DEP

ARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OF

FIC

E

OF JUST I CE PRO

GR

AM

S

BJA

N

I JOJJ DP BJS

OV

C

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Shay Bilchik, Administrator

From the Administrator

Thoreau once wrote in his journalthat “nothing is so much to be fearedas fear.” For many school-agechildren, however, fear is a realisticresponse to conditions in and aroundtheir schools. The adverse effects ofthis fear are far reaching and oftenlong lasting. When fear keepschildren out of the classroom, it canlimit their prospects and their poten-tial contributions to society.

America was founded on the promiseof opportunity. Every child in ourNation deserves the chance to livethe American dream, and educationis the pathway to that dream and toa fulfilling and productive life. Wemust not allow fears engenderedby bullying, gangs, weapons, andsubstance abuse to disrupt children’sjourney toward a better tomorrow.

Combating Fear and RestoringSafety in Schools examines theclimate of violence that threatensour schools and describes stepsthat concerned citizens are takingto restore security and calm. Be-cause our children look to us to maketheir world safe, we must all becomeadvocates for prevention and inter-vention programs such as thoseprofiled here. I hope that this Bulletinwill encourage you to support effortsto eliminate the fear that plagues toomany of our schools.

Shay BilchikAdministrator

April 1998

Combating Fear andRestoring Safety inSchoolsJune L. Arnette and Marjorie C. Walsleben

The topic of this Bulletin is the nationaleffort to reach youth who are absent ortruant from school because of school-associated fear and intimidation. Theongoing series of OJJDP Bulletins that cen-ters on reaching these youth is part of theYouth Out of the Education Mainstream(YOEM) initiative, a joint effort of theOffice of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, U.S. Department of Justice,and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Pro-gram, U.S. Department of Education. TheYOEM initiative focuses on at-risk youthwho are truant, dropouts, fearful of attend-ing school, suspended or expelled, or inneed of help reintegrating into mainstreamschools from juvenile detention and correc-tional settings. Each Bulletin in this serieshighlights one of these five separate butoften related categories of problems thatcause youth to forsake their education andthus place themselves at risk of delinquency.

Little more than half a century ago,when the United States faced challengingtimes, an American president warned thecountry’s citizens that they had nothingto fear but fear itself. Once again, the coun-try faces a threat: the invasion of safehavens for youth—its schools—by com-munity violence and its concomitant, fear.

This Bulletin deals with some manifes-tations of street violence that have en-croached on schools, territory formerly

thought to be inviolate: bullying, gangs,the possession and use of weapons, sub-stance abuse, and violence in the com-munity. It documents the concern thateducators, parents, students—citizensin general—have expressed. The Bulletinalso outlines strategies and describesprograms that reveal that these same citi-zens are working vigorously in creativepartnerships to revitalize schools andmake them safer.

Public OpinionTelevision news programs, daily news-

papers, government reports, and resultsof public polls bombard citizens regularlywith accounts of assaults, sex crimes, rob-beries, murders, and vandalism, and withthe public response to such crime. Thisbombardment could feed the fear thatmuch of the public already feels. How-ever, in 1996, the juvenile arrest rate formurder was at its lowest level since thebeginning of the decade.1 A 1996 analysisof juvenile homicides examined wheresuch crimes occurred and found that 56percent of the country’s juvenile homicidearrests were made in six States and thatfour large metropolitan centers (contain-ing only 5.3 percent of the Nation’s juve-nile population) accounted for 30 percentof such arrests.2 Nonetheless, the mediahave helped engender widespread fear

2

that violent acts are taking an unacceptabletoll on the lives, education, and opportuni-ties of many young people in this country.

A 1993 national school-based surveythat polled a representative sample ofhigh school students showed that stu-dents’ fear for their personal safety atschool or traveling to or from schoolcompelled as many as 4.4 percent of re-sponding students to miss a day of schooleach month.3 Of the respondents to a1996 national random telephone surveyof more than 1,300 high school students,nearly half of those in public high schoolsreported drugs and violence as seriousproblems in their schools.4 Data from afall 1993 national survey polling 1,000teachers and 1,180 students in grades 3through 12 revealed that 23 percent of theresponding students and 11 percent ofthe responding teachers had been victimsof violence in and around schools.5

In addition to fearing personal victim-ization, many students also feel fear inresponse to violence experienced byother students. For example, in August1993, USA WEEKEND published an unsci-entific survey, the results of which werebased on the written answers of 65,193students (6th through 12th graders) whoresponded individually or as class mem-bers. Sixty-three percent reported thatthey would learn more at school if theyfelt safer; 43 percent avoided restrooms;20 percent avoided hallways; and 45 per-cent avoided the school grounds.6 In arecent survey sponsored by MetropolitanLife Insurance Company, nearly one-fourthof students in grades 7 through 12 re-ported that their schools had very seriousproblems regarding social tension and vio-lence. These problems were measured bystudents reporting the occurrence on theircampuses of specific behaviors, suchas hostile or threatening remarks be-tween groups of students, threats or de-structive acts other than physical fights,

turf battles between groups of students,physical fights among groups of friends,and gang violence.7

Not only are many students afraid toattend school, but many parents and citi-zens in general also express concern forchildren’s safety at school. A 1994 na-tional survey of parents of public school3d through 12th graders indicated that 40percent of parents of high school studentswere “very or somewhat worried” abouttheir child’s safety while in school orgoing to and from school.8 The NationalLeague of Cities surveyed 700 communitiesnationwide, including urban, suburban,and rural areas. Results of that 1994 sur-vey revealed that 80 percent of the re-spondents said violence was a seriousproblem in classrooms, hallways, andplaygrounds; 40 percent reported thatviolence in schools had increased notice-ably during the past 5 years. In addition,25 percent of the schools participating inthe survey reported that in the previousyear, students had died or suffered injuriesrequiring hospitalization as a result ofviolence.9

Invasive ViolenceA community's manifestations of street

violence—bullying, gangs, the possessionand use of weapons, substance abuse,and violence in the community—could bea direct cause of the decline in educationalopportunity. These manifestations causestudents to be fearful of going to school.Both the topics and the promising strate-gies reported at the end of each sectionrepresent an overview developed by staffat the National School Safety Center(NSSC), in partnership with the U.S. De-partment of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Jus-tice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)and the U.S. Department of Education’sSafe and Drug-Free Schools Program. Thestrategies suggested are a distillation ofinformation gathered from NSSC’s workon the Youth Out of the Education Main-stream initiative and school site assess-ments, examinations of curriculums,consultations with experts and youth-serving professionals in the field, andsurveys of topical articles published ingovernment reports, periodicals, news-papers, and the NSSC publications SchoolSafety and School Safety Update.

BullyingThe acts of violence featured in head-

lines are not the only concerns on today’sschool grounds. Age-old “lesser” forms ofviolence are also widespread in and nearschools. Among the problems confront-ing students and schools is bullying—themore insidious and fear inducing becauseof its commonplace occurrence at schooland away from the notice of adults.

In this country, bullying has tradition-ally been viewed as some perverse sort

National data regarding rates of actual victimization at school are not available.Schools and school districts currently are not required to report incidents of schoolcrime and violence to any one national agency. National information that isavailable regarding student victimization is usually based on surveys that poll arepresentative sample of students (and educators) about their own experiencesand often about their perceptions of the violence experienced by others at school.These results are often then generalized to apply to the total population. However,a trend is developing toward standardizing incident reporting on State and locallevels. This trend will help refine, expand, and update data regarding school crimeand violence and will help to target limited resources to address issues of studentvictimization and school crime and violence.

3

of child’s play, its occurrence usually elic-iting the common phrase, “Kids will bekids.” Today, bullying is rightfully beingrecognized for what it is: an abusive be-havior that often leads to greater andprolonged violent behavior. This phenom-enon is more accurately termed “peerchild abuse.” Schoolyard bullying, whichoccurs in kindergarten through 12th grade,spans many different behaviors—fromwhat some may call minor offenses to themore serious criminal acts. Name calling,fistfights, purposeful ostracism, extortion,character assassination, libel, repeatedphysical attacks, and sexual harassmentall are bullying tactics.

In May 1987, international author-ities on schoolyard bullies and victimsgathered at Harvard University for aSchoolyard Bully Practicum, which wassponsored by NSSC in conjunction withOJJDP. The practicum was one of the firstmeetings of prominent researchers, psy-chologists, school and law enforcementauthorities, and public relations practitio-ners for the purpose of developing anawareness and prevention program toaddress bullying in the United States.

The following list of services, strate-gies, and suggested training classes wereidentified by practicum participants asways to mediate bullying:

◆ Rules against bullying that are publi-cized, posted schoolwide, and accom-panied by consistent sanctions.

◆ Student and adult mentors who assistvictims and bullies to build self-esteemand to foster mutual understanding ofand appreciation for differences inothers.

◆ A buddy system that pairs studentswith a particular friend or older buddywith whom they share class scheduleinformation and plans for the schoolday and on whom they can depend forhelp.

◆ An on-campus parents’ center that re-cruits, coordinates, and encouragesparents to take part in the educationalprocess, volunteer, and assist in schoolactivities and projects.

◆ Classes for adults in parenting skillsand for students in anger management,assertiveness training, and behaviormodification training.

◆ Behavior contracts signed by studentsand parents and written behavior codesfor students, teachers, and staff mem-bers that are circulated to all parentsand students.

◆ Emphasis on discipline that stressesright behavior instead of reprimandsthat focus on punishing wrong behavior.

◆ Friendship groups that support chil-dren who are regularly bullied by peers.

◆ Peer mediation programs and teencourts that train students to mediateproblems among themselves.

◆ Conflict and dispute resolution curricu-lums available in all grades.

◆ Close monitoring of cafeterias, play-grounds, and “hot spots” where bully-ing is likely to occur away from directadult supervision.

◆ Cooperative classroom activities andlearning tasks, with care taken to varythe grouping of participants and tomonitor groups for balanced receptionand treatment of participants.

◆ Classroom and schoolwide activitiesdesigned to build self-esteem by spot-lighting special talents, hobbies, inter-ests, and abilities of all students.

◆ Publicity about organizations andgroups that build children’s social skillsand self-discipline, such as the Boys &Girls Clubs, Scouting, and junior cadetprograms, and various disciplines suchas yoga, tai chi chuan, jujitsu, karate,kung fu, and tae kwon do.

Both bullies and their victims needhelp in learning new ways to get along inschool. Curriculum developers and pub-lishers now offer a variety of prevention/intervention materials to eliminate bully-ing from school life. Three programs,highlighted in NSSC’s School Safety, areoutlined below.10

◆ No Bullying program.11 This JohnsonInstitute program, first implementedlast year in schools across the country,pinpoints the “tell or tattle” dilemmafacing many victims of bullying. Teach-ers are given step-by-step guidelines onhow to teach students the differencebetween telling and tattling. Teachersalso are shown how to establish anduse immediate consequences whendealing with bullies.

◆ Bully-Proofing Your School.12 Thisprogram, available from Sopris Westsince 1994, uses a comprehensiveapproach. Key elements includeconflict resolution training for all staffmembers, social skills building for vic-tims, positive leadership skills trainingfor bullies, intervention techniques forthose who neither bully or are bullied,and the presence of parental support.

◆ Second Step.13 The Committee forChildren’s Second Step curriculumteaches positive social skills to chil-dren and families, including skillbuilding in empathy, impulse control,problem solving, and anger manage-ment. Initial results indicate that stu-dents are able to identify more oftenwith other people’s feelings and aremore readily able to control anger.

In the effort to make schools and com-munities safer for children, it is importantthat educators, parents, and policymak-ers be encouraged to support schoolwideprograms that address all forms of vio-lence, including bullying and its organizedmanifestation, gangs.

4

Bullying Among Children and YouthSusan P. Limber and Maury M. Nation

Recent research in the United Statesand abroad has documented that bully-ing is a common and potentially damag-ing form of violence among children.Not only does bullying harm both its in-tended victims and the perpetrators, italso may affect the climate of schoolsand, indirectly, the ability of all studentsto learn to the best of their abilities.Moreover, the link between bullying andlater delinquent and criminal behaviorcannot be ignored. Although studies ofcomprehensive antibullying programsare scarce in the United States, evalua-tion data from other countries suggestthat adopting a comprehensive ap-proach to reduce bullying at school canchange students’ behaviors and atti-tudes, reduce other antisocial behav-iors, and increase teachers’ willingnessto intervene.

Stimulated by the pioneering work ofDan Olweus in Norway and Sweden,researchers from several nations—Australia, Canada, England, Ireland,Japan, Norway, and the United States—have begun to explore the nature, preva-lence, and effects of bullying amongschool children. Their findings providecompelling reasons for initiating inter-ventions to prevent bullying. Its highprevalence among children, its harmfuland frequently enduring effects onvictims, and its chilling effects on schoolclimate are significant reasons for pre-vention and early intervention efforts inschools and communities.

The phenomenon of bullying deservesspecial attention by educators, parents,and children concerned with violenceprevention for two significant reasons.First, the prevalence of bullying andthe harm that it causes are seriouslyunderestimated by many children andadults. It is critical that any violenceprevention strategy work to raise theawareness of children, school staff,and parents regarding the link betweenbullying and other violent behaviors.

Second, the nature of bullying doesnot necessarily lend itself to the sameinterventions that may effectively reduceother types of conflict among children.Because it involves harassment by pow-erful children against children with less

power (rather than a conflict betweenpeers of relatively equal status), com-mon conflict resolution strategies suchas mediation may not be effective.

DefinitionBullying among children is understoodas repeated, negative acts committedby one or more children against another.These negative acts may be physical orverbal in nature—for example, hitting orkicking, teasing or taunting—or theymay involve indirect actions such asmanipulating friendships or purposelyexcluding other children from activities.Implicit in this definition is an imbalancein real or perceived power between thebully and victim.

Intervention ModelThe first and best-known interventionto reduce bullying among school chil-dren was launched by Olweus in Nor-way and Sweden in the early 1980’s.Inspired by the suicides of severalseverely victimized children, Norwaysupported the development and imple-mentation of a comprehensive programto address bullying among children inschool. The program involved interven-tions at multiple levels:

◆ Schoolwide interventions. A surveyof bullying problems at each school,increased supervision, schoolwideassemblies, and teacher inservicetraining to raise the awareness ofchildren and school staff regardingbullying.

◆ Classroom-level interventions.The establishment of classroom rulesagainst bullying, regular class meet-ings to discuss bullying at school,and meetings with all parents.

◆ Individual-level interventions. Dis-cussions with students identified asbullies and victims.

The program was found to be highlyeffective in reducing bullying and otherantisocial behavior among students inprimary and junior high schools. Within2 years of implementation, both boys’and girls’ self-reports indicated thatbullying had decreased by half. These

changes in behavior were more pro-nounced the longer the program wasin effect. Moreover, students reportedsignificant decreases in rates of truancy,vandalism, and theft and indicated thattheir school’s climate was significantlymore positive as a result of the pro-gram. Not surprisingly, those schoolsthat had implemented more of theprogram’s components experiencedthe most marked changes in behavior.

The core components of the Olweusantibullying program have been adaptedfor use in several other cultures, includ-ing Canada, England, and the UnitedStates. Results of the antibullying ef-forts in these countries have been simi-lar to the results experienced in theScandinavian countries, with the effortsin Toronto schools showing somewhatmore modest results. Again, as inthe Scandinavian study, schools thatwere more active in implementing theprogram observed the most markedchanges in reported behaviors.

Bullying in the United StatesAlthough there have been few studiesof the prevalence of bullying amongAmerican schoolchildren, available datasuggest that bullying is quite commonin U.S. schools. In a study of 207 juniorhigh and high school students fromsmall midwestern towns, 88 percentreported having observed bullying, and77 percent indicated that they had beenvictims of bullying during their schoolcareers.1 A study of 6,500 students infourth to sixth grades in the rural Southindicated that 1 in 4 students had beenbullied with some regularity within thepast 3 months and that 1 in 10 hadbeen bullied at least once a week. Ap-proximately one in five children admittedthat they had bullied another child withsome regularity in the previous 3months.2 These figures are consistentwith estimates of several other research-ers. Furthermore, contrary to popularbelief, bullying occurs more frequentlyon school grounds than on the way toand from school.3

Continued on next page

5

GangsA significant factor contributing to a

climate of fear and intimidation in schoolsis the presence of youth gangs in the com-munity and at school. Based on a 1995national survey of 4,000 local law enforce-ment agencies in urban, rural, and subur-ban areas, the U.S. Department of Justiceestimates that there are as many as 23,000youth gangs in the United States withmore than 660,000 members. The exist-ence of youth gangs has been reportedin all 50 States.14

The fear associated with gangs is re-lated to such student-expressed concernsas the following:

◆ Fearing gang disruptions at school orin the neighborhood.

◆ Encountering gang members on theway to and from school.

◆ Anticipating violence from known gangmembers enrolled at school.

◆ Receiving specific threats or beingharassed by gang members who stake

out territory on school campuses orin neighborhoods.

◆ Facing peer pressure to join a gang.

◆ Being mistaken as a gang memberduring school or in neighborhoodskirmishes between rival gangs.

◆ Feeling threatened by school/neighbor-hood graffiti displaying gang territorialclaims.

◆ Perceiving an increased presence atschool of firearms and other weaponsrelated to gang activity.

Consequences of BullyingStudies of bullying suggest that thereare short- and long-term consequencesfor both the perpetrators and victims ofbullying. Students who are chronic vic-tims of bullying experience more physi-cal and psychological problems thantheir peers who are not harassed byother children4 and they tend not togrow out of the role of victim. Longitu-dinal studies have found that victimsof bullying in early grades also reportedbeing bullied several years later.5 Studiesalso suggest that chronically victimizedstudents may as adults be at increasedrisk for depression, poor self-esteem,and other mental health problems,6

including schizophrenia.7

It is not only victims who are at risk forshort- and long-term problems; bulliesalso are at increased risk for negativeoutcomes. One researcher found thatthose elementary students who werebullies attended school less frequentlyand were more likely to drop out thanother students.8 Several studies sug-gest that bullying in early childhoodmay be a critical risk factor for the de-velopment of future problems with vio-lence and delinquency. For example,Olweus’ research found that in additionto threatening other children, bullieswere several times more likely thantheir nonbullying peers to commit anti-social acts, including vandalism, fight-ing, theft, drunkenness, and truancy,and to have an arrest by young adult-hood.9 Another study of more than500 children found that aggressive be-havior at the age of 8 was a powerfulpredictor of criminality and violent be-havior at the age of 30.10

Antibullying InitiativeUntil recently, little attention has beengiven to the establishment of antibully-ing initiatives in U.S. schools. Withinthe past several years, a number ofschool-based programs have been de-veloped to address bullying, althoughthe degree to which they embrace awhole-school approach to the problemvaries.

Only one U.S. program has been basedexplicitly on the comprehensive modeldeveloped by Olweus in Sweden andNorway. Through a grant from the Officeof Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, Gary B. Melton, Susan P.Limber, and colleagues at the Institutefor Families in Society of the Universityof South Carolina in Columbia, SC, haveadapted Olweus’ model for use in ruralmiddle schools in that State. Interven-tions are focused at the levels of theindividual, classroom, school, and com-munity at large. A comprehensive evalu-ation involving 6,500 children currently isunder way to measure the effects of theprogram.

Endnotes1. J.H. Hoover, R. Oliver, and R.J. Hazler,“Bullying: Perceptions of adolescent vic-tims in Midwestern USA,” School Psy-chology International 13:5–16,1992.

2. S.P. Limber, P. Cunningham, V. Florx,J. Ivey, M. Nation, S. Chai, and G. Melton,“Bullying among school children: Prelimi-nary findings from a school-based inter-vention program,” paper presented at theFifth International Family Violence Re-search Conference, Durham, NH, June/July 1997.

3. S.P. Limber et al., June/July 1997; D.Olweus, “Victimization by peers: Ante-

cedents and long-term outcomes,” inSocial Withdrawal, Inhibitions, and Shy-ness, edited by K.H. Rubin and J.B.Asendorf, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1993,pp. 315–341; I. Rivers and P.K. Smith,“Types of bullying behavior and their cor-relates,” Aggressive Behavior 20:259–368, 1994; I. Whitney and P.K. Smith, “Asurvey of the nature and extent of bully-ing in junior/middle and secondaryschools,” Educational Research 35:3–25, 1993.

4. K. Williams, M. Chambers, S. Logan,and D. Robinson, “Association of com-mon health symptoms with bullying inprimary school children,” British MedicalJournal 313:17–19, 1996.

5. Olweus, 1993.

6. Olweus, 1993.

7. J.G. Parker and S.R. Asher, “Peer re-lations and later personal adjustment:Are low accepted children at risk?” Psy-chological Bulletin 102:357–389, 1987.

8. B.J. Byrne, “Bullies and victims inschool settings with reference to someDublin schools,” Irish Journal of Psy-chology 15:574–586, 1994.

9. Olweus, 1993.

10. L.D. Eron, L.R. Husemann, E. Dubow,R. Romanoff, and P.W. Yarmel, “Aggres-sion and its correlates over 22 years,” inChildhood Aggression and Violence:Sources of Influence, Prevention andControl, edited by D.H. Crowell, I.M.Evans, and C.R. O’Donnell, New York:Plenum, 1987, pp. 249–262.

For more information, contact SusanLimber, Assistant Director, Institute forFamilies in Society, University of SouthCarolina, Carolina Plaza, Columbia, SC29208, 803–737–3186.

6

Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) is a program designed toreduce youth violence and gang membership through a curriculum taught by lawenforcement officers to elementary and middle school students. G.R.E.A.T. studentsare given the opportunity to discover for themselves the ramifications of gangviolence through structured exercises and interactive approaches to learning. In-cluded in the curriculum are many optional and extended activities that reinforceclassroom instruction. The law enforcement representatives and teachers worktogether to teach students to become responsible members of their communities,set goals for themselves, resist peer pressure, and resolve conflicts and problems.

Law enforcement officers become certified G.R.E.A.T. officers by attending eithera 1- or 2-week training program, depending on their qualifications. The training isprovided free of charge at locations around the country. G.R.E.A.T. has trainedmore than 2,700 officers since 1991. These officers deliver G.R.E.A.T. to studentsin more than 1,300 communities and on U.S. military bases around the world.

In 1995, under a grant from the National Institute of Justice, the University of Ne-braska completed a cross-sectional survey of 5,935 eighth graders, 45 percent ofwhom had participated in the G.R.E.A.T. program; the rest were used as a com-parison group. Preliminary results suggest that G.R.E.A.T. had a significant impacton changing the behavior of students. G.R.E.A.T. students exhibited more proso-cial behaviors and attitudes than nonparticipants. They were more attached totheir parents and to school. More of their friends were involved in nondelinquentactivities, and G.R.E.A.T. students were more committed to these friends. Partici-pants in the program reported that they were less involved in delinquent activityand fighting, were less likely to engage in impulsive or risk-taking behavior, wereless likely to perceive blocks to their academic success, and expressed stron-ger antigang attitudes. However, these results reveal the program’s effects afteronly 1 year. To measure long-term effects, the evaluation team implementeda quasi-experimental research design in which students were assigned to G.R.E.A.T.or non-G.R.E.A.T. classrooms. As part of this longitudinal study, students com-pleted pre- and post-tests during fall 1995 and annual followup surveys in 1996and 1997. Additional surveys are scheduled for 1998 and 1999.

For more information, contact Tom Schneider, Special Agent in Charge, G.R.E.A.T.Program Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, P.O. Box 50418,Washington, DC 20091–0418, 800–726–7070, great@atfhq.atf.treas.gov,www.atf.treas.gov/great/great.htm; or State and Local Programs Division, FederalLaw Enforcement Training Center, National Center for State, Local, and Interna-tional Law Enforcement Training, Building 67, Glynco, GA 31524, 912–267–2452.

◆ Experiencing alarm due to escalatinginterracial/ethnic tensions betweengangs at school and in the community.

Public opinion supports the belief thatgangs on school campuses are a majorproblem in communities across America.For example, in a survey of 700 communi-ties nationwide, 40 percent of the suburbancommunities and nonmetropolitan townsand cities responding said gangs were afactor in the violence in their schools.15

In addition, the Gallup Organization,in conjunction with the Phi Delta Kappan,annually polls the public regarding itsperception toward public schools. In the1997 survey of persons 18 years andolder, respondents reported that thefour biggest problems for the publicschools in their communities were lack

of discipline; lack of financial support;use of drugs; and fighting, violence, andgangs.16 The 1996 Twenty-Seventh AnnualSurvey of High Achievers sampled behav-ior trends, opinions, and attitudes of 16-to 18-year-old high school students whohad A or B averages. Of the teenagers sur-veyed, 19 percent knew of the presence ofgangs in their schools.17

Many teenagers are vulnerable to thelure of gangs. Membership in a gang isseen to confer a kind of identity that sug-gests “power, fearlessness, and domina-tion,” according to Albert Cohen in theforeword of Gangs in America.18 Youthwho perceive particular deficiencies intheir lives often seek to compensate byjoining gangs. Offers of a loyal supportgroup of peers, who both understand and

value each member in a way that parentsand other relatives cannot, attract adoles-cents in the throes of self-doubt, uncer-tainty, and feelings of powerlessness.Beginning with gang initiation, however,intimidation and a new kind of fear thatfeeds on violent exploitation of others leadyouth away from the mainstream and intobyways and back alleys where weapons,drugs, delinquency, and crime replaceschooling and responsible citizenship.

Increasingly, gang activity occurswhen ethnic groups within a communitydevelop “turf” rivalries, both in the com-munity and on school campuses. Gangleaders usually command obedience froma loyal core of subordinates and fromrank-and-file gang members. The key per-son in a gang often maintains authoritythrough personal physical force and thatof subordinates or by sheer force of per-sonality. Some school administrators havefound ways to defuse campus intercul-tural and gang conflicts by co-opting gangleaders and enlisting their considerableleadership talents in carrying out peaceful,prosocial school programs.19

In any case, if educators are to deal ef-fectively with gang members on campus,they must remain vigilant yet innovativein exploring ways to advance school pur-poses and policies. The following list rep-resents strategies that schools currentlyuse to that end:

◆ Establishing ongoing professionaldevelopment and inservice trainingprograms for all school employees,including training techniques in class-room management and in dealing withcultural diversity, disruptive studentsand parents, and campus intruders.

◆ Conducting leadership training classesto assist students in developing insightand skills that enable them to workharmoniously with diverse individualsand groups.

◆ Offering classes incorporating curricu-lums on life skills and resistance topeer pressure, values clarification, andcultural sensitivity.

◆ Implementing dress codes designed toeliminate gang colors and clothing, pub-licizing the codes at school, and distrib-uting them to all students and parents.

◆ Adopting school uniforms—particu-larly for elementary and middle schoolstudents—sometimes optional andsometimes mandated. Financial assis-tance should be available to parentswho cannot afford uniforms.

7

◆ Reducing the length of time betweenclasses to discourage loitering.

◆ Establishing partnership academies,schools-within-schools, alternativeschools, beacon schools, in-schoolsuspension programs, and school-to-work programs in collaboration withcolleges and businesses in order torelocate and continue educating stu-dents with histories of classroom dis-ruption, lack of motivation, and gangmembership.

◆ Implementing victim/offender programsrequiring juvenile offenders to makerestitution to victims for damage orloss incurred or to perform communityservice.

◆ Creating a climate of ownership andschool pride by including students, par-ents, teachers, and community leadersin the safe-school planning process.

◆ Staging regular campuswide graffitiand vandalism cleanup campaigns andcleanup rallies in response to specificincidents of defacement and destruction.

◆ Organizing crisis intervention teams tocounsel students coping with troublingviolence in and near school.

◆ Offering students, especially juvenilegang members, special outreach andafterschool programs as an alternativeto gang membership.

WeaponsCarrying weapons to school has become

an acceptable risk for many students, boththose who are fearful and those who intendto exploit others. Underlying the reasonsstudents bring weapons to school may bethe societal attitude that violence is aneffective way to deal with problems. Tele-vision and movies depict violence as aneffective problem-solving technique usedby “good guys” and “bad guys” alike. Re-gardless of whether weapons are used inan act of aggression or as a defense againstanother’s aggression, the reason weaponsare brought to school often is related tothe proliferation of gangs and drug ac-tivity on or near many school campuses.

A weapon is any instrument used withintent to inflict physical or mental harmon another person. Although school offi-cials are concerned with all weapons,knives, guns, and explosive devicespresent the greatest threat to schoolsafety. Weapons have been found and used

on school campuses nationwide. Of the3,370 high school students surveyed inthe 1996 Twenty-Seventh Annual Surveyof High Achievers, 29 percent reportedthat they knew someone who had broughta weapon to school, and 17 percentclaimed it was not very difficult to obtainweapons at school.20 When looking atthe prevalence of gun possession in par-ticular, the 1995 School Crime Supplementto the National Crime Victimization Sur-vey found that 12.7 percent of studentrespondents knew someone who broughta gun to school.21 According to the samestudy, the percentage of students report-ing this increased as their age increased(see figure 1).

A periodic survey conducted by theCenters for Disease Control and Preven-tion (CDC) reported that nearly 12 per-cent of the polled students in grades 9through 12 carried a weapon on schoolproperty during the 30 days precedingthe survey, and 7.3 percent were threat-ened or injured with a weapon on schoolproperty during the 12 months precedingthe survey.22 In a study measuring school-associated violent deaths from 1992–1994,77 percent of the deaths were due to fire-arms (see table 1).23

Startlingly, the cost of a death due toa single 22-cent, 9-millimeter bullet hasbeen documented as including the follow-ing expenses: juvenile hall and jail costsfor 1 year for four suspects, $85,710; a2-week trial, $61,000; crime scene investiga-tion, $13,438; medical treatment, $4,950;autopsy, $2,804; and State incarcerationcosts if the four suspects are convictedand serve 20 years, $1,796,625—for agrand total of $1,964,527.24 Extrapolatedcosts in terms of lives cut short and lovedones’ grief, lost potential and productiv-ity, and resulting damage to the Nation’spsyche and society are inestimable, butnonetheless real.

Examples of strategies being imple-mented to prevent or intervene in theuse of weapons in schools include:

◆ Passage of State and local gun-freeschool zones legislation.

◆ Passage of the Gun-Free Schools Actin 1994, which states that studentsbe expelled if found with a weaponat school.

◆ Public awareness campaigns, such asa Boston billboard nearly the length ofa football field depicting the faces ofchildren and other victims of gun vio-lence, “the largest of 200 signs erected

Gang Prevention Through Targ eted Outreach, a national program first imple-mented in 1991 by the Boys & Girls Clubs of America (B&GCA), connects localclubs with courts, police departments, schools, social service agencies, and otherorganizations in the community. Local Boys & Girls Clubs involved in this programidentify and recruit at-risk and high-risk youth ages 6 to 18 years old into clubs ina nonstigmatizing way. The clubs also use direct outreach methods to approachyouth in the community.

The program focuses on enhancing a youth’s communication, problem-solving,and decisionmaking skills. Noting progress monthly, club professional staff helpyouth focus on specific developmental goals. These goals include staying in schooland out of the court system, improving scholastically, bonding with positive adults,and more frequently participating in club events and activities.

In fiscal year (FY) 1997, B&GCA provided training and technical assistance to 30existing gang prevention and 3 intervention sites and expanded the gang preven-tion and intervention program to 23 additional clubs. In FY 1998, B&GCA willprovide training and technical assistance to 22 new gang prevention sites, 3new intervention sites, and selected OJJDP demonstration sites. More than 140clubs have implemented Targeted Outreach since its inception. A previous pro-cess evaluation of the program found that once enrolled, 90 percent of theyouth came to the club once a week or more, and 26 percent began to come indaily. Many youth who participated in club and civic activities received recognitionfor the amount and/or quality of their participation, and 48 percent improved theiracademic performance. A process and outcome evaluation has been funded byOJJDP and is currently being designed by Public/Private Ventures (P/PV).

For more information, contact Frank Sanchez, Jr., Director of Delinquency Preven-tion, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, 1230 West Peachtree Street NW., Atlanta, GA30309, 404–815–5763, 404–815–5789 (fax), fsanchez@bgca.org, www.bgca.org.

8

Number Percent

Type of communityRural 10 9.5%Suburban 32 30.5Urban 63 60.0

Method of injuryFirearm 81 77.1Knife or other blade 18 17.1Rope 5 4.8No weapon 1 1.0

Motive (more than one may apply)Interpersonal dispute 35 33.3Gang-related activities 33 31.4Random victim event 19 18.1Suicide 19 18.1Dispute over romantic relationship 12 11.4Robbery or attempted robbery 10 9.5Dispute over money or property 7 6.7Drug-related activities 6 5.7Unintentional 5 4.8

in the state to remind people of thecosts of handgun violence.”25

◆ Public service gifts and donations,such as the 350 free In a Flash videosand teaching aids designed to showthe “lethal and injurious effects of gunviolence” donated by the nonprofit Na-tional Emergency Medicine Associationto public, private, and special educa-tion schools in the Baltimore area.26

◆ Hotlines, such as the one at GeorgeWashington High School in San Francis-co,27 used for the anonymous reportingof weapons, drug use and possession,bullying, harassment, and other school-associated violence and crime.

◆ Emphasis on “telling is not tattling”word-of-mouth campaigns to encour-age students to break their informalcode of silence and to report weapons

and other instances of campus crimeand violence that threaten safety.

◆ Use of handheld or permanent weaponsdetectors.

◆ Use of see-through book bags to preventweapons concealment.

◆ Removal or permanent locking of halllockers to prevent weapons conceal-ment and to discourage loitering inhallways.

◆ Standardized incident-reporting formsfor documenting all instances of schoolviolence and crime, and requirementthat schools report to police when aweapon is found in school.

◆ Implementation of a school resourceofficer program, such as CommunityPolicing Within Schools in the RobesonCounty School Outreach Program,which places sworn officers in targetedhigh schools.28

◆ Partnerships with community agenciesthat enhance school resources and ac-tivities, such as coordinating campussecurity with local law enforcementagencies; orchestrating presentationsfrom local fire and police departmentsregarding ways students and schoolpersonnel can assist in responding toschool safety crises; and involving

Figure 1: Percent of Students Reporting the Presence of Guns at School, 1995

Source: K.A. Chandler, C.D. Chapman, M.R. Rand, and B.M. Taylor, Students’ Reports of SchoolCrime: 1989 and 1995, Washington, DC: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, p.10, March 1998.

Table 1: Characteristics of School-Associated Violent Deaths, 1992–1994Number Percent

Type of fatalityInterpersonal 85 80.9%Self-inflicted 20 19.0

Time of fatal injury*During school activities 46 43.8

Classes 23 21.9Break period 11 10.5Afterschool activities 12 11.4

Before or after official activities 46 43.8Day with no classes or activities 8 7.6

Location of fatal injuryElementary schools 31 29.5Secondary schools 74 70.4On campus 68 64.8

Classroom/hall 19 18.1Other indoor area 12 11.4Out of doors 37 35.2

Off campus 37 35.2

*Unknown or other=5 (4.8%)

Source: S.P. Kachur, G.M. Stennies, K.E. Powell, W. Modzeleski, R. Stephens, R. Murphy, M. Kresnow, D. Sleet, R. Lowry, “School-associatedviolent deaths in the United States, 1992–1994,” Journal of the American Medical Association 275(22):1729–1733, 1996.

Student’s age

Percent

12 13 14 15 16 17 1918

6.2

10.0

12.9

15.1 15.116.4

14.616.0

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

9

county mental health, child protec-tive services, and juvenile probationagencies in identifying and monitoringpotentially dangerous or law-violatingstudents.

Substance AbuseA fourth problem area that concerns

educators, parents, law enforcement offi-cials, legislators, and the public at large isthe use and trafficking of drugs and alco-hol in America’s schools.

Recent survey by the U.S. Departmentof Health and Human Services. A recent,comprehensive national survey of drugabuse in America was released August 6,1997, by the U.S. Department of Healthand Human Services. Based on a 1996 rep-resentative sample of the U.S. populationages 12 and older, including people wholive in households and group quarterssuch as dormitories and homeless shel-ters, the report pictured “the bright andthe dark side of drug use by adolescents.”For the first time since 1992, illicit druguse by U.S. adolescents declined.29

The survey includes information ondrug use, specifically revealing informa-tion on use of heroin, hallucinogens, alco-hol, tobacco, marijuana, and cocaine andoffering population breakdowns featuringyouth ages 12 to 17 and 18 to 26.

While the rate of drug use amongyouth ages 12 to 17 fell from 10.9 percentin 1995 to 9.0 percent in 1996,30 the surveyindicated that in this age bracket, therewas more first-time heroin use, increaseduse of hallucinogens, fewer teens who be-lieved cocaine is harmful, and little changein cigarette smoking.31 An estimated 62million Americans were found to smoke,including 4.1 million adolescents ages 12to 17. Smokers in this age bracket werefound to be about 9 times as likely to useillicit drugs and 16 times as likely to drinkheavily as nonsmoking youth.32

Annual survey by the University ofMichigan. The University of Michigan’sInstitute for Social Research conducts anannual survey that tracks the use of alco-hol, tobacco, and illicit drugs by 8th, 10th,and 12th graders in public and privateschools in the continental United States.The Monitoring the Future Study, alsoknown as the National High School SeniorSurvey, is funded by the National Instituteon Drug Abuse. The 1997 survey resultsreveal a leveling off of most drug use fol-lowing the steady rise in use since the

beginning of the decade. Some survey re-sults are discussed in more detail below.33

◆ Seniors. Of the approximately 16,000seniors surveyed, 54 percent had usedan illicit drug at least once in their life-times; more than one-fourth had usedan illicit drug within the 30 days pre-ceding their completion of the survey;one-eighth smoked half a pack of ciga-rettes or more daily; and more thanhalf had used alcoholic beverageswithin the 30 days preceding comple-tion of the survey.

◆ Sophomores. Of the approximately16,000 sophomores surveyed, 47 per-cent had used an illicit drug at leastonce; 23 percent had used an illicitdrug within the 30 days precedingcompletion of the survey; almost 9percent smoked half a pack of ciga-

rettes or more daily; and 40 percenthad used alcoholic beverages withinthe 30 days preceding completion ofthe survey.

◆ Eighth graders. Of the approximately19,000 eighth graders surveyed, 29 per-cent had used an illicit drug at leastonce; nearly 13 percent had used anillicit drug within the 30 days preced-ing the survey; 3.5 percent smoked halfa pack of cigarettes or more daily; and24.5 percent had used alcoholic bever-ages within the 30 days preceding thesurvey.

Not only are adults disturbed by thisnational epidemic, but students are alsoconcerned. Regarding factors that con-tribute to violence against teens, three infive teens blamed drugs, according to astudy sponsored by the National Crime

National Youth Gang Center

The proliferation of gang problems in large and small cities, suburbs, and even ru-ral areas over the past two decades led to the development of a comprehensive,coordinated response to America’s gang problem by the Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention. The OJJDP response involves five major components:

◆ Implementation and operation of the National Youth Gang Center.

◆ Demonstration of the Comprehensive Community-Wide Approach to GangPrevention, Intervention, and Suppression in selected communities.

◆ An independent evaluation of the demonstration program.

◆ Training and technical assistance regarding community-wide responses to gangs.

◆ Targeted acquisition and dissemination of gang materials via the JuvenileJustice Clearinghouse.

What’s Its Purpose?The National Youth Gang Center assists State and local communities in the collec-tion, analysis, and exchange of information on gang-related demographics, legisla-tion, literature, research, and promising program strategies.

What Does the National Youth Gang Center Do?The National Youth Gang Center:

◆ Identifies promising gang prevention and intervention program strategies.

◆ Analyzes gang-related legislation.

◆ Collects and analyzes statistical data on gangs.

◆ Collects and reviews gang literature.

◆ Coordinates activities of the Youth Gang Consortium, a collection of Federal,State, and local agency representatives who wish to ease gang program devel-opment, information exchange, and service delivery between agencies.

For more information, contact John Moore, Senior Research Associate, NationalYouth Gang Center, Institute for Intergovernmental Research, P.O. Box 12729,Tallahassee, FL 32317, 850–385–0600, nygc@iir.com, www.iir.com/nygc.

10

Prevention Council (NCPC), the NationalInstitute for Citizen Education in the Law(NICEL), and OJJDP.34 In the 1996 Twenty-Seventh Annual Survey of High Achievers,almost one-half of the responding stu-dents stated that drug dealing occurredat their schools and in American society,20 percent blamed drugs for the level ofviolence in their schools, and one in threebelieved drugs and alcohol were the mostserious problems facing their high schools,a percentage that had more than doubledsince the previous year’s survey.35

Perhaps one of the main reasons somany students report using alcohol andother drugs is their availability. Research-ers for NCPC and NICEL interviewed 2,023students in public, private, and parochialschools in grades 7 through 12 during thefall of 1995. Twenty-nine percent said thatit was “very easy” to get illegal drugs intheir neighborhoods and another 31 per-cent said that it was “somewhat easy ornot very hard.”36

Why do students regard alcohol andother drug use as one of the leading causesof violence on their campuses, and whydoes substance abuse trigger fear? Manystudents fear for the lives of their friendswho have turned to alcohol and other drugsto cope with the problems, stress, or bore-

dom they experience in their daily lives.Often it is violence—including extortion,theft, prostitution, or drug dealing—thatsupports their habitual substance abuse.Gangs who fight over their territorial rightsto sell drugs on the street or on campusalso engender fear. With the encroachmentof the drug subculture onto school cam-puses, many young people fear that theymay succumb to peer pressure and end upaddicted to drugs, thereby subjecting them-selves to physical, mental, and emotionalharm; risking the loss of opportunities to suc-ceed; and compromising their long-held goals.

Strategies used to counter the influenceof drugs and drug users among studentsinclude the following:

◆ Declaring specified areas surroundingschools to be Drug-Free School Zones.

◆ Instituting educational programs atall school levels that teach students toresist drugs, for example, the Life SkillsTraining Program,37 which teaches drugresistance, self-management, and generalsocial skills; Project STAR,38 whichincludes the involvement of the entirecommunity, mass media efforts, andhealth policy change; and Drug AbuseResistance Education (D.A.R.E.®),39

which is currently taught in manyelementary and middle schools.

◆ Developing a critical thinking curricu-lum, such as AdSmarts,40 designed toteach students to examine and analyzethe media’s influence on consumption.

◆ Establishing cooperative programssuch as the Adolescent Social ActionProgram (ASAP), in which trained col-lege students team with middle andhigh school student volunteers; theyvisit hospitals and detention centersto learn about individuals’ life experi-ences that led to substance abuse.

◆ Involving parents in learning aboutsubstance abuse through organizationssuch as the Parents Association toNeutralize Drug and Alcohol Abuse,Inc. (PANDAA).41

◆ Introducing TREND,42 a nationalstudent-led organization begun at the1987 National Council on Alcoholismand Drug Abuse, which encouragesyouth to become involved in theircommunities and schools and take aleadership role in advocating a drug-free lifestyle.

Violence in the CommunityWhile bullies, gangs, weapons, and

substance abuse all contribute to the fearexperienced by many of today’s students,violence in America’s neighborhoods andcommunities cannot be overlooked. Not-withstanding the sometimes unfoundedand overgeneralized fear and apprehen-sion about violence among children andadults, often fueled by the media, violencein America is a legitimate concern for ev-eryone. Likewise, research and statisticsregarding juvenile victimization cannotbe entirely discounted as mere mediasensationalism.

For example, according to America’sChildren: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, a report released in 1997 by theFederal Interagency Forum on Child andFamily Statistics in Washington, D.C.,almost 2.6 million youth ages 12 to 17 werevictims of violent crimes in 1994. For thisstudy, violent crimes were defined assimple and aggravated assault, rape, androbbery.43 The Federal Interagency Forumfosters coordination and collaboration inthe collection and reporting of Federaldata on children and families, drawing onnumerous data sources.

In 1995, high school seniors reportedthe following types of victimization atschool: having something stolen (morethan 41 percent); having property delib-erately damaged (26 percent); being

Safe Alternatives and Violence Education (SAVE) is a violence awareness edu-cation curriculum designed for 10- to 17-year-old students (and the parents ofsuch students) who are found carrying a weapon on or near a school campus. Theprogram was designed in 1993 in conjunction with a countywide effort to reduceweapon possession by youth, especially on school campuses. When a student isfound in possession of a weapon on or near a school campus, the student and aparent are required to attend the SAVE program classes. Addressing the relation-ship between violence and the media, the realities of weapon possession, and theconsequences of violence, the class is a one-time, 6-hour, interactive violenceawareness curriculum offered year-round on Saturdays.

Referrals may be made by police agencies, juvenile court/probation officials, localschools, community agencies, or parents. Each SAVE class is staffed as neededby three police officers and a language translator. Program administration is handledby one full-time coordinator and a supervising sergeant. Several San Jose school dis-tricts use the SAVE program, either as an alternative to school expulsion or as a con-dition of suspension/expulsion.

In April 1997, the Center for Educational Planning, a division of the Santa ClaraCounty Office of Education, published a program impact evaluation of SAVE. Theevaluation reveals that almost 91 percent of the 372 students included in the studyhave had no subsequent weapons offenses after participating in the SAVE pro-gram. In addition, approximately 69 percent of the study participants have had nosubsequent offenses of any type.

For more information, contact Suzan Stauffer, SAVE Coordinator, San Jose PoliceDepartment, 201 West Mission Street, San Jose, CA 95110, 408–277–4133.

11

threatened with a weapon (more than15 percent); and being threatened withouta weapon (more than 23 percent). Ofthese seniors, 4.7 percent had been in-jured with a weapon and 11.4 percenthad been injured without a weapon.44

Many young people, aware of the dan-gers that exist within their communitiesand schools, feel compelled to makechanges in their lifestyles. Louis Harris andAssociates, Inc., conducted a survey forNCPC and NICEL, Between Hope and Fear:Teens Speak Out on Crime and the Commu-nity. Survey results were obtained frominterviews of a nationally representativesample of more than 2,000 students ingrades 7 through 12. The purpose of this1995 survey was to focus on “the effectof the awareness and fear of violence andcrime on young people and the loss offreedom that results.”45

Of the students interviewed, 29 per-cent said that they worried about beingvictimized in a drive-by shooting, and 46percent had made at least one change indaily routines because of concerns aboutpersonal safety and crime and violence intheir communities. Following is a list ofchanges made in daily routines:

◆ Changed friends (22 percent).

◆ Avoided particular parks or playgrounds(20 percent).

◆ Changed the way they went to or fromschool (13 percent).

◆ Carried a weapon (e.g., bat, club, knife,gun) to protect themselves (12 percent).

◆ Got lower grades in school than theythink they otherwise would have(12 percent).

◆ Stayed home from school or cut class(11 percent).

◆ Found someone to protect them(10 percent).

◆ Stopped attending a particular activityor sport (10 percent).

Approximately 1 in 8 students changedthe way they went to and from schooland more than 1 in 10 stayed home fromschool or cut class because of concernsabout crime and violence in their commu-nities. Such behavior reveals that manystudents fear for their personal safetywhile merely attempting to attend school.46

The roots of violence reach deep intosociety, tapping into such complex condi-tions as poverty, racism, joblessness, andhopelessness. Each epidemic of violencetriggers “knee-jerk” calls for legislationand quick fixes. Often, however, little isdone in the long run to change conditionsthat give rise to violent behaviors. Itshould be apparent that educators by

themselves cannot carry out their man-date of educating children while trying torid their schools and surrounding com-munities of violence. The National Asso-ciation of School Boards of Education haspointed out, “A community problem ne-cessitates community-wide solutions.What has been coined ‘school violence’ isnothing more than societal violence thathas penetrated the schoolhouse walls.”47

Community violence gives rise to sub-sets of associated violence that impactschools. The effects of campus violencecan be devastating to both individual stu-dents and specific learning environments.Schools that lack effective discipline, re-spect for academic standards, and basichumanitarian values falter in their mis-sion to provide safe and effective learningenvironments. Students who live in fear ofviolence, witness violent acts, or actuallybecome victims of violence suffer an ar-ray of consequences ranging from personalinjury and debilitating anxiety that inter-rupt the learning process to a patternof absence and truancy that can lead todropping out of school and delinquency.Such disassociation restricts individualoptions and limits the development ofacademic and life skills.

Listed below are some of the types oflegislation and collaborative programsundertaken by national, State, and local

The Adolescent Social Action Program (ASAP) at the University of New Mexico(UNM) uses peer resistance and decisionmaking training to increase self-efficacy,social responsibility, and life skills. Youth participants engage in social action activi-ties to address conditions that lead to high-risk behaviors, such as substance useand abuse, gangs, and violence. Preliminary research findings indicate a signifi-cant impact on the development of positive coping skills, the ability to influenceothers, and reduced rates in teen drinking behaviors.

For more than 14 years, ASAP has operated in more than 30 communities in NewMexico, including Native-American reservations and small, rural Hispanic commu-nities. At the heart of ASAP is the work of Brazilian educator Paulo Freire, whosemodel emphasizes listening, dialog, and action. Small groups of students are takenon supervised visits to a local or regional hospital (three visits), a detention center(one visit), and the Metro court (one visit). The students interview the patients andinmates and listen to their stories. Then, using critical thinking strategies, they ex-amine the consequences of the patients’ and inmates’ actions through dialogs ledby trained graduate and undergraduate university facilitators and reflect on theirown lives.

ASAP staff also conduct and develop local and national training for teachers, com-munity groups, and health professionals on empowerment-based education, peereducation, and working with youth.

For more information, contact Lily Dow, Adolescent Social Action Program, FamilyPractice Building, Third Floor, 2400 Tucker NE., Albuquerque, NM 87131–5241,888–738–2940, 505–272–5532, 505–272–4494 (fax).

12

agencies working in partnership that areproducing positive results in reestablish-ing schools as safe havens for learning:

◆ Nearly all States have developed somesort of crime-free, weapon-free, orsafe-school zone statute. Most Stateshave defined the zones also to includeschool transportation and locations ofschool-sponsored functions.

◆ The above statutes have given rise tozero-tolerance policies for such thingsas weapons and drugs. These policiesare enforced by school districts andindividual schools, often with supportfrom local police forces or school-basedresource officers.

◆ Federal regulations established in 1994mandate that all school districts set upprograms to test school bus driversfor drug and alcohol use.48

◆ Schools are forging partnerships withcourt officials, probation officers, andother youth-serving professionals toshare information on and monitor stu-dents who have criminal records orwho are in aftercare programs follow-ing their terms of incarceration in juve-nile justice facilities.49

◆ School districts are formulating crisisprevention/intervention policies andare directing individual schools to de-velop such policies and individual safe-school plans.

◆ School districts, in response to localneeds, have stepped up efforts toimprove school security by installingsecurity aids or devices and providingservices such as:

❖ Completing criminal backgroundchecks on teachers and school staffmembers before a work assignmentis made.

❖ Establishing Neighborhood Watchprograms in areas near schools.

❖ Recruiting parents to provide safehouses along school routes and tomonitor “safe corridors” or walk-ways to and from school.

❖ Enlisting parent volunteers tomonitor hallways, cafeterias, play-grounds, and school walkways inorder to increase visibility of re-sponsible adults.

❖ Creating block safety watch pro-grams carried out by area residentsat school bus stops as a crime de-terrent for school children and arearesidents.

❖ Fencing school grounds to securecampus perimeters.

❖ Replacing bathroom doors with zig-zag entrances, to make it easier tomonitor sounds, and installing roll-down doors to secure bathroomsafter hours.

❖ Designating one main door entry toschool, equipping exits with pushbars, and locking all other doors tooutside entry.

❖ Installing bulletproof windows.

❖ Equipping the school with closed-circuit video surveillance systemsto reduce property crime such asbreak-ins, theft, vandalism, andassaults.

❖ Designing landscaping to create aninviting appearance without offeringa hiding place for trespassers orcriminals.

❖ Installing motion-sensitive lights toilluminate dark corners in hallwaysor on campus.

❖ Mounting convex mirrors to moni-tor blind spots in school hallways.

❖ Equipping classrooms with inter-com systems connected to thecentral school office.

❖ Issuing two-way radios to securitypatrols or campus staff members.

❖ Purchasing cellular phones for usein crises or emergency situations.

❖ Requiring photo identificationbadges for students, teachers,and staff and identification cardsfor visitors on campus.

Parents and Schools Succeeding in Providing Organized Routes to Travel(PASSPORT) is a joint effort of the Visalia Unified School District, Visalia PoliceDepartment, parents, and community-based organizations. The California programprovides supervised routes for students to use when traveling to and from schoolin high-crime or gang-oriented areas. Parents receive a letter and map that indicaterecommended travel routes.

Parent volunteers stand in front of their homes and “just watch” during specifiedhours. Fights, intimidating behaviors, or unsafe activities are immediately reportedto the nearest school or to other appropriate agencies. While on duty, parentswear badges bearing the school name and district logo; the back of the badge listsphone numbers for the school, the district student services office, confidentialhotlines, and the gang suppression unit. Participating businesses along the routedisplay bright yellow signs in their windows. These businesses have agreed to al-low students to use the phone if they are threatened or intimidated. Students mayremain at the business location until their parents pick them up.

School administrators and the safe school coordinator routinely monitor and walkthe PASSPORT routes, and the police department regularly patrols the PASSPORTcommunities and routes. Media publicity about PASSPORT encourages all citizensto watch over schoolchildren to ensure their safe passage to and from school. Theprogram depends on cooperative, volunteer efforts; actual dollar costs are minimal.

For more information, contact Ralph Lomeli, Safe Schools Coordinator, VisaliaUnified School District, 315 East Acequia, Visalia, CA 93291, 209–730–7579.

13

Creating Safer SchoolsDuring the past decade in America,

educational opportunity has graduallyeroded in the Nation’s schools. That op-portunity has been undermined by vio-lence and the fear of violence. Yet theNation’s basic precepts are intact: toprovide educational opportunity, fosterindividual accomplishment in a diversesociety, and preserve guaranteed rightsand freedoms for all citizens.

Numerous prevention and interventionstrategies have been outlined here, eachdeveloped to ensure that the Nation’sschools are able to educate childrenin safe environments and that all youthhave the opportunity to learn, grow, andmature as socially responsible citizens.

the Effectiveness of Court Intervention, Alex-andria, VA: National Center on Institutionsand Alternatives, July 16, 1996, p. 1.

3. L. Kann, C.W. Warren, W.A. Harris, J.L.Collins, K.A. Douglas, M.E. Collins, B.I.Williams, J.G. Ross, and L.J. Kolbe, “Youthrisk behavior surveillance—United States,1993,” in CDC Surveillance Summaries,Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report44(SS–1):6, 1995.

4. J. Johnson, S. Farkas, and A. Bers, Get-ting By: What American Teenagers ReallyThink About Their Schools, New York, NY:Public Agenda, 1997, p. 14.

5. R. Leitman and K. Binns, The Metropoli-tan Life Survey of the American Teacher1993, Violence in America’s Public Schools,New York, NY: Louis Harris and Associ-ates, Inc., 1993, p. 7.

6. L. Ansley, “It just keeps getting worse,”USA WEEKEND (August 13–15):4–6, 1993.

7. R. Leitman, K. Binns, and A. Steinberg,Part 1, The Metropolitan Life Survey of theAmerican Teacher 1996, Students VoiceTheir Opinions On: Violence, Social Tensionand Equality Among Teens, New York, NY:Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., 1996,pp. 3–4.

8. R. Leitman, K. Binns, and A. Unni, TheMetropolitan Life Survey of the AmericanTeacher 1994, Violence in America’s PublicSchools: The Family Perspective, New York,NY: Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., 1994,p. 5.

9. National League of Cities, “School vio-lence in America’s cities,” Youth Record6(19):1–4, October 1994.

10. J. Smotherman, “No Bullying programaddresses one of the toughest formsof childhood violence,” School Safety,Westlake Village, CA: National SchoolSafety Center (Fall):12, 1996; C. Garrity, K.Jens, W. Porter, N. Sager, and C. Short-Camilli, “Bully-proofing your school: Acomprehensive approach,” School Safety,Westlake Village, CA: National SchoolSafety Center (Fall):20–23, 1996; M. Vecchi,“Children are capable of learning skills tosettle disputes,” School Safety, WestlakeVillage, CA: National School Safety Center(Fall):33–34, 1996.

11. Johnson Institute, The No-Bullying Pro-gram: Preventing Bully/Victim Violence atSchool, Minneapolis, MN: Johnson Institute,1996.

12. C. Garrity, K. Jens, W. Porter, N. Sager,and C. Short-Camilli, Bully-Proofing YourSchool, Longmont, CO: Sopris West, 1994.

Gang Resistence Is Paramount (G.R.I.P.)

In an attempt to curb gang membership and discourage future gang involvement,the city of Paramount, CA, initiated the G.R.I.P. program, formerly known as Alter-natives to Gang Membership, which combines the resources of families, schools,and local government. The program attempts to discourage future gang member-ship by teaching children the harmful consequences of this lifestyle and by per-suading them to choose positive alternatives.

Initiated in 1982, the program includes three major components. The first involvesneighborhood meetings that provide parents with support, assistance, and re-sources as they try to prevent their children from joining gangs. These meetings,conducted in both English and Spanish, often use audiovisual materials and focuson educating parents about gang activity, increasing family involvement, support-ing sports and recreation programs, and increasing neighborhood unity to combatgang proliferation.

The second component comprises a 15-week course for fifth grade students anda 10-week course for second grade students. The lessons deal with graffiti, peerpressure, tattoos, the impact of gang activity on family members, drug abuse, andalternative activities and opportunities.

Finally, a school-based followup program is implemented at the ninth grade levelto reinforce what children learned in the elementary grades. The program buildsself-esteem and also focuses on the consequences of a criminal lifestyle, the ben-efits of higher education, and future career opportunities.

This program has undergone five separate studies. The first tested elementarystudents before and after participation in the program. Prior to participation, 50percent were undecided about gang involvement, but after participation, 90 per-cent responded negatively toward gangs. The second study, also using a pre/postdesign, replicated the results of the first. However, this study included a controlgroup that was not exposed to the program; this group showed no change in theirattitudes (50 percent undecided) over the same period of time. The third and fourthstudies surveyed seventh and ninth graders, respectively, who had participated in thefifth grade program; 90 percent (from both studies) indicated that they still had nega-tive attitudes about gangs or stayed out of them. The final study cross-checked thenames of 3,612 former program participants with local police records and found that96 percent were not identified as gang members.

For more information, contact Tony Ostos, Neighborhood Counseling Manager,G.R.I.P., 16400 Colorado Avenue, Paramount, CA 90723–5050, 562–220–2140.

Although these strategies are a good start-ing point, more such interventions areneeded. Through the efforts of educators,law enforcement officials, and parents—working in concert to implement thesestrategies and continuing to test newones—it is possible to reduce the vio-lence found in today’s schools and createsafe schools in every community.

Endnotes1. H. Snyder, Juvenile Arrests 1996, Bulle-tin, Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Pre-vention, November 1997.

2. E. Lotke and V. Schiraldi, An Analysis ofJuvenile Homicides: Where They Occur and

14

13. Committee for Children, Second StepViolence Prevention Curriculum, Seattle,WA: Committee for Children, 1987.

14. National Youth Gang Center, The 1995National Youth Gang Survey, Program Sum-mary, Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Justice Programs, Officeof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-tion, October 1997.

15. National League of Cities, October1994.

16. L. Rose, A. Gallup, and S. Elam, “The29th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll ofthe public’s attitudes toward the publicschools,” Phi Delta Kappan 79(1):49,September 1997.

17. Educational Communications, Inc.,“It’s lonely at the top,” findings of theWho’s Who Among American High SchoolStudents’ 27th Annual Survey of HighAchievers, press release, Lake Forest, IL,November 13, 1996.

18. C.R. Huff, ed., Gangs in America,Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,1990, p. 15.

19. S.W. Donohue, “Working with gangson campus,” School Safety, Westlake Vil-lage, CA: National School Safety Center(Spring):4–7, 1996.

20. Educational Communications, Inc.,November 13, 1996.

21. K.A. Chandler, C.D. Chapman, M.R. Rand,and B.M. Taylor, Students’ Reports of SchoolCrime: 1989 and 1995, Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement,National Center for Education Statistics,and U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs, Bureau of JusticeStatistics, 1998, p.11. NCJ 169607.

22. L. Kann et al., 1995.

23. S.P. Kachur, G.M. Stennies, K.E. Powell,W. Modzeleski, R.S. Stephens, R. Murphy,M. Kresnow, D. Sleet, and R. Lowry,“School-associated violent deaths in theUnited States, 1992–1994,” Journal of theAmerican Medical Association275(22):1729–1733, 1996.

24. R. De La Cruz, “Path of a bullet, we allpay the price,” Long Beach Press Telegram(November 10):K–1, 1996.

25. D.L. Ryan, “The face of violence,”Education Week (November 15):4, 1995.

26. E.F. Imhoff, “Group offers free videoon impact of gun violence,” Baltimore Sun(January 21) 1997.

27. J.S. Dierke, “Principal’s hotline reducesschool crime,” School Safety, Westlake Vil-lage, CA: National School Safety Center(Winter):11, 1996.

28. North Carolina Governor’s Crime Com-mission, “Community policing withinschools,” School Safety, Westlake Village,CA: National School Safety Center (Fall):7–9, 1995.

29. Heather Knight, “The bright, dark sideof drug use by adolescents,” Los AngelesTimes (August 6):A–5, 1997.

30. Joseph Gfroerer, Preliminary Resultsfrom the 1996 National Household Surveyon Drug Abuse, Rockville, MD: U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services, Sub-stance Abuse and Mental Health ServicesAdministration, Office of Applied Studies,July 1997, p. 1.

31. Heather Knight, 1997.

32. Joseph Gfroerer, July 1997, p. 2.

33. University of Michigan Institute for So-cial Research, “Drug use among Americanteens shows some signs of leveling after along rise,” press release, Ann Arbor, MI,December 18, 1997.

34. R. Leitman, K. Binns, and A. Duffett,Between Hope and Fear: Teens Speak Outon Crime and the Community, New York, NY:Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., 1995,p. 18.

35. Educational Communications, Inc.,November 13, 1996.

36. R. Leitman, K. Binns, and A. Duffett,1995, p. 17.

37. G.J. Botvin, E. Baker, L. Dusenbury,E.M. Botvin, and T. Diaz, “Long-termfollowup results of a randomized drugabuse prevention trial in a white middle-class population,” Journal of the AmericanMedical Association 273(14):1106–1112,1995; G.J. Botvin, E. Baker, A.D. Filazzola,and E.M. Botvin, “A cognitive-behavioralapproach to substance abuse prevention:One-year follow-up,” Addictive Behaviors15(1):47–63, 1990; G.J. Botvin, S.P. Schinke,J.A. Epstein, T. Diaz, et al., “Effectiveness ofculturally focused and generic skills train-ing approaches to alcohol and drug abuseprevention among minority adolescents:Two-year followup results,” Psychology ofAddictive Behaviors 9(3):183–194, 1995.

38. M.A. Pentz, “The school-communityinterface in comprehensive school healtheducation,” in 1996 Institute of MedicineAnnual Report, Committee on Comprehen-sive School Health Programs, edited by

S. Stansfield, Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press, 1995; M.A. Pentz, J.H.Dwyer, D.P. MacKinnon, B.R. Flay, W.B.Hansen, E.Y. Wang, and C.A. Johnson,“A multi-community trial for primaryprevention of adolescent drug abuse:Effects on drug use prevalence,” Journalof the American Medical Association261:3259–3266, 1989.

39. Drug Abuse Resistance Education(D.A.R.E.®), D.A.R.E.® America, P.O. Box512090, Los Angeles, CA 90051–0090,800–223–3273.

40. AdSmarts, Scott Newman Center, 6255Sunset Boulevard, Suite 1906, Los Angeles,CA 90028, 800–783–6396.

41. Parents Association to Neutralize Drugand Alcohol Abuse, Inc. (PANDAA), 4111Watkins Trail, Annandale, VA 22003–2051,703–750–9285.

42. TREND, 8790 Manchester Road,St. Louis, MO 63144, 800–666–5124.

43. Federal Interagency Forum on Childand Family Statistics, America’s Children:Key National Indicators of Well-Being, Wash-ington, DC: Federal Interagency Forum onChild and Family Statistics, 1997, p. 38.

44. U.S. Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics, The Condi-tion of Education, Washington, DC: U.S. De-partment of Education, 1995, p. 362.

45. R. Leitman, K. Binns, and A. Duffett,1995, pp. 11–13.

46. R. Leitman, K. Binns, and A. Duffett,1995, p. 13.

47. National Association of School Boardsof Education, Schools Without Fear: TheReport of the NASBE Study Group on Vio-lence and Its Impact on Schools and Learn-ing, Alexandria, VA: National Associationof School Boards of Education, 1994, p. 4.

48. P. Schmidt, “Rules mandate drugtesting for bus drivers,” Education Week(February 23):1, 1994.

49. Medaris, M.L., Campbell, E., and James, B.1997. Sharing Information: A Guide to theFamily Educational Rights and Privacy Actand Participation in Juvenile Justice Pro-grams, Program Report, Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Jus-tice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justiceand Delinquency Prevention, and U.S.Department of Education, Family PolicyCompliance Office.

15

This Bulletin was prepared under grantnumber 95–MU–MU–0032 from the Office ofJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the authors and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department ofJustice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-quency Prevention is a component of the Of-fice of Justice Programs, which also includesthe Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureauof Justice Statistics, the National Institute ofJustice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Share With Your ColleaguesUnless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. Weencourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, andreprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please citeOJJDP and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback,such as how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, andhow OJJDP materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct yourcomments and questions to:

Juvenile Justice ClearinghousePublication Reprint/FeedbackP.O. Box 6000Rockville, MD 20849–6000800–638–8736301–519–5212 (Fax)E-Mail: askncjrs@ncjrs.org

Acknowledgments

June L. Arnette is the Communications Director and Marjorie C. Walsleben isa Communications Specialist for the National School Safety Center (NSSC) inWestlake Village, CA. NSSC is funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and De-linquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Department ofEducation’s Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program.

Susan P. Limber, Assistant Director, and Maury M. Nation, Research Assistant—the authors of the sidebar on bullying—work for the Institute for Families inSociety, University of South Carolina. With OJJDP funding, the Institute has imple-mented intervention programs that focus on bullying in the schools. This sidebarwas prepared under OJJDP grant number 94–JN–CX–0005.

NCJ 167888

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Bulletin

BULK RATEU.S. POSTAGE PAID

DOJ/OJJDPPermit No. G–91