Evidence continues to mount that crime in schools
is a critical concern in contemporary America, despite cautions from
historians that similar problems have existed for centuries. While no
consensus exists on the size of the problem, the results of every
investigation have revealed that a large number of students are
victimized at school. Coupled with the fact that students are required
to attend school, these results make the issue of in-school
victimization a priority concern for students, parents, educators, and
the criminal justice system. This concern has led to calls for greater
discipline and control through diverse mechanisms such as using armed
security guards and metal detectors and establishing profit-making
schools. However, discipline and control may also be achieved through
a variety of more humanistic, normative methods rather than the
imposition of coercive measures -- for example, student participation
in policy-making, particularly in relation to school rules,
regulations, and sanctions. While concern over safety in schools has
grown dramatically, no consensus exists on the impact of various forms
of discipline and control to eliminate or curtail in-school
victimization. This study gathered evidence on the relationship
between discipline and the control of victimization in schools and
investigated the effectiveness of humanistic versus coercive
disciplinary measures. The study focused on four hypotheses: (1)
School discipline and control measures are negatively related to
levels of in-school victimization. This hypothesis assumes that
changes in discipline and control precede changes in victimization
based on the common assumption that victimization levels respond to
discipline and control efforts (or the lack thereof) rather than the
reverse. (2) More humanistic/consensual discipline/control measures
have a greater negative impact on in-school victimization than do
coercive/custodial measures. (3) The community environment has a
strong impact on the level of in-school victimization. (4) The
presence of gangs in the school is positively related to the level of
in-school victimization.
Survey data were obtained from students, teachers,
and principals in each of the 44 junior and senior high schools in a
county in Ohio that agreed to participate in the study. Questionnaires
were designed to gather respondent demographics, perceptions about
school discipline and control, and perceptions about school crime,
including personal victimization and responses to victimization.
Respondents were asked to answer all questions in relation to "since
the start of the school year." Based on the dates of survey
administration, the data represent roughly a six-month time
frame. Students in grades 7 through 12 were anonymously surveyed in
February 1994. The Student Survey (Part 1) was randomly distributed to
approximately half of the students in all classrooms in each
school. The other half of the students received a different survey
that focused on drug use among students (not available with this
collection). The teacher (Part 2) and principal (Part 3) surveys were
completed at the same time as the student survey. The principal survey
included both closed-ended and open-ended questions while all
questions on the student and teacher surveys were closed-ended, with a
finite set of answers from which to choose. In addition to the
surveys, census data were acquired for a one-quarter-mile radius
around each participating school's campus. Also, arrest statistics for
the reporting district in which each school was located were obtained from
local police departments. Finally, the quality of the immediate
neighborhood was assessed by means of a "windshield" survey in which
the researchers conducted a visual inventory of various neighborhood
characteristics. These contextual data are also contained in Part 3.
Data were obtained from 44 junior and senior high schools.
All public and private schools in a county in Ohio.
Parts 1-2: Individuals, Part 3: Institutions
(1) self-enumerated forms, (2) data from the Bureau of
the Census, (3) statistics from local police departments, and (4) a
"windshield survey"
survey data
The student questionnaire contained items on school
discipline and control procedures, victimization at school, fear of
crime in school and on the bus to and from school, avoidance
behaviors, gang activity, possession of weapons for protection,
availability of various controlled drugs, and respondent
demographics. The teacher survey included questions on teacher
perceptions of discipline, control, and school safety, victimization
problems at school, availability of various controlled drugs, and
respondent demographics. The principal survey obtained information on
school demographics, victimization and gang problems at school,
discipline and control measures used by the school, and principal
demographics. Data were also obtained from the principals on each
school's suspension/expulsion rate, the number and type of security
guards and/or devices used within the school, and other school safety
measures. All three surveys asked whether the school had a student
court and if so, what sanctions could be imposed by the student court
for various forms of student misconduct. Part 3 also includes: (1)
census data providing population demographics, educational attainment,
employment status, marital status, income levels, and area housing
information, (2) arrest rates for six separate crimes: personal crime,
property crime, simple assault, disorderly conduct, drug/alcohol
offenses, and weapons offenses, and (3) items from a "windshield
survey" assessing the type and quality of housing in the area, types
of businesses, the presence of graffiti and gang graffiti, the number
of abandoned cars, and the number and perceived age of pedestrians and
people loitering in the area.
In the public school systems, data were obtained
from 88 percent of the public junior high schools (15 of 17) and
senior high schools (16 of 18) in the county. In the Catholic school
system, data were obtained from 67 percent of the high schools (4 of
6) and 24 percent of the schools containing grades 7 and 8 (8 of 33).
The 44th school was a large private, nondenominational school. The
initial count of 11,085 usable student questionnaires represented
approximately 35 percent of the students in the participating
schools. The initial count of 1,045 usable teacher surveys resulted in
approximately a 40-percent response rate. Principal questionnaires
were returned from 43 of the 44 participating schools, giving a
response rate of 98 percent. One principal did not respond, so data
were located from district files for that school. At the time the
data files were constructed, some cases were eliminated from the
student and teacher data due to uncertainty as to which schools the
surveys referred to.
Several Likert-type scales were used.