.1 . [Iaét .. .. r .v. - ~,_v...~ «UH ’ o ~|Nliv v ' b .0 «II. \- . . ..nwu~.vXLuhal:Ihu n ' I. v It a u 4 .5 r! n.l.w- IQ . uv J. i c l |‘. Y Q - . : .. . . . 533w...» ..... I. a fin... thx...‘ .. . A I.W.1.....t . n. c . o . .u . n.# .u ”bx-c. slim ink"?! s Nfinuhu .Ia‘flfur .‘ln.-..‘.‘..o‘-..Wa.d1. Arr r” . . . $1.: a . . It.“ tvlf. . . .Ro In‘ 1).. 1.0 .$‘l.-\1, 1... aa\r.5..cq N‘s.MquoL,llhov..no.Hanw.|OO-v.i.:tllulnoh~N‘xmva?“o § ”2|“. .IIAI ll».£a\'.4. olill‘ 7? v.71» 1K1 .vIl.u:l ““7. ILQ .u:.. .Hln-u\..1- c. '80. all iv] . J, v . u ,o V. O! L 1‘1...wua zopom mucuwm mcflmgu mo>flcx mcao 11 01mm From this review of the data, the researcher believes that weapons may be a threat to some school children. If students are carrying weapons to protect themselves, the volume could increase along with the threat of violence. On the other hand, if students are more violent, then students fear may increase because of the added risk they have to take to get an education. Many students may not return to school because they may see the perceived risk as being far greater than a secondary education. The first object of this study is to find out why students are carrying weapons. Once we can determine the source of this problem then we would be able to work on programs and solutions to help reduce weapons and other violent acts in the school systems. This study will emphasize the main reasons or perceptions on why students carry weapons to school. In addition, it will also help us to understand the greatest fears of students while trying to receive an education. This in turn may help school officials find solutions to reduce the stress of attending school. 12 THE THEORY Many authorities have debated over the right to bear arms. For many Americans, the fear of crime and or physical injury is enough to influence them to purchase weapons for protection. One of the most popular weapons are firearms. Today, there are many law abiding citizens that are not only purchasing weapons but carrying and using them. One familiar reason for the possession of weapons is due to peOple perceiving that the criminal element of the population have and will use weapons if they get an opportunity. The researcher believes that young people may feel this need just as adults. With an inCrease of weapons being reported in the school, the researcher would like to investigate this issue to see if students need weapons for protection or for other reasons. RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. Do students carry weapons to school because of fear of physical violence? 2. Do students carry weapons because they believe that they need them for self protection? 13 ALTERNATIVES TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS Do students carry weapons to school to Victimize other students? Will the number of times a student has been Victimize affect weapons possession? Will the perceived volume and threat of weapons influence the number of students carrying weapons? Do students carry weapons to school because they are encouraged by the actions and behavior of others in the school? Reference: (Chapter 1) Ball, Z. and Kresnak, J. (1984) "Gunplay Turns to Child's Play on the Streets of the City." The Detroit Free Press Sunday November 11, 1984. Detroit School Security Personnel Department (1984) A E119- X E . E E 1 H (E . E W Kelly, D. J. and Phlllips, J. C. (1979) "School Failure and Delinquency Which Causes Which? Criminology, 17, 1974-207. Rubel, R. J. (1978) "Victimization and Fear in Public Schools: Survey of Activities." Viglimglgg1;__An W1, 3. 339-341. Statistical Data Profiles of Detroit's High Schools: 1975 to 1984. WM (1984). Sugpengign_Annual_Ren911§. (1978-1984) Self Reported Suspensions and Exclusions on Students by Individual Schools, Detroit Public Schools. Tygart, C. E. (1980) "Students Social Structures and/or Sub Cultures as Factors in School Crime: Toward a Paradigm." W1. 13-21. Uniform Code of Student Conduct - Detroit Public Schools (1983-1984). U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1978) .0 ‘l .00 ‘ . ‘ .00 " g‘ ._ ‘ .00 Lo RepQ11_LQ_QQngLe§§. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Vinter, R. D. (1979) Trends in State Correction: Juveniles and Violent Young Offender. C11me_and_flelinguen§x 25, 145-161. 14 CHAPTER 2 THE LITERATURE REVIEW lnmduslion This study investigates how the weapons and its result- ing violence is affecting students perceptions and behavior. The subject of violence is not a new phenomenon in relation to school systems. However, the recent availability of weapons have caused even greater concern in the educational community. The problem of school violence and the use of weapons did not escalate overnight. This review of the literature will help explain how the problem developed and escalated in many school systems. In addition, it will also expose the reader to other studies and research on school crime. 0.139.111.2111 Newman (1978) explains that American society has always been a society of violence. Schools both in America and Europe were not one sided in infiicting violence as they are today. For example, in 1843 Horace Mann explained that schools were characterized by idleness and disorder...except in cases where the debasing motive of fear puts the children in irons. Fear was cultivated by an assortment of ingenious and often brutal methods of corporal punishment. Mann reported that in one school of 250 pupils, he saw 238 separate floggings in one week of five school days. Since teachers were often paid 16 according to the progress of their pupils, they tended to inflict punishment for failure to learn as well as for misbehavior. However, students were not merely the passive victims of school personnel, if the master kept the upper hand, they sometimes paid for doing so, for students were periodically violent, and the schools turbulent and chaotic. In France, a large number of students carried arms. Since revolts were common, masters literally feared for their lives, other people were afraid to walk past schools for fear of being attacked. Between 1775 and 1836, mutinies, strikes, and violence were so frequent - and sometimes so severe that the masters had to call upon the military for assistance. Schools developed an increasing role in socializing youths in the late 1800's and early 1900's. The schools were in charge and many youths often struck back with delinquent acts. There is little written about school violence between 1850 and 1950. Only in the fifties do we get the picture that violence is still present in the school. A big question is what happened between the severe violence during the early part of our history and the fifties (Newman, 1980). More recently, in ghettos of major urban centers, unruly student misbehaviors became sufficiently more noticable. In fact, by the mid 1950's the U.S Senate conducted hearings in cities throughout our nation to determine the scope of the disruption. In addition, there 17 was a noticable change in the types of crimes committed by youths (Burgan and Rubel, 1980). As the years passed, students, teachers, and admin- istrators all came in for their share of ever increasing harassment, intimidation, and assault. As the 1960's gave way to the 1970's buildings were, with alarming frequency defaced, vandalized and even burned beyond repair. Equipment and supplies were defaced, destroyed, and stolen at an immense cost to the tax payers. And as inflation rose up wards in this period, tax payers concern evolved into alarm over the senseless and nonproductive loss (Burgan and Rubel, 1980). The evidence from a number of studies and official sources indicate that acts of violence and property destruction in schools increased from the early sixties to the seventies, then leveled off after the early 1970's (U.S. Dept. H.E.W., 1978). However, other researchers indicated different views such as Raymond Belly who notes some startling trends on youthful crime, in general, that have emerged since the 1960's: 1. Many of the crimes committed now are much more serious and involved considerable violence. 2. The crimes are often carried out with the aid of weapons. 3. The crimes are committed by gangs organized specifically for that purpose. 18 4. The crimes are often directed at those in the community most vulnerable to physical assault - the very old and the very young. 5. Young persons involved in delinquent acts appear to be less responsive to the traditional controls of family, school, and police. (National School Public Relations Association, 1975, p. 7.) Although Belly was looking at the community as a whole, many of the schools reported increased violent behaviors and presence of weapons. In the early 1970's in Wisconsin, the Green Bay Public schools indicated that the number of weapons confiscated by school officials increased from 25 to 39 (Bayh, 1975). During this time period, one study indicated that weapons violations appeared to be on the increase in 14 cities where they had been decreasing over the years (Connolly et al., 1976). In 1971 a 15 year old student at Franklin D. Roosevelt Junior High school in Cleveland was shot to death in a second floor boy's restroom by four of his class mates who fired six bullets from a rifle into his head (Bayh, 1975). Juveniles arrested for possession of deadly weapons increased 51% in 1972 and an additional 84% in 1973, when over 1,000 juveniles were arrested for this offense (National School Public Relations Association, 1975). 19 Some 350 students were kept home from Adli Stevenson High School in New York City from September 1971 to March 1972 out of fear for their safety. Parents stated that this action was warranted because of children being mugged, robbed, intimidated, harassed, and stabbed by other students who were members of Bronx gangs (Bayh, 1975). National School Public Relations Association (1975) indicated that one study was based on answers to 1973 survey of 516 school districts with enrollments of 10,000 or more pupils. The findings concluded that between 1970 and 1973 school-related homicides increased by 18.5%, robberies increased by 36.7%, rapes and attempted rapes increased by 40.1%, assaults on students increased by 85.3%, dropouts increased by 11.7% and the number of weapons confiscated by school authorities increased by 54%. During the 1972-73 school year Kansas City had 16 shootings. The security manager for the school system spoke of the increasing problem of weapons in his schools (Bayh, 1975). In the first four months of the 1972-73 school year there were 60 gun episodes in Los Angeles High schools, one of which involved the death of a Locke High school student. The increase amount of weapons may have been directly related to fear. On the other hand, it may have been indirectly related to an incident that occurred earlier in the year, where a gun fight left one 16 year old dead and another 17 year old badly wounded. In addition, two 20 years previous to this incident, a rival 15 year old school gang member riddled his victims body with seven shots from a .25 caliber pistol he had concealed in his picket (Bayh, 1975). During 1973, there were almost 10,000 reported crimes committed in schools or on school property in New York City alone, including three murders and 26 forcible rapes (Bayh, 1975). Bayh (1975) reported that the large cities are not the only areas that are having problems. Possessions of firearms and other lethal weapons in the schools is frighten- ing, but even more startling is the growing numbers of reports of actual shootings in the schools. For example, in February 1973 in Richmond Virginia, at one high school, a 17 year old boy was killed and a 14 year old girl was wounded when caught in the cross fire of a gun battle between two youths in a school corridor. At the end of the 1973 school year the number of weapons confiscated by school authorities had risen 54.4% in three years. These weapons included knives, clubs, pistols and even sawed-off shot guns designed to be easily concealed within a student locker. Unlike vandalism, no dollar value can be placed on. violence. There is no way to price student fear, apprehen- sion, tension and nervous exhaustion. Assaults with and without weapons progress so frequently over the years, that by 1976 officials could only estimate that there were 21 hundreds of thousands of assaults on students. Many officials believed that schools were not reporting violence and weapons violations for fear of getting a bad reputation (Tygart, 1980). By 1977, Rubel (1978) indicates that a new trend was emerging in the field of school violence prevention and reduction - researchers began to feel that the fear of crime and violence on the parts of students represented a more serious problem than actual offenses. This would be true, it was felt, because the communication of fear resulting from incidents would adversely effect the social climate of the entire school, and represent a more complex problem than would the acts of crime and violence from whkfllthe fear was derived. Connolly et a1. (1976) states that weapons are wide- spread in our society and in our schools. The statistics on weapon offense involving juveniles as reported in the Uniform Crime Reports provide evidence that a considerable number of school age children have access to weapons. In the 1980's it is not surprising to pick up a news- paper and read headlines such as: "Guns on Campus," "Gun- Toting Students," "Student, 16, Slain on School Campus," "Gun Play turns to Child Play," "Guns Found in Local High School" (Oakland Tribune, 1981; Contra Costa Times, 1981; Los Angeles Times, 1981; Detroit Free Press, 1984). These are just a few headlines that have occurred in the media. Many schools throughout the country are having degrees 22 of student violence. Although violence is not new, the volume of deadly weapons available and the perceived need to have a weapon has turned many schools into war zones. Ihe_Eamilx Friday and Hage (1978) state that when adolescents have meaningful family relationships, educational work and community relationships, they are more likely to become socialized to the dominant norms of society. Not always, but in many cases there has to be a role relationship that help influence youths to do well in school and socialized to the dominant norms of society. The strength of a family relationship can determine the extent of delinquent behavior in youths. Even if a child is delinquent, a strong family support will tend to reduce the actions. The boy with good family relations will probably not associate with delinquent youths (Pode and Regoli, 1979). If there is no communication in the family, there is no feedback for the youth to learn what is appropriate for them. A weak bond to parents enhances the importance of delinquent friends. Many parents approve of delinquent behavior by not acknowledging delinquency in their children because of their own self-pride. The researcher believes if violence is started early in the home and continues throughout adolescence, this pattern will be hard to break. Youths that come from these homes will usually bring their hostility into the school 23 and cause disruption - especially if the family life is still violent at adolescence. W The peer group that rules outside the school often rules in the halls and locker rooms. This reinforces the climate of fear that prevails for many students. What the youngster learns is survival. For many, survival might mean little more than going back and forth to school without being beaten up or being subjected to a Shakedown. These youngsters have to run, or fight or submit to forces that seem overpowering (Carriere, 1979). The researcher believes that the peer group that students identify with will often determine their behavior or, people will choose a peer group to "fit" their behavior. For example, youths who consider themselves a part of a group that value a good education and conform to society norms will be less disruptive in schools. These youths usually try to avoid trouble and its believed that fear may affect them the most. On the other hand, youths that are a part of a group that rebells against school officials and rejects society norms will probably be a perpetrator of violence in the schools. Moorefield (1977) states that past research shows that youths are much more likely to be sympathetic with violence. The hypothesis that third parties would be more supportive of violence in incidents involving youthful Offenders generally receive support. 24 A recent study by McDermott (1983) indicated that being member of a gang not only reduces fear, but it also had other payoffs such as fewer criminal victimizations and no higher rates of delinquency. Youths could perhaps respond to what they perceive to be a dangerous world around (particularly as regards to the school settings) by affil- iating themselves with a larger group (a gang) which might provide some protection and some dumpened fear of subsequent criminal victimization. Thus, despite social condemnation for belonging to a violent gang, the youth who is a member of a functional gang, for whatever reasons, is less apt to fear the school enterprise, and less likely to fear his immediate neighborhood and other every day social settings (Lalli and Savitz, 1977). Lalli and Savitz (1977) explain that some researchers claim that gang violence has both an indirect and a diran effect on schools. Traditionally schools have been viewed as neutral territory or places where gang activity would not take place. Some school officials claim that this tradition is still honored. Nevertheless, they point out that gang activity in the area of the school has an indirect effect of intimidating staff and students. Thus, when gangs are fighting one another, school attendance drops and those students who do attend school are more concerned about personal safety than education. The fear of what might happen is enough to literally frighten a student out of an education. In many instances the simple fact that a 25 student has to cross the turf of a rival gang in order to get to school is enough to keep him home. However, other researchers have concluded that gangs no longer see the schools as neutral grounds. Twenty years ago youth gangs, staked out a neighborhood territory and protected it against competing gangs. In these gangs they fought with knives, chains and clubs. Many gang members were injured and even killed, but outsiders were seldom the victims (Moorefield, 1977). Youth gangs today are different. They prey on innocent bystanders and their weapon is usually a hand gun. A recent study carried out for the U.S. Department of Justice Law Enforcement Assistance Administration reported that youth gangs in some large cities regularly took control of school cafeterias, playgrounds, and hallways, shaking down students for permission to use these publiC‘ supported facilities and threatened teachers and administrators who tried to intervene (Moorefield, 1977). Much gang violence seems not to erupt spontaneously out of anger, but is chosen and manipulated for its ability to impress others. The motives of gain and control now seem to be playing a larger role in gang activities purport- edly occurring in and around schools in major gang affected cities across the nation. For instance: 26 1. Gang members use violence and threats of violence to discourage teachers from reporting their illegal activities to school authorities. 2. Gang members collect protection money from students for the privilege of not being assaulted by gang members while in school. 3. Gang members are reported to be using schools to recruit members. 4. Gangs are responsible for extensive vandalism of school facilities and destruction of buildings through arson. (Connolly et al., 1976, p. 25) There have been studies that have indicated that gangs are very muchzlpart of not only the growing urban violence pattern, but also the suburban and rural as well. Where administrators and community leaders are not aware of these groups, or overlook their activities, the groups operate freely. Schools become infected. Gang members broadcast their presence and challenge other gangs. Initmidation of students and teachers is common (Attorney General's Office State of California, 1976). There are other studies that indicated conflicting conclusions about violence and youth gangs. Hindelang (1976) explains that what might be termed aggressive behavior: carrying dangerous weapons, fist fighting, and weapon fighting is, on the whole, lone behavior, contrary to images of the fighting gangs envisaged by theorists and the press of the sixties fighting and carrying weapons are more often 27 solitary offenses committed without the action and partici- pation of peers. Offenders who tend to engage in illegal behavior in groups are more likely to have been picked up by the police than are Offenders who tend to engage in illegal behavior in isolation, even when the seriousness and frequency of the offenses in which the two groups have engaged are comparable. Ihejchool The integrating function of school is frequently taken for granted. The conclusion of an eleven year longitudinal study found the school to be the third most important factor . contributing to delinquency. Only the family and peer groups had more pervasive effects (Friday and Hage, 1976). Newman (1980) indicates two major explanations for school violence. The first assumes some kind of inherent relationship between the behavior of students and the structure and disciplinary practices of the schools. The second approach attributes school disorders to characteristics of the students. Student sinfulness, age, and sub-cultural origins have been looked to for explanation by various writers. What motivates adolescents to participate in school- related destructive norm violating behavior? Clearly, those single factors, or multiplicity of factors which motivate school-related crime must be understood if protective and preventive programs are to result. A review of the literature isolates at least six major categories 28 of contributing motivations: financial or property gain, pursuit of social cause, malicious play, unfulfilled or unmet emotional needs, poor school achievement, and gang affiliation (Heald, 1978). Many researchers believe that motivation to commit a crime is, by itself, insufficient to produce an event such as a crime. Potential offenders must be able to contact potential victims, and such contact must occur. Therefore, because of the structure of the school, it can be one of the main sources of the delinquent subculture. In addition, areas that are used by many people are bound to have a higher crime rate. The problems of observing or deterring unwanted behavior can increase with the number of individuals present (Lobosco and Rocek, 1983). It is alarmingly apparent that students misbehavior and conflict within our school system is no longer limited to a fight between individual students or an occasional general disruption resulting from a specific incident. Instead, schools are experiencing serious crimes of a felon- ious nature including brutal assaults on teachers and students, as well as rapes, extortions, burglaries, thefts and unprecedented wave of wanton destruction and vandalism. A small group of disruptive and violent students can create conditions which make the task of education impossible and dangerous for both teachers and other students. On the same line, however, Sentor Bayh (1975) indicated that mass expulsions of these students from schools Often creates 30 groups of resentful youngsters who return to the school community to seek vengence. In terms of relative risks (per hour), in general, the secondary school student's risk of experiencing personal violence is 13 times greater during lunch and between class periods than in class. The risk is highest between periods when the student has 14 times as great a chance of encounter- ing personal violence as in class. For the high school student, the risk between periods is 20 times greater (U.S. Dept. of H.E.W., 1978). The classrooms are the safest places for students in school, considering the amount of time spent there. The places that are not safe include: the hallways, stairs, restrooms, cafeterias and locker rooms. Since nearly one sixth of all violence encountered by high school students occurs in restrooms, many students consciously avoid them (U. D. Dept. of H.E.W., 1978). One study found that students classified as chronic discipline problems rarely got into difficulty with law enforcement agencies or dropped out of school (Hindelang, 1976). On the same line, another study concluded that except for trespassing and break-ins, the great majority (74%-98%) of all reported offenses for which information about offenses is available were committed by current students at the school in question (U. S. Dept. of H.E.W., 1978). If both these studies are accurate, than the existence of the violence in the school would be more understandable. 31 According to U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare report (1978), probably the best way to prevent violence is to have a strong administration. Students respond better to school officials if they feel their discipline is fair to all. Moreover, they respond better when they are able to direct and influence disciplinary procedures. In contrast, there has been studies that concluded that schools that have outside security, especially the police, have a greater amount of violence. Many students for one reason or other feel antagonistic towards the police. The students that perpetuate the violence will also see the police presence as a challenge to commit violent acts and not to get caught. The root of school problems could be traced to problems existing in the general American society rather than to conditions or failures within the school system itself (Birch, 1975). Will We must realize that crimes do not occur in the schools in isolation from crime in the rest of society. Indeed, much of what is called crime in the schools is really crime committed by young people who happen to be enrolled in a school or who happen to commit the crime on the way to or from school (McDermott, 1983). Friday and Hage (1975) state that youth crimes are most frequent in urban, industrial, affluent societies, and within these societies are concentrated primarily in 32 urban areas (2) the perpetrators of the majority of offenses themselves are generally against property, and (4) the majority of these youthful Offenders do not continue in crime but eventually lead relatively law-abiding lives. The current trend in criminological theory has been to concentrate on either the subcultural or situational variables affecting the young urban male, rather than on the wider societal origins such as urbanization and industrialization. Youth in cities run a greater risk of violence in school than elsewhere except in high crime neighborhoods. In these areas, the schools are safer than the surrounding communities. The problem is as serious as it has ever been, the risk of violence for young adolescents in cities are greater at school than elsewhere, and around 6,700 schools are seriously affected by crime. Although, the problem is most pronounced in urban areas, it cannot be seen as strictly urban (U.S. Dept. of H.E.W., 1978). The lack of legitimate opportunities for many youths may be an important factor in influencing the rate of violence in the community. The frustrations of being unemploy- ed or not seeing future potential work leads to violent acts and crime. These individuals then decided to take from others that have the items that they want. There is evidence that juvenile victims of crime and the offenders share the same background: not only are both likely to be male, nonwhite, and between the ages of twelve and nineteen, but they also are apt to be part of the same 33 subculture within that large population (Alcabes and Jones, 1980). Fear Fear of crime refers to anxiety caused by awareness of apprehension of danger of being personally harmed in a criminnal act (McDermott, 1980). According to a National Crime Commission study (Boston, 1977) people who fear crime restrict their behavior patterns by staying home at night and by avoiding strangers. Sundeen and Mathieu (1976) found that fear of crime caused a number of changes in the behavior of the residents of three urban communities. These changes included obtaining weapons for self-protection. Fear has produced similar behaviors among juveniles and adults (Toseland, 1982). When citizens in Washington D.C. were asked what steps they took to protect themselves against crime, they commonly spoke of avoiding danger in the streets and indicated that they sometimes stayed home at night or used taxis, or that they avoided talking to strangers. Some spoke of measures to protect themselves and their property at home, such as keeping firearms or watchdogs or putting stronger locks on the doors and windows (Savitz, 1973). Connelly et al. (1976) explains that fear of violence appears to have two detrimental effects on schools (1) it impedes the educational process, and (2) it may initiate a vicious cycle which leads to more violence. For example, students, teachers and administrators often fail to report 34 incidents of violence because they fear retaliation. As a result, the violence goes unchecked and continues to grow. To cite another example, fear often causes students and teachers to arm themselves against perceived danger with the result that more and more people are carrying guns, knives, and other weapons into school buildings. In this way, fear of violence itself may become a major cause of violence. It has been observed that people fear crime but life goes on. Yet, it is not likely that among highly fearful students learning goes on. Fear and apprehension are likely to affect the concentration and academic performance of .students, as well as their participation in school activities, attitudes toward school, and a variety of other factors thought to be important in learning settings (McDermott, 1980). Studies of fear of crime have found that people who live in high crime areas are more fearful of street crime in their own neighborhoods than people who live in low crime areas. However, the differences in fear are not nearly as great as would be expected from the differences in crime rates. On the other hand, the familiarity of the immediate neighborhood produces a sense of security: people and events become known, patterned and predictable. On the same line, we need to assume that familiar environment, such as the streets in our own neighborhood are safe-even if our subjective assessments are not on par with our 35 objective risks. Otherwise social functioning would be impossible (McDermott, 1980). The further beyond the local neighborhoOd, the greater the level of fear. Students from high crime neighborhoods are more appre- hensive about being hurt or bothered in school than students from low crime neighborhoods. Similarly, levels of fear in schools, were highly related to levels of urbanization. It is likely that fear apprehension in schools, for many students is atleast partially a carry-over of the fear and apprehension they experience else where in thier communities (McDermott, 1980). Lalli and Savitz (1977) indicate that all school settings are rated to be dangerous by a sizable percentage of juvenile respondents, and the process of getting to and getting from school being among the most dangerous of all social situations in which the child finds himself. The area around the school can cause more fear than the school does. One study indicated that one-quarter of the male students who were interviewed felt that the halls and rooms of the local public school building were dangerous. Approximately half of the students questioned were fearful of streets leading to and from school as well as the school yard (Connolly et al., 1976). Young respondents are slightly more fearful of crime than respondents between the ages of 25 and 44. Increased fear in the younger age group may be due to several factors, including decreased availability of private transportation, 36 spending time away from home in the evening hours, and the high prOportion of criminal offenders and victims who are juveniles. The major fears indicated by the juvenile reSpondents involved crimes being committed against them by teenagers rather than by adult offenders. In one study the majority of victims knew their attackers. Eighty six percent had seen them before and 75% knew their name (Toseland, 1982). Along the same line, students rarely report crimes that happen to them. In the study done by Byth et a1. (1980), they found that of victimized youths, only 8% had reported any incidents to the police, with another 11% reporting incidents to some other official agency such as the school. Since only one in five students report such incidents to some type of public official, the actual rate of student victimization in schools could be as much as five times higher than that noted in the official school or police sources. Toseland (1982) explains that juvenile offenders and victims may be locked together in a vicious social process. Most young offenders are not likely to be punished. Their victims, in turn, perceive that there is little support for law abiding norms. In fact, the message may be conveyed that society condones the acquisition of goods through illegitimate means. If such a message is internalized, then the obvious route to retribution and justice available to the juvenile victim is to Victimize others. 37 Another issue that must be taken into consideration is that a person may at one time be a victim and the next time an offender. This may be particularly true among juveniles who commit and suffer thefts and assaults. If we were to extract somehow from the youth population the three groups - offenders, victims, and fearful youths - these groups would not be mutually exclusive. Some (probably many) victims are fearful, but some of the fearful youths are probably offenders, and at least some offenders have also been victims. It is suggested that an examination of the nature and extent of the overlap in these groups will illuminate our understanding of school crime (McDermott, 1983). The victimization both volume and type will have a direct impact on fear. For example, Byth et a1. (1980) study indicated a significant association between being a victim and the perception of danger. Almost 50% of the victims perceive their school as being dangerous as compared to approximately 22% of the non-victims. The most recent victimization should have the greatest impact on the fear of crime, and the personal victimizations included in the variable would seem to be the ones most likely to create fear of crime when they are experienced. Direct victimization also results in psychosocial and behavior change in the victim. For example, Cohn (1974), studying the victims of assault and robbery, found some impairments of the victims ability to function in social and vocational behavior. 38 Crime also affects those people who are not direct victims, of crime, but who are fearful of becoming victims. This second form of victimization, which affects many peOple in society, has been called indirect victimization (Conklin, 1971). This indirect victimization or fear of crime, has been estimated to affect 41% of all U.S. citizens and over half of all people who live in large cities (Hinderlang, 1975). The fear of future victimization is to be found throughout the entire population regardless of previous victimization experiences (Lalli and Savitz, 1977). In contrast, there have been studies that have indicated a weak to moderate relationship between measures of previous victimization and fear (McDermott, 1980). Savitz (1977) states that fear patterns remain surprisingly stable over time - this being particularly true for juveniles. One way to get a realization of this climate of fear is by understanding that in many schools students are actually afraid to go to the toilet for fear of being beaten up, robbed or possibly even killed. In many cases parents take their children out of public schools because of fear (Dukie, 1973). Rubel's (1978) longitudinal survey study of 532 males and their parents showed high rates of parental fear of their childrens' being criminally assaulted or robbed in the school environment. Juveniles were generally fearful of all education-related settings, including school rooms, hallways, school yards,. and most significantly, streets 39 going to and coming from school. These fears were found for all social classes, but most heavily for lower class boys and their parents. Another major concern for both parents and their youths were the perceived dangerousness of one's own neighborhood area. The high fear levels are, for some people, a function of the knowledge of victimization of friends and acquaintances, while many continuous mass media presentation of crime news will elevate or sustain, high fear levels (Rubel, 1978). MamMedia There appears to be widespread fear, especially in central cities, of being assaulted, robbed, and raped on the streets. Most social analysts agree that the fear is present and real. As the mass media presents information more rapidly about a phenomenon (crime) to more consumers over wider areas, these consumers tend to assume that the frequency of the phenomenon is increasing. This kind of instant news may be partially responsible for the increased fear of being victimized (Kelly and Phillips, 1979). Summall The escalation of violence in schools did not develop overnight. The establishment of the school was grounded on violence. For the most part violence was tolerated in the schools. However, in the sixties, students started to not only carry weapons, but now they used them. The weapons problem started in moderation up until the seventies. 40 In the late seventies, violence was accepted as a part of reality in the schools, and this was the introduction and use of firearms. Researchers, teachers, and school administrators have all expressed their concern about the weapons problem. There are many social factors that might determine student reaction to violence and fear of violence such as the family, peer groups, the school environment, the community, student fears, and the mass media. Each one of these social factors have affected the volume and use of weapons in our school systems. References (Chapter 2) Alcabe, and Jones, J.A. (1980) Juvenile Victims Assistance Programs: A Proposal. C11me_and_flglinguengy, 4, 202-205. Ball, A. and Kresnak, J. (1984) Gunplay Turn to Child's Play on the Streets of the City. The Degzgi; Free Exegs, Sunday, November 11, 1984. Bayh,B. (1975) Our Nation's Schools - A Report Card: "A" In School Violence and Vandalism. Preliminary Report of the Sub Committee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Burgan L. and Rubel, R. J. (1980) Public School Security Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Conlempg1311_fifiugagign, 52. Bush, D. M., Byth, D. F., Simmons, R. G., Thiel, K. S. (1980) Another Look at School Crime: Student as Victim. You1h_and_fiocie1x. 11, 369-388. Carriere, R. H. (1979) Peer Violence Forces Kids Out of School . W11 Connolly, J., Henning, P., Marvin, M., McCann, R., Temkin, S. (1976). Planning Assistance Program to Reduce School Violence and Disruption. Research for Better Schools, Inc. Dukiet, K. H. (1973) Spotlight on School Security. School Management, 16-18. Felson, R. B., Ribner, S.A., Siegel, M.S. (1984) Age and the Effect of Third Parties During Criminal Violence. SDgi219£x_and_§Qicial_Bc§QaLch. 68. Friday, P. C. and Hage, I. (1976) Youth Crime in Post Industrial Societies: An Integrated Perspective. Criminolgzx. 14- Garafalo, I. (1979) Victimization and the Fear of Crime. JOurnaL4mLJhauuuuflLjJLfiuime_§_Delinanensx. 16- Heald, J. E., Miller, T. L., Rothmans, G. G., and Sabatino, D. A. (1978) Destructive Norm - Violating School Behavior Among Adolescents: A Review of Protective and Preventive Efforts. Adglefigenge, xll, 675-685. Hindelang, M. J. (1976) With a Little Help From Their Friends. B1i1i1h_lguxnal_gf;gximinglggx, 16, 109-125. Jones, W. J. (1973) Discipline Crisis in Schools: The Problem, Causes and Search for Solutions. National School Public Relations Association, 23-40. Kelly, D. H. and Phillips, J. C. (1979) School Failure and Delinquency Which Causes Which? Qximinglggy, 17, 194-207. Lalli, M. and Savitz, L. D. (1977) The Fear of Crime in the School Enterprise and its Consequences, 8, 401-415. Lobosco, A. and Rocek, D. W. (1983) Effects of High Schools on Crime in their Neighborhoods. Sgcial_§cien§e_Quazlexlx. 64, 598-613. Maclay, K. (1981) Gun-Toting Students Trigger Controversy. W. February 9. 1981. McDermott, J. (1980) High Anxiety - Fear of Crime in Secondary Schools. MW, 52, 18-23. McDermott, J. (1983) Crime in the School and in the Community: Offenders, Victims, and Fearful Youths. Crime § Delingugngy, 270-282. Moorefield, S. (1977) North, South, East, and West Side Story. Ame;i;an_fiduga;ign, 13, 12-16. Newman, J. (1980) From Past to Future: School Violence in a Broadview. WW. 52. 7-11- Pestello, H. F. (1983) Fear and Misbehavior in a High School. Ihg_§ggiglggical_Quax;gxlx, 24, 561-573. Poole, E. D. and Regoli, R. M. (1979) Parental Support, Delinquent Friends, and Delinquency: A Test of Interaction Effects. Wm. 20, 188-193. Rafky, D. M. (1979) SchoOl Rebellion: A Research Note. Adgleggenge, xiv, 451-463. Rubel, R. J. (1978) Victimization and Fear in Public Schools: Survey of Activities. Viggimiglgg1;__An International_lournal. 3. 339'341- Savitz, L. (1973) Intergenerational Patterns of the Fear of Crime. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Scott, E. M. (1979) Violence in America: Violent People and Violent Offenders. lnLe1na1ional_louxnal_of_gffender 1W. 23. 197-209- Toby,J. (1980) Crime in American Public Schools. Publjg Ingeresg 58, 18-42. Toseland, R. W. (1982) Fear Of Crime: Who is Most Vulnerable? JQuInal_of_Crimina1_JusLice 10, 199-209. Tygart, C. E. (1980) Student Social Structures and/or Sub Cultures as Factors in School Crime: Toward a Paradigm. Adgegggnge_ xv, 13-21. Wallace, C. P. (1981) Student, 16, Slain on School Campus. LQ§_Ange1e§_Iimes, Wednesday, February 11, 1981. Wolfgang, M. E. (1976) Youth and Violence. U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare. Attorney General's Office State of California. (1976) Youth Gangs: The Problem and an Approach. Crime Exexention_8e11ew, 3, 21-27. Guns on Campus (1981) Qakland_lxibung, Monday, February 23, 1981. Nation School Public Relations Association. (1975) Violence and Vandalism: Current Trends in School Policies and Programs. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1978) Violent Schools - Safe Schools - The Safe School Study Report to the Congress. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. (1976) Who Misbehaves? A High School Studies its Discipline ProblemS. EdusaLional.AdminiSLration W1, 12, 65-85. 41 CHAPTER 3 THE RESEARCH PROCEDURES AND DATA COLLECTION The main purpose of this study is to find out why students are carrying weapons to school. This chapter describes the research procedures and data collection. The research procedure addresses such issues as the methodology, research design, survey site and population/ subjects. The data collection will look at the coding and explain the limitation. Finally, the chapter will conclude with a summary. 12191115211219.5212 The information comes from two time periods of data collection. The first research was a field test conducted in May of 1985, when seven high school students were inter- viewed. Due to restrictions of time, money and student parental permission, the researcher was unable to interview more subjects. The main purpose of these interviews was to determine how the research questions were being inter- preted. In addition, the researcher wanted to find out if there were any other issues that should be addressed to help answer the research questions and the main investi- gative efforts to be conducted later. The main body of the data was collected in July of 1985. The interviews were done on students attending the summer school. The original plan was to conduct the survey during the regular school year. However, the survey was 42 not completed in time to gain full approval by the Detroit Public School's Evaluation and Testing Department. The researcher administered the questionnaires to 139 students. Out of the 139 that were present, two refused to participate and five questionnaires were discarded because they were incomplete. Thus, the total number of observations in the survey was 132. There were 32 middle school students and 100 high school students. The questionnaires were administered in the classroom. Each question was gone over verbally in front of the class to insure that all students understood the questions. Once the questionnaires were completed, they were collected; the students were thanked for their participation. One advantage to this method was that the researcher was present to answer any of the respondents questions about the measures. In addition, the researcher was able to clarify the purpose of the study and to insure the students that he was connected with Michigan State University and not from a law enforcement agency. The assurance of anonymity seemed to be a serious concern among the younger male respondents in the survey, and probably resulted in a larger response than if it were conducted by mail. One disadvantage to this method of collection are that many students felt rushed to finish the questionnaire at the same time as the other members of their class and may not have spent enough time thinking about the questions and answers. Along the same line, some of the students 43 may have been influenced by looking at the responses and by verbal outbursts of a few of their Classmates. Finally, some students may have been intimidated by the opportunity of other classmates to glance at their answers. W The dependent variable in the study was the act of carrying a weapon. The independent variables included 'fear, self protection, others violent behavior, victimization, the perceived threat of others carrying weapons and others actions and behaviors of fellow students. These independent variables may influence the motivation for students to carry weapons. The first questions on the questionnaire were about personal characteristics of the subjects such as their age and present grade level. Both of these variables were entered by the researcher by putting in the exact number for age and current grade. However, gender was coded (l) for males and coded (2) for females. The purpose of these variables was to determine if the perceptions and behavior differ when looking at age, gender and the level of education. The next section of the questionnaire attempted to test for fear and its affect on weapons possession. The researcher hypothesized that an increase volume of weapons found in the school would be due to a great extent in students carrying weapons to protect themselves from Others. These questions were measured on a modified Likert scale (See Appendix A). The students were asked to circle the best 44 response as to how they felt about each statement. "Strongly Agree" was coded as (1), "Agree" was coded as (2), "NO Opinion" was coded as (3), "Disagree" was coded as (4) and "Strongly Disagree" was coded as (5). The third section of the questionnaire was formulated to test a possible alternative to the main research questions. Its major purpose was to determine if the increase in weapons was due to students wanting to inflict violent actions on one another. Some questions asked the students to respond by putting in a number to represent the number of times they brought weapons to hurt or threaten other students. The researcher decided to divide the responses into five categories. The response 0 was coded as (l), the response 1-3 was coded as (2), 4-7 was coded as (3), 8-10 was coded as (4), 11 or more coded as (S). This method was utilized because respondents might insert extreme values. Thus, the categories were used to reduce as much extreme bias as possible and also to prevent any type of spurious relationship. The fourth major section of the questionnaire tried to find if victimization would influence possession of weapons. The researcher hypothesized that there may be a correlation between the number of times the subject had been a victim and the perceived need for protection. The students were asked to input the number of times that they were victims of the following crimes at school: serious assault, theft, robbery, attempted rape, rape and other crimes in which a weapon had been used. The numbers were 45 totaled up and coded as (l) for 0 times, 1-3 times was coded as (2), 4-7 was coded as 3, 8-10 was coded as (4), 11 or more was coded as (5). Again, this method was imple- mented to eliminate any spurious relationships. The fifth major section of the questionnaire was to determine if the perception of weapons presence and the volume would directly influence students weapon possession. The researcher hypothesized that if the students thought the weapons problem was severe it would increase their perception that they must carry weapons for protection. The majority of these questions were tested by a Likert type scale in which the researcher made a statement and then asked the subjects to circle one of the following responses. "Strongly Agree" was coded as (1), "Agree" was coded as (2), "No Opinion" was coded as (3), "Disagree" was coded as (4), and "Strongly Disagree" was coded as (S). The sixth major section of the questionnaire was to analyze how third party students would influence students' weapon possession. The researcher tested for the effect on students' behaviors when looking at groups with which they identify with and in ones with which they did not identify. The majority of this information was collected by a Likert type scale in which "Strongly Agree" was coded as (1), "Agree" was coded as (2), "No Opinion" was coded as (3), UDisagree" was coded as (4), and "Strongly Disagree" was coded as (S). 46 W The survey was conducted at three different schools in the city. The original goal was to collect data from six schools. However, three schools refused to participate in the study. One school is on the far east side of the city, one on the west side of the city and one on the central east side. The school on the far east side has primarily commuter students. The majority of them do not live within four miles of the school. Although this school suffers from vandalism, the surrounding neighborhood seems pleasant and peaceful. The homes in the area are well cared for and the community is active in keeping their standards up to the prestigious suburb which they border. According to the Detroit Monitoring Commission report (1984), about 23% of the students who attend this school are below the poverty level. However, it is also believed that the ones who are below the poverty level do not live in the neighbor- hood, but commute to school from other parts of the city. The other two schools are located in areas that have been plagued by urban decay, vandalism and violence. Al- though the School Administration have made many successful attempts to clean up their schools and its surroundings, the rest of the area has fallen to urban decay. The poverty level of the student population of the west side school is approximately 42% and for the central eastside school the poverty level is at 37%. However, when looking at these statistics, one should note that they are for the 47 students in the regular school year. The difference between the regular school pOpulation and the summer school surveyed population will be discussed later. In addition to this, the Detroit Public Schools hold city-wide admissions during the summer, thus there may be a different student poverty level in the summer school as well as the other differences to be discussed next. PopulatiQnZSubjeggs The city of Detroit has been losing population for the last five years. .However, this situation is not unique to Detroit, many large industrial Northern and Mid-western cities have had declining population (U.S. News 8 World Report Almanac, 1984). When the automobile market declined (1979-1984), many Detroiters left the city to find work elsewhere. Moreover, many of the white residents have moved from the central city to the surrounding suburbs. In addition to this, some middle and upper class minorities have also moved to the suburbs. Today the city has approximately one million three hundred thousand people. However, it'has been predicted that if the population continues to decline at the same rate, the population could fall below the one million mark. This population decrease seems to have effected the schools not so much in numbers but by the changes in ethnicity of the students that attend the schools. These differences are presented in the following two tables. 48 Table 3.1 A Description of Students Who Attended Secondary School in Detroit (1984-85) Characteristics Percentage Total Percentage Gender Males 50% Females 50% Total 100% Race Blacks 89% Whites 9% Hispanics 1% Other Minorities 1% Total 100% Adapted from Detroit Public School Statistics Department, June 1985. 49 Table 3.2 Description of the Students Involved in the Study Characteristics Percentage Total Percentage Gender Males 50% Females 50% Total 100% Race Black 98.4% White 1.6% Other Minorities 0.0% Total 100% According to the Detroit Monitoring Commission (1984) report, each year for the last three years the ninth grade population start at approximately 20,000 students. However, by the time they reach the twelfth grade, approximately 7,500 students (or 38%) actually graduate. This is in contrast with this survey population in which 66% of the subjects are seniors and 21% of the subjects are juniors. The actual survey was administered in the summer session. Therefore, the statistics that are presented here may not represent the regular summer school population. Unfortun- ately, statistics are not available on students that attend 50 summer school. I] D I ll . 1 C 1' E The surveys were administered by the researcher to seven different classes at three schools. At the top of the survey a note explained the purpose and importance of the study and stressed that anonymity would be assured. In addition, the researcher verbally explained to the students the importance of the survey and insured them that their names would not be connected to the study or to their answers. Once the surveys were completed the researcher thanked the class for their participation and then the teacher for allowing the researcher to use their class time. After all the surveys were received, the researcher developed a code book, the code book was developed to help place all the responses in a numerical code. The researcher did all the coding on 80 column data coding forms. The data was then key punched on a computer file in which it could be analyzed. Only students attending the summer school session were involved in the study. Therefore, the survey sample may not be representative of the regular school population and the results are limited in their generalization of schools during the regular school year. In addition, as stated earlier, many summer schools take city-wide admissions in which many students may not attend the same school in the summer as they did in the regular school year. Thus, 51 some students may respond differently in a different environment.) ' Summanx This study's primary purpose is to find out if there is any relationship between independent variables such as fear, self protection, others violent behavior, victimization, perception of volume of weapons and third party students when looking at the dependent variable - weapons possession. The study consisted of two separate studies. The researcher used personal interviews and a survey to collect the data. The subjects in the study were the students that were attend- ing three different schools at the time of the research. The personal interviews were done during the regular semester (May 1985) and the survey was conducted during the summer school (July 1985). The study has already revealed its limitations such as the difference in race, and grade level of the students found in the survey as compared to the regular system. However, since statistics are not available on the summer school students, the subjects in the survey may come closer to representing the summer school population than it does in representing the regular schoOl population. Then again, this sample could come closer to representing some schools during the regular school year. References (Chapter 3) Dillman, D.A. (1972) Increasing Mail Questionnaire Response in Large Samples of the General Public. Publig_gpinign Qaaxtezlx, 36, 254-257. U.S. News and World Report (1984) W A B of Facts. Statistical Data Profiles of Detroit's High Schools: 1975 to 1984: A Detroit Monitoring Commission Report (1984). Detroit Public Schools Statistics Department, June 1985. 52 CHAPTER 4 THE RESULTS The main purpose of this study was to investigate why secondary school students carry weapons to school. The researcher hypothesized in chapter 1 that many students carried weapons to protect themselves because of fear of physical violence. There could be other reasons why students would carry weapons to school, so there were four alternatives to the research question: 1) In direct contrast to the research question, the researcher theorized that if students did carry weapons, they might be bringing weapons to school to harm others; 2) Student victimization and its influence on weapons possession; 3) The students samples perceived volume of weapons and perceived need Of weapons; 4) The influence of students to carry weapons because of other's actions. Before looking at the research questions and the analysis of the data, there is a need to look at some general observa- tions found in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 The Percentage of Students Distributed by Age and Grade Age: 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 (2) (9) (17) (17) (30) (47) (10) 1.5 6.8 12.9 12.9 22.7 35.6 7.6 x = 15.856 53 Grade 7 8 9 10 ll 12 (7) (25) (7) (6) (21) (66) 5.3 18.9 5.3 4.5 15.9 50.0 i = 10.568 The data here shows that the majority of students are older than 15 and most of them are in the senior level grades in school. This observation is in contrast to the Detroit Monitoring Commission Report (1984), that indicated an Opposite trend that was discussed in the previous chapter. Question 1: Do Students Carry Weapons to School Because of Fear of Physical Violence? The researcher theorized that if there were weapons in the school, it would be due more to student fear and their possession of weapons would be perceived as a means of protection. Under the problem section in chapter 1, weapons are shown to be in the Detroit schools. Question 1 seeks to find which weapons are brought because of fear. The researcher asked the general statement for question 5 ("I feel safe at school") (See Appendix A). Out of all the students in the survey that responded to question 5, 36.6% felt safe and 32.6 did not. It would appear that about the same amount of students felt safe and unsafe. However, the literature shows gender as a consistent indicator of fear. In other studies female fear rate seemed to be much higher than the male fear rate. The findings on 54 gender was crosstabultated with question 5 and are presented in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Gender Differences In Feeling of Safety at School Male_ Female Strongly (7) (3) Agree 13.5 3.9 Agree (13) (26) 25.0 34.2 No , (12) (24) Opinion 23.1 31.6 Disagree (12) (15) 23.1 19.7 Strongly (8) (8) Disagree 15.4 10.5 XZ= 5.98; df = 4; p g 0.20 Table 4.2 displays that gender is not a major determent in how safe students feel in school. In fact, the big difference comes in an unexpected relationship, because a larger percentage of males felt less safe than females. Still, the overall disagreement with the statement was smaller than the actual agreement. In addition, the data indicated that there was no statistical significant between gender and the feeling of safety at school. The researcher wanted to find out if there were areas in which student fears were greater in some places in the school than others. Personal interviews indicated that students avoid restrooms because they thought they were 55 not safe. Question 9 on the written survey asked students if they avoided any restrooms because of fear. Out of all students in the survey, 51.5% avoided the restrooms because of fear as compared to 35.6% that did not. The results here indicates that feeling of fear may be related to a particular place. Over half (51.5%) of the students agreed that they avoided the restrooms for safety reasons and when the variable gender was crosstabulated with question 9 ("I avoid school restrooms because they are not safe"), gender became a major factor as presented in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 Gender Difference in Avoiding School Restrooms Because They Are Not Safe Male Female Strongly (8) (15) Agree 15.4 19.2 Agree (12) (33) 23.1 42.3 No (4) (11) Opinion 7.7 14.1 Disagree (l4) (14) 36.5 17.9 Strongly (9) (5) Disagree 17.3 6.4 (x2 = 12.4; df = 4; p g 0.01) 56 There appears to be a statistically significant relationship in that females tend to avoid the restrooms at a much greater rate than their male counterparts. With such a large number of females avoiding the restrooms for safety reasons, it can be assumed that females have a greater apprehension than males in certain places in the schools and not in others (e.g., cafeteria, locker rooms and hall- ways). There may be places outside the school that would affect fear and the perceived need for weapons. Question 6 asked if there were any areas that students avoided on their way to school for safety reasons. Out of all the students in the survey that answered the question, 59.1% said they avoided certain areas versus 18.3% that said they did not. These observations show that students are cautious about the routes they take to get to school. The researcher hypothesized that there would also be a difference in the fear level depending. on the type of transportation taken. In addition, he believed that students who caught the bus would have more areas to avoid and therefore their fear levels would be higher than students who walked or had private transportation. Question 6 ("There are areas that I avoid on my way to school because they are not safe") was crosstabulated with question 4 which asked about the type of transportation used to get to school and back and the results are recorded in Table 4.4. 57 Table 4.4 Avoidance of Central Area Based On The Type of Transportation Used There are areas that I avoid on my way to school because they are not safe. Transpor- tation Strongly No Strongly Used Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree Walk (8) (8) (5) (5) (1) 29.6 29.6 18.5 18.5 3.7 Bus (14) (24) (5) (5) a 29.2 50.0 10.4 10.4 Car (2) (10) (12) (4) (2) 6.7 33.3 40.0 13.3 6.7 Other (5) (7) (6) (3) (4) 20.5 28.0 24.0 12.0 16.0 (x2 = 24.8 df = 12 p g 0.01) There was a clear and statistically significant relation- ship in that students who rode the bus were more apprehensive about their immediately surrounding areas. Their fears might also be directly related to the burden of waiting long hours at bus stops where much violent behavior can occur. 'The above is in comparison to the students who rode in cars and the ones who could walk and did not have to wait long hours for transportation. The other category consisted of students who usually were driven to school and took the bus home. 58 Many researchers in the field of educational research believe that compulsory education has a lot to do with violence in schools. As indicated earlier for the last three years by the time each class reached the twelfth grade, more than half have dropped out of school. Many school administrators express the opinion that if schools eliminate compulsory education, then the school systems would be less violent. According to state law, each student must attend school until the age of 16. Therefore, the older students may see less violent behavior because the majority of them have a choice to leave. Thus, the students who usually remain are the ones who want to finish their education. However, the data in Table 4.5, which is a crosstabulation of question 5 ("I feel safe at school") with age, does not convey the same message. This data clearly indicated that age is a poor predicator of the feeling of fear among students. There appears to be no statistically significant relationship between age and the feeling of safety at school. However, when age is crosstabulated with question 9 ("I avoid school restrooms because they are not safe"), the results are different in that age does show a statistically significant relation- ship on avoiding potential dangerous areas such as the restrooms. The data shows an inverse relationship in that as the student gets older they tend to avoid dangerous areas such as the restroom less often. Students Feeling of 59 Table 4.5 Safety According to Their Age 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I Strongly 0 (2) (1) (1) (l) (4) (1) Feel Agree 25.0 6.3 5.9 3.4 8.7 10.0 Safe A Lee a (z) (4) (2) (12) (16) (3) At g 25.0 25.0 11.8 41.4 34.8 30.0 School No 2 (1) (5) (3) (10) (11) (4) Opinion 100.0 12.5 31.3 17.6 34.5 23.9 40.0 Disagree g (2) (4) (4) (4) (12) (1) 25.0 25.0 23.5 13.8 26.1 10.0 Strongly g (1) (2) (7) (2) (3) (l) Disagree 12.5 12.5 41.2 6.9 6.5 10.0 (XZTe 30.7 df = 24 pg 0.16) Table 4.6 Students Avoidance of Restrooms According to Their Age 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I Avoid Strongly 0 (4) (2) (4) (4) (a) (1) School Agree 44.4 12.5 25.0 13.3 17.0 10.0 ReSt' ( ) c ) c ) c ) ( ) c ) rooms 4 9 4 10 16 2 Because Agree “ 44.4 56.3 25.0 33.3 34.0 20.0 They Are (2) No (l) (S) (4) (3) gige Opinion 100 0 0 0 6.3 16.7 8.5 30.0 . (S) (5) (6) (14) (3) Dlsagree “ 0 31.3 31.3 20.0 29.8 30.0 Strongly 0 (l) 0 (2) (S) (5) (l) Disagree 11.1 12.5 16.7 10.6 10.0 (x2 = 37.4; df = 24; p g 0.04) 60 The researcher theorized that any knowledge of people being hurt or injured with weapons might increase the fears among students. As stated earlier in chapter 2, many people suffer from secondary fear. Once someone the students knows becomes a victim then his/her fear levels tends to increase. The researcher assumed that the survey population would not differ from the general population. However, the data shows that the number of students victims is not related to how other students perceive fear. Table 4.7 displays this above information. There appears to be no statistical significants, thus, the researcher concluded that fear was not related to the sheer numbers of victims in the school. Therefore, he concluded that many students did not consider these incidents frightening enough to raise fear levels. Table 4.7 Students Feeling of Safety Based€hlthe Number of Victims at School Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree How 0 (2) (9) (8) (7) (2) Many 1.6 7.3 6.5 .7 1.6 Students 1-3 (4) (13) (15) (10) (7) Have Bee“ 3 3 10 6 12 2 8 l s 7 Hurt With ' ' ° ‘ ' Weapons 4-7 (2) (7) (2) (S) (1) In My 1.6 5.7 1.6 4.1 0.8 5Ch°°1 8-10 (1) (2) (3) ( ) 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 11 or More (1) (7) (6) (3) (5) 0.8 5.7 4.9 2.4 4.1 (x2 = 9.8; df = 16; p g 0.87) 61 This section indicated 37.1% of the students feel safe at school as compared to 32.6% of the students that do not feel safe at school. The other 30.3% responded no Opinion or did not answer. Factors such as sex, other victims, and age seem not to have much effect on fear levels. However, factors such as avoidance of restrooms and the type of transportation used, had effects on fear levels. Although there were factors that had an effect on fear levels, the researcher's main concern was the actions that the students may take in order to function with this fear. The next research question looks at the actions that students may take as a result of increased fear levels. The second research question asked if students would carry weapons for protection. Question 2: Do students carry weapons because they believe that they need them for self protection? Thus far, the majority of this analysis has been looking at fear and how it relates to students in certain areas. The researcher's intent, however, was to find out if students would have such a fear that it may cause them to bring weapons to school. Table 4.8 crosstabulates question 5 ("I feel safe at school") and question 12 ("Students need weapons for protection"). The researcher theorized that the students who felt relatively safe at school would indicate that they did not need weapons for protection. Along the same line, the students who felt unsafe would indicate that they do need weapons. The data in Table 4.8 62 indicates that some students perceived they need weapons even if they felt no fear at school. However, a large proportion of the students who were fearful at school said they need weapons for protection. Thus, the researcher concluded that the degree of fear was related to the per- ceived need to have a weapon for protection. Table 4.8 Students' Perceived Need for Weapons Based on Their Fear at School Students Need Weapons For Protection Strongly No. Strongly Strongly (3) (2) (Z) (l) (2) I Agree 2.3 1.6 1.6 0.8 1.6 Feel Safe (3) (13) (9) (7) (7) At Agree 2.3 10.2 7.0 5.5 5.5 School No (2) (7) (21) (2) (4) Opinion 1.6 5.5 16.4 1.6 3.1 - (4) (10) (S) (3) (5) Dlsagree 3 1 7 8 3.9 2 3 3 9 Strongly (4) (4) (3) (4) (1) Disagree 3.1 3.1 2.3 3.1 0.8 (x2 = 26.9; df = 16; pg 0.04) The researcher decided to look at the need for self protection separately from the feeling of safety at school. First it was important to see how many students actually perceive that they need weapons. The data shows that 40.1% of all the students believed they need weapons for self 63 protection, while 29.6% believed that they did not and another 30.3% responded no opinion or did not answer. In Table 4.2, percentage wise, males are more fearful of school than females. A similar relationship occurred when gender was crosstabulated with question 12 ("Students need weapons for protection"). Since males happen to feel unsafe, the difference in the amount of males that perceived that they need weapons is logical. At a rate of 47.2%, males expressed that they need weapons for protection. This is in comparison to the female sample which expressed a rate of 35.5%. On the other side, the rate of males who said that weapons were not needed is 22.6% and 34.2% of the females said weapons were not needed. There could be many reasons for a difference in these two rates. However, the researcher believes that young males are more vulnerable to violent attacks than females. Young males may feel an additional need to have a weapon similar to the ones that their attackers might use on them. In a sense, the weapons help lift their morale and help them cope in their environment. On the other hand, male students might have a need to suppress any desires of being viewed as a coward. The use of weapons allows them to present a macho image and gives them added confidence in an often dangerous milieu. Although, it appears that males perceive they need weapons for protection at a greater rate than their female counter- parts, the data indicates that the relationship is not statistically significant. Table 4.9 shows the results 64 which express, regardless of gender, the perception that many students feel they need weapons for protection. Table 4.9 Gender Difference in Students Perceived Need To Have Weapons For Protection Male Female Strongly (7) 1:92 .2 . Students Agree 13 Need (18) (19) Wea ons _ Forp Agree 34.0 24.1 Protection No (16) (24) Opinion 30.2 30.4 . (6) (14) Dlsagree 11.3 17.7 Strongly (6) (13) Disagree 11.3 16.5 (x2 = 2.6; df = 4; p _3 0.62) There is a belief that young people are victims of crime at a far higher rate than the rest of the population. The researcher thinks this to be true, and younger students would see the need to carry weapons as being greater than the older students. In addition, he believes that students in the high schools would have a lower perceived need for weapons than middle school students. This reasoning was due to compulsory school requirements that force many violent students to stay in school to participate and cause school violence. 65 Table 4.10 shows that there is no statistically signi- ficant relationship between age and the need to carry a weapon and Table 4.1 shows that grade is an equally poor indicator in influencing students perceived weapons need. The data shows that students are divided on their opinions of the need for weapons and that age or grade does little to eliminate the divisions. Table 4.10 Students Age Based on Students Need for Weapons 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Strongly 0 (2) (1) (3) (2) (S) (3) Students Agree 22.2 5.9 17.6 6.7 10.6 30.0 Need Weapons Agree (1) (l) (6) (8) (8) (12) (1) For 50.0 11.1 35.3 47.1 26.7 25.5 10.0 Protection No 0 (3) (4) (3) (10) (15) (5) Opinion 33.3 23.5 17.6 33.3 31.9 50.0 Disagree 0 (l) (5) (2) (6) (6) 0 11.1 29.4 11.8 20.0 12.8 Strongly (1) (Z) (l) (l) (4) (9) (1) Disagree50.0 22.2 5.9 5.9 13.3 19.1 10.0 (x2 = 23.4; df = 24; p g .050) Students Grade Based on Students 66 Table 4. 11 Need for Weapons 7 8 9 10 ll 12 Strongly (1) (4) (l) (10) Students Agree 14.3 16.0 0 16.7 0 15.2 Need _ Weapons (2) (9) (2) (3) (6) (15) For , Agree 28.6 36.0 28.6 50.0 28.6 22.7 Protection No (2) (3) (4) (l) (9) (21) Opinion 28.6 12.0 57.1 16.7 42.9 31.8 . (6) (l) (1) (3) (9) Dlsagree 0 24.0 14.3 16.7 14.3 13.6 Strongly (2) (3) 0 0 (3) (ll) Disagree 28.6 12.0 14.3 16.7 (x2 = 18.2; df - 20; p g 0.57) Question 4 which asks how do the students get to school and back and question 12 ("Students need weapons for protec- tion") was crosstabulated in order to find out if there was any relationship between how a student gets to school and his perceive need to have a weapon. The researcher believed that students who caught the bus would have a greater need to have weapons for protection. For example, some students must catch one or more buses in order to get from home to their school and vice versa. Depending on the time of the year many students have to catch buses, in the late evening or early morning hours. The data shows that the type of transportation taken is not related to students perception Of needing a weapon and it is not statistically significant. 67 Table 4.12 Students Perceive Need for Weapons Depending On the Type of Transportation Used Students Need Weapons For Protection Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree Walk (3) (7) (6) (6) (S) 11.1 25.9 22.2 22.2 18.5 Bus (6) (14) (18) (7) (4) 12.2 28.6 36.7 14.3 8.2 Car (4) (7) (9) (3) (7) 13.3 23.3 30.0 10.0 23.3 Other (3) (9) (7) (4) (3) 11.5 34.6 26.9 15.4 11.5 (xz . 6.9; df = 12; p g 0.86 Chapter two described the fear that many youths have about being on streets that lead to and from school. The researcher decided to compare question 12 ("Students need weapons for protection") with question 6 ("There are areas that I avoid on my way to school because they are not safe"). The researcher theorized that the youths perception of needing weapons would depend on whether there was a perceived need to avoid certain places before students got to school. However, the data in Table 4.13 shows that there is no statistically significant relationship between students perceived need for weapons and their perceived need to avoid certain geographical areas. The researcher concluded 68 that areas leading to and from the school had relatively little affect on students need for weapons, even if students considered an area as not being safe. Table 4.13 Students Perceive Need for Weapons Because of Dangerous Areas Strongly No Strongly There A A 0 ° ' D D' Are gree gree plnlon lsagree isagree Areas Strongly (2) (10) (14) (3) (4) That I Agree 1 5 7.7 7.7 2.3 3 l Av01d On My Agree (8) (14) (12) (9) (6) Way To 6.2 10.8- 9.2 6.9 4.6 School Because No (3) (7) (11) (4) (3) They Opinion 2.3 5.4 8.5 3.1 2.3 Are Not Safe Disagree (2) (S) (3) (4) (3) 1.5 3.8 2 3 3 l 2.3 Strongly (1) (1) (2) 0 (3) Disagree 0.8 0.8 1.5 2.3 (x2 . 11.8; df = 16; p g 0.76) Another interesting finding is shown in Table 4.14 where students perceived need of carrying a weapon was compared with their perception of students being hurt by" other weapon carrying students. However, the data indicates that there is no statistically significant relationship and it seems that students are not directly influenced to carry weapons by the number of attacks on other students. 69 Table 4.14 Students Perceive Need For Weapons Based On The Number of Students Hurt With Weapons How Many Students Were Hurt With Weapons in Your School 0 1-3 4-7 8-10 11 or More Strongly (3) (6) 0 (1) (5) Agree 2.4 4.8 0.8 4.0 Students Agree (7) (13) (7) (2) (8) Need 5.6 10.3 5.6 1.6 6.3 Weapons For No (10) (ll) (6) (3) (7) Protection Opinion - 7.9 8.7 4.8 2.4 5.6 Disagree (2) (12) (1) 0 (3) 1.6 9.5 0.8 2.4 Strongly (7) (8) (3) (l) 0 Disagree 5.6 6.3 2.4 0.8 (x2 = 18.7; df = 16; p g 0.28) Table 4.15 shows comparison of question 9 ("I avoid school restrooms because they are not safe") with question 12 ("Students need weapons for protection"). From the data, it appears that some students see the need for weapons to protect them, but see other areas as being more dangerous than the school restrooms. In addition, the data also indicates that there was no statistically significant relation- ship between students needing weapons and their perceived need to avoid restrooms. Table 4.15 illustrates: the results found in this crosstabulation. 70 Table 4.15 The Association Between Students Perceived Need for Weapons And Avoiding the Restrooms Students Need Weapons for Protection Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree 3.1 4.6 4.6 2.3 3.1 Avoid Agree School (3) (15) (17) (8) (2) _ A ree Rest“ g 2.3 11.5 13.1 6.2 1.5 rooms 3:2;“56 No. . (1) (3) (7) (2) (2) Are Not Oplnlon 0.8 2.3 15.4 1.5 1.5 Safe . Disagree (6) (10) (5) (6) (6) 4.6 7.7 3.8 4.6 4.6 Strongly (2) (2) (5) 0 (5) Disagree 1.5 1.5 3.8 3.8 (x2 = 20.2; df = 16; p _< 0.21) The actual perceived need of a weapon differs from the act of carrying a weapon. Even if all the students perceived they need weapons for protection, this perception only shows a degree of fear and not an actual possession of a weapon. Table 4.16 shows perceived need for weapons as correlated with the number of times a student brought a weapon to school. Out of all the students in the survey, 32.7% of the students admitted to everg carrying a weapon to school. On the same line, an even smaller 19.1% of the students admitted to ever having to use a weapon for protection. Table 4.16 shows that there appears to be a statistically significant relationship in that no matter how students perceived weapons need, this need did not 71 influence them to carry weapons. Table 4.16 The Number of Times Students Brought Weapons To School For Protection How Many Times Have You Brought Weapons To School For Protection Students 0 1-3 4-7 8-10 11 or More Need Strongly (6) (5) (5) geap°ns Agree 4.5 3.8 0 0 3 8 or . Pr°tect1°n Agree (21) (6) (4) (1) (s) 15.9 4.5 3.0 0.8 3.8 No (28) (9) (1) g (2) Opinion 21.2 6.8 0.8 1.5 Disagree (18) (l) (l) G 0 ' 13.6 0.8 0.8 Strongly (16) (2) 0 0 (l) Disagree 12.1 1.5 0.8 (x2 = 28.7; df = 16; p g 0.02) The data from chapter I obviously indicated that weapons are present in the school systems. However, the data in this chapter seems to show that many students are not carrying weapons for protection. It would appear that if weapons are brought and used in schools, there must be another explanation for weapons being present in the school system. 5] . l B l 0 . The researcher believed that since the data did not (flearlyindicate fear in many students or a need to actually have weapons, then the bulk of weapons may come into our school system by students who want to control others. The 72 next section looks at this notion and the data that was collected to answer the first alternative to the research questions. Question 1: DO students carry weapons to school to Victimize other students? One of the most logical reasons for why there are guns in the school is that students are bringing them to intimidate others and/or settle disputes. Weapons are present in many schools and Detroit is no exception to the norm. This section is interested in looking at the survey population as the students who are actually committing these delinquent acts in school. Question 15 ("I carry weapons to school to threaten other students") investigates this angle. There were very few students who agreed with this statement. In fact, only 4.5% of the entire survey population carried weapons. From these observations it seems that the students involved in this survey are not the ones carrying weapOns to intimidate other students. If this were an accurate representation of all students, then many students would not have to fear classmates commiting crimes against them. The data becomes even more consistent when the students were asked question 16 ("I carry weapons to school to harm other students"). Only 2.3% of all the students said this was their reason for carrying weapons. A crosstabulation of question 15 ("I carry weapons to school to threaten other students") and question 16 ("I carry weapons to school to harm other students") indicates 73 similar results. The data shows a clear and strong statisti- cally significant relationship (X2 = 198.9; df = 16; p g 0.01) in that students do not harm or threaten others with weapons. There was a need to look at these above observations and see if the relationship remained consistent when looking at other variables. The act of carrying weapons for protection and carrying weapons to threaten others may not be perceived as being different in the minds of young people. However, when question 12 ("Students need weapons for protection") and question 15 ("I carry weapons to school to threaten other students") was crosstabulated (Table 4.17), the students seem to be able to distinguish between carrying a weapon for protection and carrying a weapon to harm others. The researcher concluded from this observation, that students preference to have guns is not related to them wanting weapons to take advantage of others who are vulnerable without them. This picture becomes even more clear when statement 15 is crosstabulated with question 13 ("Have you brought a weapon to school for protection"). Out of the 4.5% of the students who actually admitted that they carry weapons toy: threaten other students, only 1.5% actually said they never used them for protection. The other 3.0% said that they also use their weapons for protection. The students in the survey seem to not represent a sub-culture that would be violent for other students. 74 Table 4.17 Students Carry Weapons To Threaten Others I Carry Weapons to Threaten Others Strongly NO Strongly Students Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree Need Weapons Strongly 0 0 0 (8) (8) For Agree 6.1 6.1 Protection Agree (1) (2) (9) (ll) (14) 0.8 1.5 6.8 8.3 10.6 No . 0 (2) (5) (14) (19) Opinion 1.5 3.8 10.6 14.4 Disagree (1) 0 (l) (7) (11) 0.8 0.8 S 3 8.3 Strongly 0 G 0 (3) (l6) Disagree 2.3 12.1 (x2 = 2.49; df = 16; p g 0.07) The researcher agrees with the view that many youths that have and use weapons may be fearful and/or scared. It is hard to generalize from this data, because the survey size of the population who actually admitted to using the weapons is so small. Nevertheless, when question 15 ("I carry weapOns to school to threaten other students“) is crosstabulated with question 5 then these results support this view. Out of a small 40% that actually admitted to using weapons, there was 1.6% that felt safe and 1.6% that felt unsafe. The other 0.8% responded no opinion. These statistics, althOugh small, are similar to the survey population that stated they did use weapons to threaten others. However, it states that youths who use weapons 75 to threaten people may be scared or fearful. Still, there is no statistically significant (X2 = 16.7; df = 16; p g 0.40) relationship between safety and having weapons at school. It would appear from the data on this section, that the Vast majority of students do not carry weapons to harm or threaten other students. Still there are a few people 'who carry weapons to prey on other students. However, another alternative for weapons being in the school is that people who are victims may carry them to prevent any future attacks and also to reduce anxiety in which comes with being a victim of a crime. Will the number of times a student has been victimized affect weapons possession? As stated previously in chapter 2, many youths know their victims and usually have the same or similar charac- teristics. Many of the victims are often young or old. Age is crosstabulated with question 18 - The number of times a victim of crime at school. There is no clear pattern when looking at this data in Table 4.18. The 13, 14, and 15 year olds have the highest victimi- zation rates as compared to the 16 and 17 year olds. How- ever, the 18 year olds rate is just as high if not higher than the 13, 14, and 15 year olds. The researcher concludes from this data that there is no statistically significant difference in victimization according to teenagers. 76 Table 4.18 The Number of Victimizations by Age Age of Respondents 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 The a (1) (1) (6) (4) (14) (23) (3) Number 50.0 11.1 37.5 25.0 51.9 51.1 30.1 Of Times A Victim 1-3 G (4) (7) (4) (10) (16) (5) Of A 44.4 43.8 25.0 37.0 35.6 50.0 School Crlme 4-7 (1) (2) (2) (4) (2) (5) (2) 50.0 22.2 12.5 25.0 7.4 11.1 20.0 8-10 0 0 0 (1) (1) 0 G 6.3 3.7 11 or More 0 (2) (1) (3) 0 (1) G 22.2 6.3 18.8 14.3 (Xz= 28.9; df’= 24; p g 0.221 Another interesting theory is that schools may have a different rate of victimizations. Compulsary Education has resulted in many students being enrolled in school by law. Therefore, we may see a difference in victimization if we look at the grade levels. These results are more in line with theoretical thinking. In that 88.3% of the seventh graders have been victims of crimes. In the eighth grade 75% of the students have been victims of crimes. In the ninth grade 57.2% of the students have been victims of crime. In the tenth grade 100% of the students have been victims of crimes. In the eleventh grade 47.4% of the students have been victims of crimes. Injthe.twe1fth 77 grade 49.2% of the students have been victims of crime. This data shows a strong inverse relationship that proves to be statistically significant (fl = 36.5; df = 20; p g 0.01). As the grade level increased, the number of attacks seem to decrease. The majority of students in the eleventh and twelfth grade are there to finish their high school education. The data states that less than 50% of the students in these last two grades have been victims of crime. This is in comparison to the other grades that have a low of 57.2% for the ninth graders and a high of 100% for the tenth graders. There were no sixth graders in the survey, a1thoUgh this grade is included as part of the secondary school system in Detroit. Question 18 asked the respondents to put in the number of times they were victims of the following crimes: serious assault, theft, robbery, attempted rape, rape, threaten or assaulted with a weapon. There was another slot that allowed them to list anyother crime that they experienced at school. The following is a description of the results. There was 39.4% of the students who had never experienced a crime at school, 34.8% had experienced from 1 to 3 crimes, 13.6% had experienced from 4 to 7 crimes, 1.5% had exper- ienced from 8 to 10 crimes, 5.3% had experienced 11 or more crimes and another 5.3% did not answer. Question 18 was cross tabulated with gender to see if there was any difference between the rate of experiencing a crime between males and females. Table 4.19 shows these findings. 78 Table 4.19 The Number of Student Victims According to Gender Male Female a (11) (41) The 22.0 54.7 ggmber 1_3 (21) (25) Times 42.0 33.3 Victimized ( _ 9) (9) At School 4 7 18.0 12.0 _ (2) 8 10 .420 a 11 or More 5230 U (x2 = 22.5; df = 4; p g 0.01) Table 4.19 shows that females experienced less crime than their male counterparts. According to the data 54.7% of the females had never been a victim of any type of crime at school. However, only 22% of the males in the survey had managed not to be a victim of a school crime. This data also shows a strong and clear statistically significant relationship between gender and being a victim of a crime. Another angle to observe is to see if the number of times victimized. ‘would effect the perception of students needing a weapon. Question 12 ("Students need weapons for protection") was crosstabulated with question 18 ("The number of times victimized at school") and the 79 follOwing observations are shown in Table 4.20. Table 4.20 Students Perceive Need For Weapons Based on the Number of Times Victimized T] H l E T' M° . . i 11 or 0 1-3 4-7 8-10 More Strongly (6) (4) (S) 0 (1) Students Agree 4.8 3.2 4.0 0.8 Need Agree (10) (15) (7) (1) (3) geap°ns 8.0 12.0 5.6 0.8 2.4 or Protect1on No (16) (13) (4) G (3) Opinion 12.8 10.4 3.2 2.4 Disagree (11) (6) (1) (1) G 8.8 4.8 0.8 0.8 Strongly (9) (8) (1) 0 U Disagree 7.2 6.4 0.8 (x2 = 16.7; df = 16; p g 0.40) The data shows no statistical significants in students perceived need for weapons and the number of times a victim. The researcher also wanted to see if victims of weapons crime would have a higher perceived need for having weapons. Question 17 asked the survey how many times they had been a victim of a crime in which the offender used a weapon. A large percentage (78%) of the students had never been a victim of this type of crime. A small 13.6% had been a victim of this crime from 1 to 3 times, and 2.3% of the students had been a victim of this type of crime 11 or more times. 80 Victimization seems to not affect students perception of needing a weapon in this next observation also. Question 12 ("Students need weapons for protection") was cross- tabulated with question 17 (”The number of times a victim of a weapons crime at school") and the following results are presented in Table 4.21. Table 4.21 Students Need For Weapons Based on the Number of Times Victimized By Offenders Who Used Weapons 11 or G 1-3 4-7 More Strongly (12) (41) G 0 Agree 9.6 3.2 Students Agree (25) (5) (1) (2) Need 20.0 4.0 0.8 1.6 Weapons For No (31) (6) a g Protection Opinion 24.8 4.8 Disagree (18) (1) 0 (1) 14.4 0.8 0.8 Strongly (17) (2) G 0 Disagree 13.6 1.6 (x2 = 10.2; df - 12; p _< 0.60) It appears that as the volume of weapons crime increases so does the perception of needing a weapon for protection. But the number of students that experienced this type of crime is low; thus, the data indicates no statistical signi- ficant relationship between a student that was a victim of a weapons crime and his need to have weapons. 81 Then again, question 20 asked if the students started to carry weapons to school, only after they became a victim of a school crime. There were 18.9% that agreed and 63.9% that did not. The other 16.7% of the students had no opinion or did not answer. From these observations it appears that more than half of the students did not carry weapons after becoming a victim. Moreover, when question 12 ("Students need weapons for protection") is crosstabulated with question 20, students victimization does not affect the opinion of students need weapons for protection. The data (Table 4.22) indicates that there is no statistically significant relationship in students perceiving they need weapons once victimized. Thus, the researcher decided to test his third alternative to the research question. Table 4.22 Students Perceive Need to Carry Weapons Only After Being a Victim of a School Crime I Started To Carry Weapons Only Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree Strongly (2) (l) (3) (5) (5) Students Agree 1 5 0.8 2 3 3 8 3.8 Need Weapons Agree (2) (9) (7) (11) (8) For 1.5 6.9 5.3 8.4 6.1 Protection No (1) (5) (6) (12) (16) Opinion 0 8 3.8 4.6 9.2 12.2 Disagree 0 (2) (4) (7) (6) 1.5 3.1 5.3 4.6 Strongly (1) (2) (2) (4) (10) Disagree 0.8 1.5 1.5 3.1 7.6 (X2 a 12.9; df = 16; p g 0.67) 82 Question 3: Will the perceived volume and threat of weapons influence the number of students carrying weapons? The third alternative to the research question is to see if the perceived volume of weapons would have an effect on weapons possession. The researcher theorized that students who thought their schools had weapons in them, would be more willing to carry guns for themselves. They would get the impression that they really need the weapons to survive. Question 21 states - "There are more weapons in my school this year as compared to the majority of other schools in the city." There were 21.2% of the students that agreed with this statement, but 60.6% did not. The other 18.2% had no opinion or did not answer. Although, they were students who believed weapons were higher at their school, more than half felt their school problems were no worse than the other schools. Question 22 states - "There are more weapons in my school this year as compared to last year.” Of the entire survey population, 41.7% thought this was true and 33.4% did not. The remaining 25% expressed no opinion. It appears that a large proportion of the students believed that there is an increase in weapons in their school. Still, another large proportion felt that their problem was not increasing. The researcher theorized that the students who believed the weapons to be increasing would 83 be the ones that were more fearful and see the need to bring weapons to school. Question 5 ("I feel safe at School") and question 22 ("There are more weapons in school this year as compared to last year") were used to test the researcher's assumption. The following results indicates that students perception of a weapons increase have no significant impact on how the students feel at school. Table 4.23 will give a better illustration of these results. Table 4.23 Student's Perception That There Are More Weapons In School This Year As Compared to Last Year And Its Effect On Fear Levels Weapons_Ha1e_NQt_Been_a_Erohlem_ln_Mx_§cthl Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree Strongly (1) (2) (5) (1) (1) Agree 0.8 1.6 3.9 0.8 0.8 I Agree (4) (12) (S) (9) (9) Feel 3.1 9.4 7.0 7.0 Safe - At No (5) (10) (10) (s) (6) School Opinion 3.9 7.8 7.8 3.9 4.7 Disagree (2) (10) (6) (8) (1) - 1.6 7.8 4.7 6.3 0.8 Strongly (3) (4) (6) (l) (2 ) Disagree 2.3 3.1 4.7 0.8 1. 6 (xz= 16.9; df = 16; p g 0.38) 84 As stated earlier, police sweeps have been used since December of 1984 to help reduce the volume of weapons in the Detroit Public Schools. Question 23 asked students if the police sweeps have been effective in reducing weapons in their school. Of all the students in the survey, 37.9% believed the sweeps had been effective and 33.3% said they were not effective. The researcher theorized that students who felt that the police sweeps were effective, would also be the ones that felt safe at school. The researcher's assumption was tested by a crosstabula- tion of statement 5 ("I feel safe at school") and 23 ("The police sweeps are effective in reducing weapons in my school"), in Table 4.24. The data also showed no statistical significants in the police sweeps effecting fear levels. The researcher concluded that the police sweeps did not effect students perception of fear while at school. Question 24 states - "Weapons have not been a problem in my school." Out of all the students in the survey, 37.1% agreed with this statement; 47.7% did not and 14.4% expressed no opinion. With such a large percentage of the students perceiving that guns are a problem in the school, the researcher decided to crosstabulate it with other variables. A crosstabulation of questions 24 ("Weapons have not been a problem in my school") and question 9 ("I avoid restrooms because they are not safe") were used to see if students perception of the weapons problem would influence 85 Table 4.24 The Degree In Which Students Fear Levels Are Affected By Police Sweeps The Police Sweeps Are Effective In My School Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree Strongly (1) 0 (3) (3) (3) Agree 0.8 2.4 2.4 2.4 I Feel Agree (9) (11) (10) (7) (2) Safe 7.1 8.7 7.9 5.6 1.6 At School No (4) (9) (11) (9) (3) Opinion 3.2 7.1 8.7 7.1 2.4 Disagree (4) (17) (9) (3) (2) 3.2 5.6 7.1 2.4 1.6 Strongly (2) (3) (l) (4) (6) Disagree 1.6 2.4 0.8 3.2 4.8 (x2 = 23.5; df = 10; p g 0.10) 86 their avoidance of vulnerable areas such as the restrooms and the findings are presented in Table 4.25. Table 4.25 The Degree In Which Weapons Influence Students To Avoid Restrooms WWW Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree Strongly (4) g (1) (S) (6) (7) Agree 3 l 0.8 3.9 4 7 5.4 I Avoid Agree (4) (14) (6) (15) (6) Some 3.1 10.9 4.7 11.6 4.7 Restrooms While In No (3) (3) (2) (s) (2) School Opinion 2.3 2.3 1.6 3 9 1 6 Disagree (2) (l3) (4) (10) (4) 1.6 10.1 3.1 7.8 3.1 Strongly (8) (3) (2) (2) (5) Disagree 0.8 2.3 1.6 1.6 3.9 (x2 = 18.4; df = 16; p g 0.30) The researcher concluded that many students who perceived weapons were a problem avoided the restrooms, however, just as many that thought weapons were a problem did not. Question 25 states - "Guns have not been a problem in my school." The researcher used this question to see if a specific weapon would have any effect on the students responses. Out of all the students surveyed, 39.4% of the students thought guns were not a problem, as compared to 47.7% who thought there were and another 15.2% that had no opinion or did not answer. 87 One of the main purposes of question 25 ("Guns have not been a problem in my school") was to see if it would affect students fear level. Questions 5 ("I feel safe in school") and 25 ("Guns have not been a problem in my school”) were crosstabulated with the following results in Table 4.26 Table 4.26 Students Feeling of Safety Depends on the Perceived Weapons Problem in the School G N 1 B Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree Strongly (2) (2) (3) (2) (1) Agree 1.6 1.6 2.4 1.6 0.8 Agree (8) (14) (6) (7) (4) I 6.3 11.0 4.7 5.5 3.1 Feel Safe No (5) (9) (7) (10) (4) At Opinion 3.9 7.1 5.5 7.9 3.1 School Disagree (1) (7) (5) (12) (2) '0.8 5.5 3.9 9.4 1.6 Strongly (3) 0 (1) (6) (6) Disagree 2.4 0.8 4.7 4.7 (x2 a 24.3; df = 16; p 5 0.08) 88 The students who felt safe, thought guns were not a problem. The ones who did not feel safe, thought guns were a problem. The data here also indicates that there is a: statistically significant relationship between the two questions. The researcher concluded that students perception of fear are influenced by the perception of the school gun problem. Question 26 asks - "How many guns have you seen on students in your school." Out of all the students surveyed, 40.2% said they never saw guns on students, 35.6% said they had seen guns on students from 1 to 3 times, 11.4% said they had seen guns on students from 4 to 7 times, 1.5% said they had seen guns from 8 to 10 times, 9.1% said they had seen guns 11 or more times and 2.3% did not respond to the question. Question 25 ~("Guns have not been a problem in my school") and 26 ("How many guns have you seen on students in your school") was crosstabulated (Table 4.27) to see if the perceived number of guns would affect students perception about the school's gun problem. The researcher concludes that although many students perceptions are affected by seeing guns, other students perceptions are not affected. However, as the number of seen weapons increases, so does the perception of guns being a problem. 89 Table 4.27 Students Perception Of The School Gun Problem How Many Guns Have You Seen On Students In School 8 1-3 4-7 8-10 11 or More Strongly (8) (10) G 0 (1) Agree 6.3 7.8 0.8 Agree (16) (14) (1) (1) 9 Guns 12.5 10.9 0.8 0.8 Have " Not No (12) (5) (S) G 0 Been Opinion 9.4 3.9 3.9 A _ Problem (13) (16) (3) (1) (5) In My Disagree 10.2 12.5 2.3 0.8 3.9 School Strongly (3) (2) (6) G (6) Disagree 2.3 1.6 4.7 4.7 (x2 = 45.3; df = 16; p g 0.01) Question 4: Do students carry weapons to school because they are encouraged by the actions and behaviors of others in the school. Peer groups have strong influencing factors on youths. The peer group that a student identifies with will probably determine his behavior and actions. The last alternative to the research question is to determine how third parties affect the behavior and actions of students. The researcher hypothesized that weapons possession would be influenced by how the youth perceived his peer group use of weapons and/or the use of weapons by groups that he does not identify with. 90 Question 29 states - "How many of your friends have carried weapons to school for self protection." Out of all the students surveyed, 37.9% said their friends carried weapons, 28.8% said they carried weapons from 1 to 3 times, 10.6% said from 4 to 7 times, 2.3% said from 8 to 10 times, 17.4% said 11 or more times and 3% did not respond. Almost 60% of the students said they knew friends that carried weapons for protection. Question 33 states - "I carry weapons to school because everyone else does." These two questions were crosstabulated in order to see if students who had friends that carry weapons would also be influenced to carry weapons. This data was found to be statistically significant (Table 4.28), thus, the researcher was able to conclude that students did not perceive the need to bring weapons for self protection based on the fears of other students to include their close associates. Question 30 asks - "How many times have your friends used weapons to harm or scare other students. This question was asked to determine how many youths associated with youths that have violent behavior. Of the entire survey population, 70.5% said their friends never brought weapons to harm or scare others. However, 26.5% said they had friends that carried weapons to school to harm or scare other students. 91 Table 4.28 The Degree In Which Students Are Influenced To Bring Weapons Because Their Friends Have Them I Carry Weapons to School Because WM; Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree 0 0 0 (1) (10) (39) 0.8 7.9 30.7 1-3 0 (1) (4) (12) (20) How 0.8 3.1 9.4 15.7 Many Friends 4'7 G G (4) (6) (4) Carry 3.1 4.7 3.1 Weapons . . . . a?) Protec- tion 11 or a (2) 0 (5) (16) More 1.6 3.9 12.6 (x2 = 27.4; df = 16; p g 0.03) The researcher wanted to see if there were any difference -in gender base on the perception of gangs being present at school. A crosstabulation of gender and statement 31 ("There are youth gangs present in my school") were used to find out. Here the data in Table 4.29 indicates that almost twice as many male students perceive that there are youth gangs present than their female counterparts. This may account for a higher fear rate in male students which may be a reflection of their higher victimization rate. The data also shows a statistically significant relationship between gender and the perception of youth gang presence. 92 Table 4.29 Gender and The Perception Of A Youth Gang Male Female Strongly (10) (4) Agree 19.6 5.1 There ' Have Been Agree (15) 17 Gangs 29.4 2l.8) Present In My No (12) 15) School Opinion 23.5 19.2 . (7) (29) Dlsagree 13.7 37.2 Strongly (7) (l3) Disagree 13.7 16.7 (x2 = 13.2; df = 4; p g 0.01) Some school officials believe that students in the lower grades are the ones more involved in violent behavior. In a crosstabulation of grade and statement 3 ("There are youth gangs present in my school") a relationship like this can be established. A statistically significant relationship is established between age and perception of youth gangs being present. Table 4.30 indicated a clearer relationship in that if we exclude the seventh graders, the higher the grade level the lower the perception of gangs being involved in the school. 93 Table 4.30 Grade And The Perception Of Youth Gang Presence Grade 7 l-8 9 10 ll 12 Strongly (1) (5) (3) (2) G (3) 4 6 There Agree 14.3 20.8 42.9 33.3 Are Youth Agree (2) (11) (1) (1) (5) (12) Gangs 28.6 45.8 14.3 16.7 25.0 18.5 Present In My No (1) (2) (1) (3) (5) (15) School Opinion 14.3 8.3 14.3 50.0 25.0 23.1 Disagree (1) (2) (2) U (8) (23) 14.3 8.3 28.6 40.0 35.4 Strongly (2) (4) a a (2) (12) Disagree 28.6 16.7 10.0 18.5 (x2 = 38.2; df = 20; p g 0.01) In addition to these observations, grade was also cross- tabulated with statement 32 ("I consider myself a part of a youth gang"). Out of the entire survey population, 14.3% of the seventh graders considered themselves in a youth gang so did 20% of the eighth graders, 14.3% of the ninth graders, 9.5% of the eleventh graders and 3% of the twelfth graders. However, none of the tenth graders considered themselves to be in gangs. Still, this data shows that the grade of students does affect his gang membership. Question 31 states ("There have been youth gangs present in my school") - There were 34.8% that agreed with this statement and 42.5% that did not. The other 22.8% responded no opinion or did not answer. 94 A crosstabulation of question 30 ("How many times have your friends used weapons to harm or scare other studnets") and statement 31 ("There have been youth gangs present in my school") were done (Table 4.31) to see if perception of delinquent peers were related to the perception of other violent youths being present at school. Table 4.31 Friends Use of Weapons When Gangs Are Perceived To Be Present There Have Been_XQuth_Qan2a_Eresent_ln_Mx_§chogl___ Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree 0 (8) (1) (19) (31) (15) H 6.4 13.6 15.2 24.8 12.0 ow Many . 1-3 (1) (9) (2) (4) (2) firlends 0.8 7.2 1.6 3.2 1.6 se Weapons 4-7 (1) (3) (1) T0 “arm 0.8 0 2.4 0.8 0 or Scare Others _ 81° 0 a 0 a ‘ 0 11 or More (4) (S) (1) G (2) 3.2 4.0 0.8 1.6 (x2 = 26.5; df = 12; p g 0.01) The data suggest that the more times friends bring weapons for potential violent behavior, the more they will perceive that there is a gang present. On the same line, the data indicates a statistically significant relationship. 95 The researcher wanted to know if the youths would consider themselves involved in youth gangs. Question 32 states ("I consider myself a part of a youth gang"). A small 8.3% were involved and 82.6% were not. The other 9.1% expressed no opinion or did not answer. It appears to be obvious from this data that most youths are not involved in youth gangs. Question 32 and question 29 ("How many of your friends have carried weapons to school for self protec- tion") was cross tabulated to see if there is a relationship between being in a youth gang and having friends that need weapons for protection. Out of the 8.6% that considered themselves a part of a youth gang, 7% said their friends use weapons for protection. This data was found to be statistically significant (X2 = 27.4; df = 16; p _< 0.03). In looking at youths involved in gangs that also felt they needed weapons for protection, the researcher was interested in seeing how many of these individuals were fearful while at school. It is believed that youths that belong to these gangs are less fearful than other students. However, the data from this research did not indicate this trend. Out of the 8.6% that consider themselves to be involved in a youth gang, 3.1% felt safe at school while 4% did not feel safe at school. The researcher concluded that being a part of a youth gang does not insure a feeling of safety at school. 96 In addition to this finding, question 32 ("I consider myself part of a youth gang”) was crosstabulated with question 15 ("I carry weapons to school to threaten other students"). Out of the 8.3% of the youths that felt part of a youth gang, only 2.3% said they carry weapons to threaten others, 3.8% said that they did not carry weapons to threaten others and 2.3% expressed no opinion or did not answer. In a crosstabulation of statements 32 and 16 ("I carry weapons to school to harm other students") only 2.3% said they carried weapons to harm others, while 3.9% did not and 2.3% said no opinion or did not answer. Although some youth gang members carry weapons to Victimize other students, an equal amount of gang members do not use the weapons to prey on students. It appears that the vast majority of students are not active in gangs nor do they have friends that have violent behaviors. If this is the case, another third party in which a youth disassociates himself with may cause fear levels in students to increase. Question 27 states ("There is a person or group at school that I try to avoid because they are dangerous"). There were 36.3% of the students that agreed and 48.5% that disagreed and another 15.2% had no opinion. Question 27 was crosstabulated with question 28 ("How many times have you stayed away from school, because of a dangerous person or group") and Table 4.32 shows the results. 97 Table 4.32 Avoidance of Certain Groups At School There Is A Person or Group at School That I Try To Avoid Because They Are Dangerous Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree 0 (16) (l6) (17) (34) (28) 12.2 14.5 13.0 26.0 21.4 How Many Times Have 1-3 (s) (4) (1) (1) 0 You Stayed 3.8. 3.1 0.8 0.8 Away From School 4-7 (1) (l) (1) Because Of 0.8 0.8 0.8 0 0 A Dangerous Person 0? 8-10 0 . a a 0 0 Group 11 orMore (1) (1) (I U (1) 0.8 0 8 0 8 (x2 = 17.5; df = 12; p g 0.13) Although the vast majority of students do not stay home because of fear, 10.1% said they did stay home because of fear. Still, the perception of a dangerous person do not affect the majority of students to attend school as indicated in chapter 2. In addition to this question, 28 was cross- tabulated with question 22 ("There are more weapons in my school this year as compared to the majority of other schools in the city") and similar results appeared. The perception of an increase volume of weapons has no affect on if the students stayed home or not (X2 = 7.8; df = 12; p _< 0.79). 98 Question 11 asked the subjects how many students do they think have left the school because of fear. The results are as follows: 37.1% said 0 students, 14.4% said from 1 to 3 students, 9.8% said from 4 to 7 students, 5.5% said from 8 to 10 students, 29.5% said 11 or more students. The researcher believed, from his personal interviews, that some- body or someone might be the major cause for students to change or leave school. He then decided to crosstabulate question 11 with question 27 ("There is a person or group at school that I try to avoid because they are dangerous) and Table 4.33 is description of the results. Table 4.33 The Relationship Between Other Students Fear and Your Own There Is A Person Or Group At School That 1W Strongly No Strongly 3 E Q . . D' D. Strongly (4) (12) (5) (12) (16) How Agree 3.1 9.4 3.9 9.4 12.6 Many Students Agree (4) (2) (3) (8) (2) Have 3.1 1.6 2.4 6.3 1.6 Left Your No (3) (4) (Z) (3) (1) School Opinion 2.4 3.1 1.6 2.4 0.8 Because Of Fear (3) a a (3) (l) Disagree 2.4 2.4 0.8 Strongly (8) (7) (8) (7) (9) Disagree 6.3 5.5 6.3 5.5 7.1 (x2 = 20.5; df = 10; p g 0.19) 99 The purpose of this crosstabulation was to see if there was any perception that students left school to avoid other people. From these results there seems to be no clear relationship. The data also indicated that there was no statistically significance in this relationship. Thus, the conclusion from these results is that fear in other students may not influence the actions of others. Since students seem to not stay home in fear of other students, the researcher decided to see if guns would have a significant effect on students fear level. Question 27 ("There is a person or group at school that I try to avoid because they are dangerous") crosstabulated with question 26 (”How many guns have you seen on students in your school") to see if the number of guns would effect students avoiding others because of fear. The data also indicated there was no statistically significant relationship between the two questions. The researcher concluded that the number of weapons seen on students does not influence them to avoid certain people. Similar findings (Table 4.35) were revealed when question 28 [("How many of your friends carry weapons to school for self protection and question 30 ("How many times have your friends used weapons to harm or scare other students") were cross tabulated together. The researcher was able to conclude that students did not stay away from school even when their perception of guns on students had increased. The data indicates that there is no statistical signifance. 100 Table 4.34 The Perceived Number of Guns and Its Affect on Students Avoiding Certain People There Is A Person Or Group That I Avoid Because They Are Dangerous Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree 0 (6) (12) (8) (15) (12) How 4.7 9.3 6.2 11.6 9.3 Man Gun: 1-3 (10) (9) (5) (13) (10) Have 7.8 7.0 3.9 10.1 7.8 You On 3.1 1.6 2.3 3.1 1.6 Students 8-10 (1) 0 0 0 (1) 0.8 0.8 11 or More (2) (2) (1) (3) (4) 1.6) 1.6 0.8 2.3 3.1 (x2 = 8.3; df - 16; p g 0.94) 101 Table 4.35 The Influence of Guns To Make Students Stay Home From School How Many Times Have You Stayed Away From School Because of A Dangerous Person or Group 11 or 0 1-3 4-7 8-10 More 0 (49) (3) 0 a (1) How Many 38.0 2.3 0.8 G H YEESSegze 1-3 (39) (5) (2) a (1) on 30.2 3.9 1.6 0.8 Students 4_7 (11) (3) (1) a a 8.5 2.3 0.8 8-10 (2) 1.6 0 0 a 0 ll.or More (11) (1) 8.5 G 0 U 0.8 (x2 = 10.7; df = 12; p _< 0.54) lOZ SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary In the school year September 1984 to June 1985, the Detroit Public Schools have received a lot of bad publicity on the volume of dangerous weapons present in the schools. Thus, the primary purpose of this study was to find out if or why students were carrying weapons to school. The researcher theorized two research questions based on his assumption for weapons being in the school. 1. Do students carry weapons to school because of fear of physical violence? 2. Do students carry weapons because they believe they need them for self protection? After an indepth literature review and talking with officials in or connected with the school system, the researcher formed four alternatives to the research questions. 1. Do students carry weapons to school to Victimize other students? 2. Will the number of times a student has been victim- ized affect weapons possession? 3. Will the perceived volume and threat of weapons influence the number of students carrying weapons? 4. Do studentscarry weapons to school because they are encouraged by the actions and behaviors of others in the school? 103 Although personal interviews were used to gather valuable information, the questionnaires were used to answer the research questions. The surveys were administered in July of 1985. A sample of 132 students made up the subjects in the study. The data was analyzed through crosstabulation from the survey instrument. M . E' 1. 1. Although there were some students that were fearful, especially in certain areas (e.g. restrooms), the data clearly indicates that fear was not related to the students perceived need of weapons. The researcher concluded that fear no matter how severe would not influence students to carry weapons. ' There was no common factor found in the students that made them feel weapons were necessary. Even when looking at other variables such as grade, age or gender, no variable appears to be consistently significant. In addition, there appears to be no common factors that would increase students need for weapons. On the same line, when issues such as dangerous areas, people and even knowing other victims are analyzed, the perception of need is not related. There appears to be no common factors among students that might influence them to perceive they need weapons or to actually carry them. Less than 5% of the students who actually admitted to committing aggressive acts with weapons. However, even these youths admitted that they also use their weapons 104 for protection and that they also felt some degree of fear at school. Still, the data here clearly indicates that the vast majority of students are not carrying weapons to school to threaten or hurt others or for any other reason. Victimization was found to be different among grade levels and gender. However, this difference does not change the students perceived need for weapons. Male students in the lower grades experience more victimizations than females or males in higher grades. Yet their perception of needing a weapon is not higher. The data did indicate that students who had high victimization rates (11 crimes or more) may have been influenced to carry weapons. Than again, this number was so few that the results were diminished. The perception of an unsafe environment seem to have not affected students need to have weapons. In addition, factors such as volume of weapons or police involvement, did little to influence students fear or perceived need for a weapon. The data did not indicate any situation in the school that would influence the vast majority of students to perceive they need weapons or to actually carry them. There has been a vast amount of literature that emphasize the influence of the peer group. However, the data from this study indicates that peer groups do not influence students need for weapons. Even close associates appeared 105 to not effect weapons possession. However, students that perceive dangerous groups also had higher fear levels. Still, this perception did not influence youths to bring weapons or to even stay away from school. Conclusion Although there were many students that believe they need weapons for protection, there was no common factor that led to this belief. The students perception were not influ- enced by more weapons, knowing other victims, close peer groups or perception of other delinquent groups. The majority of the youths in the study were not considered violent nor did they associate with violent individuals. The research indicates that although many believed they need weapons, the vast majority of the students did not act on this belief. There appears to be no common factor that will determine why students bring weapons to school. The study indicates that fear and students perception can and are influenced by certain environmental situations. However, their response to fear was not to take weapons to school to eliminate their apprehension of certain places, groups or situations. There were some causal relationships such as the number of victimizations had an effect on fear levels, however, these increases in fear levels did not result in people bringing weapons to school. On the same line, restrooms increased fear, but this fear was not severe enough to effect weapons possessions. 106 Recommendations For Future Research Before any policy decisions can be made based on the research conclusions, this study should be replicated during the regular school year in order to get a population more representative of the entire Detroit Public School popula- tion. Since there appears to be no common factors that produce evidence of statistical significance, future research should include different factors such as family structure, teachers and administrators perception, outsiders as perpetrators of school crime and the volume of weapons, especially guns, that are present in the community. Many officials feel that school crime should not be taken as one single pheonomenon. Crime that occurs in the school is a reflection of the community in which the school structure is built. Probably to get a more clear and concise picture of why youths are carrying weapons is to conduct research on the community as a whole and not just look at the schools. Taking in the perceptions of a representative sample of a community may produce more of an accurate reason for the use and increase in weapons among youths. These social factors may determine the perceived need to have weapons. In addition, observers must realize when research is done using questionnaires, only a perception is tested. Perceptions change with time. The current study was done during the summer months. Still, most of the students 107 should not forget about a record number of weapons found and the implementation of police sweeps. Still, many other students were not fearful at school. In the second month of the school year (1985-86) there were shooting incidents for three fridays in a row. The first incident occurred on October 11, 1985, when a youth fired a sawed-off shot gun in a McDonald's restaurant. This shooting incident left 11 youths injured. The next Friday, October 18, 1985, a youth fired several shots into a football stand at a Homecoming game. This shooting incident left six youth injured. On October 25, 1985, a 15 year old youth was shot and killed during a‘fight. There were other shooting incidents around the same time period and some even fatal. Some of these incidents made national news. Therefore, the researcher believes that if a survey is administered today, the results would be different from this study. Many of the secondary school students know about the shooting incidents in the schools. Their perception today may be entirely diff- erent from the summer school students involved in this study. In addition, The American Civil Liberties Union has suspended the police sweeps based on probable cause rights guaranteed by the fourth Amendment. Thus, this may also change the students perception. The researcher believes that this study should be replicated at least two times at two different time periods in order to measure the reliability of the survey responses. APPENDIX 108 APPENDIX A STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE Hello, I'm a student at Michigan State University working on an advanced degree in Social Science. As a graduate of the Detroit Public School System, I am interested in the recent number of weapons found in our schools. I would like to help find some way to reduce this problem. However, I will need your help. By answering these questions, you can help me understand why some people bring weapons to school. Your name will not be connected to your answers, so nobody will know what you have said. You do not have to take part in this project, and even if you do, you do not have to answer every question. It is very important to me that, if you do take part, you answer every question honestly and, if you do not know the exact answer, you give the best answer you can. When the word weapon(s) is used in the study it is referring to the following: All Types of Guns Knives Pipes Mace Screw Drivers Scissors Ice Picks Nail Files Razors Brass Knickles Tear Gas Other Harmful Items *Keep in mind that all of the questions apply to the last school year (September 1984 to June 1985). 109 How old are you? What grade are you in? Are you male ________ female (check one)? How do you usually get to school from your home and back again? a. walk b. the bus C. a car d. other (explain) I feel safe at school. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree There are areas that I avoid on my way to school because they are not safe (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree I feel safer inside the school than I do in my neigh- borhood. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree Because of personal safety, I avoid the cafeteria while in school. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 110 Because of personal safety, I avoid some restrooms while in school. (circle one) Strongly No . Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree Because of fear for my personal safety, I avoid the locker roon while in school. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree In the last year, how many students do you think have left your school because of fear? # Students need weapons for protection. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree In the last year, have you brought a weapon to school for protection? a. yes b. no If yes, about how many times? # and write down the typeCs) of weapon(s). In the last year, have you had to use a weapon for protection? a. yes b. no If yes, about how many times? # and write down the type(s) of weapon(s). 15. l6. 17. 18. 111 I carry weapons to school to threaten other students. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree I carry weapons to school to harm other students. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree In the last year, how many times have you been a victim of a crime at school in which the offender used a weapon? # If you put in a number, list the type(s) of weapon(s). Write in the number of times in the last year that you have been a victim in each of the following incidents at school. a. simple fist assult (needed no medical attention) # b. serious fist assault (medical treatment needed) # c. theft (value over five dollars) # d. robbery # e. attempted rape # f. rape # g. threatened with a weapon # h. assaulted with a weapon # 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 112 1. others (list and number the times a victim) In the last year, about how many students have been hurt with weapons in your school? # I started to carry weapons to school, only after I became a victim of a school crime. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree There are more weapons in my school this year as compared to the majority of other schools in the city. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree There are more weapons in my school this year as compared to last year. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree The police sweeps have been effective in reducing weapons in my school. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree In the last year, weapons have not been a problem in my school. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 113 In the last year, guns have not been a problem in my school. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree In the last year, about how many guns have you seen on students in your school? # There is a person or group at school that I try to avoid because they are dangerous.(circ1e one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree In the last year, how many times have you stayed away from school because of a dangerous person or group? # In the last year, how many of your friends have carried weapons to school for self protection? # If you put in a number, list the type(s) of weapon(s). In the last year, how many times have your friends used weapons to harm or scare other students? # In the last year, there have been youth gangs present in my school. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree I consider myself a part of a youth gang. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree 114 33. I carry weapons to school because everyone else does. (circle one) Strongly No Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree BI BLIOGRAPHY 115 Bibliography Alcabe, A. and Jones, J.A. (1980). Juvenile Victim Assistance Programs: A Proposal. Crime and Delinquency, 4, 202-205. Ball, Z. and Kresnak, J. (1984). Gunplay Turns to Child's Play on the Streets of the City. The Detroit Free Press Sunday, November 11, 1984. . Bayh, B. (1975) Our Nation's Schools - A Report Card:"A" in School Violence and Vandalism. Preliminary Report of the Sub Committee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Burgan, L. and Rubel, R. J. (1980). Public SchoOl Security: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Contemporary Education, 52. Bush, D. M., Byth, D. F., Simmons, P. G., Thiel, K. S. (1980) Another Look at School Crime Students as Victims. Youth and Society, 11, 369-388. Carriere, R. H. (1979). Peer Violence Forces Kids Out of School. The American School Board Journal. Connolly, J., Henning, P., Marvin, M., McCann, R., Temkin, S. (1976). Planning Assistance Program to Reduce School Violence and Disruption. Research For Better Schools, Inc. Dillman, D. A. (1972). Increasing Mail Questionnaire Response in Large Samples of the General Public. Public Opinion Quarterly 36, 254-257. 116 Dukiet, K. H. (1973). Spotlight On School Security. SChool Management, 16-18. Felson, R. B., Ribner, S. A., Siegel, M. S. (1984). Age and The Effects of Third Parties During Criminal Violence. Sociology and Social Research, 68. Friday, P. C. and Hage, I. (1976). Youth Crime in Post Industrial Societies: An Integrated Perspective. Criminology, l4. Garafalo, I. (1979). Victimization and the Fear of Crime. Journal of Research in Crime 8 Delinquency, l6. Heald, J. E., Miller, T. L., Rothmans, S. G., Sabatino, D. A. (1978). Destructive Norm - Violating School Behavior Among Adolescents: A Review of Protective and Preventive Efforts. Adolescence xii, 675-685. Hindelang, M. J. (1976). With a Little Help From Their Friends. British Journal of Criminology, 16, 109-125. Jones, W. J. (1973). Discipline Crisis in Schools: The Problem, Causes and Search for Solutions. National School Public Relations Association, 23-40. Kelly, D. H. and Phillips, J. C. (1979). School Failure and Delinquency Which Causes Which? Criminology, 17, 194-207. Lalli, M. and Savitz, L. D. (1977). The Fear of Crime in the School Enterprise and Its Consequences. 8, 410-415. Lobosco, A. and Rocek, D. W. (1983). Effects of High Schools on Crime in Their Neighborhoods. Social Science Quarterly, 64, 598-613. 117 Maclay, K. (1981). Gun-Toting Students Trigger Controversey. Contra Costa Times, February 9, 1981. McDermot, J. (1980). High Anxiety - Fear of Crime In Secondary Schools. Contemporary Education, 52, 18-23. McDermott, J. (1983). Crime in the School and in the Community: Offenders, Victims, and Fearful Youths. Crime 8 Delin- quency, 270-282. Moorefield, S. (1977). North, South, East, and West Side Story. American Education, 13, 12-16. Newman, J. (1980). From Past to Future: School Violence in a Broadview. Contemporary Education, 52, 7-11. Pestello, H. F. (1983). Fear and Misbehavior in a High School. The Sociological Quarterly, 24, 561-573. Poole, E. D. and Regoli, R. N. (1979). Parental Support, Delinquent Friends, and Delinquency: A Test of Interaction Effects. The Journal of Criminal Law 8 Criminology, 20, 188-193. Rafky, D. N. (1979). School Rebellion: A Research Note. Adolescence xiv, 451-463. Rubel, R. J. (1978). Victimization and Fear in Public Schools: Survey of Activities. Victimology: An Interna- tional Journal, 3, 339-341. Savitz, L. (1973). Intergenerational Patterns of the Fear of Crime. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Scott, E. M. (1979). Violence in America: Violent People and Violent Offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 23, 197-209. 118 Toby, J. (1980). Crime in American Public Schools. Public Interest, 58, 18-42. Toseland, R. W. (1982). Fear of Crime: Who is Most Vulnerable? Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 199-209. Tygart, C. E. (1980). Student Social Structures and/or Sub Cultures as Factors in School Crime: Toward a Paradigm. Adolescence xv, 13-21. Vinter, R. D. (1979). Trends in State Correction: Juveniles and Violent Young Offender. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 145-161. ' Wallace, C. P. (1981). Student, 16, Slain on School Campus. Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, February 11, 1981. Wolfgang, M. E. (1976). Youth and Violence. U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare. Attorney General's Office State of California. (1976). Youth Gangs: The Problem and An Approach. Crime Pre- vention Review 3, 21-27. Detroit Public Schools Statistics Department, June 1985. Guns on Campus (1981). Oakland Tribune Monday, February 23, 1981. National School Public Relations Association. (1975). Violence and Vandalism: Current Trends in School Policies and Programs. Statistical Data Profiles of Detroit's High Schools: 1975 to 1984. A Detroit Monitoring Commission Report (1984). 119 Uniform Code of Student Conduct - Detroit Public Schools (1983-1984). U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1978). Violent Schools - Safe Schools - The Safe School Study Report to the Congress. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. U.S. News and World Report (1984). 1984 World Almanac and Book of Facts. (1976). Who Misbehaves? A High School Studies Its Discipline Problems. Educational Administration Quarterly, 12, 65-85. .o - (a .- . - . . s 3.4. .. -. r L t O 4 - . .. . . a 9 ate-....» 2. . . . . r o 1' v- . . 4.. 4 r. I p! '1!!! .4111 o . . s . - ‘50.? 3.21.3. . ..l - ... Q o . .. . e . ‘ ..l in . O’lo'llIIJOo" .. . . n .... . o . e : lot-b51640“ . . , . l O n v . '7) 9111' N!!! I i :1: ...... e. . . {(4304 l K 4 I. - .- . v... ..u to»! I . 4 co .. In). .r‘v‘ . at .4. . a LAO-dye“: fix) «a. [.1 . .. . e . . d. ...-J. I q 4hr.“- I I.) - - - (a l 94"!1‘ u a I III" . u. .. D O . . - I - .l’)‘ u. . -- I- -. i - .- ...nd.. 1. lo I) 8. .- .- .-.: v ‘1‘”. 0 w) furl-6'74 - 4| ,ovll ..Io .I-Io) ( \I- | 47'. I1-14. “(J-.llll-el .Ilf-luf \{P-l-llo.vl 11.6 :1400 Ilv'),IJ|IDI .4” l» I Il’i‘lu {lief ,IJI i|1r "ii-f!) 1H“ I.‘ file" 0' 31! 3: 311+: 4., -, . 1:" - . - H l O I - .-.0 )1.- 1-1) (I. no . o-O - . o H ”II 3?. trawl-(P. .(lo . ...-34.)) .10-. (UN! ...-.( .- ...-(-1-- 3.17)). P.--., ..- I!) - 6.... - l-- - Hy...- - ..- -ll. - .- ‘U I V v . I ' I. i 4 a .blrfluxllnotfie’l) (f. {0‘ (I {11 ,Il. 3‘0 lulu-V}. -.Hu. .(fii -I.IIU%JSI.I- lefifle-"JIJI Ilwlln‘lOllocct ..rd! T) (.1044 nvrlll"! I: J lull) luv grill!) {all}. . (04.1.1044! I I... . - f“'!!! V :7 I. . . . ..- I ‘ C . \ - I - I. ~ 9 . Wanna-l. ...-HA...) l-«IIII- .- ’lv’- l"