U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director

continued...

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

Crime in the Schools: Reducing

Conflict With Student Problem Solving

by Dennis Jay Kenney and Steuart Watson

July 1999

that disruptive incidents, the use of

drugs, and the presence of guns and other

weapons have been steadily declining.7

Still, the estimated incidence of campusbased crimes and disorder remains

unacceptably high, leaving concerned

individuals to suggest that it is difficult

for many high schools to be the orderly,

safe, and secure places they must be if

effective learning is to take place.

Crime problem, crime crisis

With research suggesting a regularity

of campus crime, and the occurrence of

tragic incidents such as the 1997–99

shootings on campuses in Colorado,

Georgia, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Oregon, some observers are now

calling for swift and forceful action to

make our schools safe again. Far from

simply popularist rhetoric, these calls

for change must be considered carefully

since some of the proposed methods for

responding to school violence may create

a restrictive and unnecessarily intrusive

atmosphere in an otherwise safe school

setting. Methods for responding to school

violence are based on variations of

just three distinct approaches—target

hardening, violence prevention, and

student-based problem solving. As illustrated in the sidebar “Approaches for

Responding to School Violence,” these

Forty years ago, surveys of public school

teachers indicated that the most pressing

classroom problems were tardiness, talkative students, and gum chewing.1

 Far

more serious complaints are currently

heard from teachers, administrators, and

students about the presence of drugs,

gangs, and weapons on campus and the

threat of assault, robbery, theft, vandalism, and rape.2

 The popular media, such

as Time magazine and U.S. News and

World Report, have reported that the

problems in our Nation’s schools may

be paralyzing the system.3

Although rigorous studies producing

reliable data on school crime and victimization are infrequent, some research is

available. For example, according to a

report from the National Center for Education Statistics, disruptive student behavior increased during the 5-year period

from 1982 to 1987.4

 Worse yet, survey

research by the American Federation of

Teachers suggests that the presence of

drugs and weapons on campus substantially increases student violence.5

 Similarly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation

and the National School Boards Association reported that by the early 1990s,

3 million thefts and violent crimes were

occurring each year on or near school

campuses.6 Since then, most research on

school crime and disorder has indicated

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: A project

to investigate a student-based

problem-solving model for reducing crime in the Nation’s schools.

A quasi-experimental research design was employed that captured

data in 3 waves from more than

450 students attending 11thgrade social science classes in

2 schools (1 experimental and

1 control) during the 1994–95

school year.

Key issues: As envisioned, schoolbased problem solving changes the

attitudes and/or behaviors of group

members and offers the skills and

knowledge needed to bring about

desired change. A guided group

process can reduce school crime

and disorder and improve the overall

school climate. As students accept

responsibility for their school environment, they develop improved

attitudes regarding the police,

their peers, the fairness and clarity

of school and social rules, their

own abilities to influence change,

and even school itself.

A student-based problem-solving

model has been successfully

implemented in the CharlotteMecklenberg County (North

Carolina) School District. Specific

changes were expected in the actual rates of crime and violence;

in the levels of fear among students, teachers, and staff; and in

the overall attitudes of participants.

Anticipated impacts related to

teacher feelings of safety, evaluation of the school and educational

environment, and subtle effects

on student performance and the
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

classes incorporating the problem-solving

curriculum devoted an average of 1 to 2

days a week to student-teacher-police

efforts to identify and solve school problems, especially those involving school

safety. Although the research staff assisted with the curriculum design, the

process itself was largely driven by the

school’s teachers because they were most

familiar with the problems confronted by

students, best understood the range of

response options available, and had ultimate responsibility for implementing and

facilitating the project.

Between 15 and 25 students were assigned to each participating social science class, allowing more than 250

students to participate during the project

year. Eleventh graders had the advantage

of both a vested interest in their school’s

future and a knowledge of its past. All

participating students were graded and

received credit as they would for any

other subject.

The class design allowed students, teachers, and police to identify together the

crime, drug, and order problems and

concerns on campus. As the process

continued, however, students carried increasing responsibility—an experience

that many students reported to be more

interesting than they had initially anticipated. As facilitators, the teachers assisted with materials and resources,

offering overt guidance only when absolutely necessary. As a part of the regular

classroom process, teachers also assigned

out-of-class work, supervised data collection and analysis for the problems identified, and evaluated student input to the

proposed solutions. Student grades for

the course were partly determined by

these factors. The police resource officer

assigned to the experimental school

regularly attended the problem-solving

classes and participated as fully as requested. While police-student relations

approaches encompass conflicting programs often designed to accomplish dramatically different results, and the path

selected will critically affect students,

staff, and the educational process itself.

School Safety Program in the

Charlotte-Mecklenburg County

School District

This Research in Brief discusses a project

supported by the National Institute of

Justice in 1993 to test a student-based

problem-solving approach in the

Charlotte-Mecklenburg County (North

Carolina) School District. Responsible

for educating most of the youths of the

Nation’s 35th largest city, at the time

of the study the Charlotte-Mecklenburg

County School District included 109

schools and approximately 4,130 teachers, 9,680 employees, and 79,800 students. During 1992, the year before the

Charlotte School Safety Program was

implemented, the Charlotte Police Department reported a total of 1,409 events

requiring police service in the city’s 8

high schools. Although many of these

calls for service involved order maintenance problems such as false alarms,

disturbances, disorderly persons and

fights, accidents, and requests for general

assistance, such occurrences have been

shown to contribute to a sense of an unsafe environment.8

 Fortunately, such concerns are sensitive to community reaction

and, in fact, are the primary focus of most

community- and problem-oriented safety

approaches.

The heart of the Charlotte School Safety

Program required student participation in

the problem-solving process. To develop

an innovative program incorporating a

student-teacher-police partnership, the

school system agreed to add a problemsolving model to the regularly required

11th-grade government and history

classes in one target high school. The

willingness to accept responsibility for

one’s own “community.”

Key findings: Project data revealed

that the most significant school

problems may not be what we

often imagine. Although gangs,

drugs, and armed agitators may

receive the most attention, most of

the conflicts uncovered during this

project concerned everyday school

interactions (e.g., an insufficient

supply of pizza). Students desire a

safer, more orderly school environment. Additional findings include

the following:

● Substantial levels of fear among

students and teachers were significantly reduced by the second and

third waves of data collection.

● While nearly 1 in 5 students had

to fight to protect themselves during the last school term before the

start of the project, fewer than 1

in 10 did so by project completion.

● The number of students who saw

teachers threatened by students

declined by a third, and those who

witnessed physical attacks on teachers dropped by more than half.

● By the end of the project year,

40 percent fewer students in the

experimental school feared that

someone would hurt or bother

them during school hours.

● A 29-percent schoolwide reduction in incidents requiring student

suspension included 70 percent

fewer “student-student conflict”

and 46 percent fewer “studentteacher conflict” suspensions.

Target audience: Teachers and

other educational staff; staff of

youth agencies; public health, juvenile justice, and criminal justice officials and practitioners; researchers

and practitioners in conflict resolution and related areas; and others

concerned with violence prevention.

Issues and Findings

continued...
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

officers out to talk to the public to find

out what kinds of concerns they have

and what kind of changes they want.”

Challenging the students to do likewise in their own school, he went on

to ask each class to “work together to

make your community a better one to

be in.”

With the project’s introductions

complete, each classroom teacher

introduced the general concept of

problem solving according to his or

her own individual classroom schedule. Included, however, were common

examples of how problems had been

solved by prominent historical figures

as well as a more current example

from both the local and national

media. Project groups were then

assembled, and the “guidelines for

acceptable group behavior” crafted

earlier were explained to complete

the introduction to the project.

Each teacher was careful to explain

his or her facilitator/mentor function

as one of guiding, rather than directing, the process. The teacher explained that whatever problems the

students identified would be pursued;

that teachers would not veto ideas or

problems but, rather, would allow each

student group to discover for itself

whether a particular problem existed

and the constraints that might prevent

its satisfactory solution.

What problems to solve? Once the

introductory work was completed, the

four-stage problem-solving model,

described below, was presented to the

students. The teachers then divided

the students into groups of four to six

and began the introduction to problem

identification. Each problem identification objective was discussed, as were

the substeps involved in identifying

legitimate problems. Students were

appeared to be strong, little police

involvement was actually required.

Key program elements, including the

problem-solving process, individual

roles, problem-solving model, and

outcomes, are discussed below.

Problem-solving process. The goal

of Charlotte’s problem-solving process

was to attack specific crime-, order-,

and fear-related problems using the

resources of the school, students, faculty, and police. This approach was

based on at least a decade of development in other settings where problems

have been addressed with apparent

success in areas as diverse as gangs;

drugs; and the management of police

calls for service in urban, suburban,

and even rural communities.9

While the problem-solving process is

straightforward and easily applied in

a structured classroom setting, a few

observations are appropriate. The

process of structuring the student

problem-solving groups is an important component that influences later

group cohesiveness and effectiveness.10 Here, the amount of structure

needed is decided by the group leader

(i.e., the teacher). Generally, less

structure is required if group members

possess adequate interpersonal skills,

and more structure is necessary if

group members cannot sustain sophisticated interpersonal relationships.11

Structuring is done within the group,

where guidelines for acceptable behavior are established by participants

before actual problem solving begins.

This approach allows group members

to “own” the guidelines governing

their behavior.

Before beginning problem solving, the

group leader outlines the group’s purpose and function to help group members orient their behavior to solving

school-related problems while decreasing the probability of nontask

behaviors. Before introducing the

problem-solving classes, participating

teachers are advised to develop their

group leadership skills, their methods

of giving appropriate feedback, and

their understanding of problem-solving

behaviors.

Individual roles. The degree of support that each group receives is a significant factor in the outcome. In the

Charlotte School Safety Program, participants received assurances of support from the administration, school

board, teachers, and police. On the

first day of school, the test school’s

principal pledged his support and

resources to student problem solving.

Addressing the 11th-grade student

body, the principal prepared students

for the new work that was before them

with the observation that they would

“be engaging in research activities

that might include devising and administering surveys and conducting

interviews to determine what the real

concerns at the school are.” Noting the

importance of their efforts, he went on

to promise: “[I]n your endeavors you

will enjoy the full support of the school

and extended communities.”

The school’s police liaison officer attended each initial 11th-grade history

class meeting during the first week of

school to introduce himself, explain

his role as a participating group member, and give a brief presentation on

community policing and its relationship to civic responsibility and the

problem-solving model that had been

added to the course curriculum. Observing that the community policing

concept was nearly 4 years under way

in Charlotte, the officer advised that

his department was attempting to

recreate an earlier, more small-town

feeling in the city “by sending police
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Methods for responding to school

violence are based on variations of three

distinct approaches—target hardening,

violence prevention, and student-based

problem solving.

Target hardening: metal

detectors, surveillance

cameras, locks, and bars

Most of the more popular responses to

school violence today involve the use of

technology to secure each school and

make it physically difficult for students

to bring weapons onto the campus. Proponents of this approach utilize lessons

learned from airport security and believe

that a visible presence will deter students

from attempting to carry weapons onto

school property. Even where deterrence

fails, however, these advocates argue

that, if properly deployed, their methods

will virtually ensure the detection of most

weapons. They claim this approach will

allow school security staff to prevent

trouble before it occurs. Depending on

each school’s resources and physical design, target hardening usually involves

not only tightened security procedures

but also metal detectors—either mobile

or stationary—at each campus entrance.

Many critics of target-hardening approaches to school safety recognize traditional conflicts between educators and

police and speculate whether such an

oppressive security environment might

worsen relations and harm the educational process. Others question whether

the potential for damage to the educational environment and process might

threaten the very institutions such methods seek to preserve. As all students and

other individuals are forced to enter a

campus through a single point, unintended consequences may result as delays for false positives become common.

the evidence of impact is questionable.

Data show that, typically, the selected

individuals have previously exhibited tendencies to behave aggressively and often

come from families that model and endorse such behaviors. In addition, parents

of these children often rely on coercive

parenting techniques, an approach that

has been established as a strong predictor

of conduct problems in adolescence.a

Two of the known violence prevention

treatment programs are the Second Step

curriculum, intended for preschool children through the fifth grade, and the

Violence Prevention Curriculum for

Adolescents, intended for high schoolers.b

Both are designed to be integrated into an

existing curriculum.

Second Step targets empathy, impulse

control, and anger management skill areas

by presenting cards with pictures of children

engaging in various activities. The reverse

side of each card provides instructions that

teachers may follow for a related lesson.

Students learn appropriate skills by responding to teacher questions regarding

the interactions on the card, watching the

teacher model the skill, and role playing

the same or similar scenarios. Additional

instructional procedures embedded in the

curriculum include problem solving, behavior rehearsal, self-instruction, and other

forms of behavioral modeling.

The Violence Prevention Curriculum was

designed to prevent fighting among high

school students primarily by increasing

knowledge about violence and its effects

and then by introducing an anger management module. This curriculum focuses

on data from homicides and other acts of

violence, both nationally and in the student participants’ own communities.

Anger is explored as a natural emotion, the

consequences of fighting as an expression

of anger are evaluated, and the components

Concerns include the following:

● Will student conflicts be heightened as

they often are when lunchroom procedures produce congested movement?

● Will school scheduling be adversely

affected if security personnel cannot

smoothly process the individuals

attempting to enter?

● Will students purposely create false

positives to slow the entry process and

interrupt the schoolday? Many already

use fire alarms to accomplish such goals.

● If the entry system is slowed, will

searches be restricted, thereby increasing the likelihood of failure?

● Might weapons possession increase

as students demonstrate their skills in

beating the system?

● Is it possible to secure a high school

campus not built (or designed) for

tight security lockdown? Reported experience in securing prisons offers little

optimism for success.

Although any of these events may occur,

planning for such contingencies is infrequent. Critics of this approach contend

that while implementation of such methods may be helpful, reliance on this approach alone may be ineffective and

actually harmful to other educational goals.

Violence prevention

A second, treatment-centered approach

includes efforts to identify the youths most

likely to commit violent acts during school

and to offer them counseling and skillbuilding support. Most often, these violence prevention programs focus on

impulsive or aggressive youths who lack

the social competencies necessary to adapt

appropriately to the school environment

and to peers. Even the most popular violence

prevention programs focus their efforts at

the individual level in the apparent belief

that schools can be made safer if individual

behaviors can be modified; while desirable,

Approaches for Responding to School Violence
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

of fights are analyzed. The instructional

methods offered include didactic presentation of statistics, videotaped studentscripted role-plays, and discussions of

alternatives to fighting.

Despite the popularity of and generally

good reactions to both Second Step and

the Violence Prevention Curriculum, data

to support claims of program effects on

violence prevention over time are scarce.c

Although both programs may increase

knowledge about violence and anger and

improve short-term behavior, long-term

behavioral changes are necessary and

must be documented before either

method can be properly considered effective. In fact, the assumptions supporting

these programs—that students lack the

appropriate social skills to avoid violent

behavior—often do not hold true. For example, some students report violent acts

that are intended solely to extort money,

protect turf, or prove allegiance to friends.

Student-based problem solving

A third approach—student-based problem solving—fosters problem solving

focused on system and environmental

issues. Although some might argue that

this approach is limited, the appeal of

problem-solving models is intuitive and

well supported conceptually from at least

two important perspectives. The first lies

within the criminal justice system. After

recognizing that crime and fear are closely

linked to perceptions of disorder, many (perhaps most) reformers now accept the weaknesses of technological solutions to crime

problems and promote, instead, increased

roles for communities. For example, rather

than assume a traditional reactive, or even

proactive, approach to problems, these advocates call for a coactive function that

stresses partnerships between officials and

the citizens they serve.d Since the formal justice system is empowered to intervene primarily only after an incident has occurred,

prevention and early intervention efforts,

they contend, are largely beyond its reach.

Therefore, citizens working through informal

norms of social control have the best chance

to engage their fellow community members

in the discussion and settlement of differences prior to an incident.e Out of these informal resolutions comes the general sense

of cooperation and civility upon which safe

communities depend.

The second area of support for student-based

problem solving stems from acceptance of

the role of peers in the educational process

and in the development of deviance careers

in juveniles. Earlier, Sutherland theorized that

delinquency and deviance are learned through

intimate associations with peers who have

attitudes favorable to misconduct.f

 More

recently, both the role of peers and the process of bonding to one’s school have been

established as important determinants of

educational behavior and performance.g

a. Reid, J., and G. Patterson, “Early Prevention and Intervention With Conduct Problems:

A Social Interactional Model for the Integration of Research and Practice,” in Interventions for Achievement and Behavior Problems ,

ed. G. Stoner, M. Shinn, and H. Walker,

Washington, DC: National Association of

School Psychologists, 1991.

b. Checkoway, B., “High Hopes for U.S.

Youth: Which Image Will Prevail?” Omaha

World-Herald, February 9, 1993; ProthrowStith, D., Violence Prevention Curriculum for

Adolescents , Newton, MA: Education

Development Center, Inc., 1987.

c. National Institute of Justice, Preventing

Interpersonal Violence Among Youth , Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National

Institute of Justice, 1994 , NCJ 150484.

d. Oettmeier, T., and M. Wycoff, Planning

and Implementation Issues for Community

Oriented Policing: The Houston Experience ,

Washington, DC: Police Executive Research

Forum, 1996.

e. Shonholtz, R., “The Citizen’s Role in Justice: Building a Primary Justice and Prevention

System at the Neighborhood Level,” in Social

Problems: The Search for Solutions , ed. F.

Scarpitti and F. Cylke , Los Angeles, CA:

Roxbury Press, 1995.

f. Sutherland, E., Criminology (4th ed.),

Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, 1947.

g. Steinberg, L., S. Dornbusch, and B. Brown,

“Ethnic Differences in Adolescent Achievement: An Ecological Perspective,” American

Psychologist 47 (1996): 723–729; Cernkovich,

S., and P. Giordano, “School Bonding, Race,

and Delinquency,” Criminology 30 (2) (1992):

261–291.

given worksheets for each step of the

process, peer evaluation sheets, and

personal responsibility logs. The

groups were then told to begin

working.

The students expressed a variety of

concerns about their environment, as

described in “Addressing the Issues.”

Although the usual issues of drugs,

guns, and gangs were included, more

mundane (or everyday) problems (e.g.,

clean restrooms, cafeteria) consistently

emerged ahead of the more sensational

(or rare) ones (e.g., weapons brought to

school, fighting). This was anticipated

based on problem-solving efforts in

other community settings, where

“quality of life” issues have consistently

shaped “community safety” issues. In

fact, from the problem identification

worksheets used by each group, a

consistent picture of school-based

issues emerged. However, while problems in the restrooms, cafeteria, and

parking lots were named by virtually

every group, more narrowly defined

concerns such as a lack of vending

machines and pay phones also emerged.

When all groups had finished all the

steps of problem identification, each

teacher held a large class meeting to

allow each group to present the problems

that had been identified and prioritized

so that the class could select one problem to work on. Each group presented

two to three problems before a problem

to be designated as a “class project”
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

– Efforts to concentrate attention

on those accounting for a disproportionate share of the problem.

– Approaches to convey accurate

information.

– Efforts to alter the physical environment and thus reduce opportunities for recurrence of a problem.

– Activities to alter or increase rules

and policies addressing conditions

that contribute to a problem.14

Regardless of the response option

selected, it is important to guide the

problem-solving group toward manageable goals. Psychologist Karl

Weick points out that as people begin to look at social problems, they

often do so on a massive scale.15 In

so doing, they define such problems

in a way that overpowers all possible

solutions. Participants then experience frustration, dashed excitement,

and helplessness. A more effective

response, Weick argues, is to break

large problems into smaller ones,

thus presenting a series of controllable problems of modest size that

allow for development of specific responses that can succeed. Although

these smaller “wins” may seem less

important individually, when considered together they set an example

that attracts support while reducing

resistance to future efforts.

Finally, participants carefully document all response ideas, large and

small, including the following:

– The problems to be addressed.

– The methods used to identify and

understand the problems.

– The methods chosen to alleviate

the problems.

was selected by class vote. Two alternative problems were also selected.

Four-stage problem-solving

model. The Charlotte School Safety

Program was based on a problemsolving approach consisting of problem

identification (or scanning), analysis,

strategy formulation, and assessment

(or evaluation). (Also see “Methodology” for a discussion of the research

design and data collection process.)

● Problem identification (scanning). During the initial problem

identification (or scanning) stage,

group participants identify and

discuss school issues and determine

which are appropriate for further

work. Issues of interest might include

vandalism, drugs and their availability, physical attacks in restrooms,

and the lighting or general accessibility of campus facilities.

During this stage, group members

gather information about perceived

problems in the school environment.

Their own knowledge—combined

with official records and interviews

with teachers, administrators,

parents, other students, and the

police—may be useful. Members

then present their findings, and the

group determines which problems

require further consideration and

how they should be prioritized.

Problems chosen for further investigation are more clearly defined so

that little ambiguity will exist with

respect to the identified problem.

Problem identification is the most

critical stage because it is here

where a clear goal statement relative to each problem of focus is developed to assist the problem-solving

group in later stages of the process.12

● Analysis. In the analysis stage, the

group gathers more detailed information about identified problems.

This stage consists of four steps:

– Analysis of the forces related to

the problem.

– Brainstorming of alternative

strategies.

– Evaluation of alternative

strategies.

– Specification of the responsibilities of individual group members.

Clearly, the analysis step establishes the foundation for most of the

decisions regarding action and sets

realistic goals for subsequent efforts. Using Goldstein’s original

model, goals may include the total

elimination of the problem, substantial reduction of the problem,

reduction of the harm created by

the problem, and development of

improved methods for dealing with

the problem.13

● Strategy formulation. The strategy

formulation stage encompasses three

objectives: develop a set of response

options consistent with the information gathered, select the response(s),

and implement the response(s).

During this stage, students call

upon police resources; invite student and parental involvement (e.g.,

for cleanup, repair, or peer support); solicit faculty or administrative action; and request assistance

from outside sources. Rather than

relying on traditional responses

alone, anyone who can help may

be invited to do so. Widely ranging

response options should be considered—no approach should be overlooked. Response options might

include the following:
7

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

s the Charlotte School Safety Program progressed, a student-led analysis

suggested a range of responses to the

concerns identified at the test school. For

example, the groups addressing lunchroom conditions quickly agreed that at

the core of the various problems identified were issues of school procedure.

Since virtually all students eat during a

single lunch period, conflicts over seating,

order of service, and the availability of

choice menu items were both obvious

and inevitable. Frustrated students seeking a preferred entree item (pizza rather

than salad, for example) were easily angered as they watched other students,

usually older or larger, cut ahead of them

in the cafeteria’s service line. The fights

and generally hostile atmosphere that

resulted were hardly surprising. While

long-range solutions were developed and

discussed, more immediate results were

accomplished after negotiations with

lunchroom staff opened additional service lines and significantly increased the

menu items most frequently requested.

Interestingly, these negotiations not only

were student initiated but also involved

lunchroom workers who were not involved in, or even aware of, the problemsolving classes.

Where lunchtime issues were straightforward, parking and restroom problems

proved to be more complex. For classes

concerned with parking congestion,

problem analysis involved afterschool

traffic counts and timing of traffic flow.

From data that resulted, several suggestions for parking lot redesigns were developed. With their designs in hand,

A however, the students soon learned that

the school’s administration had already hired

an architectural firm to address these same

concerns and that professionally drawn plans

were being developed. A commitment by

the administration to include student

participation in that process was offered.

While the attendance and tardy policies that

they viewed as overly strict had been their

primary issue, one group realized that many

of these policies had been intended to reduce loitering in the student parking lots.

Following several sessions, the group set

out to build student support to petition for

a return to the earlier, less restrictive school

rules. As group members contacted their

peers, however, they discovered that

their fellow students agreed with the

administration’s policies because they previously had been fearful in the parking lots—

especially in the mornings as they walked

past boisterous groups of students who often harassed them on the way to class. Of

course, this problem-solving group included

students who had gathered in the lots the

previous year, leaving them to conclude that

they had, in fact, been part of the problem.

Declaring themselves to be harmless, this

group at least conceded that solutions to

accommodate everyone’s needs were necessary. Unfortunately, by the time this was

acknowledged, the class time necessary to

develop such solutions was no longer

available.

In addressing restroom-related issues, the

problem-solving groups focused primarily on

cleanliness, smoking policies, and safety. The

need for improved sanitation was demonstrated with photographs taken between

class periods. Although several arguments

for designated smoking sections were

offered, all were rejected because they

would violate North Carolina State law

and school board policy concerning minors in possession of tobacco and the use

of tobacco products in public buildings.

As for the safety issues, recommendations

for increased monitoring were offered

and accepted.

Finally, one group identified and became

immersed in the more general problem of

teen pregnancy and the supports available

to help teenage mothers remain in high

school. Citing national trends and the

views of their fellow students, this class

developed and proposed a program of

student mentoring for junior high school

students that included a sex education

component. Soon, however, they encountered controversy.

After discussing their ideas with teachers

and administrators, disagreements over

the extent to which the proposed efforts

might actually promote sexual activity

among younger students emerged, leading to a requirement that abstinence be

offered as the only advice during the sex

education component. This, however,

was not acceptable to the students developing the plan, leading the students to

withdraw their proposed response. Although disillusionment could have resulted from this experience, the students

were, rather, encouraged through their

participation in the discussion as equals

and their decision to stand on principle.

Discussions about the significance of social problems and the positive view that

“city hall can be fought” occupied much

of this group’s remaining class time.

responses. Group members compare

problem-related data before and

during intervention. Through this

evaluation, group members decide

whether the plan is working (based

● Assessment (or plan evaluation). During the assessment or

plan evaluation stage, group participants again collect data, this time to

evaluate the effectiveness of their

– Participants’ respective roles

in implementing the solutions

selected.

– The outcomes determined during

the evaluation phase of the process.

Addressing the Issues
8

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

youths who traditionally have invested

the least in the educational process.

Typically, ethnic minorities drop out

at a rate higher than whites; studies

indicate that, in some urban areas, as

many as 40 to 60 percent of black adolescents drop out before completing

their education.18 Although various explanations have been offered to clarify

this disparity in outcome, considerable

evidence suggests that minority students simply experience school in

ways that differ qualitatively from the

experiences of their white peers.19 In

short, the process of “school bonding”

successful, the guided group process

reduces school crime and disorder and

improves the overall school climate as

well. As students accept responsibility

for their school environment, they develop improved attitudes regarding the

police, their peers, the fairness and

clarity of school and social rules, their

own abilities to influence change, and

even school itself.17

While such improvements are generally anticipated, recent research

suggests that they may be more

pronounced among minorities and

on the goal statement made during

the problem identification or scanning stage) and make plans to solve

other problems. If the plan is ineffective, the group revisits the problem-solving steps, beginning with

scanning, to determine whether the

problem was identified correctly.16

Outcomes. As envisioned, schoolbased problem-solving groups are

established to change attitudes and/or

behaviors of group members and to

function as agents of change offering

the skills and knowledge needed to

bring about the desired change. If

roject evaluation was designed

to measure effects on students, teachers,

and the experimental school itself. A

four-stage problem-solving model was

employed that encompassed problem

identification (scanning), analysis, strategy formulation, and assessment (evaluation). The quasi-experimental research

design used measures collected in three

survey waves. During each wave, impact

data were captured from more than 450

students attending 2 schools (1 experimental and 1 control). In each setting,

project participants consisted of the

11th-grade students who attended each

school’s mandatory social sciences classes

during the 1994–95 school year.

The data collection phase began during

May of the 1993–94 pretest school year

as participating students completed the

10th grade. Information was gathered

from police records, school records, and

demographic data, and the Effective

School Battery—an instrument measuring

school climate, student and staff attitudes,

and self-reported behaviors—was initially

administered to students and teachers.

The curriculum design process and

schedules for the problem-solving classes

P were also developed at this time, and the

process evaluation began as well. The remaining planning and curriculum development sessions were held during the summer

months before the start of the new school

year.

The test school and a control school were

chosen based on matching relevant variables, including student demographics,

performance, participation, and discipline.

Teacher characteristics, including percentage

of staff assigned to teaching, teacher experience, and educational level of the teaching

staff, were also considered.

Staff at the test school agreed to implement

the School Safety Program, including the

problem-solving classes. The police department agreed to participate in experimental

classes by furnishing a police liaison officer

and to commit additional officers as needed

for problem solution strategies. Meanwhile,

the control school agreed to participate fully

in the project’s data collection process while

receiving only the existing levels of police

services—one officer assigned to campus

with no specific duties or tasks. To measure

program outcomes, both process and outcome evaluations were conducted. The

evaluation results allowed for comparisons

among individual participants and at the

schoolwide level.

The actual experimental treatments were

introduced as the 1994–95 school year

began. As the project progressed, evaluation staff regularly visited both schools,

paying particular attention to introduction

and operation of the problem-solving

classes. The second and third waves of

data collection followed at approximately

5-month intervals to coincide with

completion of the school year’s two semesters. During each wave, data were

collected from both schools, all teachers,

and all participating students. From the

students, all data were gathered on a

single day as a regular part of class, in

their regularly assigned classrooms.

Data collection at the control school was

scheduled so that the process could be repeated with staff and teachers as they attended their weekly afterschool faculty

meetings. Since the test school’s meeting

schedule was less flexible, staff and teachers self-administered their data collection

instruments during the school day and returned their responses in sealed envelopes

to the teacher in charge of the school’s

history and social science department.

Methodology
9

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

appears to be far weaker among minority adolescents. It is reasoned, and

related research suggests, that empowering youths within their own environments significantly increases school

attachment and student commitment—

of both white and minority youths.20

As students’ investment in the school

environment increases, school performance should be affected as well.

Findings

The critical element of the project was

considered to be impact on the fear

that students and teachers had been

experiencing in the test school. Where

substantial levels of fear among the

students and teachers had been noted

during the project’s pretest, significant

reductions had occurred by the second

(December 1994) and third (May 1995)

waves of data collection. By the end of

the project year, the percentage of students in the experimental school who

were afraid that someone would hurt or

bother them during school hours decreased by more than 40 percent. In

addition, the school’s administration

reported a 29-percent schoolwide reduction in incidents requiring student

suspension, including 70 percent fewer

“student-student conflict” and 46 percent fewer “student-teacher conflict”

suspensions. For each item, no significant differences were found in the

control school during the same time

period. Additional findings included

the following.

Fear among the students. At the

end of the 1993–94 pretest school

year, nearly 7 percent of the test

school’s 10th-grade class reported

that they “almost never” felt safe while

in the school building. Only slightly

more than half (54 percent) reported

“almost always” feeling safe, and at

least 45 percent of these students were

concerned for their safety at least

sometimes while attending school. Although many students may have witnessed and reported one or only a few

student-teacher conflicts, the impressions of disorder were nonetheless

considerable. Locations of specific

concern included the school’s hallways

and stairs, cafeteria, and restrooms.

Students from the control school felt

only slightly safer. Where 27 percent

of the test school’s participating students had reported at the end of the

1993–94 pretest school year that they

usually tried to “stay away” from

school restrooms out of fear of being

hurt or bothered, by December of the

project year only 20 percent felt so,

and only 16 percent felt so by project

completion. Meanwhile, no significant

differences were observed in the control school, suggesting that the results

were not due to student maturation.

In addition, prior to the project, more

than 11 percent of the test school’s

10th graders had stated that they were

“almost always” afraid that someone

would hurt or bother them at school,

and another 35 percent experienced

such fear sometimes. Approximately

15 percent were similarly fearful on

their way to and from school. To support these concerns, 22 percent reported that they had needed to fight to

protect themselves during the current

school term. By project completion,

fewer than 1 in 10 students had to

fight to protect themselves as compared with nearly 1 in 5 during the

last school term before the start of

the project.

At the end of the 1993–94 pretest

school year, 51 percent of the students

in the test school had seen a teacher

threatened by a student, and more

than 16 percent reported actually

having seen a teacher hit or attacked.

By project completion, the number of

students who reported having seen a

teacher threatened by a student declined by one-third, and those who reported witnessing a physical attack on

a teacher dropped by more than half.

Fear among the teachers. Personal

safety at school was not merely of

concern to students. At the end of

the 1993–94 pretest school year,

29 percent of the test school’s teachers

reported that vandalism, personal

attacks, and theft were either “very”

or, at least, “fairly much” a problem.

While fewer than 20 percent were

personally the victims of property

damage, theft of personal property, or

physical attack, nearly two-thirds of

teachers participating reported that

they had received obscene remarks

or gestures from students during the

past month—36 percent were directly

threatened by remarks from students.

In evaluating their school environment, a significant proportion of the

test school’s teachers felt either very

or fairly unsafe during school hours

in their school’s hallways and stairs,

cafeteria, locker rooms and gym,

restrooms, and parking lots. Nearly

one-tenth expressed feeling very unsafe or fairly unsafe in their own classrooms while teaching. Because of such

fear, 44 percent of the school’s teachers admitted that they had hesitated to

confront misbehaving students for fear

of their own safety at least once or

twice during the school year.

While effects on the teachers were

more difficult to assess than effects on

the students, by project completion a

considerably increased percentage of

teachers reported feeling “very safe”

while in their classrooms, the school’s

hallways or stairs, restrooms used by

students, locker rooms and the gym,

and the school’s parking lots, although
10

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

none of these improvements was statistically significant at the standard 0.05

level. Deteriorating conditions at the

control school were significant, however, although actual victimization

appeared to have changed little. Meanwhile, victimization at the test school

showed considerable, although not

statistically significant, improvement.

When asked to assess school safety

more generally, the test school’s

teachers were even more positive.

Where 29 percent reported during the

project’s pretest that vandalism, personal attacks, and theft were either

“fairly much” or “very much” a problem in their school, by the project’s

end only 12 percent continued to

feel so. Similarly, while in May 1994

nearly half felt that their teaching was

disrupted either “a great deal” or at

least “a fair amount” by the behavior

(such as talking or fighting) of some

students in their classrooms, this fell

to 36 percent during the project’s

problem-solving activities. Not surprisingly, the willingness of test school

teachers to confront misbehaving students rose sharply during the project

year.

Conclusions

During the 1994–95 school year, the

Charlotte School Safety Program was

introduced to test the ability of students

to organize into problem-solving groups

and work with teachers, administrators,

and the police to reduce the problems

of crime, disorder, and fear on campus. Although the results are promising, a few general observations should

be noted.

First, the most significant problems

in our schools may not be as we often

imagine them. Gangs, drugs, and

armed agitators may receive the most

attention; however, most of the conflicts uncovered during this project

were part of everyday school interactions. For example, an insufficient

supply of pizza in a limited number

of lunchroom service lines created far

more campus disorder than any of the

more frequently addressed concerns.

In short, as has been often found in

other community settings, taking care

of the “little things” will often satisfy

the larger issues.

Second, a school’s students are interested in a safer, more orderly school

environment. While many assumed

that participation rates in the project’s

problem-solving efforts would be low,

teachers and project observers were

consistently impressed by the extent of

involvement. Recall the group that discovered during analysis that they were

themselves an important part of their

school’s problems—although their

discussions were boisterous, even they

acknowledged the need for policies to

meet all community members’ needs.

Finally, the environment where this

effort was attempted was receptive,

if not enthusiastic, about the project.

Having encountered previous problems

of campus disorder, the test school’s

teachers and administrators were

open to increased student influence

in school governance, and they were

willing to invest the time necessary to

modify their own class curriculums to

support project activities. Administrators, meanwhile, received the students

as legitimate members of the school

community, giving full and fair consideration to their ideas for improvement.

As a result, students’ efforts were

encouraged and reinforced. In a less

supportive environment, however,

it is equally likely that students’ participation and commitment to selfdetermination could be irreparably

harmed if they perceived that their

views were not considered seriously.

Notes

1. National Institute of Education, Violent

Schools—Safe Schools: The Safe School Study

Report to the Congress, Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, 1978.

2. National School Safety Center, “School

Crime: Annual Statistical Snapshot,” School

Safety (Winter 1989).

3. Hall, J., “The Knife in the Book Bag,” Time

(May 22, 1993); Toch, T., T. Guest, and M.

Guttman, “Violence in Schools: When Killers

Come Home,” U.S. News and World Report

(November 8, 1993).

4. National Center for Education Statistics, The

Condition of Education, 1989, Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, 1989.

5. National School Safety Center, “AFT Survey

Validates Problems,” School Safety (Fall 1989).

6. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the

United States, 1993, Washington, DC: Federal

Bureau of Investigation, 1994; National School

Boards Association, Violence in the Schools:

How America’s School Boards Are Safeguarding

Our Children, Washington, DC: National

School Boards Association, 1993.

7. National Parents’ Resource Institute for

Drug Education, Summary of Results—Students’ Survey, Atlanta, GA: Pride, Inc., 1998.

8. Skogan, W., and M. Maxfield, Coping With

Crime, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,

1981.

9. Police Executive Research Forum, 1993;

Eck, 1992; Sherman, 1989; Diamond, 1993.

10. Bednar, R., and T. Kaul, “Experimental

Group Research: Current Perspectives,” in

Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior

Change: An Empirical Analysis (2d ed.), ed. S.

Garfield and A. Bergin, New York: John Wiley

and Sons, 1978; Corder, B., T. Haizlip, R.

Whiteside, and M. Vogel, “Pre-therapy Training for Adolescents in Group Psychotherapy:

Contracts, Guidelines, and Pre-therapy Preparation,” Adolescence 15 (1980): 699–706.
11

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Findings and conclusions of the research

reported here are those of the author(s) and do

not necessarily reflect the official position or

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Dennis Jay Kenney, Ph.D., is currently Associate Director and the

Director of Research for the Police

Executive Research Forum.

Steuart Watson, Ph.D., is currently

a Professor and Coordinator of the

Clinical Intervention Services ProNCJ 177618

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice

Programs, which also includes the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for

Victims of Crime. This and other NIJ publications can be found at and downloaded from the NIJ

Web site (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij).

11. Bednar and Kaul, Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change.

12. Bergan, J., and M. Tombari, “Consultive

Skill and Efficiency and the Implementation

and Outcomes of Consultation,” Journal of

School Psychology 14 (1976): 3–14; Hollister,

W., and F. Miller, “Problem-Solving Strategies

in Consultation,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 47 (1977): 445–450; Lazarus, A.,

Multimodal Behavior Therapy, New York:

Springer, 1976.

13. Goldstein, H., Problem Oriented Policing,

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990.

14. Ibid.

15. Weick, K., “Small Wins: Redefining the

Scale of Social Problems,” American Psychologist 39 (1) (1984): 40–49.

16. Eck, J., and W. Spelman, Problem Solving:

Problem-Oriented Policing in Newport News,

Washington, DC: Police Executive Research

Forum, 1987.

17. Smith, H., “Group vs. Individual Problem

Solving and Type of Problem Solved,” Small

Group Behavior 20 (1989): 357–366.

18. Reed, R., “Education and Achievement of

Young Black Males,” in Young, Black, and

Male in America: An Endangered Species, ed. J.

Gibbs, Dover, MA: Auburn House, 1988.

19. Cernkovich and Giordano, “School Bonding, Race, and Delinquency,” 261–291.

20. For descriptions of related efforts, see

Koba, S., “What Works for a Prize-Winning

Teacher: Building Community, Student-Centered Classroom, Quality World,” Omaha

World-Herald (March 5, 1993): 17; and

Checkoway, “High Hopes for U.S. Youth:

Which Image Will Prevail?”

gram in the School of Psychology at

Mississippi State University.

This project was supported under

award 93–IJ–CX–0026 from the National Institute of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, U.S. Department

of Justice.

Quick Access to NIJ Publication News

For news about NIJ’s most recent publications, including solicitations for grant applications,

subscribe to JUSTINFO, the bimonthly newsletter sent to you via e-mail. Here’s how:

Or check out the “Publications and Products” section at the NIJ home page: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

or the “New This Week” section at the Justice Information Center home page:

http://www.ncjrs.org

● Send an e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

● Leave the subject line blank

● Type subscribe justinfo your name

(e.g., subscribe justinfo Jane Doe) in the body of the message