ADDRESSING PERSONNEL CONCERNS ABOUT SCHOOL VIOLENCETHROUGH EDUCATION, ASSESSMENT AND STRATEGIC PLANNING Teresa L. Kramer, Pu.D.’ Kim A. Jones, Pu.D.” JoAnn Kircuver, M.D. Terni L. Muze, Px.D. Crystat Wirson, MHSA* ‘Centers for Mental Healthcare Research, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. 5800 West Markham Street, Suite 605, Little Rock, AR, 72204 * Department of Social Work, University of Arkansas at Little Rock, 280] South University, Little Rock, AR, 72204 Heightened concerns about school violence in recent years have amplified the need for implementation of effective preven- tion and intervention programs in our educational systems. This paper describes an intervention designed to accomplish three goals: 1) to educate school personne! about the effects of vio- Tence and evidence-based programs for schoo! safety: 2) to assess perceptions of school personnel about school safety, bar- riers to violence prevention and systemic response to crisis; and 3) to develop a model for strategic planning that can be dissem- inated into the community. To address these aims. participants (N = 32) of a one-day summer educational workshop on violence and posttraumatic stress disorder for K-12 school personnel attended didactic sessions and participated in focus groups. They completed post-course surveys rating their knowledge and understanding of the topic areas discussed. In addition. they completed baseline and 9-month follow-up surveys rating their schools on the characteristics of safe schools identified in the lit- erature on school violence. The follow-up surveys also assessed whether or not new programs to improve safety or prevent vio- Tence had been implemented in their schools. The study demonstrated that educational interventions can be used effec- tively to enhance school personnel’s knowledge about violence and create safer school environments. Violence in the United States has been increasing among children and adolescents at alarming rates and is now considered a significant public health concern (Thorn- ton, Craft, Dahlberg, Lynch, & Baer, 2000). In a typical city, 30 to 50 cases of school violence are reported daily, with one half of these cases involving guns (Shafii and Shafii, 2001). The probability that a stu- dent will die as a result of violence in an American high school is five times high- er than the likelihood in other developed countries (Shafi and Shafii, 2001). As a result, many school leaders have rated safe- ty as a top priority. Typically, school security and safety have been addressed through changes in equipment or personnel, such as installa- tion of metal detectors or hiring of security officers. Yet recent safety initiatives in 292schools have been more broadly defined to include prevention and intervention pro- grams that target students, schools and communities (Peterson & Skiba, 2000). Examples of these programs are: conflict resolution and peer mediation programs (Aber, Jones, Brown, Chaudry, & Sam- ples, 1998; Reece, Peterson, & Skiba, 2000); development of mechanisms for reporting security concerns and explicit policies pertaining to aggressive or vio- lent behaviors (Gable & Van Acker, 2000; Trump, 1998); education and training of students, staff and teachers on the early and imminent warning signs of violence (Dwyer, Osher, & Warger, 1998); teach- ing of life skills and pro-social behaviors (Van Acker & Talbott, 1999): increasing cultural sensitivity and respect for diver- sity (Laurel & Duhaney, 2000); creation and reinforcement of linkages to outside services (Sheras, Cornell, & Bostain, 1996); and preparation for a crisis and its aftermath (Dwyer. Osher, & Hoffman, 2000). Based on the work by Conrad and colleagues (1994), the model depicted in Figure 1 provides a conceptualization of school violence within an ecological health framework. This model shows that school violence is influenced by student, school and community factors that can be modi- fied by prevention and intervention activities. For example, student risk fac- tors may be diminished by enhancing problem solving and anger management skills, while school risk factors may be changed by increasing the physical safety of the building. Although multiple programs have demonstrated efficacy in reducing vio- lence, there are no studies demonstrating Addressing Personnel Concems.../293. the extent to which school personnel per- ceive a need for such programs or are adopting them in any systematic manner. Furthermore, it is suggested that many schools may face a number of barriers that prevent implementation of such programs, such as limited resources and lack of an infrastructure for new program develop- ment (Trump, 1998). Many school officials express concern about available equipment and personnel to teach basic academic courses, let alone expanded pro- grams addressing violence and other psychosocial issues. Moreover, the success of many of these programs depends not only on the commitment of the entire school but community support as well (Aber, Brown, Chaudry, Jones, & Sample, 1996; Orpinas, Kelder, Murray, Fourney, Confroy, & McReynolds, 1996; Wiist, Jackson, & Jackson, 1996). Because of the apparent gap between the need for and dissemination of effec- tive programs, this study was designed to accomplish three aims: 1) to educate school personnel about the effects of violence and evidence-based programs for school safe- ty; 2) to assess perceptions of school personnel about school safety, barriers to violence prevention and systemic response to crisis; and 3) to develop a model for strategic planning that can be disseminat- ed into the community. To address these aims, local mental health experts present- ed a one-day summer workshop on violence and post-traumatic stress disorder to K-12 school personnel. To address the first aim, presenters discussed causes of violence, attributes of effective prevention and intervention programs to reduce vio- lence, and characteristics of safe schools294/Education Vol. 123 No. 2 that have been identified in the published literature on school violence in the past decade. Participants considering the imple- mentation of programs and strategies to prevent youth violence were encouraged to adopt programs that |) reduced the risk of vulnerable youth. 2) improved their overall school’s efficacy in developing the academic, social and moral character of the students, and 3) encouraged linkages with the community. To address the sec- ond aim, participants completed a survey in which they rated their schools on each of the characteristics of safe schools. Results of the survey were used as the framework for focus groups in which par- ticipants discussed their primary concerns about school safety, potential interventions to address their top priorities, and perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation of such interventions. To address the third aim, participants were guided through a process of strategic planning to develop action plans that could be immediately implemented upon returning to their respective schools. To evaluate the impact of this intervention. participants complet- ed surveys in which they rated their knowledge and understanding of violence and post-traumatic stress disorder in chil- dren and adolescents. In addition, they also completed baseline surveys in which they rated their school's safety and were inter- viewed nine months following the workshop about similar issues. They were also asked whether new programs aimed toward violence prevention had been implemented in their schools during the intervening academic year. Methods Participants. Participants were 32 school personnel from 23 middle and high schools throughout a primarily rural south- em state who attended a one-day summer educational workshop on violence and Posttraumatic stress disorder. Represent- ed were 22 teachers. 4 nurses. and 6 other employees. Of the 32 participants. 30 were female. Twenty-three were Caucasian. seven were African American. and two were Hispanic. Measures. Based on a thorough review of the theoretical and empirical literature ‘on school violence, six basic characteris- tics of safe schools were identified. These include the following: 1) teaching life skills, 2) fostering openness and respect. 3) establishing linkages to outside systems. 4) maintaining a safe physical environ- ment. 5) recognizing early signs of violence, and 6) preparing for crisi Based on these six characteristics, a sur- vey was designed for participants 10 complete following the educational com- ponent of the intervention. Participants were asked to rate their schools on a scale of | to 5 (1 = very poor; 2 = poor; 3 = fair: 4 = very good: 5 = excellent) on each of the six dimensions. A similar survey was developed for the nine-month follow-up evaluation. Additionally, participants were asked to complete a survey at the conclu- sion of the day-long session that rated the program on its content and relevance to their teaching environment. This post- course survey contained eight questions that addressed whether teachers would use the materials in the classroom and share the knowledge with others (students and teachers). They were also asked to rate the organization and presentation on a scale of | to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = dis- agree. 3 = agree/disagree. 4 = agree. 5 =strongly agree) with 5 being the highest score on each of the content/relevance areas. Procedure. A two-hour didactic session on violence, reviewing current literature and case histories, was presented by ateam of local mental health researchers and clin- icians as part of a larger summer science education program partnering K-12 teach- ers and school personnel with university faculty. Topics included prevalence, the- ries. etiology and risk factors for violence, and prevention and intervention models. The program also addressed the char- acteristics of safe schools and provided examples of prevention and intervention programs known to be effective in reduc- ing violence and increasing school safety. Following the lecture, the participants were asked to rate their individual schools on each of the following six characteristics. © Teaching Life Skills. Life skills train- ing included conflict resolution, peer mediation, problem solving, devel- opment of empathy and anger management. Examples of such pro- grams include the Peer Mediation in Schools Program from the New Mexico Center for Dispute Resolu- tion (Copeland & Gerfield, 1989a, 1989b); the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) pro- gram from Boulder, Colorado (Greenberg, Kusche. Cook, & Quamma, 1995; Greenberg & Kusche, 1998); and the Positive Adolescent Choices Training (PACT), implemented in Dayton, Ohio (Yung & Hammond, 1995, 1998). + Fostering Openness and Respect. This category included programs that Addressing Personnel Concems.../295 fostered an open atmosphere where students, staff, teachers and parents were encouraged to openly commu- nicate and discuss issues pertaining to safety, cultural sensitivity, and respect for differences. The concept of creating a healthy "climate" in the school was stressed (Peterson & Skiba, 2000). An example of this is the "Teaching Students To Be Peace- makers" Program (Johnson & Johnson, 1995) developed at the University of Minnesota. + Establishing Linkages to Outside Systems. This category addressed the importance of connections to external systems, including medical and behavioral healthcare, juvenile justice, child welfare, community churches or other social or cultural organizations. The concept of shar- ing responsibility for violence prevention was discussed and the importance of the interface between the school and the child's home and community (Dwyer, Osher, & Warg- er, 1998). Examples of successful community linkages include the Supporting Adolescents with Guid- ance and Employment program in North Carolina (Ringwalt, Graham, Paschall, Flewelling, & Browne, 1996) and the Baltimore Mentoring Partnership (Freedman, 1993). The importance of maintaining a clear path for referrals and mechanisms for feedback from these outside sys- tems was also emphasized. * Maintaining a Safe Physical Envi- ronment. A number of factors contributing to safe physical envi- ronments were stressed, including296/Education Vol. 123 No. 2 class size, hallway monitoring, sign- in sheets for visitors, having adults visible throughout the school, and staggered lunch and dismissal times (Haller, 1992: Stephens, 1994: Nel- son, 1996; Steward & Knapp, 1997: Cornell, 1998). The negative effects of having too much security, i.¢.. cameras and locker and weapon checks. were also emphasized (Peterson & Skiba, 2000). + Recognition of Early and Imminent Warning Signs of Violence. This category included education on early and imminent warning signs, gen- eral guidelines on how to assess and respond to signs when they occur. and school policies regarding aggressive behaviors (Dwyer, Osher, & Warger, 1998). + Preparation for Crisis. This cate- gory covered procedures for responding to a crisis and address- ing concerns in the aftermath. One component that should be included is a "School Safety Talk Force” (SSTF, Lyndal, Bullock, Fitzsimons, & Gable, 1996) to develop policies and procedures and train others in crisis response. In responding to the aftermath of a crisis, participants were also briefed on how to evalu- ate whether anyone in their school had been trained in crisis debrief- ing, procedures on helping victims and family members to re-enter the school environment, and interacting with media (Dwyer, Osher, & Warg- er, 1998). Participants were divided into three one- hour focus groups following the didactic session. A trained facilitator and recorder were assigned to each one-hour session. Participants were introduced and briefed on the purpose of the focus group. Through consensus method, participants identified the school characteristic most in need of intervention and discussed this character- istic in reference to |) possible interventions that would improve their schools’ safety, 2) potential barriers to implementing the interventions, and 3) possible facilitators to overcome these dif- ficulties. Participants also identified a potential list of school personnel or com- munity leaders who could assist in implementing an intervention plan, and developed an action plan for immediate implementation upon returning to school at the end of the summer. At the end of the day-long workshop, participants complet- ed the post-course survey. Nine months following the workshop, participants were contacted by telephone by a trained research assistant and asked whether any programs to improve safety or prevent violence had been initiated at their school in the intervening nine months. Respondents were asked to categorize the programs (e.g.. crisis intervention, com- munity linkages, life skills, etc.) and to re-evaluate their schools on the six dimen- sions previously described. Results Post-Course Survey. The post-course survey in Table | shows that participant ratings on the content and relevance of the program to their teaching environment ranged from a mean of 4.30 (increased motivation to teach this area of health sci- ence) to a mean of 4.86 (program well taught/presented). The program's overall rating was 4.45.Addressing Personnel Concems.../297 Table 1 a —Lrwt—™S,—r—=—~—'_—i—i‘iiiCOWWSCOUC:iCiCizO‘a‘éaWNSN Strongly Agree! Strongly Item Mean (SD) Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Learned something new 450(51) 0 0 0 50.0 © $0.0 Increased teaching motivation 4.30.61) 0 0 14 $56 37.0 Increased desire to use new teaching technologies and/or techniques 3.96(.65) 0 37 nd 704 148 Planned to use information and materials in future 4.3%.50) 0 0 0 60.7 = 393 Program was well organized _4,39(.50) 0 0 0 60.7 393 Program was well taught 4,86(.36) 0 0 0 143 85.7 Satisfied with level of interaction and involvement 4.64(.56) 0 0 3.6 28.6 67.9 Exceed expectations 452.64) 0 0 14 333593 Overall 4.45(.32) Safe School Survey. Results from the baseline and nine month follow-up surveys are presented in Table 2. At baseline, the means across items ranged from 2.63 (teaching life skills) to 3.27 (fostering open- ness and respect). Categories with the poorest ratings (ratings of very poor or poor by almost one third of participants) were teaching life skills and preparing for acri- sis. Categories with the highest ratings (ratings of very good by more than a third of participants) were fostering openness and respect and creating linkages in the community. No participants rated their schools as excellent in any category.298/Education Vol. 123 No. 2 Table 2 School Persona! Rankings on Safe School Characteristics (HOLD Z (mLt'79)Z1 (wewondL nana USD I9t NOpEaAsoTE] HD (wou) z (%60'92) 9 (weeve) 8 (mst) 1 GoDeot wats Bayese ny (mon dz (%18'09) v1 (erly (0)0 TeEEONARY OFFS (mere (mpets (00 eter (oud z (neree)s (mecLy (Horo some ames ___ twa s Were1S (Horo SFIS oT werner aa J00g dood Ai2A, Spee dN-MOTIOA HINOW-S (#00 (407626 (mss (mp7) (meore (6) Let OpeOADORNT ED (00 CHLOE (E19) 61 (er6D9 (AZO (ere watis Saye, (%0)0 (%€°7€) O1 (r's9) 81 (wet (HzO L (a9 EE PeoeROANA OFFS (00 (5°56) 11 (meso zt (yen (600 udere meer (oo (ars) vt mss (621) (wares (ew) ize sumo (oro (%59)2 (199) 81 (ug) (eee (E97, ad wooysora Poop amd 400g 400g £19, (as) wow PpeaPEEED aNITaSVEFocus Group. Interestingly, each group selected a different school characteristic to focus on in the discussion and strategic planning: 1) teaching life skills, 2) crisis response, and 3) early warning signs. In discussing interventions for teaching life skills the first group identified three pro- grams for potential implementation in their schools-—-peer mediation, character build- ing and conflict resolution. For older students, participants suggested a peer mediation program that involved selection and training of pairs of mediators by teach- ers to assist when conflicts arose among the training would require one week with remedial instruction as necessary. To assist in character building for younger children, participants agreed that schools should identify one characteristic per day (e.g., honesty or trustworthiness) for discussion and modeling by peers and teachers. Par- could be best addressed through estab- lishment of a teen court involving the community's prosecuting attorney's office. ‘The group participants were also interest- ed in developing programs to enhance the cultural sensitivity of students by expos- ing them to a variety of cultural backgrounds. Resources for this type of program would include visits to local museums, book readings and internet searches. Team members identified to assist in the implementation of the char- acter-building programs were the school administrator and/or principal, counselor, school nurse, teachers, and parents. First steps in the group's action plan were vol- unteering to assist in a school in-service, using information obtained in the summer workshop they had just completed. Addressing Personnel Concems.../299 Members of the second focus group agreed that their respective schools were Jacking in crisis response planning and management. Although participants agreed that most schools in urban areas have a comprehensive, written crisis plan, small- er schools frequently have no plan or are not prepared to implement one due to min- imal training. Proposed interventions included development of a written plan; implementation of training and drills; and open communication with school person- nel, students and parents about the existence and content of such plans. Spe- cific items to include in a written plan were suggested by group members (e.g., desig- nated post-crisis areas and contact persons for students, parents, teachers, media; cri- sis kits including blankets, emergency supplies, etc.; procedures for evacuating students and securing the school facilities; debriefing procedures; and ongoing eval- uation of procedures and policies). School personnel were particularly concerned about establishing a wellness program for teachers, counselors and nurses to cope with chronic school safety problems (e.g., theft or student aggression) as well as acute incidents (e.g., suicide or other extreme acts of violence). Important members of the intervention team for this group were police, fire fighters and other emergency personnel. First steps identified by the group in an action plan were to determine whether the school had an updated crisis plan and distribute it to school personnel or develop a crisis plan based on input from teachers and community leaders and imple- ment training sessions with school personnel. Members of the third group agreed that identification of early warning signs was300/Education Vol. 123 No. 2 their primary concern. They suggested that it was important to inform everyone in the school, including students, about early warning signs of violence, important developmental and social issues con- tributing to at-risk behaviors, personal responsibility for perpetuating problem behaviors, and appropriate responses, including non-punitive statements and dis- ciplinary actions. The members also recommended that multiple channels of communication be established that allow for the reporting of concerns while pre- serving anonymity. Members of the action team included the principal, counselor, sec- retary, nurse, community leaders, parents, and students. Members agreed that the first steps in an action plan would include contact with the principal and develop- ment of a workshop and refresher course for school personnel. Perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation were similar across the three groups. Barriers included lack of communication between teachers and administrators; minimal financial resources; limited time; competing prior- ities between academics and other psychosocial issues; lack of parent involve- ment and participation; liability concerns; and school personnel apathy or burn-out. Many of the participants also expressed concern that even with highly publicized school incidents of violence in recent years, most teachers and parents deny or mini- mize the problem. Facilitating factors included information provided in forums such as the summer workshop, resource materials available through local agencies (e.g., the Southern Poverty Law Center) and federally funded pilot programs (e.g., Safe Schools Initiative by SAMHSA), and Partnerships among mental health agen- cies, mentors, faith communities and schools. Follow-up Survey. At follow-up, 61% of the respondents indicated that their school had initiated at least one program to improve school safety and prevent vio- lence. The programs included crisis intervention (57%), community linkages (48%), life skills (43%), fostering open- ness and respect (61%), creating safe physical environments (61%), education on early warning signs (52%), and other activities (13%). Table 2 also indicates an improvement in ratings on each dimension from baseline to follow-up. Discussion shop reported improvements in their general knowledge about violence in schools, the psychological and physical impact of violence and specific programs to improve school safety. Generally, the program was well received and rated as good or excellent by the majority of par- ticipants. At the time of the program, school per- sonnel rated their school as doing a fair or good job of addressing safety concerns through various interventions. Particular- ly noteworthy were the schools’ ability to foster an atmosphere of openness and respect and to create linkages with com- munity resources that would contribute to feelings of safety among personnel and students. The findings also suggest that schools are responding to the threat of vio- lence by securing the physical perimeters of the school and engaging in other struc-tural changes that are known to deter vio- lence. One-fifth to one-third of school per- sonnel identified specific areas in which their school performed poorly or very poor- ly. Those areas rated poorest were selected by the focus groups as topics of discus- sion. Two of these areas---teaching life skills and early warning signs---target the prevention of violence. Education of teach- ers and students and improvement in communications among teachers, students and parents were identified as critical com- ponents of both programs. Preparation for a crisis --- the third area targeted by participants for development --- represents an intervention program to be initiated once violence has occurred. School personnel were concerned that they were unprepared for a crisis, were not well informed about their school’s crisis plan, and did not have access to resources that would assist them in a crisis (e.g., linkages with outside agen- cies or emergency supplies in case there were injuries). The group members also expressed a need for debriefing training so that they were better equipped to respond to student's psychological needs. following a crisis. Although teachers and/or parents have the most extensive information about the behavioral problems of children and ado- lescents (Verhulst, Koot, & Van Der Ende. 1994; Gresham. 1984), they are often reluc- tant to consider that a child’s academic or social difficulties may be related to poor emotional health (Lamarine. 1995). Yet school personnel are in a favorable posi- tion to identify significant developmental and behavioral problems (Kazdin, 1990; Resnick, Falsetti, Kilpatick, Freedy, 1996) Addressing Personnel Concems.../301 and many times can provide the initial link to treatment (Klein, McNulty, & Flatau. 1998; Adelman & Taylor. 1999). By sys- tematically providing more education to school personnel on how to identify a child at risk for violence and intervene efficiently and appropriately, administrators would be providing a much-needed service for the nation’s children, their families and communities at large. Interestingly, the participants in each focus group were unified in identification of perceived barriers and facilitators to vio- lence prevention and intervention in the schools. Although considerable funding is currently available for development of such programs, few studies address the most effective mechanisms for dissemi- nation across different school systems with diverse student and teacher populations. As with mental health care, limited resources often restrict the adoption of “best practices” into routine settings (Thorton, Craft, Dahlberg, Lynch, & Baer, 2000). Thus, it is important to study what school personnel consider are the diffi- culties they face in altering the prevalence and impact of violence. Moreover, partic- ipants were consistent in identifying student, school and community represen- tatives as necessary to any prevention or intervention efforts. It has been proposed that educative ecology---the environment of education---should include collabora- tive efforts by families, schools, health agencies, and universities, as well as gov- emment and the media (Goodlad. 1997). Consequently, a natural strategy for improving child and adolescent mental health is through an enhanced cooperation between academic communities, mental302/Education Vol. 123 No. 2 health providers and professionals within the school settings. At the nine-month follow-up, almost two-thirds (61%) of the participants indi- cated their school developed prevention or intervention programs similar to those discussed in the workshop. These were associated with improvements in overall ratings of school safety across the six domains. This suggests that the workshop may have served as a catalyst for action in participants’ schools. increasing school personnel’s awareness of safety concerns and providing options for new program implementation. [t is important to recognize that this study has several limitations. The surveys were conducted on a small number of school personnel attending a one-day workshop on violence and posttraumatic stress disorder. Because they may repre- sent a very highly motivated group, their responses may not be representative of school personnel across the state or nation- ally. Itis unknown whether their responses would be different from a broader sample of teachers, counselors and school nurses. Secondly, the surveys assessed the per- ceptions of school personnel, rather than directly evaluating what has been done to improve safety in each school. Direct observation, interviews with administra- tors, principals and other school representatives, or surveys that asked about specific events should be included in future evaluations. For example, assessing whether a crisis intervention plan was developed or whether training sessions on violence were offered during the subse- quent school year would more accurately capture the extent to which the program impacted prevention and intervention activities. Finally, because a comparison sample of non-participating schools was not included in the study, it is not possible to determine whether the workshop direct- ly influenced the i ‘ion of new Programming or whether other variables (e.g. community pressure or changes in school district policies) affected the out- come, Despite these limitations, the study pro- vides a mode] for education. assessment and strategic planning that school person- nel can use to improve various aspects of school safety. Future work should include objective follow-up measures (e.g., actu- al decreases in school fights) of school personnel to evaluate the overall effec- tiveness of this approach, particularly whether such efforts result in policy or pro- grammatic changes. Specific factors that may hinder or facilitate change. such as size of the student body or student/teacher ratio. urban versus rural location of the school, and active involvement of parents in the school's activities, should also be considered in future studies. Because one constant in the lives of most youth is school attendance. it is a nat- ural setting in which teachers and school personnel have the opportunity to inter- vene when a child or adolescent exhibits potential signs of violence or appears to be at risk for other reasons. The challenge is to develop innovative programs that suc- cessfully bridge academic and scientific communities, mental health providers, school personnel and family to optimize the transfer of knowledge about psychosocial and behavioral problems, empowering those most likely to interact with students