Violence Prevention in Rural Schools

1
Violence Prevention in Rural Schools

• Challenges and Opportunities
• Presented by Dr. Joy Renfro, Associate
  Professor
• Eastern Kentucky University Violence Prevention
  Project
• A subcontractor of the Hamilton Fish Institute on
  School and Community Violence

2
Changes occurring in rural communities

• Despite the common stereotype of rural
  communities as places of serene stability, life
  in rural communities and small towns is subject
  to the same changing societal forces affecting
  the rest of America.

3
Changes occurring in rural communities

• Major trends in rural America include
• Changing structure of the family
• Rise in female-headed households
• Increased mobility within society
• Changing economic picture
• Increasingly diverse population

4
Rural School Trends

• Many communities lost their rural schools as
  school districts consolidated
• The number of school districts has decreased from
  128,000 in 1930 to approximately 15,600 by the
  late 1990s
• In rural areas that are adjacent to urban areas,
  schools are struggling to keep up with the influx
  of new students

5
Rural School Trends

• Most schools are rural schools
• In 1997-98, more public schools were classified
  as rural (21,636) than any other community type
  (e.g., large city, midsize, large town, small
  town, etc.)
• During the 1998-99 school year, 27.8 of children
  attended public schools in rural communities and
  small towns.

6
Rural School Trends

• Rural residents are less educated than urban
  residents.
• 23.5 of rural residents 18 and older do not have
  a high school diploma as compared to 17.4 of
  urban residents
• Rural youth are more likely to drop out of high
  school (20 rural vs. 15 urban) and rural youth
  are less likely to return to school or get a GED.
• Rural youth are less likely to go to college (23
  rural vs. 29 urban) and are less likely to
  graduate from college (13 rural vs. 23 urban)

7
Rural Crime Facts

• In 1997, violent crimes in cities with
  populations of 1 million people or more dropped
  6.2, while rural counties experienced a 3.1
  increase.
• The majority of arrestees in rural counties were
  white (79) and over the age of 18 (88).
• From 1993-1998, there has been less of a decrease
  in violent and property crime rates in rural
  areas than in urban and suburban areas, though
  overall violent crime rates are still lower in
  rural areas.

8
Rural Crime Facts

• Rural violent crime victims are less likely to be
  victimized by a stranger than urban or suburban
  victims.
• The percentage of homicides involving an intimate
  is greater in rural areas (21) than in large
  cities (7)
• Despite an overall decrease in homicide trends,
  most of the decrease has occurred in large cities
  with rural areas experiencing relatively little
  change in homicide prevalence.

9
Rural Crime Facts

• The most common location for rural victims of
  violent crime was their homes (18). For urban
  and suburban areas, the most common areas were
  open places such as on the street, or in public
  transportation.
• Rural violent offenders are less likely (8) than
  suburban (9) or urban (12) violent offenders to
  use a firearm.

10
Rural Crime Facts

• Rural residents of races other than black or
  white were twice as likely to be victims of
  violent crime as were black or white rural
  residents.
• The rates of victimization were
• 31 white 34 black 68 other

11
Why Rural Matters Kentucky Data

• The Appalachian Regional Education Laboratory
  (www.ael.org) has compiled profiles of the four
  states in their region and has found that
  Kentucky has
• The highest percentage of rural adults with less
  than a 12th grade education
• The highest percentage of rural schools with
  declining enrollments.
• The third highest percentage of rural students
  who are free lunch eligible.

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
EKU School Partners

• In 1999, EKU partnered with three rural Kentucky
  high schools
• Freshmen in all three schools were surveyed using
  the National School Crime and Safety Survey

17
EKU School Partners

• Schools 2 3 are in the same county with a
  total population of 57,000
• School 1 has a county population of 16,000
• School 1 (in county 1) had a total number of
  794 students N (freshmen) 238
• School 2 had a total number of 971 students with
  N (freshmen) 269
• School 3 had a total number of 996 students with
  N (freshmen) 280

18
EKU School Partners

• Median household income in county 1 21,156
• Median household income in County 2 24,225

19
EKU School Partners

• Percentage of children in poverty
• County 1 38.5
• County 2 30.4
• Ky. average is 32
• U.S. Average is 18

20
EKU School Partners

• Percentage of adults with no high school diploma
• County 1 55
• County 2 44
• Ky. Average is 50.9
• Ky. Non-rural average is 37.8

21
Problems facing rural schools

• It is a well-known fact that both community
  action and educational reform are needed to
  prevent violence.
• problems facing rural schools are strongly
  related to low economic conditions and low
  educational attainment by the adult role models
  in their lives.

22
Factors that place children at risk of
delinquency

• Abuse, neglect and/or violence in the home
• Factors related to family functioning, including
  chemical and mental health problems, divorce,
  death, and other family upheaval
• Lack of supportive relationships or connections
  with adults and peers
• Criminal or delinquent histories of parents or
  siblings
• Early, severe anti-social behavior
• Poor school attendance, school failure
• Early first contact with police or documented
  incident of delinquency
• Open child protective services cases

23
Problems facing rural schools

• Unlike their urban counterparts rural schools may
  face a compounded, more difficult challenge
• Along with a lack or resources (DeYoung
  Lawrence, 1995), a commonly held belief in many
  rural schools is that they dont have the
  problems of racism, violence and general decay
  that more metropolitan schools have (Herzog
  Pittman, 1995).
• As a result, comprehensive programs to address
  problems of violent behavior in rural schools are
  not developed, nor are they addressed. If they
  are, they are usually fragmented approaches and
  have little chance of solving the problems.

24
Risk factors (continued)

• In a survey of three rural schools districts
  conducted by Petersen, Beekley, Speaker, and
  Pietrzak in 1996, researchers found that school
  personnel believed that the major elements
  related to school violence were
• Lack of family involvement, supervision and
  family violence

25
Problems continued

• If rural school administrators do not perceive
  violence as a problem that effects their school
  they are more likely to resist school violence
  prevention efforts or to put less effort into
  implementing these programs.
• Rural schools administrators may be more inclined
  to believe that the family should be the entity
  to deal with violent youth behaviors.

26
The link between academic performance and
victimization among rural students

• Kingery, Pruitt, and Hurley (1996) found that
  poor academic performance appeared to be linked
  to victimization among rural students.
• Student who are victims of violence are also more
  likely to be aggressors
• Aggressive youth, in turn, are found to have
  lower IQ and academic performance(Griffin 1987),
  and low cognitive problem-solving skills.
• Therefore the relationship between violence and
  academic performance may be circular.

27
Our Schools Performance

• A national norm reference test used in Kentucky,
  the CTBS/5, measures the basic skills of our
  students while allowing us to compare their
  performance with national benchmarks established
  in 1996. Scores are shown in percentiles
  (percentage of students who fell below a
  particular score on the test).

28
Our Schools Academic Performance
29
Other Measures
30
EKUs VP Project

• Design
• Two control schools and one intervention school
• The National School Crime and Safety Survey was
  administered on 4 occasions to all freshmen
  students
• Fall 1999, Spring 2000, Fall 2000, Spring 2001
• Staff members at all three schools took the staff
  form of the survey in Spring of 2000 and Spring
  2001

31
Participants.

• 98.3 of the students who took the survey were
  freshmen at the initiation of the project and
  98.3 were sophomores at the end of the 2-year
  project
• 196 were male (46.7
• 224 were female (53.3)
• 392 (95.1) were White 3 (.7) were
  African-American 1 Hispanic (.2) 5 (1.2)
  Other and 11 (2.7) Multi-ethnic

32
Living situation of students

• 272 65.5 living with Mom and Dad
• 92 22.2 Mom only
• 11 27.0 Dad only
• 40 not living with Mom or Dad 9.6
• 27 Other 6.5

33
Completion Rates

• Seven-hundred eighty-four (784) students began
  the study in Fall 1999 when they were Freshmen
• 321 completed all four surveys (41 response
  rate)
• 24 cases were bad matches and were eliminated
  from the remainder of the analysis
• 420 students were present in the school for the
  whole study and completed surveys at times 1 and
  4 and one other time for a completion rate of
  53.6.

34
EKUs VP Project

• Interventions included
• School Coordinator to assist with all VP efforts
  at school works closely with Youth Services
  Center
• Conflict resolution training for all freshmen
• SADD student organization
• VP Curriculum for Adolescents taught to all
  students referred for behavior problems
• Professional development session for teachers on
  Importance of good student/teacher
  relationships
• Enhancement of Character Education program
• School security audit/crisis response drill
• Committee who monitors violent incidents
• Purchased an interactive computer program
  Relate for Teens

35
Results

• In fall of 1999, the intervention school had the
  highest scores in victimization, perpetration,
  and the willingness to fight.
• By May 2001 this trend was reversed so that the
  intervention school was lowest in victimization,
  perpetration, and willingness to fight.
• None of these trends were statistically
  significant, however the reduction in
  perpetration of .50 points is a reduction of
  about 1 incident of perpetration per student in a
  30-day period.
• This finding then is significant in the
  experience of violence from the students
  perspective.

36
Victimization Higher Score Equal More
Victimization
Control
Intervention
37
Perpetration Higher Score Equal More
Perpetration
Control
Intervention
38
Motivation to Fight Higher Score More
Motivation
Intervention
Control
39
Results - continued

• In addition to the surveys, structured interviews
  were conducted with groups of administrators,
  teachers, and students.
• These interviews revealed improved awareness of
  the administration toward issues related to
  school safety and violence prevention. Because
  of their improved awareness administrators had
  made changes in policies, and had increased their
  attention to safety and security within the
  school.
• It is our believe that the improved awareness,
  change in policies and increased attention to
  safety will ultimately result in changes that are
  statistically significant.

40
Comparison of the rural sample to an urban sample

• Comparison of Kentucky students to a group of
  students in Milwalkee, WI was done in order to
  gain a better understanding of how students in
  the rural schools compared to those in urban
  schools

41
Key findings Ky. vs. Milwaukee students

• Ky N 614 students
• Milwaukee N 208 students
• In Ky 63.7 of these students lived with their
  mother and father
• In Milwaukee 36.1 of the students lived with
  mother and father

42
Kentucky and Milwaukee groups compared
43
Independent Samples Test
44
Differences ofurban vs. rural sample

• There is no statistical differences in the
  propensity to fight
• Differences in victimization and perpetration are
  statistically significant at the .001 level and
  .014 level
• This is a major difference

45
Weapons carrying

• Kentucky students were more likely to carry
  weapons than were Milwaukee students.
• 68 out of 601 students (11.3) of Kentucky
  students reported bringing a knife to school
  within the last 30 days
• 0 Milwaukee students indicated that they had
  brought a knife to school within the last 30 days
• These results were significant at the .000 level

46
Weapons carrying

• Nine (1.5) of Kentucky students reported that
  they had brought a gun to school within the last
  30 days
• Zero Milwaukee students reported bringing a gun
  to school within the last 30 days

47
Teachers

• Milwaukee teachers felt there was less use of
  school safety measures and that they were more in
  danger than Kentucky teachers
• Milwaukee teachers perceived worse conditions at
  their schools than did the Kentucky teachers

48
Sense of Policy and Procedures that are Fair and
Promote Safety

• Rules strictly enforced
• Students know rules
• Punishment is equal and unbiased
• Students receive appropriate punishment
• Students know punishments
• Student seldom receive fair hearings
• Teachers know rules
• Parents support school discipline efforts
• School personnel consistently report infractions

• Student infractions acted upon to satisfaction
• Punishment decided by at least 2 school officials
• Students rarely treat school personnel with
  respect
• School personnel respect students
• Students report rule infractions to school
  authorities
• School personnel express concern about victimized
  or afraid students
• School personnel carry unauthorized weapons

49
Sense of policy and procedures that are fair and
promote safety

• On all the previously mentioned items Ky
  teachers answered more positively than Milwaukee
  teachers except for two items
• Ky teachers were more concerned (than Milwaukee
  teachers) about school personnel carrying
  unauthorized weapons, and being treated with less
  respect by students.

50
Discrepancies between students and teachers

• Teachers in Milwaukee sample perceived that their
  schools were not as safe as did the Ky. teachers
• Student surveys revealed however, that there was
  in fact more victimization and perpetration in
  Kentucky schools than in Milwaukee schools
• These results verify what was mentioned earlier
  in the DeYoung Lawrence study
• That rural school leaders do not have a sense
  that there are problems in their schools
• This supports the belief that rural schools are
  likely to be more resistant to programs that
  target violence prevention

51
Future goals for thoseworking with schools

• Create a positive school climate in which
  everyone respects each other
• Assist students in developing better academic
  skills
• Form relationships with students and families in
  order to assist with directing them toward
  appropriate community resources
• Work with other community agencies/companies to
  provide support to students and families
• Continue to implement violence prevention
  programs in the school(s).

52
References

• Appalachian Regional Educational Laboratory
  www.ael.org
• Hamilton Fish Institute, A Comprehensive
  Framework for School Violence Prevention
  www.hamfish.org
• Kingery, P. M., Pruitt, B.E., Brizzolara, J.A.,
  Heuberger, G. (1996). Violence Prevention in
  Rural Areas Evidence of the Need for
  Educational Reform and Community Action,
  International Journal of Educational Reform, Vol.
  5, No. 1.
• National Center for Education Statistics
  www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/digest99
• National Center on Rural Justice and Crime
  Prevention www.virtual.clemson.edu/groups/ncrj/
  
• Petersen, G.J., Beekley, C.Z., Speaker, Kathyrne,
  M., Pietrzak, D. (1998). An Examination of
  Violence in Three Rural School Districts, Rural
  Educator, Vol. 19, No.3.
• Peterson, Reece L. Skiba, Russell (Spring 2000).
  Creating School Climates that Prevent School
  Violence