I will provide text rom the book to be used to answer each question
Question 1 & 2
Thus, schools are a relatively safe place for students compared with the world outside of schools. But that does not mean crime is low within the schoolhouse. The school safety report found that there were more nonfatal victimizations of students (ages 12–18) at school than away, with more than three-quarters of a million incidents. In addition, nearly a quarter of students were bullied at school.
Crime, including violence, does happen in schools, so it is important to examine methods of preventing it. At the same time, developmental crime prevention programs, which seek to improve or facilitate healthy youth growth and maturation, have often taken place in school settings. Both types of crime prevention (school crime and developmental programs) are the focus of this chapter. We begin with a discussion of schools and the issues they face, which may increase criminal behavior of students. We then describe school prevention efforts aimed at reducing school crime and delinquency. The final section of the chapter reviews crime prevention programs that have taken place in school settings.
SCHOOLS AND RISK FACTORS FOR CRIME
From the time children are around age 5 all the way until they are legal adults (and, at least for you and your colleagues, far beyond age 18), schools are an all-encompassing environment. Students spend upward of 7 hours a day (more if they engage in extracurricular activities) within schoolhouse walls, interacting with other students, staff, and teachers. It is instructive to examine how the school provides an important context for crime from the viewpoint of several criminological theories.
One perspective, called strain theory, suggests that crime happens when individuals want to obtain something but are not able to do so in socially approved ways. The first version of strain theory (Merton 1938) was concerned with adult crime, suggesting that individuals who could not obtain the American Dream (get a nice job, house, etc.) legitimately would need to turn to illegitimate means to do so (e.g., robbery). This theory has been applied to the school, replacing the American Dream with the goal of obtaining good grades (see, e.g., Cohen 1955; Farnworth and Leiber 1989).
Resources are not evenly distributed across schools in the United States, as has long been known. In the late 1980s, Jonathon Kozol documented the stark differences he noticed as he traveled the country. His first experience with inequality in education came in the 1960s when he started as an elementary school teacher in Boston in a poor school, was fired, and then was hired at a wealthier school outside of the city. His later career took him to schools across the nation, and he was struck by the extreme segregation he saw in urban areas, where schools were often “95–99% nonwhite” (Kozol 2012:3). And things were not “separate but equal.” Far from it. In the schools where nonwhites were concentrated, neighborhoods were marked by poverty and schools had to make do with few and often old resources.
A look at spending per student can give an idea of the sort of inequality that exists. In 2013, the U.S. Census found that spending per student ranged from nearly $20,000 in New York to $6,555 in Utah (U.S. Census 2015). What sorts of effects does this type of inequality have? In Connecticut, where there are large differences in spending across school districts, poorer districts “tend to have more students in need of extra help, and yet they have fewer guidance counselors, tutors, and psychologists, lower-paid teachers, more dilapidated facilities and bigger class sizes than wealthier districts, according to an ongoing lawsuit” (Semuels 2016). In 2014–2015, states varied in terms of high school graduation rates, ranging from a low of 69% in Washington, D.C., and Nevada to a high of 91% in Iowa. In that same year, rates for different races also varied, with a high of 90% for Asian/Pacific Islanders and a low of 72% for Native Americans (National Center for Education Statistics 2018). Inequality in education outcomes is also linked to crime (Groot and van den Brink 2010; Lochner and Moretti 2004). For example, those who drop out of school are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior, but the reason is unclear (Sweeten, Bushway, and Paternoster 2009). It could be, for example, that people who drop out of school are those who are at higher risk for delinquency, regardless of school achievement.
Resources for schools generally reflect the resources available in the communities in which those schools are located. Thus, inequality in America leads to inequality across schools. And in the United States, there are large differences in school outcomes by socioeconomic status (Garcia and Weiss 2017). These disparities have implications for crime, as criminological research has shown inequality is a strong predictor of crime and violence (Blau and Blau 1982; Hagan 1995; Morenoff, Sampson, and Raudenbush 2001).
Control theory, which argues that social ties restrain us from deviance, also is relevant to the school. Teachers act as supervisors and also prosocial adults with whom students can bond. Hirschi’s (1969) original specification of social bond theory argued that being involved in prosocial activities (such as extracurricular activities) and being committed to school can help prevent student antisocial behavior. In addition, belief in the moral validity of authority acts as a restraint on such behavior. If students feel unfairly singled out, that the rules do not apply equally across groups, they may be more likely to engage in delinquency. This suggests that the troubling persistence of racial disparities in school discipline (Rocque 2010; Welch and Payne 2012) may have criminogenic consequences. If people feel that the law or ruling body is not legitimate, they are more likely to engage in criminal behavior (Tyler 1990).
Labeling theory (further discussed in Chapter 10) implies that our behavior can be traced to our self-concept, which is influenced by how others treat and perceive us. If someone thinks of us as smart, hardworking, and dedicated to completing tasks, we may internalize that label and actually become more hardworking than we were before! Some research has found that being punished for misbehavior can increase later misbehavior (Paternoster and Iovanni 1989). Those who are punished in schools may be more likely to engage in delinquency and crime later in their school careers.
Learning theory can help explain deviance in the school context because of the interactions students have with one another on a daily basis (see Gottfredson 1997). To the extent that students have contact with delinquent role models, they may be at risk for developing antisocial attitudes and behaviors themselves. One theory in particular, Moffitt’s (1993) developmental typology, argues that for the vast majority of students who will be delinquent in youth but not in adulthood (she calls these youths “ adolescent-limited offenders”), the school is the context where they begin to take on antisocial proclivities. Often, this occurs through social mimicry, in which the delinquency is a result of imitating the behavior of more popular but also more troubled youths.
Finally, the recent attention to life-course criminology (see Chapter 4) helps make sense of crime in the schools. Life-course criminology focuses on crime and antisocial behavior throughout the life span, beginning with childhood. This work has shown that antisocial behavior tends to peak in adolescence and early adulthood, indicating that the school years are ripe for delinquency (Rocque, Posick, and Hoyle 2015).
PREVENTING CRIME IN THE SCHOOL
Approaches to preventing crime in schools often seek to reduce opportunities to engage in deviance or to remove offenders. As discussed in Chapter 7, several situational crime prevention techniques have been implemented in schools. However, these approaches, such as using metal detectors and conducting random locker sweeps, do not seem to be effective in reducing crime (O’Neill and McGloin 2007). In recent years, in response to a perception of increased crime in schools, especially violent crime, so-called zero-tolerance approaches have emerged. Zero-tolerance policies are a way to ensure punishment is meted out consistently, no matter the degree of egregiousness. They are a one-size-fits-all approach, which means that no infraction, no matter the context, will escape punishment. In theory, such approaches will act as a deterrent to would-be offenders and thus reduce crime. However, the evidence to date does not support such a supposition (Kang-Brown et al. 2013; Skiba and Knesting 2001). Additionally, there are anecdotal stories of students being punished for making gun gestures with their hands or for bringing butter knives to school, which clearly seem to be examples of overreach with respect to the policies (Cuevas 2014; Gates 2013).
Other approaches seem to have more merit. Chapter 5 of Sherman and colleagues’ congressional report on “What Works” to prevent crime covers the school. In that chapter, Gottfredson (1997) described many school-related factors that may influence crime and delinquency. These include the individual factors such as attitudes and peers, and school factors such as rules, regulations, and support. In her chapter, Gottfredson found that school prevention can improve the safety and functioning of schools. We will examine programs that address different types of misconduct in the following sections.
In asking school principals what strategies they embark on to prevent crime in schools, one study found that schools do several things. These include having clear rules that are strongly enforced, improving monitoring of students, and attempting to change the environment of the school to one that is conducive to safety (Gottfredson and Gottfredson 2001). According to the authors of the survey, though, most strategies lack empirical evidence. There are specific programs that have shown effectiveness, however. Often, these programs focus on particular types of behavior. In what follows,
Question 3
PARENTING AND CHILD OUTCOMES
Historical View
The idea that parents are responsible for their children’s behavior is probably as old as society itself. According to the Bible, “He that spareth the rod hateth his own son but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes/Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell” (Proverbs 13:24). The implication is clear—firm, principled discipline saves children; spoiling them leads to trouble. Philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau also had strong opinions on how parents should treat children for optimal outcomes (see Rousseau 1762/1889). For example, in Emile, Rousseau made the case that parents should ensure their children are self-sufficient. In addition to this general advice, he had more specific thoughts: swaddling infants and heating bath water were unnecessary.
In early America, the sole responsibility for child welfare rested with parents. In fact, the first iterations of the juvenile justice system gave the government authority to decide outcomes for children on the basis of parens patriae, or the idea that the state could act in place of the parents (Mendiola-Washington and Emeka 2014). The authority of parents was absolute; in colonial America, children could be put to death for the crime of hitting their own parents (Walker 1998)!
Child psychologists began to enter the fray in the early 20th century, describing child development and producing texts meant to guide parents toward appropriate methods. One of the most popular was written by Dr. Benjamin Spock in 1946, called The Common Sense of Baby and Child Care. The book sold more than 50 million copies and revolutionized ideas about parenting, overturning advice popular at the time that parents should not be overly affectionate and needed to be very rigid with children (Hidalgo 2011). In that book, Spock touched on parental discipline and argued that “the ones who get into the most trouble are suffering from lack of affection rather than from lack of punishment” (Spock 1966:323). Yet he disagreed that “whenever anything goes wrong it’s the parents’ fault” (p. 324).
With respect to scholarly theories on parenting and child outcomes, the concept of attachment emerged in the early 20th century. John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth argued that without close connection to mothers in early life, children will not develop in a healthy manner. Reportedly, Bowlby decided to study attachment in children partly due to meeting “a very isolated, remote, affectionless teenager who had been expelled from his previous school for theft and had had no stable mother figure” (Bretherton 1992:759). For these psychologists, a strong connection to the mother was key to normal growth.
In the criminological arena, parenting has been a staple of numerous theories, from Edwin Sutherland’s differential association theory to Travis Hirschi’s social control theory. Sutherland’s theory, one of the first individual-level sociological theories of crime, argued that youth are led to delinquency by whoever they associate with—in other words, their peers. He recognized that “the family is potentially a most effective agency of control” but (at that time) “there is no real science of child rearing” (Sutherland 1939:153). While there did not seem to be a perfect correlation between home life and delinquency, Sutherland wrote that research had noted several important conditions that showed up in delinquents’ homes, such as delinquent family members, use of alcohol, crowded homes, parental strictness, and poverty.
Travis Hirschi’s social control theory was more specifically premised on the relationships between parents and children. To Hirschi, children who have a strong connection to their parents—who want to be like them and care about what they think—are less likely to engage in delinquency (Hirschi 1969). Hirschi’s concept of social bonds extended to more than just parents, including teachers and prosocial activities. His theory stipulated that these strong connections to prosocial aspects of society would act as restraints against antisocial behavior. Importantly, he argued that attachments to parents would be effective even if parents were not physically with their children, referring to this as “virtual supervision” (Hirschi 1969:88).
What Do We Know About Parenting Styles?
The research on parenting often points to three distinct styles, each with varying outcomes (Baumrind 1971). To understand these styles, let’s imagine a young boy named Jimmy. Let’s further imagine that Jimmy is a rambunctious 4-year-old who likes to push his parents’ buttons but does not engage in abnormal levels of antisocial behavior. When he wants a toy, he may bop his sibling on the head or throw a tantrum. One day he didn’t like what his parents made for dinner, so he threw his plate in the air, smearing delicious smoked paprika and olive oil all over the nice clean walls.
His parents may react to Jimmy in one of three ways. First, his parents may be what is called lax, or permissive. Lax or permissive parenting involves a sort of laissez-faire attitude, permissiveness, and a lack of attention to children. In other words, here, Jimmy’s parents let him get away with his behavior, maybe chuckling at how much of a “rascal” he is but leaving him well enough alone. Another way Jimmy’s parents may react is to come down hard on him, punishing him severely for missteps and not doing much in the way of explaining why they are doing what they are doing. “Because I said so” may be a familiar refrain for Jimmy in this scenario. This second parenting style is called authoritarian. This parenting style may be thought of as rigid, strict, and disciplinarian. Rules are set in stone and punishments are nonnegotiable. This is a parenting style akin to a dictatorship governing approach. Jimmy would be lucky if his parents reacted in a different way. Maybe they watch him closely, tell him that what he’s doing is wrong, and explain why. They also let him feel he has a say in the process. This democratic approach is called authoritative parenting. Parents who use this style are firm but fair. Authoritative parenting seems to be the style related to the best outcomes in school (Spera 2005) and delinquency (Baumrind 1991; Hoeve et al. 2008, 2011).
Hoeve and colleagues (2009) reviewed parenting styles and suggested they can be broken down into two dimensions: support and control (see Table 8.1). Authoritarian styles are low in support but high in control; lax is high in support but low in control; authoritative is high in both control and support. A final style can be added: neglectful, which is low in support and low in control. In a meta-analysis of 161 studies, the researchers found that several types of parenting styles had a statistically significant but small effect on delinquency, including supportive parenting (reduced delinquency), neglectful parenting (increased delinquency), authoritative control (decreased delinquency), and authoritarian control (increased delinquency). They were not able to fully analyze the effect of the three styles discussed above because there were not enough studies examining them.
question 4
PREVENTING FAMILY VIOLENCE
This chapter has mostly discussed the prevention of crime by youths using parenting and family approaches. Yet the family is also pertinent to crime prevention because it is the site of much violence in its own right. For example, domestic violence, which generally refers to violence between romantic couples (e.g., husband and wife), is prevalent in the United States. Research indicates that up to a quarter of women have experienced violence at the hands of a partner. Men are not exempt from such victimization, with estimates that around 14% have been physically attacked by a partner (https://ncadv.org/statistics).
Violence, both physical and sexual, is also directed at children in the family. According to a recent report, in 2015, there were 3.4 million children involved in reports to child protective services. Most child victims experienced neglect, while 17.2% experienced physical abuse. In 2015, there were 1,585 reported child deaths attributed to maltreatment (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2017). Data also indicate that sexual abuse is relatively common, with 11% of girls and about 2% of boys suffering abuse by an adult (who is usually related to them) (rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens).
So what works to prevent family violence? In a famous study led by Lawrence Sherman called the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, researchers had officers randomly assigned to one of three conditions when met with a call for service involving possible domestic violence. The first condition was mandatory arrest, the second was offering to counsel the couple, and the third was temporarily removing the perpetrator from the home. The initial results favored mandatory arrest (Sherman and Berk 1984). The study influenced police policy very soon after, as departments began to increase use of arrest as a response to domestic violence (Sherman and Cohn 1989). Another study in Milwaukee found slightly different results. Here, arrest was found to be effective for some but not all types of perpetrators (Sherman et al. 1992). Who were more likely to reduce their violent behavior after arrest? “Those who are employed, high school graduates, white, or married and those who have cohabitated for over two years” (Sherman et al. 1992:159).
Programs have also been developed to rehabilitate domestic abusers. Often called batterer intervention programs, these may take place in prison or in the community. As Babcock, Green, and Robie (2004) note, these programs are relatively new, as domestic violence was not seen as a public health issue (rather, more of a private family matter) until the 1980s. Babcock and colleagues examined 22 evaluations of such programs and concluded that they have small effects on recidivism. Another meta-analysis similarly found that while treatment effects showed some promise of effectiveness, the effect size was not statistically significant (Arias, Arce, and Vilariño 2013). With respect to court-ordered batterer programs, Feder and Wilson (2005) also found a lack of evidence that such approaches reduce or prevent violence.
With respect to preventing domestic violence before it starts, Wolfe and Jaffe (1999) presented two such models: first, an approach that seeks to reduce the contributing factors leading to domestic violence, and, second, an approach that addresses the three types of prevention (primary, secondary, and tertiary). Primary prevention that attempts to improve healthy development and reduce antisocial behavior should, in theory, reduce later perpetration of domestic violence.
An example of a program that seeks to reduce dating violence is called Safe Dates. Safe Dates was initiated in North Carolina and focuses on gender and conflict dynamics that can lead to violence in adolescent relationships (Foshee et al. 1996). Research evaluating the program found that initial first-year progress in improving behavior evaporated but the program did influence individuals’ ideas about dating violence and how to manage conflict (Foshee et al. 2000). A later evaluation found that after 4 years, the students who received the intervention committed and experienced less dating violence (Foshee et al. 2004). Interestingly, though, the program included a “booster” for 50% of the treatment group, which was ineffective in reducing violence.
There are a large number of programs that have been developed to prevent child abuse and mistreatment. An early review found that most programs in the literature had not been evaluated properly, but those that had showed promise (Helfer 1982). One of the programs discussed previously, the Nurse–Family Partnership, is effective at reducing child abuse even 15 years later (Eckenrode et al. 2000). Interestingly, in that study, families of mothers who were visited during pregnancy but not after the birth of the child did not have fewer incidences than the control group. It appears that home visits during early childhood are vital. A meta-analysis of secondary programs (N = 40 studies) found that prevention programs have a small but statistically significant effect on child maltreatment (d = .29) (Geeraert et al. 2004). Another meta-analysis looked specifically at parenting programs and found that such programs reduced child abuse (d = .45) (Lundahl, Nimer, and Parsons 2006). A more recent meta-analysis similarly found that parenting programs reduce child maltreatment (random effect size .30) and also reduce risk factors for such outcomes (Chen and Chan 2016). However, one meta-analysis that focuses specifically on randomized trials found less convincing evidence that parent programs can reduce child maltreatment (overall effect size .13). Yet some programs in their review did work. Parent support programs were not as effective as parent training programs in reducing child maltreatment (Euser et al. 2015).
With respect to sexual abuse specifically, some programs have sought to educate the family as a way to reduce incidence, with home visits to address risk factors (Putnam 2003). School-based child sexual abuse programs have been subject to meta-analysis, indicating that they are effective at improving children’s awareness of sexual misconduct. Rispens, Aleman, and Goudena (1997) found large effects of such programs for improving knowledge of sexual abuse terms and ability to protect oneself. They did not look at whether the programs actually reduced abuse. Another meta-analysis similarly showed that child comprehension and ability to protect themselves increased after participating in school programs (Davis and Gidycz 2000). Some work has examined whether programs reduce the occurrence of child sex abuse. Gibson and Leitenberg (2000) asked college students about whether they had participated in a particular program (“good touch–bad touch”). Those who had participated had a lower rate of sexual abuse (8%) than those who had not (14%).