School Violence: Trends, Risk Factors,

Prevention, and Recommendations*

CLIFFORD R. O’DONNELL

The four articles in this special issue of Law & Policy have provided a wealth
of information on the trends and risk factors of school violence, as well as
possible means of prevention and recommendations. Each of these topics is
summarized and discussed below to assess our current understanding and
provide a basis for social policy and research.

I. TRENDS

The most encouraging news on school violence is that school-associated

deaths decreased by 78 percent from the 1992–93 to the 1999–00 school year,
with this decline paralleling declines in students reporting that they carried a
weapon to school (down 41 percent) and engaged in physical fights (down
12 percent; Furlong et al. 2001: Table 1). Nevertheless, most school violent
deaths occur through the use of guns, and 8 percent of students report carrying
a gun to school within the last thirty days (Redding & Shalf 2001). It is little
comfort knowing that the rates have decreased, when two of every twenty-five
students have a gun in school on some days during the average month.

II. RISK FACTORS

Of course, not every student is equally likely to bring a weapon to school.

Males, students involved in substance abuse, and students who get into fights
at school are not only more likely to carry a weapon to school, but more likely
to do so frequently (Furlong et al. 2001). Of boys with school-adjustment

* The recommendations presented in this article benefited from discussion by members of the
Study Group on School Violence convened by the Consortium on Children, Families, and the
Law with support from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. These
members included Phillippe Cunningham, Michael Furlong, Jim Larson, Sue Limber, Gary
Melton, Pauline Pagliocca, Reece Peterson, Richard Redding, Mark Small, and Karen Stern.
Clifford O’Donnell served as group leader.
Address correspondence to Dr. Clifford O’Donnell, Department of Psychology, University of
Hawaii, 2430 Campus Road, Honolulu, HI 96822. Telephone: (808) 956-6271; fax: (808) 956-
4700; e-mail: cliffo@hawaii.edu.

LAW & POLICY, Vol. 23, No. 3, July 2001 ISSN 0265–8240
# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK,
410 LAW & POLICY July 2001

problems (thinking of quitting school, absenteeism, and suspension),

34 percent reported carrying a gun to school (ibid.). In addition, carrying
a gun is more likely among juvenile offenders and students with gang
membership, involvement in drug sales, a history of school suspension, or a
history of assaultive behavior, especially in core metropolitan areas (O’Donnell
1995). In one study, 75 percent of male inner-city high school students who
sold drugs usually carried a gun (Sheley & Wright 1993). When some
students bring a gun to school, others become more likely to do so (Redding
& Shalf 2001).
Aside from juvenile offenders and drug dealers, most students report
carrying a gun because they feel threatened and think they need protection
(Furlong et al. 2001; Redding & Shalf 2001). Interestingly, this is the same
reason most adult gun owners give for having a handgun in their homes
(O’Donnell 1995). Furthermore, students most often obtain their guns from
their home (where 40 percent of guns are stored unlocked), a family
member, or a friend (Redding & Shalf 2001). It is not surprising that, when
adults have handguns for protection, students also turn to guns when they
feel threatened. Arguably, the widespread availability of guns in the United
States is the greatest risk factor for deadly school violence.
One of the common characteristics of the perpetrators of the recent
multiple school killings is that they felt threatened by other students who
often bullied them. Instead of being juvenile offenders or drug dealers, they
were usually social outcasts (ibid.). Although they did not share the risk
factors of aggressive students who carry weapons to school, they did share
the feelings of being threatened and typically obtained their guns from
home, a family member, or a friend.
An intriguing finding was that there are more students with no known
risk factors carrying weapons to school than students who have high-risk
factors. Although high-risk students are far more likely to carry a weapon
(49.6 percent to 3.9 percent), there are greater numbers of no-risk students
with a weapon (Furlong et al. 2001). This finding raises the question of
whether we are missing other risk factors, whether some students, appar-
ently well-adjusted to school, feel sufficiently threatened to risk carrying
a weapon, or whether they are engaging in peer performance in a social
climate where weapon-carrying conveys peer status. The answers, of course,
lead to very different possibilities for prevention.

III. PREVENTION

The illegality of acts of school violence makes law enforcement a potential

component of any prevention program. Among the most effective law
enforcement programs reported to date are those in Seattle and Boston,
which targeted the most violent juvenile offenders (Seattle) and known
gang leaders (Boston). These efforts reduced school weapon violations by

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

 O’Donnell SCHOOL VIOLENCE: RECOMMENDATIONS 411

23 percent in Seattle and youth homicides by 67 percent in Boston (Redding

& Shalf 2001). In addition, a gun court program in Birmingham that
provided swift consequences for first-time juvenile offenders, with a seven-
week workshop for their parents, reduced juvenile gun-related offenses by
38.7 percent (ibid.).
The success of Virginia’s law limiting gun purchases to one a month in
reducing the supply of Virginia guns recovered by law enforcement officials
in other states shows the potential of affecting illegal trafficking in firearms
(ibid.). It is reasonable to assume that reducing trafficking in firearms would
reduce juvenile access to guns, if this law were extended nationwide.
At the school level, perhaps the most popular policy is zero tolerance with
suspension or expulsion for incidents of school violence. However, there is
a lack of research showing the effectiveness of zero tolerance, and some
studies show increases in community crime, school problems, and school
dropout (Peterson, Larson & Skiba 2001).
Increasingly, state legislatures and school districts have required schools
to develop plans to address school violence and other potential crises. These
plans have included the creation of crisis response teams, the distribution of
information, and the use of hardware such as surveillance cameras and
metal detectors, with one study showing students were less likely to bring
guns and knives to school when random metal detector searches were used
(Redding & Shalf 2001). Pagliocca and Nickerson (2001) reviewed these
approaches and provided the details of the comprehensive plans developed
in New York and Virginia. As they point out, however, there is little
research evaluating their effectiveness.
More encouraging is the emerging outline of a school-based approach to
prevention. Peterson, Larson and Skiba (2001) suggest there is a consensus
on three components that should be part of every school plan: information
for all students to address general student concerns (primary prevention);
individual programs, such as mentoring and tutoring for the fewer at-risk
students (secondary prevention); and intensive programs for the smaller
number of students with chronic problems (tertiary prevention).
For each of these levels, there is a growing number of programs from
which schools may choose. Promising programs with at least some initial
supporting data were reviewed (Peterson, Larson & Skiba 2001; also see
Howard, Flora & Griffin 1999). These programs focused on a range of
behaviors for students of different ages, including social skills, tutoring,
anger management, impulse control, and bullying. Several included parent-
and teacher-training components. In addition, other programs were designed
to promote a positive climate and sense of community in schools.
Rather than recommending specific programs for schools, Peterson,
Larson and Skiba (2001) sensibly offer a process by which schools may
develop their own plans, choosing the programs that best meet their needs.
The process is offered through eight recommendations to involve collab-
orative team planning, use empirically supported programs, seek to develop

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

412 LAW & POLICY July 2001

a positive school climate and sense of community, include a system for

reacting to threats of violence, incorporate schoolwide codes of conduct and
discipline plans, target the needs of chronically aggressive students, plan
for security and crisis management, and assess long-range outcomes. This
process captures much of what is known about the prevention of school
violence and can provide a road map for schools seeking to develop violence
prevention plans specific to their school.

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS

The presentation of the trends, risk factors, and possibilities for the
prevention of school violence in the four articles of this issue suggest many
possibilities for social policy and research. Some of these possibilities are
presented as recommendations below.

A. SOCIAL POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

1. A Code of Conduct for Students and School Personnel

As Peterson, Larson, and Skiba (2001) recommended, a code of conduct
should be part of every school violence prevention plan. A code helps to
establish a norm of expected behavior. A norm contributes to the prevention
of problem behavior and serves to justify actions needed to address problem
behavior. Therefore, a model code of conduct for students and school
personnel, based on positive behavior to the extent possible, should be
developed. The principles of conduct within the code should be expressed as
a set of values, such as treating others with respect. For students, alterna-
tives to school suspension and expulsion should be included to address
different types of school violence. The model code also should include
effective discipline for school personnel.

2. Identification and Analysis of Student Violence

Early warning signs of students at risk for violence have been developed and
distributed to school personnel. However, these signs have high false
positive rates, that is, most students exhibiting these signs do not engage in
violence. Therefore, these signs should be used to identify children needing
attention for a variety of problems, including anger management, peer
conflicts, depression, withdrawal, and bullying, among others, rather than
only for school violence.

3. Support Services for Schools

Schools are primarily designed for education. Addressing student violence is
a challenge that will require additional expertise and support. Therefore, a

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

 O’Donnell SCHOOL VIOLENCE: RECOMMENDATIONS 413

model human resource support system should be developed to assist schools

in addressing violence. This system should include in-school services to
support victims, additional mental health support, and basic training for
school personnel to recognize and respond to the mental health needs of
students and make referrals when appropriate.
University education for teachers and supportive services personnel need
to examine preservice and continuing education priorities to include training
in prevention, including classroom disciplinary management and student
conflict resolution strategies. State education credentialing authorities need
to ensure this preparation for teachers.

4. School Violence Prevention Programs

Ideas on how to prevent violence depend on the assumptions made on the
causes of violence. Different assumptions can lead to dramatically different
prevention programs. Assumptions about a lack of values may lead to
values education, deficits in problem solving to training in conflict resolu-
tion, psychological problems to assessment and treatment, easy access to
firearms to gun control, and excessive media violence to efforts to curtail it.
If prevention programs are to be effective, their assumptions need to be
explicit and examined. Therefore, a model showing the decision process to
address school violence, moving from assumptions to practices, should be
developed in each school prior to implementing prevention programs.
In addition, all programs to address school violence should be evaluated
for effectiveness. Program evaluation can serve as an antidote to false
assumptions and ineffective implementation.

5. Funding
Many of these recommendations for schools can be implemented with
current funds. Others will require additional funding. One possibility is
for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and
the U.S. Department of Education to make available mini-grant funds
for district or school level violence prevention planning. Three- to five-
thousand-dollar grants could be available to support development and
implementation of school violence prevention teams.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Education, OJJDP, and state
education authorities could provide funding for the establishment of a
national cadre of consultants who have the expertise necessary to provide
in-person assistance to school districts involved in school violence preven-
tion efforts.

6. Juvenile Access to Firearms

Much can be done to reduce juvenile access to guns, such as enforcement of

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

414 LAW & POLICY July 2001

laws against street crime, particularly possession and sale of weapons and
drugs (Redding & Shalf 2001) regulation of all gun sales, including those at
gun shows, pawn shops, and private transactions (cf. ibid.); requiring that
all firearms be kept in a locked place and used by juveniles only under direct
parental supervision; and passing a federal one-gun-a-month law to restrict
straw purchases for the illegal gun market (ibid.). A high-profile public-
service advertising campaign, focusing on the potential criminal and civil
liability of gun owners for providing a gun to a juvenile, who uses it illegally,
may make such behavior socially unacceptable (cf. ibid.). In addition, a
system of annual inspection of all gun dealers, licensing of gun owners, and
the registration of all firearms could be used to not only target the illegal
gun market, but also reduce juvenile access to firearms (O’Donnell 1995).

B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH

1. Victims and Perpetrators

Often, concerns about school violence focus on the perpetrators to the
neglect of the victims. Therefore, additional data should be obtained on the
victims of school violence. Data on victims should distinguish between
victims who are also perpetrators of violence and those who are not, as the
characteristics and effects may differ for these groups. These data should
include longitudinal studies, extending into the adult years, on both victims
and perpetrators of school violence to learn more about long-term effects,
and include bullying (verbal, physical, sexual harassment, etc.) as one form
of violence.

2. Effectiveness of Measures to Reduce Juvenile Access to Firearms

Research is needed on the effectiveness of measures designed to reduce
juvenile access to guns. Often research on gun control and safety measures
focus on deaths and injuries, but little is known about their effect on juvenile
access to firearms.

3. Sources of School Violence and Its Prevention

There is much speculation about the sources of school violence and the
means to prevent it. Among the potential sources of violence and violence
prevention requiring further study are: (a) peer networks – given that peer
networks are an important and ubiquitous part of adolescent life, it is likely
that patterns of school violence, including gun carrying, parallel peer
networks and provide a potential means of effective prevention; (b) student
conflicts – distinguishing between those that are amenable to conflict
resolution and those that may require other forms of intervention; (c) peer
aggression based on threats to honor and incidents of disrespect, including

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

 O’Donnell SCHOOL VIOLENCE: RECOMMENDATIONS 415

studies of regional differences and youth culture; (d) the effects of media and
video violence on children; (e) causes and antecedents of bullying, preven-
tion of various types of bullying, and effective programs at different grade
levels and within different types of communities; and (f) the impact of laws
related to school violence, such as automatic expulsions from school.

4. Methodology
Definitions of school violence vary considerably and can be based on
physical injury and death, verbal threats, bullying behavior, and sexual
harassment. These types of violence can have different implications for
social policy and research. For example, a successful program to prevent
physical harm may differ from one to prevent sexual harassment. Therefore,
each definition of school violence should state the intended purpose of the
definition and any implication for social policy or research. Moreover, the
reliability of many surveys of school violence is not known. Therefore,
survey data on school violence should include reliability checks. Finally,
given the low base-rates of multiple killings at schools, studies of incidents
of multiple deaths should include workplace and community settings.

CLIFFORD R. O’DONNELL, Ph.D., is Professor of Psychology at the University of

Hawai’i and serves as Director of the Community and Culture Graduate Program. He
has published extensively on such topics as delinquency prevention, firearm deaths
among children and youth, social networks, programs for at-risk youths, community
intervention, and culturally compatible forms of community development.

REFERENCES

FURLONG, MICHAEL, GALE M. MORRISON, GREGORY AUSTIN, JEANNIE HUH-KIM, and

RODNEY SKAGER (2001) ‘‘Using Student Risk Factors in School Violence
Surveillance Reports: Illustrative Examples for Enhanced Policy Formation,
Implementation, and Evaluation,’’ Law & Policy 23(3):271–95.
HOWARD, KIM A., JUNE FLORA, and MARIE GRIFFIN (1999) ‘‘Violence-Prevention
Programs in Schools: State of the Science and Implications for Future Research,’’
Applied & Preventive Psychology 8:197–215.
O’DONNELL, CLIFFORD R. (1995) ‘‘Firearm Deaths Among Children and Youth,’’
American Psychologist 50:771–76.
PAGLIOCCA, PAULINE M., and AMANDA B. NICKERSON (2001) ‘‘Legislating School
Crisis Response: Good Policy or Just Good Politics?,’’ Law & Policy 23(3):373–
407.
PETERSON, REECE L., JIM LARSON, and RUSSELL SKIBA (2001) ‘‘School Violence
Prevention: Current Status and Policy Recommendations,’’ Law & Policy 23(3):
345–712.
REDDING, RICHARD E., and SARAH M. SHALF (2001) ‘‘The Legal Context of School
Violence: The Effectiveness of Federal, State and Local Law Enforcement Efforts
to Reduce Gun Violence in Schools,’’ Law & Policy 23(3):297–343.

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001

416 LAW & POLICY July 2001

SHELEY, JOSEPH. F., and JAMES D. WRIGHT (1993) Gun Acquisition and Possession in
Selected Juvenile Samples. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, National
Institute of Justice.

# Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2001