of Mayors inCollaboration With the Police,Schools and the Community.Washington, DC: U.S. Conferenceof Mayors.

U.S. Departments of Educationand Justice (1996). Creating Safeand Drug-Free Schools: An ActionGuide. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education and U.S.Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice and DelinquencyPrevention.

U.S. Departments of Educationand Justice (1998). Annual Reporton School Safety, 1998. Washington,DC: U.S. Departments of Educationand Justice.

U.S. Departments of Educationand Justice (1999a). Annual Reporton School Safety, 1999.

Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentsof Education and Justice.

U.S. Departments of Educationand Justice (1999b). Indicatorsof School Crime and Safety.Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education Office of EducationalResearch and Improvement, andU.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Justice Programs.

U.S. Departments of Educationand Justice (2000a). Annual Reporton School Safety, 2000. Washington,DC: U.S. Departments of Educationand Justice.

U.S. Departments of Educationand Justice (2000b). Indicatorsof School Crime and Safety,Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentsof Educational Research andImprovement, and U.S. Departmentof Justice, Office of JusticePrograms.

Utting, D. (1996). ReducingCriminality Among Young People: ASample of Relevant Programmes inthe United Kingdom. Home OfficeResearch Study 16. London,England: HMSO.

Vulliamy, G., and Webb, R.(1999). Meeting Needs andChallenging Crime in PartnershipWith Schools. Research FindingsNo. 96. London, England: HomeOffice RDS.

Walker, S.G. (1994). WeaponsUse in Canadian Schools. Report1994–05. Ottawa, Canada: Ministryof the Solicitor General of Canada.



IX. Resources and Addresses

Bureau of Justice AssistanceU.S. Department of Justice810 Seventh Street NW.Fourth FloorWashington, DC 20531202–616–6500Fax: 202–305–1367E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency PreventionU.S. Department of Justice810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531202–307–5911Fax: 202–307–2093E-mail: [email protected] site: www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Elementary and

Secondary EducationSafe and Drug-Free Schools Program400 Maryland Avenue SW.Washington, DC 20202–6123202–260–3954Fax: 202–260–7767E-mail: [email protected] site: www.ed.gov/offices

Hamilton Fish InstituteGeorge Washington University2121 K Street NW.Suite 200Washington, DC 20037–1830202–496–2200Fax: 202–496–6244

E-mail: [email protected] site: www.hamfish.org

Center for the Study andPrevention of ViolenceUniversity of ColoradoCampus Box 439Boulder, CO 80309–0439303–492–8465E-mail: [email protected]: 303–443–3297Web site: www.colorado.edu/cspv

National Association of SecondarySchool Principals1904 Association DriveReston, VA 20191703–860–0200Fax: 703–476–5432Web site: www.principals.org

National Association of ElementarySchool Principals1615 Duke StreetAlexandria, VA 22314–3483703–684–3345Fax: 703–549–5568Web site: www.naesp.org

National School Safety Center4165 Thousand Oaks BoulevardSuite 290Westlake Village, CA 91362805–373–9977Fax: 805–373–9277Web site: www.nssc1.org



60

National Crime Prevention Council1000 Connecticut Avenue NW.Thirteenth FloorWashington, DC 20036202–466–6272Fax: 202–296–1356Web site: www.ncpc.org

European Commission Violence in School InitiativeWeb site: europa.eu.int/comm/

education/violence/home.html

European Network of Research on Bullying (England)Goldsmiths CollegeLondon, EnglandWeb site: www.gold.ac.uk/tmr

Scottish Council for Research in Education (Scotland)Web site: www.scre.ac.uk/bully

Ministry of National Education,Research, and Technology (France)Paris, FranceWeb sites: www.education.gouv.fr;

www.cemtic.vd.ch/portail/violence

Crime Prevention ResearchResources Centre (South Africa)Web site: www.ncps-rrc.co.za

International Centre for thePrevention of Crime (Canada)507 Place d’ArmesSuite 2100Montreal, QuebecH2Y 2W8 Canada514–288–6731Fax: 514–288–8763E-mail: cipc@crime-prevention-

intl.orgWeb site: www.crime-prevention-

intl.org



Margaret ShawDirector, Analysis and ExchangeInternational Centre for the Prevention

of Crime507 Place d’Armes, Suite 2100Montreal, QuebecH2Y 2W8 Canada514–288–6731Fax: 514–288–8763E-mail: shaw@crime-prevention-

intl.orgWeb site: www.crime-prevention-

intl.org

For additional information on BJAgrants and programs, contact:

Bureau of Justice AssistanceU.S. Department of Justice810 Seventh Street NW.Fourth FloorWashington, DC 20531202–616–6500Fax: 202–305–1367E-mail: [email protected] Web site: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

X. For More Information

Bureau of Justice Assistance ClearinghouseP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–60001–800–688–4252Web site: www.ncjrs.org

Clearinghouse staff are availableMonday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to7 p.m. eastern time. Ask to be placedon the BJA mailing list.

U.S. Department of JusticeResponse Center1–800–421–6770 or 202–307–1480

Response Center Staff are availableMonday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5p.m. eastern time.


Bureau of Justice AssistanceInformation

General Information

❒ MailP.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849–6000

❒ Visit2277 Research Boulevard Rockville, MD 20850

❒ Telephone 1–800–688–4252 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 7 p.m. eastern time

❒ Fax301–519–5212

❒ Fax on Demand1–800–688–4252

Callers may contact the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center for general informa-tion or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting grant applications and informationabout training. To contact the Response Center, call 1–800–421–6770 or write to 1100Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its programs, and its funding opportunities,requesters can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA Clearinghouse, a component of theNational Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), shares BJA program informationwith state and local agencies and community groups across the country. Information spe-cialists are available to provide reference and referral services, publication distribution,participation and support for conferences, and other networking and outreach activities.The Clearinghouse can be reached by

❒ BJA Home Pagewww.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

❒ NCJRS Home Page www.ncjrs.org

❒ [email protected]

❒ JUSTINFO NewsletterE-mail to [email protected] the subject line blankIn the body of the message,type:subscribe justinfo[your name]

01-Covers For PDF 8/31/01 11:28 AM Page C3

PROMOTING SAFETY IN SCHOOLS - National DD–BX–K001,awarded by the Bureau of Justice...

Documents

Transcript of PROMOTING SAFETY IN SCHOOLS - National DD–BX–K001,awarded by the Bureau of Justice...