Law - Criminal Assignment 7

Schools and Crime Prevention

Introduction • School is where community and developmental

approaches often meet – School is both an integral part of child’s

development, and integral part of community

• School is major context for peer influence – I.e., developmental risk factors

• School deviance is also closely linked to neighborhood crime, social disorganization, poverty – I.e., community risk factors

Delinquency and crime in schools • In 2015–2016 academic year, ~750,000 crimes occurred

on school grounds (29 per 1000 students) – 294,000 thefts (13 per 1000 students) – 455,000 violent crimes (25 per 1000 students) – 71,700 serious violent crimes (2.8 per 1000 students)

• While school shootings receive a lot of media attention, they are incredibly rare – Since early 1990s, ~20–30 homicides at school per year

• This is an average, since there are spikes E.g., 37 deaths in 2018 vs. 3 deaths in 2015

– Over same time period, annual youth homicides have decreased from ~3000 to ~1000 per year • So about 1–2 percent of total youth homicides occur at

school

Victimization at schools • Student victimization rates

– About 1/2 of youth victimization occurs in school • Despite being only 1/5 of waking hours

– Creates a climate of “survival” instead of learning at some schools • 5% of students report being afraid at school (nationwide)

– Some studies find 11% fear attack at school (at high-risk schools) • 5.4% of students carried weapon to school (nationwide)

– Some studies find 24% of students have carried weapon (high-risk)

• Teacher victimization rates – In 2015–2016, teachers reported 373,900 threats of injury and 220,300

physical attacks • This has increased over time

– E.g., in early 2000s, only 252,800 threats and 129,200 attacks reported

• Bullying – Reported by 21% of students

• ~5% report physical bullying (e.g., pushing/shoving, threats) • ~13% report verbal bullying (e.g., teasing, name-calling) • ~12% report social bullying (e.g., rumors, peer pressure) • 7% report cyber bullying (verbal/social via internet)

Theoretical views • Failure in school is associated with delinquency – Why?

• Diminished academic ability – One possibility is that youth with lower ability are more likely to engage

in antisocial behavior (and school failure) » I.e., no direct relationship between school failure and delinquency

• Labeling effects – Another possibility is that school failure causes negative self-evaluations

(i.e., labeling) which result in delinquent behavior » Deviant behavior may be an outlet for these negative emotions

• Failed expectations leads to peer deviancy – Third possibility is that failure leads youth to associate with other

“marginal” youth » This is called peer contagion (e.g., “peer deviancy training”)

IQ and delinquency • Low IQ is strongly associated with delinquency – Direct relationship

• Having low IQ causes a person to be more likely to be antisocial or delinquent

– Indirect relationship • Having low IQ causes low school achievement and negative

attitudes toward school, which, in turn, cause delinquency

• Importance of theory – If indirect, promoting school achievement and positive

attitude toward school may delinquency – If direct, however, school programs may not have much

impact on delinquency

School practices • Certain school practices may promote frustration and

negative attitude toward school – Tracking involves grouping students into different classes by

perceived needs of student and early achievement • May create lower expectations among lower track students

– Research indicates lower track students participate in fewer activities, drop out more often, and are more delinquent

– Poor or irrelevant instruction • Less competent teacher may be assigned to schools serving more

disadvantaged youth who are viewed as “not college material” – Being labeled as “second class” may create resentment

• Many subjects taught in school may bear no relevance to students’ lives or work prospects – Emphasis on testing may also produce resentment

– Zero tolerance policies • School discipline has also become more punitive over time

SCHOOL-BASED PROGRAMS

School-based prevention programs • School atmosphere changes • Conflict management/resolution programs • School-based violence prevention • Peer pressure programs • Anti-bullying programs • Alternative schools • Police in schools • After school programs

School culture/atmosphere • Bring students, teachers, and administration together to

cooperate on decision making – Creates “stakeholder society” – Some programs include cooperation w/ police

• School discipline and classroom management matter – Enforcing clear rules and employing behavioral strategies to

monitor and reinforce student behavior are most effective at reducing disorder and antisocial behavior

• Strong emotional attachments to adult teachers also restrains antisocial behavior – Schools with “communal social organization” (CSO) have lower

crime and victimization • School analogue to neighborhoods with “collective efficacy”

Conflict management programs • Conflict resolution and mediation programs – Often this involves peer mediation, where students are

trained to assist in resolving disputes • Impact is generally positive, but too few evaluations

– More intense training appears related to effectiveness

• Some prevention curricula in school are effective – Most effective school interventions target at-risk youth

(secondary prevention) • Most effective programs teach self-control or social

competency skills (e.g., cognitive-behavioral therapy)

School-based violence prevention • Park-Higgerson et al. (2008) performed systematic review of 29

school-based RCTs aimed at reducing violent behavior – Found average small effect reducing aggressive and violent behavior among

single-approach programs (d = -.15) but not multi-approach programs • 40% of studies had small samples (<100)

– Found larger effects in programs that: • Aimed at older children • Focused on at risk children (versus universal) • Employed intervention specialists (versus school teachers)

• Wilson & Wilson (2007) performed systematic review of 249 experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of school-based programs targeting aggressive or disruptive behavior – Found average small effects for reduced aggression

• Larger average effect size in 108 selective programs (d = .29) than 77 universal programs (d = .21) – Selective programs involved at-risk youth and often involved single-approach rather than

multimodal

Peer pressure programs • Some programs educate students about peer pressure and teach skills to

avoid negative outcomes – E.g., Gang Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T); Drug Abuse Resistance

Program (D.A.R.E) • Both taught by local police officers in middle schools

• D.A.R.E. – Drug resistance educational program aimed at elementary/middle school children

• Present in 75% of school districts in U.S. – Evaluations indicate that D.A.R.E. has no significant impact on drug use

• G.R.E.A.T. – Provide youth with skills for avoiding gangs, aimed at middle school students – Positive results for positive attitude toward police, resisting peer pressure, and

negative views about gangs • But no impact on actual delinquency rates

• One limitation to “classroom approach” is targets high-risk and low-risk youth together (i.e., universal program)

G.R.E.A.T. • Universal gang and violence prevention program aimed at 6th and 7th graders

– Goals • Teach youth to avoid gang membership • Prevent violence and criminal activity • Develop positive relationships with law enforcement

– Taught by police officers in the classroom • 13 one-hour lessons

– Seeks to educate on how to avoid peer pressure (e.g., refusal skills), regulate emotions, communicate effectively, solve conflicts

• Esbenson et al. (2013) conducted an evaluation of G.R.E.A.T. programs in 31 schools across seven cities – Classrooms were randomly assigned

• Intervention (n = 102) versus no intervention (n = 93) – Several positive effects

• Less gang involvement in intervention group – 39% less involvement at one-year follow-up – 24% less involvement at four-year follow-up

• More positive attitudes toward police in short- and long-term follow-ups • However, no reduction in self-reported violent or criminal activity

– Does G.R.E.A.T. reduce actual gang involvement or youth self-identification?

School-based drug prevention • Flynn et al. (2015) performed a systematic review of 13

evaluations of universal, middle-school-based drug prevention programs – 4 programs evaluated

• D.A.R.E (n = 4), Life Skills Training (n = 3), Project ALERT (n = 4), Lions- Quest Skills (n = 2)

– Evidence limited for effectiveness • Only 1 of 4 programs had any significant reduction in drug use (LionsQuest)

– Moreover, only 3 significant differences across 42 comparisons » Positive effects for current and long-time marijuana use in evaluation of

LionsQuest » Iatrogenic effect for marijuana use in evaluation of ALERT

– Concluded that there is a lack of independent research on the effectiveness of universal drug prevention in middle school • Results not promising for school-based drug prevention programs

Other approaches • Anti-bullying programs

– Recent systematic review of 59 programs found small average effect in reducing student victimization • Most effective for younger students

– Olweus Bullying Prevention program in Norway is especially effective—15% reduction in student victimization

• After school programs – Keep youth busy and supervised after school

• Recent meta-analysis indicated no effects, however

• Alternative schools – Remove students at risk of school failure and place in positive learning

atmosphere • Aims to dispel negative attitudes toward school

– Meta-analysis of 57 evaluations of alternative schools found increased school performance and improved attitudes • But no impact on delinquency

Other approaches • Police in schools

– School resource officers (SROs) now in about half of high schools, often supported by federal subsidies • About 70% of high school students report either SRO or security guard in

their school – Tend to be in larger secondary schools (95% of high schools with >1000 students)

• Zero tolerance policies – Associated with lower victimization

• But only non-experimental studies – Involves more arrests (“referrals”) for school-related misbehavior,

possibly creating “school to prison pipeline” • Referrals twice as high at schools with SROs

– Most common referral charge is simple assault w/out weapon (i.e., fighting)

• Neither have been evaluated with high-quality designs – Thus, we do not know whether these policies are effective

Limitations to school-based prevention • Most school-based programs are not evaluated

– Tens of millions are spent on school programs without evidence of effectiveness • E.g., School-Wide Positive Behavior Support package adopted by 5,500 schools w/out

single high-quality impact evaluation

• Like CCP (and unlike DCP), school-based prevention is less targeted and can involve larger “political” forces – E.g., SROs often added to all schools in jurisdiction at once, making it hard to

evaluate • Alternatively, they could be randomly assigned and evaluated first

– E.g., despite strong evidence that D.A.R.E. is ineffective, it remains popular because it seems intuitive, is minimally invasive, and has a strong national organization behind it

• School remains a logical context for interventions aimed at reducing crime and victimization – But more evaluations needed!