SCHOOL VIOLENCE LESSONS LEARNED.

Bell, Julie Davis

Existing laws haven't been effective in curbing youth violence. Lawmakers now are taking a different, more comprehensive tack that focuses prevention, not just deterrence.

"In my opinion, you must go to the root of a problem to solve it. The root of violence is ignorance toward each other. To stop it, we can teach kids in the early years of school that it is wrong to be ignorant toward one another. The early years are vital in teaching kids what is right and wrong, and we need to teach the upcoming generation of kids to have compassion, not hate."-Jeremy Myles, sophomore, Columbine High School, Littleton, Colo.

"I think it would be good if we enhanced some of the tactics we are using already, like assigning officers to the schools. It's a good idea, but there is a lot of mistrust among the students and the police, so it would work better if there were a trustful relationship established."-Mario Benavidez, college student, Albuquerque, N.M.

"The teachers at our school don't do much when students fight. They resolve fights and violence in school by handing out in-school suspensions, and that doesn't resolve anything. [Punishments] need to get more creative. Teachers and principals don't know how to react to school violence.-Rachael Robinson, 13, Chippewa Falls Middle School, Chippewa Falls, Wisc.

"It's up to the government and the community [to solve the problem] because some people don't care until someone gets hurt. I would tell legislators not to wait until someone gets hurt to do something about it."-Takeia White, 17, High School of Redemption, New York, N.Y.

It was the story of the decade, and it will dramatically shape public policy as we begin the new century. Twelve innocent students and one teacher dead. Twenty hurt. All victims of two teenage gunmen who committed suicide after their rampage. The aftershocks shook the country and extended beyond Columbine into every state, every town and every school. Overnight, youth violence was everybody's problem.

For more than a decade, state legislatures have passed laws to create safe schools and curb violent young people. They've allowed law enforcement and school officials to share records, created conflict resolution and peer mediation programs, authorized the use of video cameras and metal detectors in schools, and made it a crime for students to possess weapons at school. During the so-called summers of violence in 1993 and 1994, there was a flurry of activity as 10 legislatures held special sessions focused on crime, many of them called to respond to gang-related homicides. But nothing focused national attention on the problem like the shooting this past year at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo. The day after Columbine, legislators across the country were once again asking, "What can we do?"

FOCUS ON CAUSES, NOT PUNISHMENT

Senator Norma Anderson, whose district includes Columbine High School, points out that Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris broke 17 state laws.

Why haven't existing laws been effective?

"Many after-the-fact punitive reactions focus on deterrents rather than causes of the problem," says Del Elliot, director of the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the University of Colorado at Boulder. "Serious violence continues because the underlying problems are never addressed."

Legislators took the punitive approach for most of this decade as gang violence and drive-by shootings escalated in the early 90s. They stiffened penalties for juvenile offenders and, most notably, sent more juveniles into the adult criminal justice system. But post-Columbine, the discussion has increasingly focused on preventing the violence. In other words, how do we identify at-risk kids early and provide help to prevent violent behavior?

To do so requires a much more comprehensive approach than lawmakers have attempted in the past. In a legislative structure that divides policy into committees, it is relatively easy to pass narrowly focused solutions, such as stiffer penalties for weapons possession or funding for metal detectors for schools. It is much more difficult for a legislature to design solutions that involve the economic, education, human service, health and justice areas. Yet in the wake of Columbine, legislators are more willing than ever to recognize that the problems of youth violence are multiple and complex and require solutions that are comprehensive and coordinated.

FRAMING THE ISSUE

Most researchers who speak about school violence agree on four fundamental facts. First, schools are safe places for children. A new New York Times/CBS News poll found that while about half of American teenagers believe that a murderous rampage could erupt at their schools, they also report fewer problems with violence both at school and in the streets and fewer worries about becoming victims of crime.

Their opinions appear to be substantiated by statistics. According to the U.S. departments of Education and Justice, of the more than 2,500 children who were murdered or committed suicide in the first half of the 1997-98 school year, less than 1 percent were at school or at a school-sponsored event. Even though the chances of being murdered at school are less than being struck by lightning, the numbers of multiple homicides at schools have increased in the '90s and the frightening images remain burned, into our minds. These images have spurred parents, school officials and policymakers everywhere to act.

Second, the problem is not just school violence, it's youth violence. The seeds of violence aren't rooted in school nor can they be solved only at school. Actually, most juvenile crime occurs off school grounds and peaks between 3 and 4 p.m. on school days.

Third, the roots of and solutions to school violence touch on student mental health, strength of family and neighborhood, access to weapons, juvenile and criminal law, and the prevalence of violence in the media, among others. There is no single place to focus.

"We've got to quit thinking in categories," says William Modzeleski, director of the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program at the U.S. Department of Education.

The fourth fact: Solutions must be multi-faceted. There is no quick fix and no single solution. And solutions cannot be devised in isolation. Effective policies include different responses to many family and youth issues. The best policies encourage collaboration between states and communities and between schools, law enforcement agencies, mental health, and children and family services. Modzeleski cites a classic bad example of a school he recently visited: The security officer didn't know the counselor who didn't know the social worker who didn't know the new anti-bullying program director. Each professional was in a different program that was supported by different funding. No one was working together.

This is only part of the framework. And it is the rational part. There is also a strong emotional part which legislators can expect to encounter as they begin to explore the problems and the solutions. It is difficult to talk about stopping school violence without talking about guns, for example, and the discussion about gun control and constitutional rights is always intense. Legislators can expect groups on both sides of this issue to be well mobilized and to demand attention.

Second, issues of race have permeated post-Columbine discussions. Some argue that America is only now feeling the shock of youth violence because it is rearing its head in white suburban areas, rather than in the minority urban neighborhoods. Representative Gilda Cobb Hunter, the Democratic House leader in South Carolina argues, "Some of us involved in this have been asking a question that we haven't really gotten an answer to. Is this an issue now because of who the victims were and who the perpetrators were? And why is it so important now that we do something when in some communities, both rural and urban, this has been an issue for a long time?"

Third, trying to understand the causes of a violent event always results in finger pointing. Senator Anderson speaks about the shock, grief and anger experienced by citizens in her constituency. Some people deal with it through prayer, others want retribution, still others want to sue.

The best approach may be to acknowledge all the different contributing factors. Says Anderson, "The government is guilty, the parents are guilty. There's a lack of discipline. There's television and video games. It's the schools or alcohol and drugs." And yet speaking as one who's looked for answers, she says, "It's all of us, believe me.

THE ROLE OF THE LEGISLATURE

So what's a legislator to do? Every state has a complex set of laws, evolved over many years, that sets forth the rights and responsibilities of educators and defines their relationship to law enforcement authorities and the juvenile justice system. Rarely are those laws in a comprehensive package.

The Kentucky legislature was in the midst of developing legislation that has become an example for states looking for a comprehensive approach to school violence when a 14-year-old boy killed three students and wounded five during a prayer meeting at a West Paducah, Ky., high school on Dec. 1, 1997. Lawmakers went on to pass the major bipartisan bill developed by a working group of juvenile justice and mental health professionals, principals, teachers, parents, university staff and young people.

It built upon laws passed in 1996 and earlier.

Kentucky's approach is to provide financial incentives for interagency agreements--those involving juvenile justice, schools, and children and family agencies. It requires police officers to notify school principals and teachers about students involved in violent crimes. Students expelled from school have to be provided with alternative education. "The role of the legislature is to provide a framework for safe schools and assist them in achieving that goal," says Representative Harry Moberly Jr., the 1998 bill's principal sponsor.

Lawmakers were careful to maintain a balance between state and local authority. More than 80 percent of Kentucky schools have school-based decision making, which helps ensure that plans and programs fit individual needs.

The 1998 legislation established a Center for School Safety at Eastern Kentucky University that will track the success of new programs. It provides $5 million the first year and $10 million the second year to help schools develop violence prevention plans, fund and administer those plans, collect statewide data and information, and provide technical support to schools. To make sure the center provides services in a "lean and mean fashion," Moberly has challenged schools to tell him if the center is coming up with real solutions. It's a classic carrot and stick approach. This form of legislative oversight is supplemented with financial incentives. "In the future, I'd like to look toward pots of money that could be accessed only if agencies cooperate," says Moberly. "As chair of the Appropriations Committee, that's the way I look at things."

Kansas and Missouri laws also require collaboration among agencies. A 1995 Missouri law gave priority to local government and school partnerships for crime prevention funds. A 1999 Kansas enactment requires school districts to work in collaboration with community mental health centers to provide services in school settings that focus on violence prevention. Recognizing the importance of mental health, Washington now allows for detention and mental health assessment of juveniles who possess guns on school grounds. Arizona has appropriated funds for probation and law enforcement officers in schools. Tennessee and North Carolina, like Kentucky, have established safe school centers.

Another important role for legislatures is making sure that state money is invested in effective programs.

"We as legislators have our favorite pet program that we want to keep alive. Let's make sure those programs we use have research behind them and show results before we spend money on them," says Anderson.

WHAT DOES A SAFE SCHOOL LOOK LIKE?

Modzeleski, Elliot and others agree on a rather simple, but powerful, framework for safe schools. The principles have been incorporated into the U.S. departments of Education, Justice, Health and Human Services' Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, which supports innovative and comprehensive community programs and provides grants to qualifying programs. Safe schools share certain characteristics:

* Leadership: Safe schools have strong leaders--principals, school board members, teachers, parents and others.

* High academic standards: It is difficult for students and teachers to concentrate on school work when they are worried about safety. Some youths skip school because they are afraid of being bullied or assaulted. Research shows that safe schools have higher test scores and other positive academic outcomes than unsafe schools.

* Service for all kids: Safe schools don't let kids fall through the cracks.

* Safety plan: Safe schools balance prevention, intervention and security. Safe schools evaluate plans regularly, use research on effective programs and include suggestions from the community.

* Comprehensive strategies: Safe schools recognize that children today often don't have a single problem, but many. Safe schools don't just add more programs. They create links between resource staff.

* Community: Safe schools develop partnerships in the community, establishing good relationships with law enforcement, clergy, mental health services, youth services and others.

* Teacher training and resources: Safe schools provide teachers with the resources and training to address students' problems, including poor social skills, alcohol and drug use, availability of guns, and lack of family support.

Legislatures everywhere are grappling with the problem of taking many years of facts and laws and reworking them into a comprehensive, research-based plan for involving communities, families and schools in devising solutions to youth violence.

It may be one of the most difficult missions legislatures will undertake in the next decade, and it may be the most important. It may not always succeed. "What we realize now," says Senator Anderson, "is that Klebold and Harris were motivated by just plain hate."

Mary Fairchild is. NCSL'S expert on juvenile justice. Julie Davis Bell heads the Education Prgram.

WHAT WORKS?

Legislators who want to know what kinds of activities and programs work to violence in schools and elsewhere can look at a growing body of research. A number of states and communities across the country have prevention strategies with the right mix of ingredients. The successful approaches use extensive data to identify the true cause of the problem, test the effectiveness of interventions, provide ongoing treatment and take preventive steps.

Pennsylvania, Kansas and Washington state have implemented this approach. Using the successful Communities that Care model from the Developmental Research Programs in Seattle, Wash., citizens identify risk factors--drug and alcohol abuse, family instability, school failure, negative peer influences such as encouragement to skip school and a family history of crime--that are most common in their communities and then develop ways to reduce these problems.

Each jurisdiction identifies the most troubling issues in its respective communities. Problems are then matched with programs that work to reduce specific factors. It's too soon to tell if it's working.

"It's a growing body of science that indicates that if you do certain things when risk factors are present, then you can prevent the problem behavior from occurring," says Clay Yeager, executive director of the Governor's Community Partnership for Safe Children in Pennsylvania. "We've done a lousy job of educating the public about risk factors for trouble in adolescence. We know risk factors associated with heart disease, but how many people can name the 19 risk factors for adolescent misbehavior?"

Once citizens identify problems in their communities, they can apply for state grants for programs that reduce these risk factors and juvenile crime. Pennsylvania is investing $4 million to replicate Blueprints for Violence Prevention programs, which have proved effective in other parts of the country. They are directed at all age groups from early childhood through adolescence and include at-risk youths and those involved in the juvenile justice system. Half take place in schools. They include proven approaches on such things as mentoring, home visits by nurses, family therapy, programs to discourage drug use, plans to prevent bullying, graduation incentives for high school students, and specialized foster care for serious and chronic juvenile offenders.

"I never would have guessed when I got into juvenile justice 20 years ago that today we would be talking about home visitation by trained nurses as a way to prevent youth violence," says Yeager, a former chief probation officer. Having a process in place like Communities That Care helps put together the pieces of the violence prevention puzzle that at first glance may not appear to fit.

"The question we ask ourselves is what role does government have?" says Yeager. "Government has never been very successful at prescribing a program to replace the family or the church or any of those institutions that bind us all together. It's important that it is a community response. That's why we like the process of local leadership we have in place in Pennsylvania--local people addressing local problems."

The Hamilton Fish National Institute on Schools and Community Violence is another important resource for information about programs that work. The institute conducted a rigorous evaluation of school-based programs designed to prevent and reduce antisocial and violent behavior and substance abuse. Some programs have been implemented in only one school; others have been replicated. Examples include the Peer Mediation Program, developed by the National Center for Conflict Resolution Education in Urbana, Ill. This program, for students in grades 6-12, was evaluated in an urban setting and included ethnically diverse students whose antisocial and violent behavior were reduced by 19 percent. An Alabama program to help children cope with anger showed a 30 percent reduction in these behaviors.