Preventing Youth Violence

Shocking crimes being committed by and against children fill the news. Recently in the Quad Cities, a young man was killed for his new pair of Nikes. Two teens strangled and bludgeoned a classmate to death and then proceeded to dismember and burn the corpse. Not long ago in Minnesota, a teen shot his grandparents at the breakfast table and then went to school where he shot and killed a guard and several classmates before turning the gun on himself. Another recent feature of the morning news pictured a four-year-old; wearing blue pajamas, Sponge Bob slippers, and paper bags taped over his hands to protect evidence; being led from his apartment by police. He shot his two-year-old brother over a toy. Youth violence has reached epidemic proportions in the U.S. Access to guns, lack of supervision, and drug and alcohol abuse are a few of the factors paving the way for this trend, but new research in intervention and prevention are identifying programs that work.

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines youth violence as, "threatened or actual physical force or power initiated by an individual that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, physical or psychological injury or death". Youth violence is not limited to violence between young people; it may involve a youth and an adult (CDC). Even though the overall violent crime rate has not risen, an epidemic of youth related violence has been identified by law enforcement agencies and public health officials (Guernsey: 9). While the United States has comparable rates of youth violence as other developed countries, kids are more likely to be killed as a result of the violence in the U.S. (U.S.Youth). Each day in the United States, others kill 2000 youth, 2400 more die by their own hand, and 3500 die in drug and alcohol related traffic accidents. The U.S. Justice Department estimates that this year nearly a million twelve to nineteen year olds will be raped, robbed, or assaulted, often by their peers (Guernsey: 10).

Like any epidemic, youth violence has started in the weakest sectors of the population and spread outward. What began as a low-income, inner-city problem has now infected town and rural populations (Garbarino: 15-18). Violence is in music, video games, movies, and on television. Although no agreements have been reached on the debate over the role of violence in the media, whether it is merely reflecting society or adding to the problem, it has been shown that constant exposure to violence creates numbness to tragedy (Guernsey: 28). This helps create a culture where infection grows. Televised violence increases aggressive behavior in children (Garbarino: 1998). On one hand, children become numb to violence, but on the other hand, they become frightened of becoming victims themselves. This makes them more apt to react to any threat, whether real or imagined, with aggression (Guernsey: 28).

Americans love their guns. Surveys have shown that nearly forty percent of all American households contain at least one gun (Garbarino: 102). These guns are killing our children. Research has shown that the use of guns by kids to solve conflict is a vital factor in the increase of youth homicide rates since WW II (Garbarino: 103). Nearly one-fifth of high school students taking part in a CDC survey reported having carried a gun during the thirty days preceding the survey. In 1998, guns killed eighty-two percent of homicide victims aged fifteen to nineteen, and the firearm homicide rate for this group has increased forty-four percent between 1987 and 1998 (CDC).

No single reason can explain the complex epidemic of youth violence, but a number of risk factors can be directly linked to youth involved in violent crime. Multiple factors rather than a single aspect put children at risk. A breakdown in the American family plays an important role. Witnessing domestic violence and/or being abused are the strongest predictors that children will become perpetrators or victims of future violence (Wright State Expert). From 1986 to 1993, the rate of child endangerment, those who have already been abused and those who are at risk for imminent harm, nearly doubled going from twenty-two per 100,000 in 1986 to forty-two per 100,000 in 1993 (Garbarino: 13). A lack of guidance is also a risk factor. Statistics show that nearly one in ten children come home to an empty house after school and the number of children living in single parent home has tripled since 1960. Over sixty percent of all children spend at least some time in a single-parent household (Guernsey: 21). Finding young children home alone was once common only among low-income families but now has become the norm among all families (Garbarino: 16). Some parents suffer from mental illness; some parents abuse drugs and alcohol. For whatever reason, these parents are unable to successfully perform parental tasks and form strong bonds with their children, leaving the kids open to the risk of violence (CDC).

Other risk factors include poverty, drug and alcohol abuse, gang involvement and academic failure. Many American law enforcement officials blame drugs for a large part of youth violence. Drug trafficking has always been steeped in violence and drug use can hinder a person's ability to cope with anger or other strong emotions (Guernsey: 72). Nearly all communities have a drug subculture. Fifty percent of all high school boys admit to having used marijuana, and thirty-seven percent report heavy alcohol consumption (Garbarino: 13). Gangs are another inner-city problem, which has spread to all areas. They can provide a sense of belonging and protection for children from dysfunctional homes. Gang involvement is up fifty percent from 1989 to 1995 (Garbarino: 13). Much of this trend can be blamed on the drug trade (Guernsey: 35). These risk factors often begin with or lead to difficulties at school. The CDC recognizes low commitment to school and academic failure as another major risk factor (CDC).

Youth violence has also infected the school setting. Schools are adding protections such as metal detectors at the doors, guards, and bulletproof glass. Children are still expected to study and learn in this atmosphere of fear. School crime has gotten more violent including rape, assault, drug crimes and even murder. A 1993 study found that nearly one-fourth of the students questioned had been the victims of school violence (Guernsey: 27). Guns are the most popular form of protection among school children, further escalating the problem (Guernsey: 28). The good news is that violent school crime has dropped fifty percent from 1992 to 2002 according to a report from the Education and Justice Departments, from 1.1 million in 1992 to 659,000 in 2002 (Violent Crime).

A study by the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Department of Education of thirty-seven school shootings found that school shooters don't follow a typical profile of youth violence. No standard profile of a violent school offender currently exists (Haong). While the perpetrators of the shootings were all boys, they varied in age, race, family situations, academic achievement, popularity, and record of previous violent behavior (Crawford). Perpetrators of school violence fall into two broad categories. The first is insiders (e.g. students) and the second group involves visiting outsiders, such as former students or students from other schools (Haong). The first group can further be divided into two further categories: sociopaths (e.g. bullies who initiate fights and manipulate others) and psychopaths, for example loners who are socially inept and have the potential for great violence (Haong). The study by the Secret Service found that nearly three-quarters of student shooters felt bullied by others and several of the shooters reported long term and severe bullying at the hands of peers (Crawford). In almost eighty percent of the cases at least one person knew the assailant was planning something. Most attackers exhibit troubling behavior before the crime such as writing troubling stories or poetry or asking about or trying to obtain a gun (Crawford).

Bullying, an old problem, has gained new relevance in light of the recent school shootings. Dan Olweus, considered to be the father of bullying research, defines bullying as the repeated and over time, exposure to negative actions on the part of one or more other students (Olweus: 9). A national study of nearly 16,000 students found that about nineteen percent of students had either been bullied, bullied others, or both (Crawford). Other findings of the study were: bullying occurs most often between sixth and eighth grades, among boys, bully/victims are likely to be socially isolated, bullies are often poor students, and they are more likely to smoke and drink (Crawford). Teachers and other adults are not always able to identify bullies, which can have serious implications for schools trying to rectify the situation (Crawford).

Scandinavian countries have been credited as the first to begin a national campaign against bullying (U.S. Youth). Olweus, of Sweden, has developed an intervention program, which addresses the problem at school, class, and individual levels. Extensive research has shown remarkable results with this program including a fifty percent or more reduction of bully/victim problems; a drop in anti-social behavior such as drinking, vandalism, and truancy; and clear improvements in student satisfaction with the school environment (Olweus: 113). At the school level, identification of the problem through surveys and interviews with teachers, students and parents identifies the problem. Better supervision of free time, such as lunch and recess, and parent/staff meetings are then implemented (Olweus: 113). Class level interventions include rules aimed specifically at bullying behaviors, role-playing and literature. Serious talks with bullies, victims, and their parents, help from neutral students, and a change of class or schools are individual level interventions (Olweus: 113).

To be effective, youth violence prevention and intervention strategies must target not only the youth but also the complex network of family, community and environmental circumstances that impact the individual's capacity to avoid risk (National Youth). Multiple factors place a child at risk; therefore, effective intervention must address all of the different spheres of influence in a variety of settings. In recent years, extensive research has carefully evaluated the effectiveness of a variety of prevention programs and strategies and has proven a number of programs effective and identified strategies that don't work (National Youth). Primary prevention looks at root causes and conditions and tries to stop the problem before it starts. Some effective primary prevention strategies are job training programs, parent training, and after school programs (National Youth). Two of the programs identified by the surgeon general as model primary prevention programs are Multisystemic therapy (MST) and home visitation (Surgeon General). MST is a home-based program in which a boy and his family undergo many different types of therapy including family therapy, parent management therapy, and an attempt to redirect the way a boy thinks about his social relationships including peer interactions. Home visitation is where a visitor, typically a nurse, goes into the home to establish a relationship with a mother to be. The nurse teaches essential parenting skills and provides a caring contact for the mother. Visits continue for the first two years of the child's life, and positive effects, including fewer infant health problems and dramatically less child maltreatment, have been seen long after the program is discontinued (Surgeon General).

Secondary prevention targets individuals who display one or more risk factors. Skills oriented programs are among the most promising strategies for reducing youth violence and risk factors (Surgeon General). Life Skills Training (LST), a program that targets junior high school students, has been identified by the surgeon general as a model secondary prevention program (Surgeon General). This three-year intervention program aims to prevent or reduce gateway drug use, and evaluations have shown a reduction in tobacco, marijuana, and alcohol use (Kaplan). Long-term benefits have been shown to include a lowered use of drugs including inhalants, hallucinogens, and narcotics (Surgeon General).

Unfortunately, The Surgeon General's Report on Youth violence also identified a number of widely used programs as ineffective or worse, as having a negative effect (Surgeon General). These programs have been evaluated with rigorous experimental designs (Youth Violence). There is no evidence for the effectiveness of peer-led school programs, such as peer counseling or peer mediation, in reducing violence. The widely used D.A.R.E. program shows no success (Surgeon General). Gun buy back programs do not appear to reduce gun violence (Youth Violence). Programs which use scare tactics, such as Scared Straight, to prevent children and adolescents from engaging in risky behavior, appear not only to be ineffective but may have negative effects (Kaplan). Programs that are designed to 'get tough' with delinquent youth such as boot camps or detention centers appear to do nothing more than provide an opportunity for delinquent youth to amplify negative effects on each other (Kaplan).

Youth violence prevention is a young field of study but is growing rapidly. While extensive data remains limited, new information and evaluations are becoming rapidly available. Youth violence is a complex problem with many different facets. There is and will be no one-size-fits-all plan of action. Multi-faceted strategies are being used and sought in prevention and intervention. The drop in school violence rates is an encouraging development. Youth violence is an epidemic in our country, but effective cures are being sought and recognized while ineffective strategies are being identified and replaced.

Works Cited

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Injury Fact Book 2001-2005." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 18 March 2005 .

Crawford, Susan. "New Ways to Prevent Bullying." Monitor on Psychology Oct. 2002:64. APA Online. 15 March 2005 .

Garbarino, James Ph.D. Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn Violent and How We Can Save Them. New York: Anchor Books, 2000.

Guernsey, JoAnn. Youth Violence an American Epidemic. Minneapolis, MN: Lerner Publications Company, 1996.

Hoang, Francis Q. "Addressing School Violence." The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 70.8 (August 2001):18 Expanded Academic Index. InfoTrac. Western Illinois Libraries, Macomb, IL. 12 April 2005 .

Kaplan, Arline. "Youth Violence Prevention Conference Explores Risk Factors, Interventions." Psychiatric Times 1 Dec. 2004: 1. Lexis Nexis Academic. Western Illinois University Libraries, Macomb, IL. 14 March 2005 .

National Youth Violence Prevention Resource Center. Safe Youth. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Federal Partners Working on Youth Violence. 15 March 2005 .

Olweus, Dan. Bullying at School. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2001.

Surgeon General. Youth Violence:A Report of the Surgeon General. Surgeon General. 1 April 2005 .

"U.S. Youths More Likely to Die from Violent Causes." The Brown University Child and Adolescent Behavior Letter. 20.7 (July 2004):2. Expanded Academic Index . InfoTrac. Western Illinois University Libraries, Macomb, IL. 12 April 2005 .

"Violent Crime in Schools Drops 50 Percent in a Decade." Curriculum Review . 44.6 (February 2005):8C. Expanded Academic Index. InfoTrac. Western Illinois Libraries, Macomb, IL. 12 April 2005 ."Wright State Expert on Violence Prevention in Children says Parents Should Look For Warning Signs." Ascribe Newswire 16 Feb. 2005. Lexis Nexis. Western Illinois University Libraries, Macomb, IL. 14 March 2005 .