INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us for microfilming.
While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce
this docum ent, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the
quality o f the material submitted.
The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or
notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent
photographed is “Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This
may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages
to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an
indication o f either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure,
duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials th a t should n o t have been filmed. For
blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If
copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in
the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photographed,
a definite m ethod o f “ sectioning” the material has been followed. It is
customary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to
continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. I f necessary,
sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on
until complete.
4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic
means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted
into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases the best
available copy has been filmed.

University
Microfilms
International
300 N. Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

8503212

Goslin, J o s e p h C.

VANDALISM: A PERCEPTION OF SECONDARY PRINCIPALS OF OAKLAND
COUNTY, STATE OF MICHIGAN

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Ph.D.

1984

PLEASE NOTE:

In all c a s e s this material h as been filmed in the best possible way from th e available copy.
Problems encountered with this d o cum ent have b een identified here with a check m ark V

.

1.

Glossy photographs or p a g e s ______

2.

Colored illustrations, pap er or p rin t_____

3.

Photographs with dark b ack g ro u n d _____

4.

Illustrations a re poor co p y _______

5.

P ag es with black marks, not original copy

6.

Print show s through a s th ere is text on both s id e s of p ag e_____

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several p a g e s ^

8.

Print ex ceed s margin req u irem en ts_____

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine___

10.

Com puter printout p ages with indistinct print______

11.

P a g e (s)____________ lacking w hen material received, and not available from school or
author.

12.

P a g e (s)____________ seem to b e missing in numbering only a s text follows.

13.

Two pages n u m b e re d _____________. Text follows.

14.

Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______

15.

O ther___________________________________________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

University
Microfilms
International

VANDALISM: A PERCEIPTION OF SECONDARY PRINCIPALS
OF OAKLAND COUNTY, STATE OF MICHIGAN

By

. Joseph Goslin

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1984

ABSTRACT
VANDALISM: A PERCEPTION OF SECONDARY PRINCIPALS
OF OAKLAND COUNTY, STATE OF MICHIGAN
By
Joseph Goslin

At the present time, many school administrators must
simply "live" with the existence of vandalism in their
schools.

Several approaches have been developed to stop

vandalism; it is possible that these attempts have had an
impact upon this problem in the schools.

Nevertheless,

previous research on vandalism has left much to be desired
in terms of positive, long-term solutions.
"Vandalism:

A Perception of Secondary Principals

of Oakland County, State of Michigan" is a study which
attempts to prove that vandalism is the direct result of
school policies and the means by which they are enforced.
It is the intent of this study to examine how administrators
perceive their roles in controlling vandalism for the
following reasons:
1.

To determine how high school administrators

perceive their role in controlling vandalism
2.

To determine how parents, school boards and

communities may use the information for constructing inter­
views of prospective principals
3.

To report how school boards may use the infor­

mation reported for evaluating their principals1

performances, and
4.

To determine how 'the information obtained from

this study will be added to the data base on vandalism.
Principals from the entire population of Oakland
County were asked to respond to a self-administered
questionnaire, which elicited responses from them in terms
of perceptions of their individual roles in controlling
vandalism.
The results show that vandalism occurs in all schools
regardless of its location, age or who is the principal.
It was shown that the Suburban schools have more vandalism
then any other type of school while the Urban schools have
the most pre-meditated vandalism.
The average school experienced $2,300 worth of
vandalism and the results show that the school leaders-are not optomistic next year or within the next five years
that vandalism will decrease.

This is due to the fact that

most school administrators do not have written guidelines
concerning vandalism to follow.
The study shows that those principals who are
well known by the school body and are active in extra­
curricular activities have a lower rate of vandalism than
those principals who are not well known.
This study was a success in presenting the perceptions
of secondary principals towards vandalism.

Much can still

be researched and much can still be learned in other related
areas of research on vandalism in the secondary schools.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It goes without saying that a project of this
magnitude requires the cooperation and assistance of a number
of individuals.

I wish to express my deep appreciation to

the following professors, friends, and loved ones:
Linda Marie, who has always been the backbone of .
my entire project.
Bryan Joseph, "The B," who through him I see the
future and all the things in life that are good.
Dr. John Suehr, for his willingness to assume respon­
sibility as Chairman of my Doctoral Committee.

His advice

and guidance have made a difficult undertaking much easier.
Dr. Stanley Hecker, for his invaluable assistance
during my struggle to identify a research topic and for the
constant intellectual challenges he provided.
Dr. Kenneth Harding, who has been a constant source
of encouragement throughout my entire graduate program.
Rose and Norm Egli, who have given me support and
guidance throughout the entire project.
Finally, to my parents who, although unable to enjoy
the benefits of higher education themselves, had the fore­
sight and wisdom to encourage and support my pursuit of
education.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............
LIST OF T A B L E S ..........................................

ii
V

CHAPTER I .
Background of the P r o b l e m .........................
1
Statement of the P r o b l e m .........................
3
3
Purpose of the S t u d y .............................
Importance of the S t u d y ............................
6
Questions for the S t u d y ............................
7
Definition of Terms ...............................
9
Principal
......................................
9
School ..........................................
9
Administrative Policy
.........................
9
V a n d a l i s m ................
9
City School District (Urban
10
School District) .............................
Rural School D i s t r i c t ............................ 10
Suburban... School D i s t r i c t ........................10
Limitation of the S t u d y .............................. 11
CHAPTER II.
Review of the L i t e r a t u r e ............................12
A Term in Search of a D e f i n i t i o n ................... 15
The Act of V a n d a l i s m ................................ 17
Three Types of School Vandalism ...................
22
School Vandalism: Type I ........................ 22
School Vandalism: Type I I ........................ 22
School Vandalism: Type I I I ...................... 23
A t t i t u d e s .............................................24
I n c i d e n c e ........................................ 32
The V a n d a l ........................................ 34
A Sample of Explanation for
Vandalic B e h a v i o r ......................... . 36
The Vandal As an Alien inthe School . . . . . .
38
The School and V a n d a l i s m ..........................41
Vandalism and the C o m m u n i t y ..................... 47
The Principal's R o l e .............................. 50
The Price for Broken G l a s s ........................54
Vandalism Prevention ...........................
56

CHAPTER III.

Methods and Procedures
..............
60
Introducation
. . . . . .
........... 60
Description of the S t u d y .............
60
Procedure . . . . . . . .......................
62
Summary . . . . . . . . . .
...................
68
CHAPTER IV.
Analysis of the D a t a .......................
A General Profile of the Principals
and Their Schools . . . . . . . .
...........
Findings of the Research Questions
. . . . . .

69
70
77

CHAPTER V.
Summary, Conclusions, Recommendations
........... 113
Introduction
.............................. . . 1 1 3
Summary of F i n d i n g s ............................. 113
C o n c l u s i o n .....................
116 •
Recommendations
......................... . * . 119
- APPENDIX
BIBLIOGRAPHY

121
135

LIST OP TABLES

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

Break-down of Schools in S u r v e y ................. 80
$2300.00 or More Vandalism per A r e a ............. 81
Suburban Principals Versus $2300 or More
V a n d a l i s m .......................................82
Rural Principals Versus $2300 or More
V a n d a l i s m .......................
. 82
Urban Principals Versus $2300 or More
V a n d a l i s m .......................................83
Experience Versus $2300 or More V a n d a l i s m ....... 84
Suburban Principals Versus Experience of
$2300 or More V a n d a l i s m ........................ 84
Rural Principals Versus Experience of
$2300 or More V a n d a l i s m .....................
.85
Urban Principals Versus Experience of
$2300 or More V a n d a l i s m ........................ 85
Is Vandalism a Serious Problem in Your
Building (Item a ) .............................. 89
The Past Five Years According to Principals
(.Item b)
...........................................89
The Expected Trend of Vandalism of the 1983-84 . .
School Year as Perceived by Principals (Item c) . 90
The Location that Vandalism is the Worst (Item d) . 90
........
95
Factors Outside School Causing Vandalism
Factors Outside of Schools Causing Vandalism . . .
97
Top Five Types of V a n d a l i s m ..................... 100
Seriousness Versus Priority ....................... 106
Having Authority to Control Vandalism (Item a) . . 110
Vandalism as a Budget Item (Item b ) ............ Ill
Requirement of Reporting Vandalism (Item c) . . . . Ill
Written Guidelines for Principals (Item d ) ..... 112
Parental Support Versus Administration .......... 115
The Relationship Between School Discipline
Policies and School Vandalism ................... 116
Principal Being Known Versus Vandalism .......... 118
Discussions of Vandalism Versus Vandalism ........ 120

v

CHAPTER I
Background of the Problem
The American high school has witnessed many chal­
lenges to its role in society over the years.
opportunity, high schools have performed well.

Given the
As the

twenty-first century approaches, high schools are beset with
many problems, most of which have plagued administrators for
years.^

The range of problems extend between, but are not

limited to, the decrease in enrollment of students, and to
2
the destruction of schools by students.
Although the problem of fewer students attending our
educational institutions has created a drastic impact on the
schools, the destruction of buildings has not been dependent
3
upon the number of students in attendance.
The defacement
^George Koppe, "School Crime Study," The Kansas City
Times, 3 November, 1977.
2
P. J. Cistone, "Educational Policy-making,"
Education Forum 42 (January 1977):89-100; R. J. Rubel, The
Unruly School-Disorders, Disruptions, and Crimes (Lexington:
Lexington Books, 1977); and F. A. J. Ianni, "The Social
Organization of the High School— Specific Aspects of School
Crime," School Crime and Disruption: Prevention Models
(Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1978).
3
U.S., Congress, Senate, Subcommittee to Investigate
Juvenile Delinquency.
"Challenge for the Third Century:
Education in a Safe Environment— Final Report on the Nature
and Prevention of School Violence and Vandalism." 95th Cong.,
1st Sess.
(Washington, D.C., Government Printing Office,
1

and destruction of school property, more commonly referred to
as vandalism, is generally recognized as a serious problem.
There is difficulty in determining whether the schools are
experiencing a surge in vandalism,® or whether the reporting
of the acts has simply improved during recent years.®

In

general, it has been documented that a high frequency of van7
dalism has been reported in schools.
Nevertheless, in the
"Safe School Study," it was noted that a "leveling off" has
o

been observed in recent years.
The authors of several studies have suggested that
school personnel play a significant role in the prevention
and control of vandalism.

g

In particular, in a study by

Dr. Walter Panko, it was suggested that a key element in the
control of school vandalism is the building administrator.
Dr. Panko stated:
Characteristics of building administration have
implications for guidelines for organized response
to prevent school vandalism . . . administration
1977); James J. Van Patten, "Violence and Vandalism in Our
Schools," Education Forum 42 (November 1977):57-65.
4
National Institute of Education, Violent Schools—
Safe Schools: The Safe School Study Report to the Congress,
Vol. 1 (Washington, D.C., National Institute of Education,
1978).
5Ibid., p. 37.

6Ibid.

7Ibid., p. 33.

O

The N.I.E. study cited statistics on the trends of
vandalism as presented in the Annual Report of Vandalism in
Selected Great Cities and Maryland Counties, Center for Plan­
ning, Research and Evaluation (Baltimore City Schools, 1974).
g

Both the N.I.E. study and the Senate, Subcommittee
mentioned this fact in their reports.

3
should be strong, fair, and fulfill the leadership
function, and so be perceived by staff, students,
parents and the community. Strength, fairness,
and willingness to lead must all be high priority
characteristics.
Consistent adherence to policy,
uniform practice, and impartiality in decision­
making will facilitate the perception of strength
and fairness by members of the school environment.
High visibility during the school day and during
after school activities enhances the image of
leadership.10
Statement of the Problem
Vandalism in the public schools appeared on the "top
ten" rating of problems, as perceived by respondents in
Gallup polls.

Consequently, someone in a position of

authority must be held responsible for events in and around
the school.

The building principal has the responsibility

for the welfare of students and staff in his/her building.
This responsibility includes the protection of school pro­
perty from defacement and destruction.

In addition, this

responsibility harbours a tremendous amount of power in con­
trolling most individuals and events in a school.

Therefore,

this study is seeking answers to the following question:
What are some of the differences among Oakland
County high school principals in how they perceive
their roles in controlling vandalism?
Purpose of the Study
Vandalism is a concept derived from what are believed
to be acts of wanton and malicious destruction.

The original

Walter L. Panko, "Taxonomy of School Vandalism"
(Unpublished dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1978),
p. 140.

"vandals" were an eastern German tribe which overran the
western part of Europe in 445 A.D.3"3" Records of their
12
attacks include the destruction of "works of art. "
Conse­
quently/ their acts were deemed to be needless.

Through the

passage of time, destroyers of art have gained the label of
vandals.

Therefore, vandalism has become the term used

widely for describing the needless destruction of property,
especially public property such as schools.
Vandalism in schools takes place during and after
school hours.

Acts of vandalism take place in urban, subur­

ban, and rural areas.3-3

Vandals in schools come in all ages,

shapes, and sizes; few schools, if any, escape vandalism's
14
effects.
Yet acts of vandalism are not shared equally
among school districts.3,3

Since school vandalism is an act

of destruction against public property, the question arises:
Why do students and others deface schools?
Vandalism is a behavior which Cohen views as having
a reason and purpose.3"®

It is generally assumed that students

vandalize because it is something to do without a purpose.
^Stanley Cohen, "Property Destruction: Motives and
Meanings," Vandalism, ed., Colin Ward (New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1973), p. 33.
12Ibid.

13N.I.E., op cit., pp. 33-34.

14 Arnold Madison, Vandalism: The Not-So-Senseless
Crime (New York: The Seabury Press, 1970).
^ N . I.E., op cit., pp. 37-42.
^Stanley Cohen, "The Nature of Vandalism," New
Society (December 1968):875-876.

This is probably true in some isolated situations; yet it
would be difficult to verify.
Cohen has suggested that vandalism is a "way to
relieve boredom or a conscious tactic to draw attention to
17
a particular grievance."
18
19
Studies by Ianni,
and Dececco and Richards,
have
explored the "sheltered existence" of the high school.

These

studies looked at the effects of the school, as an institu­
tion and as an organizational unit, to see how it affects
the behaviors of students.

Vandalism is a social problem

which has seized some schools and has ignored others.

It is

possible that schools may hold an answer to their own
problems with vandalism.
The environment of an individual school is complex.
Two of the elements in a school environment which hold power
over the students are the policies governing their behavior,
and the administrators who enforce the policies.

Given the

ages of the students, both the policies and administrators
represent authority.

Thus, the environment may establish the

grounds for vandalism, through the development of rules or
controls on student behavior:
Vandalism is just right.
It is the ideal form of
rule-breaking both in expressive (expressing
^Cohen, op. cit., 1973, p. 31.
18_
Ianni, op. cit.
19
J. P. DeCecco and A. K. Richards, Growing Pains:
Uses of School Conflict (New York: Aberdeen Press, 1974).

6
certain values) and instrumental terms (solving
certain structural problems). It is satisfying
and provides just the right amount of r i s k . ^ O
Is vandalism the direct result

of school policies

and how

they are enforced?

of this study is to

examine

how administrators perceive their roles in con­

The intent

trolling vandalism, especially since part of administrator's
behavior is mandated by policies.
Importance of the Study
At the present time many school administrators must
simply "live" with the existence of vandalism in their
schools.

Several approaches have been developed to stop

vandalism; it is possible that these attempts have had an
impact on vandalism in schools.

Nevertheless, research on

vandalism has left much to be desired in the form of positive,
long-term solutions.
According to Panko, "research of school vandalism
21
has been fragmented and unsystematic."
Many districts have
studied vandalism in terms of the collection and analyses of
dollar and cent figures, as applied against the numeration of
specific school populations.

Absent in a majority of reports

has been the examination of "people” influences on vandalism.
Specifically, there have been absences of inquiries into the
influence of administrators and others on the incidence of
vandalism in schools.
20

Consequently, since the purpose of

Panko, op. cit., p. 53.

21

Panko, op. cit., pp. 128-134.

this study is to gather information about the perceptions
of administrators; the results are important for the fol­
lowing reasons:
1.

Administrators will be able to view the

information gathered about how high school administrators
perceive their role in controlling vandalism
2.

Parents, school boards and communities may use

the information for constructing interviews of prospective
future principals
3.

School boards may use the information reported

for evaluating their principals' performances, and
4.

The information obtained from this study will

be added to the data base on vandalism
Questions for the Study
Given the nature of the study, several questions
were constructed from issues listed in the literature on
vandalism.
1.

The questions are printed
Do building principals

below:

in urban high schools

perceive their schools as experiencing more vandalism than
their suburban and rural counterparts
2.

Do building principals

cite factors outside their schools

in urban school districts
as contributing to

vandalism inside their buildings
3.

Do building principals in suburban school dis­

tricts cite factors outside their schools as contributing
to vandalism inside their schools

4.

Do building principals in rural school districts

cite factors outside their schools as contributing to
vandalism inside their schools
5.

What are the top five major types of vandalism

cited by principals in the three groups of school settings
6.

Do building principals in urban and suburban

school districts differ from principals in rural districts
in how they define vandalism
7.

Is vandalism perceived by building principals

as a serious problem in their schools
8.

Do principals believe they can control

vandalism
9.

Do principals perceive vandalism decreasing in

their schools
10.

Do principals perceive parents as supporting

their efforts to control vandalism
11.

Do principals link discipline policies and

practices with the level of vandalism in their schools
12.

Do principals who are not known by all of their

students experience greater levels of vandalism in their
schools
13.

Do principals who are not available and

"visible" after school experience greater vandalism in their
school
14.

Do principals challenge their students to

control vandalism

9
15.

Is vandalism by youth more frequent and more

serious than destruction by adults
Definition of Terms
Principal
The administrative head and professional leader of a
school division or unit such as a high school . . .
a highly specialized, full-time administrative offi­
cer in a large public school system . . . usually
subordinate to a superintendent of s c h o o l s . 23
School
An organized group of pupils pursuing defined studiesat defined levels and receiving instruction from one
or more teachers . . . usually housed in a single
building or group of b u i l d i n g s .
Administrative Policy
A statement adopted by a board of education . . .
outlining principles to be followed with respect to
specific matters; usually requires rules or regu­
lations to be adopted for its implementation and is
broad enough to provide for administrative decision
regarding the manner in which it shall be implemen­
ted although its implementation in some manner is
mandatory.25
Vandalism
Destruction of property through carelessness or
displaced aggression.2o
23

(New York:

Carter V, Good, Dictionary of Education, 3rd ed.
McGraw Hill, 1973), p. 436.

240p. cit., p. 512.
25Ibid., p. 515.
26Ibid., p. 191.

10
City School District (Urban
School District)
A geographical area, generally coterminous with
a legally established municipality, of which
the population may be relatively high in number
and density and which has been designated as a
local school unit.27
Rural School District
A school district which has been established to
serve the educational needs of youth in a rural
community setting. Such a district would include
those districts outside of city/urban, suburban
and out-state communities.28
Suburban School -District
A school district which hinges on or near the
borders of a city but dpes not contain heavy
industry.or a-city type setting. Population
is moderate and middle to upper economic status.
The purpose of this study is to survey the percep­
tions of Oakland County high school principals about their
roles in controlling vandalism.

The remainder of the

thesis will include four chapters, described below in brief.
Chapter Two will cover an extended review of the
literature on vandalism, with a selected review of the
literature on student discipline and policy development.
Included in the review will be examples of studies on the
subject of school vandalism and approaches developed for
controlling vandalism.
Chapter Three will be a detailed description of the
design of the study and how the study was executed.
27Ibid., p. 191.

28Ibid., p. 201.

In

11
Chapter Pour the results of the study will be presented with
an analysis of the findings.

Finally, Chapter Five completes

the study with the presentation of concluding statements and
recommendations for future research on vandalism.
Limitation of the Study
This study is limited to the survey population,
which is composed of public high school principals in the
County of Oakland, State of Michigan.

The study population

does not include private school administrators or its sup­
porting organizations.

It should also be noted that

because a specific group of administrators was surveyed at a
particular point in time, the results may become invalid
over time, as the administration changes.

It is also

limited to the extent that the instrument used to elicit
administrators' responses to the questions measures only
those educational and professional domains for which it was
designed, and does not measure all of the perceptions that
administrators may have towards vandalism.

Finally, it is

limited to a study of the relationship of only those selected
demographic, personal, and professional characteristics of
administrators elicited through the questionnaire and those
factors which are empirically derived through a factor
analysis of responses to the questionnaire.

CHAPTER II
Review of the Literature
The American public school system is a creature of
a democratic society.

This society lauds, tolerates,

examines, and, on occasion, attacks the school as an insti­
tution.

In turn, the school as an institution tends to

mimic the behavior of the society in general.

Public schools

are charged with, among many things, the responsibility of
transferring the country's values to succeeding generations
of citizens.

Yet, when these future citizens, either indi­

vidually or in mass, confront the schools through challenging
the rules of expected behavior (the authority of the school),
the school usually exercises its option to discipline the
students.

An example of such a challenge to the authority of

schools is the purposeful act of vandalism.
Schools as institutions of learning are deprived of
absolute control over the students.

The existence of vanda­

lism indicates the limitations of control by existing
authority in schools.

However, it must be remembered that

vandalism indicates the limitations of control by existing
authority in schools.

However, it must be remembered that

vandalism is a creature of the American society as well.
Consequently, an examination of vandalism requires an in depth

12

13
examination of the environment where it has been most
visible— the public schools.
In his development of a taxonomy of vandalism, Panko
has stated:
School vandalism is the unauthorized, intentional
damage and appropriation of school property,
including theft, for the material gain of the
actor; and associated damages, if any.29
Apparently, vandalism has "plagued” American schools since
pre-revolutionary t i m e s . ^

Little change can be detected

in methods used for "combating” vandalism today, from those
31
of earlier times.
Yet, whether the discussion on vandalism
is historical in nature or oriented toward the present, the
main theme will always be of vandalism as a problem.

It is

a problem which must be resolved by someone in a given
school.
Since schools play a major role in the society,
school vandalism may be described as a social problem.

For

school vandalism to be held as a social problem, it must meet
a certain condition.

Stanley Cohen described this condition

as follows:
One of the conditions for social problem definition
is a perception that the condition is remediable.
29

Op. ext., pp. 57-58.

30J. Norbert Weiss, "Vandalism: An Environmental
Concern", National Association of Secondary School
Principals, Vol. 58, No.. 379, 1974, p. 6.
31Ibid., p. 6.

14
Somebody must see that something can be done to
prevent, control, or eradicate the problem. 2
In the case of schools, someone must be responsible for
declaring a given act as vandalism.

This group is basically

a social group, composed of any number of individuals,
33
usually the administration and/or staff.
In a social
group such as a school's faculty, the perceptions of the
environment of the school will probably vary among its
members.

For example, a principal may view an act as vanda­

lism; whereas, a custodian or teacher may not perceive the
same act as vandalism.
Herein lies a major problem for anyone studying
vandalism.

There is a definite lack of understanding what

acts of behavior should be considered as vandalism.

A con­

clusion in Thaw's study suggests that:
An indeterminate usage of vandalism as an "umbrella"
term attempting to describe all acts taken against
property has accompanied a boundless growth in forms
and frequency of school property damage. 4
Despite a lack of consensus of what constitutes vandalism,
it has been noted that it has increased over the past two
decades.33
32 Stanley Cohen, "Campaigning against vandalism." In
Colin Ward (Ed.) Vandalism (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,
1973, p. 218.
33 Erving Goffman, Encounters: Two Studies in the
Sociology of Interaction (Indianapolis: Boobs-Merrill Co.,
1961), p. 9.
34Ibid., p. 34.
35
Charles B. Stalford, "Historical Perspectives on
Disruption and Violence in schools." ERIC ED 139:24, p. 18.

15
The basic ingredient for vandalism is a vandal or
vandals.

The act of vandalizing a school serves many pur­

poses for an individual or group.

"Vandalism is ideally

suited . . . it is a perfect activity to raise the stakes,
36
to make things more contrived."
Thus, this "curious
37
breed of citizens"
continues to plague schools. The
literature suggests that several reasons exist for the
increase in vandalism in American schools.

The remainder of

this chapter will examine the character known as the

vandal

plus various issues which are associated with vandalism.
A Term in Search of a Definition
The original vandals were members of a Germanic
38
tribe which "sacked Rome in 455 A .D ."
Today a vandal is
a person who simply destroys or defaces property.

Again,

the product of a vandal’s work is known generally as

vanda­

lism.

in

In many ways it is one of "those words which,

attempting to explain all, essentially explains nothing."

39

”*®Stanley Cohen, "Property Destruction. Motives and
Meanings," in Collin Ward (Ed.) Vandalism (New York: Van
Nostrand Reinholt, 1973), p. 53.
37

Phillip G. Zirabardo, "A Sociopsychological Analysis
of Vandalism: Making Sense of Senseless Violence"
(Springfield: National Technical Information Service, z-05,
Dec., 1970), p. 1.
38
39

Cohen, 1973, op. cit., p. 33,

G. Hardin, "Meaningless of the word protoplasm,"
Scientific Monthly, 1956, 82, pp. 122-130.
In Frank Johnson
(Ed.) Alienation: Concept, Term and Meanings (New York:
Seminar Press, 1973).

16
Although, as Moore points out, "vandalism is a problem
recognized in most schools and is a serious problem in a
40
few."
But as a term to be defined it has been evasive.
41
42
Several authors, McCrasky
and Panko,
to name
only two, have reported their concerns on how vandalism is
defined.

Yet, Shackelford has stated that:

Vandalism is a term understood by most of us,
defined by few, and explained by even fewer, in
terms not suggestive of mutual comprehension by
even one another.43
Generally, an act of vandalism in a school is associated
with a variety of events and people.
The acts can be located on the exterior of a given
physical plant, or they can be

found inside a building.

They can be minor such as a mark on a desk and they can
include something as serious as arson.

Plus, as it has been

mentioned by Deltz:
Vandalism occurs in large and small districts,
urban, rural and suburban settings.
It occurs
in wealthy school districts and also in poorer
school districts.44
This section of the discussion will conclude with
the suggestion that a definition of vandalism be eventspecific.

Although it may be suggested that a broad

40

Royce P. Moore, The Status of Vandalism m
Selected Arizona Public Schools. Dissertation Abstracts,
Vol. 40, No. 8, 1980, p. 4389a.
^ C h e r i e L. McCrasky, School Vandalism in the United
States. Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 39, No. 11, 1979,
p. 6407a.
42

Panko, op. cit.

43

Ibid., p. 45.

44

Ibid., p. 54.

17
definition be standardized, to include.most types of vanda­
lism, it is possible that this would be a very difficult
task to complete.
The Act of Vandalism
Despite the fact that there is no generally accepted
definition of vandalism, there are several forms of vandalism
listed in the literature.

This section will include the
45
work of two major studies, one by Cohen • and the other by
46
Panko.
The review is being limited to Cohen and Panko,
given the thoroughness of their reviews.
According to Cohen, vandalism may be viewed as
47
"institutionalized rule-breaking."
The author suggests
that there are six conditions which, in effect, sanction
various types of vandalism.

Cohen listed the conditions as

follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

ritualism
protection
plan
writing-off
walling-in

6.

Iicensing4 8

In general "ritualism is exemplified by the pranks
of youth around Halloween.
can be tolerated."

It is seen as a behavior which

Another example of this condition would

be the acts of high school seniors upon their graduation.
45

Cohen, op. cit.

46

Panko, op. cit.

4^Cohen, op cit., p. 23,

4t*Ibid.

IS

The second condition listed was "protection."

The best

examples of this behavior are the acts of fraternities or
clubs in a school.
punished.

Outside of the school the acts may be
49
Inside is a different story.
The acts are

punished but not as they would be by other forces in society.
In some areas in and near a school, children will
play games such as baseball, etc.

Invariably, someone

knocks or throws a ball through a window.
act falls under the condition of "play."
game is more of a mischievous nature.

This particular
Sometimes the

In this instance,

the play may involve "a competition to see who can break
the most w i n d o w s . T h e

remaining conditions are matched

more with those experienced in schools.
"Writing-off" is a condition where vandalism is not
only tolerated but expected.
ritualistic acts as well.

This would include many of the

Cohen stated that these acts:

are so rarely formally reported and processed
that they contribute virtually nothing to the
public image of vandalism or its reflection in
the official statistics.52
This form of vandalism is basically non-punishable.
continues by suggesting:
The central reason for non-enforcement is that
which applies to vandalism as a whole: the
fact that this is one of the most safe and
anonymous of offenses.53
49Ibid., pp. 24-25.
51Ibid.

50Ibid., pp. 25-27.

52Ibid., p. 27.

53Ibid., p. 28.

Cohen

19
Of all of the forms of vandalism which may be expected in
a school setting, graffiti is the form which is basically
written-off.^4
The school is a closed society in many ways.
Several acts of vandalism occur in a school which pass
unknown even to a majority of the students and staff, Cohen
noted:
When attention is paid to the rule-breaking—*-and
this is the chief characteristic of this
condition— it is sanctioned, within the framework
of the o r g a n i z a t i o n . 55

Thus, this particular condition was termed by Cohen a
"walling-in.1,56
The final condition of vandalism, as listed by
57
Cohen, was "licensing.”
The author described this form of
vandalism by stating that it
is chartered or insured against in the sense that
even before the damage takes place, some informal
arrangement is made whereby the rule-breakers can
be ritualistically sanctioned. The saction often
takes the form of financial reparation andin some
cases an insurance fee will be paid before the
event to cover any possible c o s t s . 58
This final condition resembles the premise

for laws which

require restitution of some form for acts of vandalism.

In

fact, in a few districts, the students as a whole are asses­
sed the cost for the repair and replacement of material
damaged by vandalism.
54Ibid., p. 29.
56Ibid.

55Ibid., p. 30.

57Ibid., p. 32.

58Ibid., p. 32.

20
The six conditions presented above outline some
responses available to the environment.

Cohen further

described the types of vandalism; that is to say, the
reasons why many people vandalize.

The author noted that

there are "two central stereotypes about vandalism."

First,

that the behavior is seen in all acts as being homogenous.
59
The second is that the acts are meaningless.
Given the existence of the stereotypes, Cohen
reported several types of vandalism.

The types of vandalism

were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

acquisitive
tactical
vindictive
play
malicious®^

These types will be described briefly:
a.

The acquisition form of vandalism is generally

seen as theft.
b.

The tactical type is a deliberate action which

has been planned.
c.

Vandalism which is vindictive is a primary

source of discomfort for many administrators and teachers
alike.
Cohen recounted:
The grievance might be imagined rather than real and
the eventual target of destruction only indirectly
or symbolically related to the original source of
hostility.61
59Ibid., p. 41.
61Ibid., p. 44.

60Ibid., p. 42.

21
Much school vandalism is motivated by a sense of
revenge. More often than is apparent, evidence
indicates that the culprits are not outsiders,
but pupils of the school.
In these cases the
vandalism is preceded by punishments, deprivation
of privileges, expulsion or other potential
sources of grievance.®2
d.

Another type of vandalism is play, which is

simply to have fun destroying or defacing property.
e.

The final type of vandalism noted by Cohen is

malicious vandalism.

This form of vandalism is usually

related to a student's feeling of one or more of the
following emotions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

boredom
despair
exasperation
resentment
failure
frustration®3

Cohen summed up by saying that "some patterning of the
physical characteristics of the targets is also apparent:
the property tends to be derelict, incomplete or badly
64
kept."
Panko in his research observed:
Examination of the communicative messages trans­
mitted through vandalic acts suggests that
vandalic acts may be categorized according to:
(1) the purpose of the act, and (2) the
relationship of the act to specific occurrence
within the school setting.®^
There should probably be other ways of categorizing acts
of v a n d a l i s m ; i n addition, most categories of vandalic
acts are limited to examining the motives of the vandal.
62Ibid., p. 45.
64Ibid., p. 50.

63
65

Ibid., p. 49.
Ibid., p. 101.

66

Ibid

67

22
In limiting the categories to the motives of the vandal,
administrators and researchers have been including the
affects of the school setting on the types and levels of
vandalism.
Therefore, it was concluded that vandalism in
schools can be categorized into three types.

(The use of

"descriptive labels" were avoided to limit any stereotyping
68
of the categories.)
The following is a brief description
of Panko's three categories of school vandalism.
Three Types of School Vandalism
School Vandalism:

Type I

These are vandalic acts which have a "strategic
69
purpose."
As it was observed, they are acts which may
or may not be related to an occurrence within the school
70
environment.
An example of this type of vandalism would
be the intentional destruction of property to "dramatize"
a point of view.
School Vandalism:

Type II

This particular vandalic type includes all the
behaviors normally associated with the "maturation
71
process."
In addition, they may have a relationship with
events in the school.

The author lists behaviors related to

68Ibid., p. 102.

69Ibid.

70Ibid.

23
Type II vandalic acts as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

nervous energy
youthful mindlessness
peer pressure
irresponsibility
exuber ance 72
School Vandalism:

Type III

These vandalic acts "are committed for purposes
directly related to perceptions about the school setting."

73

A formula was developed to describe this particular scheme
of behavior:
_ 74
p . . x . = +d.
i
i
p = "perceptions about a specific activity . . . within the
75
76
school environment."
x^ = "personal characteristics."
77
+d^ = "dissatisfaction within the individual."
According to a conclusion derived from a review of the
literature, "Type III acts of vandalism appeared most
78
frequently in the reviewed documents."
The emotions/
behavior related to Type III vandalism were listed as:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

low self-esteem
bored
alienated
frustrated
angered 79
In summary, the literature offers several descrip­

tions of vandalic acts.

Of importance are the attitudes

which foster, tolerate, and condemn the events known as
vandalism in schools.
72Ibid., p. 104.
78Ibid.

77Ibid.

73Ibid.
78Ibid.

74Ibid.

75Ibid.

79Ibid., p. 110.

24
Attitudes
Vandalism may be characterized as a physical act of
destruction; in addition, it may be viewed as the product of
an attitude as well.

The physical act of property destruc­

tion will be covered elsewhere in this chapter.

Consequently,

the purpose of this section will be to explore the nuances of
attitudes associated with vandalism.
For all practical purposes there are two attitudes
associated with an act of vandalism.

One attitude is held by

the vandal himself; the other by the individual who perceives
an act as vandalism.

The literature suggests that people

perceive vandalism to be many things.
For all practical purposes there are two attitudes
associated with an act of vandalism.

One attitude is held by

the vandal himself; the other by the individual who perceives
an act as vandalism.

The literature suggests that people

perceive vandalism to be many things.
As it has been suggested, several "types" of vandalic
acts exist, and many conditions flourish which promote such
acts.

An inherent component of the conditions is the devel­

opment of attitudes which tolerate or abhor such events in a
school setting.

The following quotation reflects one general

attitude toward vandalism.
Vandalism reflects certain human values held by
the vandals themselves. Conditions which produce
these negative values are probably some or all of
the following:

25
a. Poor perception of how to use increased
leisure time.
b. Pressures on the human mind produced by
population density.
c. Normal youthful rebellion against tradi­
tions and authority.
d. Population mobility which tends to liinit
the amount of pride in a particular community.
On the other hand, Laurie Taylor suggested another viewpoint:
Sometimes our reactions to vandalism suggest that we
ignore the subject's definition of his environment
and imbue him with an artistic or romantic motive
reflected from a bourgeois compendium.81
The vandal is an individual who acts by himself or in
concert with others.

Thus, vandalic behavior in a school

setting may reflect an individual's attitude toward a school,
or it may reflect the attitude of a group.

But there are

differences in tolerance when acts are committed by those
from the school.

An interpretation of this notion was pro­

vided by J. B. Mays:
The mores of the public school community allow and
even encourage such explosive expressive behavior in
its restricted setting whereas the casual destructive­
ness of promiscuous gangs has no such approval to
sustain it.
The above statement reflects an attitude with which many
adults may agree on the subject of vandalism.
80

Parkway School District, Chesterfield, Missouri.
"Vandalism. Environmental, Ecological Education Project."
(Washington, D.C.: DHEW/Office of Education), 1974, p. 2.
81

Laurie Taylor, "The Meaning of the Environment," in
Colin Ward (Ed.), Vandalism, op. cit., p. 58.
82

J. B. Mays, Growing Up in the City, (Liverpool, Univ.
Press, 1954). As quoted by Stanley Cohen, op. cit., p. 24.

26
Vandalism is and is not taken seriously.

In a way

the bulk of the acts of vandalism are viewed as "pranks."
Shackelford has made the following observation, which
reflects the way an act may become qualified vandalism:
In this generation, despite our varied ages, we can
recall being entertained by our elders with innumer­
able accounts of pranks, hijinks and escapades which,
if committed by strangers, could have been qualified
as acts of vandalism.
Hardly any group of persons will be able to discuss
vandalism as an issue . . . without at least one
person seeking to qualify some form of vandalism
as 'pranks,' 'just having fun' . . .
Shackelford went on to say that this particular attitude,
which amounts to an ignoring of vandalism, does not escape
85
those responsible for upholding the law.
Rules are ever-present fixtures in schools, espe­
cially those which control student behavior.

The existence

of rules is based on the presumed need for maintaining order
in the school setting.

Remarks from one study add that:

While values give us some general sense of what is
expected, it is the rule which states what actions
will be approved and which f o r b i d d e n . 86
Therefore, some actions of students may be defined as vandalic
when they break school rules for preventing property destruc­
tion and/or defacement.
83

Yet, rules do not necessarily change

Doyle Shackelford, op. cit., p. 1.

84Ibid., p. 3.
85Ibid.
88"Social Organization of the High School," Horace
Mann, Lincoln Institute for School Experimentation, 1975.
ERIC, ED.
129711, p. 8.

27
the attitudes of students.

For as DeCecco and Richards,

87

go

and Bellinger,

have commented, students will attack the

school as a means of attacking the adults.

Thus, it may be

speculated that by attacking the school they may be attack­
ing an attitude held by adults toward students.

To quote

Van Patten, "vandals, by their acts, reject the authority
89
represented in and by the school."
Authority in schools
is found in the form of discipline policies and practices.
Authority has many functions in schools, but it will
be important to look at one aspect of authority in particular.
90

Meissner, in his book, The Assault on Authority,
alluded to
91
the "paternal function of authority."
The description of
this form of authority was presented as follows:
It is needed for the survival and development of
immature and inadequate persons. Consequently,
authority is made necessary . . . by the deficiency
of the governed.
It presumes the inability or the
incapacity of the governed to organize and direct
their own activities toward their own proper good.
It is plain, however, that paternal authority has
an essentially pedagogical aim.
It seeks the attain­
ment or maturation of the capacities of the governed
to enable them to govern themselves effectively.92
87

John P.DeCecco and K.K. Richards, op. cit.,p. 126.

99Amy Bellinger, "What Will Stop Vandalism?" School
and Home, St. Louis Public Schools, Vol. 17, #5, January,
1980, p. 3.
89
James J. Van Patten, op. cit., p. 59.
" w i l l i a m W. Meissner, The Assault on Authority:
Dialogue or Dilemma?
(Mary Knoll: Orbis Books), 1971.
91Ibid., p. 2.

92Ibid.

Extending past authority to discipline in schools, it will
be important to recognize the range of attitudes concerning
discipline.

It is kept in mind that the basis of discipline

is couched in the principle of authority.

As a concept

which is periodically associated with vandalism, discipline
is second only to prevention as a means of attempting to
control vandalism.

The attitudes of teachers and adminis­

trators tend to comingle when discipline is considered.
The attitudes of teachers and administrators have been
interpreted by Manford (a layman on the subject) as follows:
Many of the educators and administrators with whom I
have talked and discussed these problems over the
years essentially agree on two things: One, that
our society witnesses some minor lack of parental
discipline and guidance and that there is too much
free time for youngsters because both adult members
of the families have to work . . .
That, of course, was from a layman's point of view; the
point of view of educators may vary from that of Mr. Manford,
yet not by much.
Vandalism is a social problem.

Many people may see the

problem as being greater than in the past, yet this presump94
tion has been questioned.
Nevertheless, if the notion of
vandalism is accepted as being a social problem, one must ask
what kind of social problem vandalism characterizes.
93 Donald Manford (former member of Missouri State
Senate— written statement presented to the Special House Sub­
committee on Vandalism and Violence), November, 1977, p. 4.
94

John W. Williams, "Discipline in the Public Schools
A Problem of Perception".
Phi Delta Kappan, v. 60, #5,
January 1979, p. 385.

29
To question school officers as to what vandalism
represents, they would answer that it is a "financial con­
cern."

If you asked a principal, he would probably say that

it is a "social problem.
If vandalism is a social problem, and in this study
it will be considered as such, then the solutions must be
social in nature.

Again, this is dependent upon the atti­

tudes of the individuals trying to resolve the problem.
When the purpose of discipline is to control students, then
it must be assumed that a problem exists.

As a social prob­

lem, can a solution be found to terminate the problem?
If students react to school authority, i.e., disci­
pline, then how is the reaction to discipline interpreted by
the principals?

When students react to school authority—

discipline, policies, and rules— their behavior is sometimes
labeled automatically as a discipline problem.

(Recall that

vandalism in schools may be characterized, at times, as
96
reactions to discipline policies.
) Understandably,
vandalism usually results in some form of reaction by school
officials to curtail any further vandalism.

Determining

whether an act is a discipline problem is a problem in and
of itself.
It may not always be apparent that some actions
should be interpreted as discipline problems.
95
.
A. Bellenter, op. cit., p. 1.
96
DeCecco, op. cit., Bellinger, op. cit., and
Van Patten, op. cit.

30
Discipline problems are basically of two orders:
REAL and PERCEIVED.97
A real discipline problem is one that arises
because a student is infringing on the real free­
dom of the teacher or other members of the class.
A perceived discipline problem is one for
which the teacher in a very real sense is the cause
because he perceives a problem when, in fact, there
actually is none.®®
Perhaps one of the most interesting concepts related
to the attitudes of students and others toward vandalism has
been the idea of responsibility.

Responsibility will be

pursued only briefly, yet it is a very important element in
the relationship between vandalism and discipline.
tion to ponder:

A ques­

"Who is responsible for vandalism?”

This discussion has looked at some of the whys
and hows of vandalism, but what of the responsibilities for
the actions?

In his dissertation, Antonio Arnold reported

that from the people he surveyed, "all groups agree that
restitution for damages to school property should be made by
99
the student or his parents."
This brings up a very impor­
tant item emphasized by Neill:
Educators say students' rights have been extended
liberally but that the corresponding responsibilities
97

George H. Thompson, "Discipline and the High School
Teacher," The Clearing House, vol. 49, No. 9, 1976, p. 409.
98Ibid.
99
A. Antonio Arnold, Jr., "Vandalism m an Inner-City
School Administrative Complex.
Its Relationship to
Educational Consumers' Perceptions of Their Schools."
Dissertation Abstracts 37, 1976, p. 1313a.

31
have not been assumed by youth or demanded by
society.100
Another view of responsibility will be presented below:
Consider also the effect on children of parents who
constantly complain about school taxes or teachers
or district policies.
If the adults appear to have
no respect for the education system, why should the
children?101
Finally, the responsibility for an act of vandalism may
extend into profound displays of behavior.

Sometimes the

attitudes of parents do not allow them to accept that their
children have vandalized school property.

This is an attitude

which many administrators have probably observed in student
discipline sessions with parents.

Martin pointed out that:

The power of a group determines its ability to keep
its people out of trouble with the law even in
instances where they have actually violated it ; . .
when a group's general capacity to influence is high,
the official delinquency rates of its children and
youth tend to be low.10^
The attitudes of adults play an important role in the
perceptions of students in whether vandalism will be toler­
ated or punished.

Consequently, in a given school the

attitudes may lend to the levels of vandalism experienced
by a school.

(See section "The School and Vandalism".)

Shirley Boes Neill, "Causes of School Violence and
Vandalism," from Violence and Vandalism— Current Trends in
School Policies and Programs, p. 12-18.
1975.
10^Arnold -Madison, op. cit., p. 74.
102
John M. Martin, "Toward a Political Definition of
Delinquency Prevention," in PHEW, The Challenge of Youth
Service Bureaus, 1970, p. 5.
(Pub. i (srs) 73-26024.)

32
Incidence
For as the contradictions of our educational system
became more apparent/ the demands for occupational
qualifications upgraded, the pool of unemployed
juveniles widened and viable political solutions
seem more removed, so will the potential for such
delinquency i n c r e a s e . 103
This statement was written by Stanley Cohen, and
in this brief observation, he focused on the future as well
as the history of vandalism.

A recession, coupled with a

decrease in the availability of unskilled jobs, will
possibly magnify the employment problems of youth now and
in future years.

Thus, society's ills will always be

translated into frustrations to be borne, particularly by
youth.

Therefore, it may be predicted that vandalism may

increase, especially with the pressures of the economy on
youth— both those in and out of school.

Nevertheless, the

two observers have noted declines in the incidence level
of vandalism.^"04
All in all, some form of vandalism will always be
with us; the degree of vandalism may vary with the times,
and it seems that it will plague administrators for eternity.
Yet, the degree of vandalism may also vary because of such
factors as the reporting of vandalic behavior in or around
a school.

As Cohen described in one article:

Vandalism often occurs in waves much like waves
of fashion, and the initial reporting of an
103

Stanley Cohen, "Property Destruction", op. cit.,

p. 53.
104Ibid., p. 23.

33
incident often has the effect of triggering-off
incidents of a similar k i n d . 105
What must be recognized and not ignored, is the possibility
that violence in schools may be no greater today than ages
p a s t. ^ ^

Another problem, associated with the incidence of

vandalism, is the general location of such acts of behavior.
Vandalic behavior is not limited to urban areas, as
it is so often reported.

As Erickson and others have noted:

Many suburban and smaller school districts that
have been unaffected by this problem are now
experiencing challenges previously unknown.107
It was made very clear by Erickson and his collaborators
that acts such as vandalism are symptoms of problems
originating outside of the school walls.
Finally in another section of this chapter, a
discussion will be presented on the practices of reporting
vandalism.

In advance of that discussion, it will be very

important to consider how the reporting of vandalic acts
affects the incidence of vandalism.

For the incidence of

vandalism is dependent upon the reporting of the various
acts of destruction and/or defacement of property.
Acts of vandalism cannot be collated into incidence
levels, unless those acts are reported.

Yet, several

Joan Newman and G. Newman, "Crime and Punishment
in the Schooling Process: A Historical Analysis," ERIC, ED
157-192, p. 4.
^O^Maynard L. Erickson, Jack P. Gibbs and G. F. Jensen,
"The Deterrence Doctrine and the Perceived Certainty of Legal
Punishments." American Sociological Review, vol. 42, 1979,
p. 305.

34
problems arise for some decision-makers, when confronted
with acts of vandalism in their schools.

One problem in

particular, is the potential reaction of their superiors to
such acts.

Rubel reported that:

School administrators to some extent may have
resisted being wholly candid about the nature and
extent of their vandalism losses, for, as in the
case of many crimes, exposure might have led to
concern by district officials or the public.108
The Vandal
V. L. Allen wrote in a report for the National
Institute of Education, that there are "three phases of
109
vandalism— before and after destruction."
An act of van­
dalism is the product of an individual's or group's
behavior.

Many of the studies on vandalism have focused on

the individual vandal— Goldman Zimbardo,^^ to name two
frequently cited studies on the literature.

An excellent

description of a vandal was also included in Arnold Madison's
book Vandalism:

The Not-so-senseless Crime.

The teenage vandal is a primary school child who
breaks windows or a high school student who blows
up mailboxes with a firecracker. He is a straight.
A pupil or consistent scholastic failure, police
■^^Robert J. Rubel, op. cit., p. 138.
K) Q

V. L. Allen and D. B. Greenberger, "Aesthetic
Factors in School Vandalism," in School Crime and Disruption,
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education, 1978,
p. 36.
^"^Nathan Goldman, A Socio-Psychological Study of
Vandalism, Syracuse: Syracuse University Research Institute,
1959.
111Philip G. Zimbardo, op. cit.

35
point out. He is the heir-apparent to a million
dollars or the youngest of thirteen poor children.
He is sometimes a she."H2
If an individual enjoys conjuring up personality
types after a label has been suggested to him, the term
"vandal" must fill him with volumes of characters.
is one of many persons.

A vandal

It simply depends upon to whom you

are talking.

Overall, the views of most people probably
113
follow along those suggested by Ward:
We all know the vandal. He is somebody else. In
general terms he is someone whose activities in
the environment we deplore.
Apparently, some people believe that an act of
vandalism is the beginning of a criminal career, especially
when it is a crime and when it is committed by a school age
youth.

If that were true, most American males would be

eligible for jail.

Contrary to popular belief, there does

not appear to be any significant evidence to show a strong
115
relationship between vandalism and a career of crime.
Another argument cited by one author suggested that
dropouts cause most vandalism.

Although this may be true in

some communities, it may be difficult to prove empirically.^^
112

Arnold Kmadiso, op. cit., from preface.

^■^Colin Ward, Vandalism
Reinhold, 1973.

New York: Van Nostrand

114Ibid.
115

Stanley Cohen, "The Nature of Vandalism," op. cit.,

p. 876.
^ ^ F l o y d S. Rose, Jr.,. "The Effects of Violence and
Vandalism on the Completion of the Educational Process."
Dissertation Abstract, vol. 38, No. 7, 1978, p. 3865a.

36
Nevertheless, several attempts have been made to explain the
behavior of vandals.
117
Cohen
and many other authors have described
vandalism to be more a product of a group versus an indivi­
dual act.

It was suggested that "vandalism is almost always
118
a group rather than an individual offense."
Panko

qualified this idea by suggesting that the options for acting
as either an individual or group are "dependent upon the
119
situation and values they place on each option."
A
variety of explanations have been developed to describe the
reasons for why people, students in particular, vandalize.
Several explanations will be presented after the following
note of caution given by Garrett:
The search for one or a few explanatory
istics of an individual too easily ends
contradictory explanation which ignores
complexity of real behavior in the real

character­
up in a
the
world.

A Sample of Explanation for
Vandalic Behavior
Nowakowski
An assumed relationship between frustration and
aggression is often utilized as the basis for
theories which attempt to explain vandalism.I21
117

Stanley Cohen, "Property Destruction:
and Meanings," op. cit., pp. 23-63.
lift

120

Ibid., p. 50.

11 Q

Motives

Walter Panko, op. cit., pp. 54-57.

J. P. Garrett, "Studying School Crime," School
Crime and Disruption (Washington, D.C.: National Institute
of Education, 1978), p. 7.
121
Rodney E. Nowakowski, "Vandals and Vandalism in
the Schools: An Analysis of Vandalism in Large School

37
Alton Arnold
Revenge and the need for recognition . . . teachers
made peer group pressure their number one choice.122
Moore
Students who did vandalize did it mostly for "kicks"
to show off or because they were bored.123
Van Patten
Compulsory education takes away the student's right
to choose not to attend school, thus vandalism is
a rejection of forced schooling.i24
Deiullo (on graffiti as vandalism)
Graffiti gives adolescents a certain satisfaction
also, for through it they can vent their hostili­
ties, express their fantasies, communicate their
triumphs, declare their rebellion, and promote
their propaganda.123
An act of vandalism usually draws attention to the
vandal and not to the conditions which may have prompted the
act initially.

As it was presented above, the theories or

explanations for vandalic behavior abound in the literature.
Systems and a Description of Ninety-three Vandals in Dade
County Schools." Dissertation Abstracts, vol. 28, no. 2,
1966, p. 438a.
122

Alton A. Arnold, Jr., "Vandalism in an Inner-City
School Administrative Complex.
Its Relationship to
Educational Consumers Perceptions of Their Schools."
Dissertation Abstracts, vol. 37, 1976, p. 1313a.
lOO

Royce P. Moore, "The Status Of Vandalism in
Selected Arizona Public Schools." Dissertation Abstracts,
vol. 40, 1980, p. 4389a.
1 O A

125

James J. Van Patten, op. cit., pp. 57-65.

Anthony M. Deiullo, "Of Adolescent Cultures and
Subcultures," Educational Leadership, April 1978, vol. 35, p. 518.

3-8
Before concluding this section it will be important to
126
consider the following statements by Zimbardo.
Perhaps the most psychologically interesting cause
of vandalism which is without tactical, ideological,
play or revenge bases is that a senseless act is
more reinforced than one that is understandable
and predictable.127
Before embarking upon plans for controlling anti­
social behavior such as vandalism, it should be
apparent . . . that the first step is to recognize
that the focus of the problem is in the way society
relates or fails to relate to i n d i v i d u a l s . 128
In conclusion, the vandal, as an individual, has
been described by many and understood by few.

What may be

derived from the available literature is that the vandal
changes, given the situation he or she is confronted with.
At present, a general understanding is lacking, if the
literature reflects reality.

Therefore, it may be necessary

that a considerable amount of research be undertaken for each
succeeding generation of students.

Of course, there are

other ways of looking at vandals.
The Vandal As an Alien in the School
Despite the many descriptions of the vandal cited
earlier, there is one side of the vandal which must be
explored separately.

Besides holding the reputation of being

a destructor of property, the vandal must be seen as an indi­
vidual whose behavior conflicts with the norms of the school
and of society.

In this respect, the vandal may be viewed as

an alien in the school community.
^^Zimbardo, op. cit.

"^^Ibid., p. 8.

^®Ibid., p. 11.

39
It is normally thought that a student is a member of
his or her school.

Although this viewpoint holds the ideal

placement of a student, it is far from the truth.

Since

most schools have dropouts, it should signify the existence
of a problem.

Yet, before this discussion continues it will

be important to look at the concept of alienation.
Frank Johnson wrote in his book, Alienation;

Concept,

Term and Meanings, that the term alienation;
is an atrocious word . . . alienation has acquired
a semantic richness (and confusion) attained by few
words of corresponding significance in contemporary
parlance.129
For the purpose of the present review of the literature,
alienation will be considered as:
a student's perception of his/her acceptance in a
school setting— by other peers, faculty and/or
administration.
If the student perceives his
acceptance as positive (that is being accepted by
the environment), he will feel non-alienated.
If
his perception is negative (that is not being
accepted), he will be alienated.
Overall, the student is an outsider when viewed as an
alien in his school.

Consequently, if a student discovers a

cause to "attack" the school, he is more than likely not
attacking his school.

Marrota and others stated in their

study;
When some youths break into a school over the
weekend and rampage officers and rooms, it is not
their school that they are defiling.
Rather, it
129

Frank Johnson, ed., "Alienation; Overview and
Introduction," In Alienation: Concept, Term, and Meanings
(New York: Seminar Press, 1973), p. 3.

AO
is the school of the teachers and administrators
and that group of students who conform to the rules.
Therefore, the student who does not perceive his sharing
"ownership" in the school, may not identify with the school.
Such an attitude may foster the feeling of vandalizing.
Although this may be deemed as speculation, there is some
support in the literature for such a statement.
For instance, Murillo presented a conclusion in his
study in which it was stated:
It was found that generally the more alienated
the student . . . the greater the involvement in
vandalism in general and school vandalism in
particular.131
When a student is alienated from the school, he is more than
likely "closed-off" from the truly exciting aspects of
school life.

As a consequence, a vandal may attack the

school to "transform boredom into excitement and to derive
132
pleasure from violating a social taboo."
Zimbardo goes on
to say that vandalism justifies "a personal acceptance of
133
being alienated from its (society's) institutions . . . "
Again, the vandal, as an alien in his/her school, may
be identified with several other labels.

One label is the

term "drop-out," a label used by many to describe the nature
of an alien or student non grata in the school.

The drop-outs,

130

Joseph A. Marrota, John H. McGrath, and J. Sherwood
Williams, "Schools: Antiquated Systems of Social Control."
February, 1978. ERIC 157-191.
131
Robert B. Murrillo, "Vandalism and School
Attitudes," Dissertation Abstracts, vol. 38, 1977, p. 3074a.
^22Philip G. Zimbardo, op. cit., p. 8.

^22Ibid.

41
as Dececco and Richards view them, "can hang around the
school building and grounds, occasionally attending class,
134
but mostly ;just talking and fooling around."
The principal target for the vandal is the school.
The vandalic experiences for every school are unique.
The School and Vandalism
Traditionally, American education has been identi~
fied with a structure known as the school.

Years of debate

have developed a strong sense of why we have schools.

Yet,

as Ianni has pointed out, "we know very little about how
135
schools operate as social systems."
This point is very
pertinent to our discussion of vandalism.
Many people, educators in particular, believe that
schools are easy to understand, especially since practically
everyone has had an intimate relationship with schools for a
136
number of years.
In addition, with vandalism being sup­
posedly a new "phenomenon," people generally assume that,
137
wherever it appears, schools can handle it in similar ways.
It is, perhaps, within the realm of imagination that
the search for understanding schools and their problems will
end soon.
never end.
1 *5A

135
136

Realistically, however, the search will probably
Problems such as vandalism are hard to combat
John P. DeCecco and Arlene K. Richards, op. cit., p. 10.
F. A. S. Ianni, op. cit., p. 11.

Personal communication with lay individuals and
professionals.

42
when applying a remedy across the boundaries of several
settings.

To quote Garrett and others:

Because of the profound differences among settings,
generalizations are likely to be of little use.3-’8
Nevertheless, it is believed that schools need to be doing
something to stem the tide of violent acts such as
vandalism.
For instance, U.S. Senator Birch Bayh has taken an
active interest in the problems associated with elementary
and secondary education.

In fact, he has promoted research

into uncovering some of the facts and figures related to
139
vandalism.
Senator Bayh has written the following:
There is abundant evidence that a significant and
growing number of schools in urban, suburban and
rural areas are confronting serious levels of
violence and vandalism.I 40
The principal ingredient in successful efforts to
reduce violence and vandalism is not more money or
laws, but the active involvement of the educational
community in a range of thoughful and balanced
programs.1^1
The quote presented above may be an example of a
typical statement on schools and vandalism.

In contrast,

Coursen has viewed the problem in another way:
138

J. R. Garrett, S. A. Bass, and M. D. Casserty,
op. cit., p. 19.
13 9
Birch Bayh, "School Violence and Vandalism:
Problems and Solution." Journal of Research and Development
in Education, 1978, vol. 11, pp. 3-7.

141Ibid., p. 6.

43
The precise nature of school vandalism is not
generally or systematically understood.-*-42
The literature on school vandalism . . . is full
of suggestions and assertions but remarkably
short on concrete facts documented by scientific
research.3-43
Again, there are a variety of viewpoints about the problem.
But the problem of school vandalism takes place in the
school; consequently, it does affect students.

Here again

the statement by Ianni should be mentioned;

"We know very
144
little about how schools operate as social systems."
The students, faculty and administration make up

not only the school community, but a social system as
145
well.
As a social system, the members "should share a
common culture and organize their universe and respond to
it in ways which are considered culturally appropriate."^4^
Yet, for schools in the current period of history, their
1 A "7

"insularity and autonomy are being gradually eroded."
Whereas schools assist the development of society through
transmission of its ideas, mores, and culture, vandalism
links schools with another side of the society.
142

David Coursen, "Vandalism Prevention," ACSA
School Management Digest Series, No. 2. ERIC; ED 137894,
p. 13.
1 43
.
.
144
Ibid., p. 12.
Ianni, op. cit.
145 It will be assumed through the course of this
discussion that schools exist for students and not for
faculty and administrator.
146
Horace Mann-Lincoln Institute for School Experi­
mentation, "Social Organizationof the High School Study,"
Columbia University, 1975, ERIC; ED 129711.
147peter J. Cistone, op. cit., p. 94.

44
Consequently, it is also a responsibility of schools to
rectify the differences between the expected behavior of
students and what is observed in the form of vandalism.
An act of vandalism in a school may be considered
as an attack on that school.

Although this may seem to be

far from what would be considered as reality, in many ways
148
it is reality.
As it was stated before, for many students
school life is boring, due mainly to their lack of involve149
ment xn school activities.
Thus, it may be possible for
a school to be socially organized so as to exclude some
members of the school.

For example, the Horace Mann study

group concluded:
The structure of the school determines the ability
of any one person within that school to negotiate
a role within the system.150
In addition, Rubel has suggested that schools may create
their problems.^'*'
Since vandalism is a problem for many schools,
there are several reasons why students vandalize a school.
Again, one reason may be the students' reactions to rules
controlling their behavior.

McPartland has commented on

14 8
See the section on the "Vandal and the School" in
this chapter.
149
150
Moore, op. ext.
Horace Mann, from abstract.
Rube1, o p . ex t ., p . 7.

45
this by writing:
An authority system that makes all the important
decisions for students and that limits practice
at self-reliance, appears to be the usual school
practice and opposite to what is needed to foster
development of internal m o t i v a t i o n . 152
Once more the "control" of students is normally termed as
the disciplining of students.

The practice of disciplining

students varies not only among districts, but also among
schools and administrators as well.

Some schools have

formal guidelines, where, on the other hand, whole districts
may not.

Clark and Hanks have written:

School discipline is a narrower concept which
generally includes three elements; goals or
standards of behavior, procedures for attaining
goals or standards, and the resulting state.153
Disciplining students is an area which lacks a consensus
among practitioners. 154 Yet, it is also an area in which
adults sometimes share responsibilities with students for
the infractions of school rules.
Once again, the adults in a school setting hold
power over students.

Consequently, the students normally

must bend to the wills of the adults.

Nevertheless, Duke

has commented that there are six types of adult behaviors
152

McPartland, op. cit., p. 12.

153

S.
C. T. Clarke and Steve Hanka, "Comparative
Views on School Discipline," The Alberta Journal of Education
Research, December 19, 1977, vol. 23, p. 305.
^■54Ibid. , p. 315.

46
which can influence student behaviors.

Duke's categories

were listed as follows:
1.

Inconsistent rule enforcement

2.

Noncompliance with discipline policies

3.

Insensitivity

4.

Lack of data

5.

Lack of classroom management skills

6. Inadequate administration
policies^-55

of disciplinary

Possibly by coincidence, the disciplining of students may
lead to reactions by students, if the students perceive
the discipline actions differently from the adults.

Yet,

Coursen questions this premise by stating that "many of the
causes of vandalism are beyond the control of the schools
themselves."

Nevertheless, the schools can control many

acts of vandalism.
Several causes of vandalism are school-centered;
this is to say that something or someone inside a school
helped generate the feelings to vandalize.

It may be the

connection of "interpersonal relations" as theorized by
Harris:
The high damage school is characterized by a high
rate of vandalism and negative interpersonal
relations of staff, parents, and students.157
155

Daniel L. Duke, "How the Adults in Your Schools
Cause Student Discipline Problems, and What To Do About I t ."
The American School Board Journal, vol. 165, 1978, p. 29.
3.56
D. Coursen, op. cit., p. 16.
•^^Marlene E. Harris, The Relationship Between Student
Activities and Vandalism in Urban Secondary Schools, 1979.

47
In contrast, Arnold discovered in his study that "parents
and students" felt that the damage was due to more types of
158
students in a class.
It was further stated:
"Teachers
and administrators felt that it was because of the teachers1
159
attitude and lack of discipline."
Therefore, the
school— its members— will view the cause of vandalism
differently.

Finally, it is interesting to note another

observation by Ianni:
In responding to the problem of violence and
vandalism in the schools, it is tempting to ignore
the possibility of school— specific aspects of
school crime and to look for explanations, and
solutions, in what we think we know about crime
rather than in what we think we know about
schools.160
Beyond the school setting is the community.

It should be

expected that vandalism is affected by the community, and
vice versa.
Vandalism and the Community
Vandalism in a school has both a direct and
indirect impact on a community.

The school, historically,

has played a tremendous role in the daily lives of many
members of a community.

Thus, when an act of vandalism is

reported to have taken place in a school, the inhabitants
of the community are made aware of a "problem" in the
school.

In addition, repeated reports of vandalism produce
158

Alton A. Arnold, Jr., op. cit., p. 1313.

159Ibid.

160Ianni, op cit., p. 11.

48
not only an image of the school to people inside the
community, but create a reputation for the community outside
its boundaries as well.
A community has several definitions.

The one which

is used must be linked to an identified subject.

For

schools, it will be suggested that there are two types of
communities.

The first community may be described as

follows:
The community is the aggregate of individuals who
live within the boundaries of a school district.161
The second description comes from a study by Talmage and
Ornstein:
The community is defined as a cluster of adults
who reside in the local school district, who are
concerned about educational issues, who are
willing to voice their concerns, and who may or
may not have children presently enrolled in the
local school.-*^2
The difference between the two types of communities
is in the people who must belong and those who are interes­
ted in the schools.

As such, the community has members who

may not be interested in the welfare of the school.

Never­

theless, many writers have discussed the importance of the
community in controlling vandalism.
^■^This description was developed by the researcher
for the purpose of this study.
16 2
Harriet Talmage and A. C. Ornstein, "School
Superintendents' Attitudes Toward Community Participation:
Advisement Versus Control." The Journal of Educational
Administration, vol. 14, 1976, p. 162.

49.
The problems associated with vandalism do not go
unnoticed in most communities.

Yet it must be remembered
163
that school vandalism is a "community problem."
Also, as
Stalford has indicated, "community concern may be stimulated
when a particularly violent or destructive incident is
reported.
Yet, many people hold the belief that schools in
urban areas have more vandalism than schools in non-urban
areas.

In some cases, urban areas are open to "better

reporting" or incidents than, say, rural areas.

Thus, it is

understandable that a former member of an urban school board
would state (given the proximity of homes to schools):
Parents' cooperation in curbing the vandal­
ism . . . You can't tell me parents aren't
looking around and seeing Johnny throwing a
rock through a w i n d o w . i65
But this is not to suggest, as Deitz has, that vandalism in
the schools is simply a mirror image of the community out­
side of the s c h o o l . T h e

reality of the situation may

1.63

Ernest Jones, “A Status Report: Crime and
Disruptive Behavior," St. Louis Public Schools, February,
1978, p. 9.
164
Charles B. Stalford, op. cit., p. 1.
K. Klink, St. Louis Globe-Democrat, February 12,
1970, p. la. Statement made by Eugene V. Boisabin, St.
Louis School Board.
1.66

Marcia Deitz, op. cit., p. 15.
"Vandalism in our
Schools is a microcosm of vandalism in our society. We
become numbed to the horrors through media exposure and come
to accept them; without shock or outrage."

50
possibly be as Ianni has stated:
The assumption that violent communities produce
violent schools does not consider the fact that
the school climate and community climate do not
always coincide.
In conclusion, the community is an important member
of the school and vice versa.

Vandalism inadvertently

effects both the community at large and the community's
interests in a school.

The prevention of vandalism is

shared by both the school and the community.
The Principal's Role
The responsibility for the welfare of students and
the protection of a school falls upon the shoulders of the
principal.

A principal must care not only for what happens

to the students inside his/her building, but also for what
happens to the building as well.

Thus, vandalism definitely

should be of interest to a principal.

With the existing

differences among districts and schools, it should be
expected that principals must handle problems differently.
Many of these problems are associated with vandalism.
The size of a school may be a factor in the preven­
tion or control of vandalism.

It was suggested in one

article that:
Many schools may have become too large. Admini­
strators find it difficult to maintain personal
contact with staff and students in large schools.I®8
167

F. A. S. Ianni, op. cit., p. 19.
16 8
The Practitioner— newsletter. National Associa­
tion of Secondary School Principals, vol. 2, April, 1976, p. 2.

51
Neill has commented that "big-city school administrators:
cite the similarities of the school with the city, thus
suggesting that what is outside the school eventually per169
meates through the doors with the students.
In such
cases, Neill has suggested the school is left defenseless
without the aid of the community and the parents to fend off
170
the frustrations and anger of the youth.
The individual principal wears many hats, all of
which support his role as the leader of a school.

The

principal must establish the means by which vandalism and
other acts of violence are to be handled.

Shuttlesworth

and Evans have categorized principals as follows:
There are two types of school principals: those
who tend to the business of instructional super­
vision and those who do n o t . 1^1
Although principals generally do not teach, they are respon­
sible for the supervision of teachers.

It is in the

classroom where many problems surface which are later trans­
formed into vandalism.

The principal is responsible for

169

Shirley B. Neill, "Causes of School Violence and
vandalism," from Violence and Vandalism— Current Trends in
School Policies and Programs, pp. 12-18.
In The Education
Digest, April, 1976, p. 6.
170Ibid.
171
John Shuttlesworth and N. Evans, "Why a Principal
Must be a Supervisor, vol. 18, May, 1974. School
Management, p. 46.

52
the classroom as well.

Consequently, Shuttlesworth and

Evans concluded:
Non-supervision among principals encourages non­
supervision among teachers, and that will probably
result in mushrooming disciplinary disorder among
problem-prone students.172
Besides supervising teachers, the principal must maintain
standards set for student contact.
The behavior of students is a very important part
of a principal's work.

Without belaboring the point, some

principals are not successful in controlling student
behavior or in having students control their own behavior.
The ingredients needed for successful student behavior
control today may include qualities cited by Panko:
High visibility during the school day and
during after school activities enhances the image
of leadership.
Building administration should control student
behavior through the use of rewards and sanctions
that help students to learn to assume responsibi­
lities for their actions to help students develop
an internal control system.173
Another factor is that principals should not play favorites
174
with any student or group of students.
In addition, too
many principals still rely "upon good faith efforts and
175
common sense" to control their schools.

Arbor:

Walter Panko, Taxonomy of School Vandalism (Ann
University Microfilms, 1978), p. 118.
174
Shuttlesworth, op. cit., p. 50.

175Neill C. Chamelin and K. B. Trunzo, "Due Process
and Conduct in Schools," Journal of Research and Development

53
The principal has several problems confronting him
every day.

Although violence and vandalism are indeed "real"

problems, there are other problems to be resolved.

Yet,

those other problems are topics for other reviews.

The

individual principal must play an important role in control­
ling vandalism.
He or she has the responsibility to not only
influence student behavior, but must also set the tone of
176
expectations for the entire school.
This can be very
difficult for many principals, especially those whose student
bodies come from impoverished backgrounds.

Many students

with "lower socio-economic" backgrounds may resist to the
rules and expectations of principals, as their more affluent
177
peers may be compelled to accept.
Finally, the princi­
pal's role in controlling vandalism is tied to his role as
178
the leader of the school.
Without strong leadership a
school may fall victim to a high incidence of vandalism and
its many related costs.
in Education, vol. 11, 1978, p. 74.
176
Henry Givens, Jr., "Discipline: The School's
Role," Educational Administration Quarterly, vol. 6, 1978.
pp. 16-17.
177
Barry Anderson, "Socio-Economic Status of Students
and Schools Bureaucratization," Educational Administration
Quarterly, vol. 7, 1971, pp. 22-23.
178
Marlene E. Harris, "The Relationship Between
Student Attitudes and Vandalism in Urban Secondary Schools,"
Unpublished dissertation, vol. 39, 1979, p. 6982a.

54
The Price for Broken Glass
As it was mentioned earlier in the chapter, the
increase in the incidence of vandalism may be more the
result of improvements in the reporting of vandalic acts
and not in an actual increase in vandalism.

Nevertheless,

the costs of education are rising during the current
inflated economic situation.

The impact of the rise for

programs has been great and should be expected.

The costs

incurred in repairing and replacing materials damaged by
vandals have risen correspondingly.

A problem develops when

dollars appropriated for academic programs are siphoned
away for repairing vandalic acts.

As it was cited by Jones:

The continued replacement costs for glass panes
and the need for additional glaziers diverted
already scarce resources from instructional
programs.^-82
But, with the relative shrinkage of dollars being made
available to schools, administrators must devote more time to
justifying expenditures.
Dollar losses resulting from vandalism require two
accounting procedures.^*84

The first includes an estimate of

the dollar value of property destroyed or defaced by vandals.
182

Ernest Jones, "A Status Report: Crime and Disrup­
tive Behavior," St. Louis Public Schools, February,1978, p. 4.
183
Cherie LeFever McCrasky, "School Vandalism in
the United States," Unpublished dissertation, vol. 39, 1979,
p. 6407.
184Ibid., p. 6408.

55
The second requires an assessment of the costs to replace
185
objects damaged.
But these steps are "after the fact;"
other procedures are needed to further understand the real
implications of vandalism in a district.
Periodically, groups such as legislative committees
convene to examine the problems of schools.

Unfortunately,

the "hit and miss" investigations are spaced years apart.
What has been suggested by Garrett and others is that
schools need to examine the delinquency behavior of their
186
students.
The record-keeping of vandalism is related to the
school policies concerning student behavior.

As Deitz

suggested:
School districts have to determine the extent of
vandalism before they can attempt to find the
.g^
solution which best suits their individual needs.
Despite the fact that many reports issued in recent years
have suggested that hundreds of millions of dollars are
lost annually due to vandalism, other studies have noted
that there is great disparity in the practice of recording
188
damages due to vandalism.
185Ibid.
186

J. R. Garrett, S. A. Bass, and M. D. Casserty,
"Studying School Crime: A prescription for Research-based
Prevention." In School Crime and Disruption (Washington,
D.C.: National Institute of Education), 1978, p. 9.
187

Marcia Deitz, "Final Report: Ad Hoc Committee to
Study School Boards Association," May, 1976, p. 6.
188

Cherie McCrasky, op. cit., p. 6408. Royce P.
Morre, "The Status of Vandalism in Selected Arizona Public

56
In conclusion, Garrett, et al., have examined the
subject of vandalism and the reporting of vandalic acts.
Their conclusion concerning reporting and record-keeping
is repeated in the following statement:
There are no widely accepted criteria for identi­
fying and recording various kinds of school crime.
For example, in recording instances of vandalism,
some school systems include certain categories of
apparently accidental damage, while others do
not.
Some include all destruction, while others
include only acts for which a perpetrator is
identified; some exclude damage covered by
insurance, while others do n o t . 189
Vandalism Prevention
Vandalism cannot be totally prevented in a school
setting without destroying the nature of schooling.

Unfor­

tunately, when there is a rash of vandalic acts, school
personnel tend to react with a deluge of responses.

Some

of these responses are well-meaning, while others may be
190
inappropriate for the apparent problem.
As David Coursen noted, schools tend to react to
vandalism by emphasizing cosmetic solutions.

Coursen stated:

Most programs try to deter vandalism by taking
defensive measures that make schools less vulner­
able to ravages of destructive intruders.
(They) treat vandalism symptomatically usually
by emphasizing improved school security.191
Schools." Unpublished dissertation, 1979, p. 4389.
189
Garrett, et al., op. cit., p. 3.
190
David Coursen, "Vandalism Prevention," ACSA
School Management Digest, Series 1, no. 2, 1977.
■^^Ibid., p. 15.

57
For example, Irwin has suggested that teachers and other
school personnel "adapt sensible security attitudes and
192
habits."
Security is an important element in the preven­
tion of vandalism.

Nevertheless, the attitudes of school

personnel toward vandalism sets forth another concern.
The question arises now and then as to whether
school people— teachers and administrators— really care
about vandalism.

From Arnold Madison's viewpoint in

Vandalism:

The Not-So-Senseless Crime, attitudes have been
193
leaning toward "complacency."
Yet the only true way of

stopping a vandal is to capture the vandal.

This will not

stop all vandalism; however, it should curtail the incidence
rate.
For instance Panko, in his dissertation on vandalism,
noted the following points when he examined the problem of
preventing vandalism:
School vandalism is an event with low-risk of
identification, comprehension and punishment for
the actor.
If the probability of identification,
capture, and punishment were increased the
incidence of school vandalism would undoubtedly
decrease.I 94
To prevent vandalism is to deter someone from committing a
vandalic act.
19 2
Frank G. Irwin, "A Study of Features for
Lessening Vandalism for Consideration in the Planning of
Educational Facilities." Unpublished dissertation, 1975.
1 QO

Arnold Madison, Vandalism:
The Not-So-Senseless
Crime, New York: The Seabury Press, 1970, p. 5.
^■^Panko, p. 113.

58
The deterrence of vandalism is a complex process
which requires the acceptance of a few assumptions.

Essen­

tially/ the process includes the development of a threat
which must be accepted as formidable by someone such as a
student.

A threat might include punishment for the act/

such as censure from the school.

Zimring has stated:

The general effect of a threat is the response
it produces among persons who have not been
punished.
For this group the threat, and the
example of the punishment of others, must influence
behavior independent of any personal experience
w i t h t h e t h r e a t e n e d c o n s e q u e n c e s .195

Deterrence is the means by which vandalism may be
controlled.

Human resources are needed to develop effective

deterrent programs in schools.
Although deterrence of vandalic acts comes in many
forms— from the "hardening" of facilities to night watchmen—
the final element in controlling vandalism is the human
element.

People make the difference, especially in their
196
attitudes toward the school and the students.
In summary, a review of the literature on vandalism

will necessarily be general in nature, particularly in the
case of school vandalism.

At the present time a considerable

amount of writing, resulting from research, has focused on
195 Franklin E. Zimring, Perspectives on Deterrence,
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Mental Health,
January, 1971, p. 2.
196
Coursen, op. cit., and Marlene E. Harris, "The
Relationship Between Student Attitude and Vandalism in Urban
Secondary Schools." Unpublished dissertation, 1979, p. 698.

the vandal.

The incidence level of vandalism has been

shown not only to vary among districts, but within districts
as well.

Finally, the levels of vandalism may be dependent

upon the attitudes of the community and school people.

CHAPTER III
Methods and Procedures
Introducti on
The study methods and procedures are presented in this
chapter.

They include the description of the study, the

research questions and null hypothesis, a discussion o-f the
study population and the representative nature of the
respondent sample, the procedure of research, a discussion
of instrument development,

a description of the survey

procedure, and the design of analysis.

Finally, a summary

of the research methods and procedures is presented.
Description of the Study
The conspicuous nature of vandalism attracts the
immediate attention of school administrators, and at times
the public as well.

Increasing pressures develop,

requiring action on the part of the administrators.
Consequently,

school administrators may use a variety of

tactics to prevent or control vandalism.

However, one

author has questioned the use of tacticts to subdue
pressures.

James Conant remarked:

...submission to unreasonable pressures weakens the
school and increases the pressures until finally the

60

61
teaching
tection

program
of

the

The c u r r e n t
school

suburban
2.
cite

3.
cite

4.
cite

Do b u i l d i n g

5.
cited

school

their

their

outside

inside

high

roles

in

a survey

of

school

principals.

questions:

in urba n

schools

vandalsim

perceive

than

their

their

outside

inside
Wh a t

districts

i n how t h e y

districts

contributing

to

suburban
as

school

contributing

districts
to

in r u r a l

schools

as

school

districts

contributing

to

schools

the

top

five

in

the

three

principals

differ

define

in

schools

principals
their

Do b u i l d i n g

school

schools

their

are

schools as

principals

Do b u i l d i n g

in ur b a n

buildings

their

by p r i n c i p a l s
6.

principals

Do b u i l d i n g

factors

vandalism

outside

inside

factors

vandalism

main

of

their

included

high

e x p e r i e n c i n g more

<1 9 ? >

perceptions

perceive

fifteen

The p r o ­

and r u r a l ’ c o u n t e r p a r t s

factors

vandalism

the

The r e s e a r c h

principals

decline.

in p o l i c y .

looked at

addresses

as

lies

of Michigan,

Do b u i l d i n g

schools

suffers

t o how t h e y

State

The s t u d y

their

as

vandalism.

Oakland County,

1.

school

study

principals,

controlling

itself

major

types

groups of
in ur b a n

from'principals

of

vandalism

school

settings

and suburban

in r u r a l

districts

vandalism.

197
J a m e s B.

Conant,

The A me r i c a n

High

School

<New Y o r k :

62

7.

Is vandalism perceived by building principals as a

serious problem in their schools
8.

Do principals believe they can control vandalism

9.

Do principals perceive vandalism decreasing in

their school
10.

Do principals perceive parents as supporting

their efforts to control vandalism
11.

Do principals link discipline policies and

practices with the level of vandalism in their schools
12.

Do principals who are not known by all of their

students experience greater levels of vandalism in their
schools
13.

Do principals who are not available and "visible"

after school experience greater levels of vandalism in
their school
14.

Do principals challenge their students to control

vandali sm
15.

Is vandalism by youths more frequent and serious

than destruction by adults

Procedure
Obtaining answers to questions posed in the problem
necessitates collecting and examing data concerning
vandalism and how secondary school principals perceive it.
The following tasks were undertaken:

63
1.

A review o-f literature was made to determine

current perceptions of vandalism by secondary principals
and those who have researched the problem
/

2.

A preliminary study was performed to determine the

need and validity of the study on vandalism
3.

An instrument that thoroughly investigates the

fifteen research questions was constructed
4.

From this instrument, mentioned in Task 3, a

check— list was devised to record all responses from the
people questioned
5.

A statistically-determined sample of the

population was interviewed, using the structured personal
interview technique,

in order to gather certain attitudes

and information unobtainable through the mail type of
questionnaire
6.

The instrument was mailed to all participants in

the study, to be answered and returned
7.

Results were analyzed, relationships pointed out,

conclusions drawn, and implications described
8.

Lists of all participants, with addressed and

whatever biographical data is available, was secured from
the registrar or proper authority of each institution
involved
Task 1 required extensive reading and analysis of the
related literature of secondary school principals’
perceptions of vandalism.
Task 2 determined that such an undertaking was

64
•feasible
high

a n d me a n i n g f u 1 .

schools

respond

to

the

indication

today's

high

instrument

instrument

as

interviewed

provided

to whether

its

principals

In

enough

vandalism

addition,

is

it

test

the

3 and 4 r e q u i r e d

5 required

validity

Task

of

extensive

6 required

to

Task

each

divised

to

in-formation
important

served

to

test

to

give

issue

in

the

survey

research

investigation
perceive

a sample

into

the

of

it.
the

population

A mailed

of

the

questionaire

of

the

State

information

perceptins

The O .R. C.

of

vandalism

(Office

U niversity will

for

be

of

used

the

final

by s e c o n d a r y

Research
to help

Consulation)
interpret

a l1

data.
Task
the

8 required

a

list

of

all

participants

responding

questionaires.

Study P o p u la t io n
The

study

secondary high

to

and c h e c k - 1 i s t .

identities

in O a k l a n d C o u n t y .

into

principal.

principals.

at Michigan

an

instrument

7 provided necessary

interpretation
school

interviewing
the

secondary p r in c ip a ls
was s e n t

and asked

validity.

v a n d a l i s m a n d ho w s e c o n d a r y p r i n c i p a l s
Task

-f r om t e n m a j o r

on v a n d a l i s m .

study

schools.

and

Tasks

of

i n Ma c o mb C o u n t y w e r e

The p r e l i m i n a r y
an

A group

and Respondent
population

school

of

Sample

this

study

p r i n c i p a l s who w e r e

consisted

of

those

employed

in

that

to

65

capacity as of April

1, 1983 in Oakland County.

number of the survey population was forty—one.

The total
Of this

number twenty-three were stationed in the suburbs,

twelve

in the rural part and six in the urban portion of Oakland
County.

All forty—one principals responded for this study.

Since most principals have busy schedules during the
spring, a mail questionnaire was not utilised.

Instead, a

personal interview was set up with each of the forty-one
pri nci pal s.
The population, which is all male, has an age range of
twenty-six through sixty-two years.

The experience level

ranges from two through twenty-one years.

instck'fflSQJs.stisn
A questionnaire was designed to collect data on the
perceptions of secondary principals in regard to vandalism.
The development of the questionnaire started with a few
questions that were asked of Assistant Principals in the
Troy Public Schools.

These questions ranged from the type

of vandalism to the ways in which vandalism can be reduced.
Each Assistant Principal added questions until the list
reached fifty-five.

Some of the questions over lapped, and

some were not adequate in dealing with the topic.

After

rewriting the questions, the list dwindled to thirty—five.
This list was taken to Oakland Schools to be read and
analysed by Dr. Robert Kramp.

Here the questionnaire was

66
divided into two parts.

The first part was the general

background of the principals.

This aspect of the

questionnaire would deal with the background of the
administrator, the age of the administrator, the experience
of the administrator and the amount of vandalism which
appears in their buildings.

The second part of the survey

consisted of questions that required short, written
responses in regard to vandalism and their schools.
The questionnaire was then presented as a preliminary
study to ten high school principals in Macomb County.

In

this preliminary study it was discovered that some subjects
were not familiar with certain technical terms, these were
later clarified.
instructions.

Others had difficulty with headings and

Others had difficulty with the short answers

and felt there should be choices.

The questionnaire took

forty—five minutes to complete, and this was more time than
most administrators had to spend with this project.
The problems above were dealt with to allow simple
reading and to include choices on most of the questions.
The questionnaire was shortened to thirty minutes.
The preliminary study was given to five new principals
in Macomb County.

This time it proved to be satisfactory

to those who were surveyed.

S u r v ey P r g c e d u r e

The survey instrument was issued to each of the

67
•forty—one principals during personal contact.

The

principal had an opportunity to ask questions or relate
ideas during the questionnaire.

The personal interview

approach guaranteed a highly successful rate of response.
During each personal contact the cover letter and
questionnaire were given to the principal to read without
proctoring.

If they cared to, they could ask questions

after they had read the directions.

Data Anal.ysi.s
The principals surveyed were divided into three groups
for the analysis of their responses:

Urban, Suburban and

Rural.
Using the defintion identified in Chapter I, the
following number of principals were available groups:

Groue

Number Avai.l.abl.e

Rural

Suburban

Urban

6

Upon collection of the completed instruments,
individual responses were collated by item.

the

This procedure

68
was accomplished by transferring the written material to a
computer.

Data was processed using the Stati.sti.cal.

Analysis System package program located in the Oakland
Schools Computer System.
The statistics utilised in the analysis of the data
were descriptive.

Because the study was limited to looking

unnecessary for analysis to be extended beyond a
descriptive level. Future studies on vandalism may delve
into the use of inferential statistics when conducting
research on individual schools.

The results of the study,

based on the data collected, are included in Chapter IV.

Summary
The study design was developed to collect data from a
sample of forty-one principals of Oakland County regarding
their perceptions of vandalism and how they control it.
The data was collected by personally contacting each
principal in order to have him answer the questionnaire
which was designed and pre-tested by the researcher for
this purpose.

CHAPTER IV

Analysis of the Data

Studies o-f school vandalism provide interesting data.
These data may be confusing because of a lack of consensus
on the meaning of vandalism.

The collections and summation

of the responses to questions posed to the principals
follows:
The principals were divided into three subgroups,
reflecting the locations of their school district.
three locations are Urban, Suburban,

and Rural.

A breakdown is shown in Table 1 of the subgroup
response rates.
TABLE 1
BREAK-DOWN OF SCHOOLS IN SURVEY

School Type

No. of Schools

V. of Total

Suburban

23

56*/.

Rural

12

29*/.

Urban

6

157.

TOTAL

41

1007.

69

The

A General Profile o-f the Principals
and Their Schools
Every'school is unique, yet it is important for a
study to include a general overview of the subjects under
examination.

A portion of the instrument was composed of

items requesting information about the principals and their
schools.

This section of Chapter IV will consist of a

brief discussion of those items requested specifically for
the present study.
TABLE 2
COST OF VANDALISM PER STUDENT

School
Type

No.
Schools

Tot.
Vand.

Avg/
Sch.

Tot.
Po p u l .

Avg.
P o p ul .

A v g . Cost
Per. St.

Sub.

23

*63,300

*2782

28,083

1221

$2.26

Rural

12

* 11 ,lOO

* 925

11,808

984

*0.94

Urban

6

*19,700

*3283

11,346

1891

*1.74

Total

41

*94,300

*2300

51,237

1249

*1.84

Table 2 shows the results of questions five and six
from the Background

Information Questionnaire.

Number five asks:
Number of students in your building in grades 10
to 12 or 9 to 12?
and number six asks:
Approximate cost of vandalism in your school,

for

the year 1981-82 school year?
Table 2 shows the specific number of students in each
catagory in regard to types of schools.

The suburban

schools have the most students and the urban communities
have the fewest.

The Table also shows the vandalism cost

break-down of each type of school district while showing
the average vandalism cost of each Oakland County high
school being twenty—three hundred dollars.
Another aspect of the Table is the break-down of each
type of school in relationship to the cost per student.
Generally urban communities are perceived to have more
vandalism

(Table 13, pg. 90) than suburban and rural

districts.
TABLE 3
BREAK-DOWN OF VANDALISM IN DOLLARS

300- 501
1000
500

10011500

1501
2300

23013500

35005500

7

2

1

7

5

6

3

O

0

3

O

*19,700

0

1

0

0

3

2

*94,300

7

11

2

1

13

7

Sch.
Type

No.
Sch.

Tot.
Vand.

Sub.

23

*63,500

1

Rur.

12

*11,100

Urb.

6
41

Total

Table 13 expresses that 76 percent of all principals in
Oakland County feel that vandalism in Urban schools is
greater.

However,

Table 2 shows that per student,

the

suburban school have the highest cost with urban second and
rural schools the lowest per student cost.
Table 3 shows the break-down of each
type of school district and the cost of vandalism in six
categories.

The table shows that 8/23 or 35 percent of the

suburban high schools have vandalism of less than
one-thousand dollars, while the rural communities have 9/12
or 75 percent of their schools being vandalized at this
rate.

The urban schools have 1/6

or 17 percent of their

schools at this level.
The table also shows that, the suburban schools have
12/23 or 52 percent of their schools having twenty— three
hundred dollars or more vandalism while the rural has 3/12
or 25 percent of their schools at this level and the urban
schools have 5/6 or S3 percent of their schools being
vandalized at this rate.
Table 3 shows that from the population ot forty-one
high schools,

only three

range of $1000-2300.
have much vandalism

(7 percent) have vandalism in the

Oakland county high schools seem to
(20/41 or 49 percent over $2300),

they have little vandalism

or

<18/41 or 44 percent under

$1000); the middle amounts are void of schools.
Table 4 shows the results of question number two on
the Background Information Questionnaire.

The question

asks:
Age of principal?

_____ years

The Table shows that the .bulk of the principals

(32/41

or 78 percent) -Fall into the age group of 46-older while
only 3/41

(7 percent) are under the age o-f thirty— five.
TABLE 4
BREAK-DOWN OF PRINCIPALS AGES

3645

%

4652

%

07.

4

17%

9

39%

3

25%

1

87.

6

507.

2 . 17%

0

07.

1

177.

2

33%

3

50%

3

77.

6

15%

17

41%

15

37%

Sch.
Type

Tot.
Sch.

2635

Sub.

23

0

Ru r.

12

Urb.

6

Tot.

41

7.

53Older
10

7.

43%

TABLE 5
PRINCIPAL AGE VS. *2300 OF VANDALISM

3645

%

0%

3

0

0%

6

0

41

0

Sch.
Type

Tot.
Sch.

Sub.

4 652

%

75%

6

677.

4

0

07.

3

50%

O

0%

1

100%

2

100%

2

67%

0%

4

67%

11

67%

6

40%

2635

%

23

0

Rur.

12

Urb.
Tot.

53-

%

Older
40%
o%

All three o-f the principals under age thiry— five are from
the rural communities while 10/15 (66 percent) of 53-older

0

group are -From the suburban schools.
Table 5, which is an extension of Table 4, shows the
same age groups of principals in comparison to twenty— three
hundred dollars of vandalism.

The Table reflects that zero

percent of the principals in the age group of 26-35 have
vandalism in excess of twenty-three hundred dollars. This
is not a major statement because only 3/41 of the
principals (7 percent) fall into this category.

The other

three catagories have a balanced number of principals in
the twenty-three hundred dollar or higher range..

The 36—45

age group with 67 percent the, the 46-52 age group with 65
percent and the 53-older age group has 40 percent.
The age of a principal does not appear to have any
relationship to the amount of vandalism within a school.
TABLE 6
EXPERIENCE OF PRINCIPALS

7.

7.

16-Higher

7.

IO

43%

4

177.

427.

2

167.

1

87.

3

507.

2

337.

1

17%

14

347.

14

347.

6

15%

Sch.

Tot.

1-5

7.

Sub.

23

3

137.

6

267.

Rur.

12

4

33%

5

Urb.

6

0

07.

Tot.

41

7

177.

6- i o

11-15

Tabl e 6 shows the results of question number three on
the Background Informati on Questionnaire>.

The question

asks:
Total years experience as a secondary school
principal?
..
years
TABLE 7
EXPERIENCE VS. *2300 OR HIGHER

Tot. 1-5
Sch.

0
1
*0

Sch.
Type

V.

7.

11-15

V.

16-Higher

7.

1

1

Sub.

23

2

677.

3

507.

5

507.

2

507.

Rur.

12

0

07.

2

40%

1

507.

0

07.

6

0

07.

3

1007.

2

1007.

0

07.

41

2

297.

8

577.

8

2

337.

Urb.
Tot.

577.

The Table shows a -fairly balanced rate o-f experience
throughout all three types o-f school districts.

The most

experienced principals are between 6-15 years of experience
with 6S percent of the principals ranking in this catagory.
Table 7, which is an extension of Table 6, compares
the experience level against twenty-three hundred dollars
of vandalism.

As Table 7 shows,, the vandal 1 ism over

twenty— three hundred dollars is fairly even across all four
catagories.

The highest being 57 percent shared by both

the 6— 10 years of experience level and the 11-15 year
experience level while the lowest being 29 percent by the
1—5 years of experience level.

The experience level,

as

age groups, does not seem to matter in regard to vandalism.

-76

All o-f the experience levels are struck with a vandalism
problem.
TABLE 8
AGE OF FACILITIES

0
1

4

17%

10

43%

6

26%

3

12%

Rur.

12

4

337.

5

427.

3

257.

O

07.

Urb.

6

0

O

07.

3

50%

3

50%

15

37%

12

29%

6

15%

Total

4

8

*0

23

X
O

Sub.

Tot. Sch. 3-5

a

%

Sch. Type

20%

11-20

7.

25-40

%

TABLE 9

7.

25-40

%

1

7.

Sub.

23

2

50%

4

40%

4

677.

2

Rur.

12

O

0%

2

407.

1

337.

0

Urb.

6

0

0%

0

07.

2

677.

3

10O %

41

2

25%

6

407.

7

587.

5

837.

Sch. Type

1

Total

Tot. Sch. 3-51 %

1

1

th

1
0
N

i H i

1
H
* 1
O 1
1

AGE OF FACILITY VS. *2300 OF VANDALISM

Table 8 reflects the answer to question number 7 on the

677.
o%

.

JX"

#

Background Information Questionnaire.
Age of Facility?

The question asks:

_____ years

As the Table reveals, the age of the facilities are
evenly distributed throughout the individual catagories and
the totals of each catagory.
Table 9, an extension of Table 8, shows the
relationship between each catagory and twenty-three hundred
dollars worth of vandalism.

The 25—40 year old schools

have suffered the worst with 83 percent of their schools
being vandalized at twenty—three hundred dollars or more.
The 3-5 age group report suffered the least amount, but
even these schools are reporting 25 percent of their
schools at the average or higher amount of vandalism.
middle age groups

The

(6— 20 years) are even in percentage of

vandalism; however,

these schools are reporting 40 and 50

percent of their schools being victims of high cost
vandali sm.
There is no age group untouched by vandalism.

The age

of the facility as the age of the principal or the
experience of the principal plays no important role in
where vandalism occurs.

Findings of the Research Questions

Question

I:

Vandalism:

Urban VS. Sub/Rural

The first question for the study was stated as
follows:

Do building principals in urban high schools
perceive their schools as experiencing more
vandalism than their suburban and rural
counterparts?
The items, listed in the survey, which pertained to this
question were the following:
Item A.
Is vandalism a serious problem in
your building
Item B.
vandali sm

Over the past five years has

increased
stayed the same
decreased
Item C.
vandalism to

Do you expect the amount of

increase
stay the same
decrease
in your school during the next school year
Item D.
In your opinion,
of a problem in an

is vandalism more

Urban
Suburban
Rural
school district
Analysis of Research i_n Question One
As one analyzes this research question, one must look
at Tables 10,11,12 and 13.

The question stated is:

Do building principals in urban high schools
perceive their schools as experiencing more
vandalism than their suburban and rural
counterparts?
Item a, in Table IO, seems to display that the answer
to this question is "yes."

The urban principals

-79
unan imously
school s.

concur

that

vandalism

is

a serious

issue

in

their

TABLE 10
I S VANDALISM A S ERI OUS PROBLEM
I N YOUR B UI L DI NG?
ITEM ( a )

L o c a t i on

Urban

Yes

No

Total

6
100 X

0
0%

6 / 41
1 5 /.

Suburban

11
48%

12
52X

1 1/41
27%

Rural

3
25%

9
7 5 '/.

3/41
7%

Total

20

21

20/41
49%

One h u n d r e d p e r c e n t
however,
total

urban

population

compared
of

the

the

to

the

suburban

In r u r a l

school

serious.

Urban

probelm
as

than

a county,

problem.

o-f

those

principals

of

surveyed
account

Oakland County.

say

- f or

only

Ulhen

the

suburban- s c h o o l s ,

in T a b l e

schools

vandalism

feel

districts,

that

only

25 p e r c e n t

schools

perceive

other

two g r o u p s

the
only

49 p e r c e n t

feel

vandalism
of

school

that

this

true;

15 p e r c e n t
urban

10,

only

is

that

a more

is

the
are

48 p e r c e n t
issue.

vanalism

is

serious

districts.

vandalism

o-f

schools

a serious

feel
as

is

However,

a serious

‘TABLE 11
THE PAST FIVE YEARS ACCORDING TO PRINCIPALS
ITEM (b)

Increased

Same

Decreased

Urban

5
83*/.

0
07.

1
177.

Suburban

12
52 7.

4
177.

7
307.

Rural

9
75V.

"
w7
257.

0
07.

Total

26
637.

17V.

Location

7

8
207.

Table 11, Item b, continues to support research
question one as "yes."

The urban schools -feel that vandal­

ism will increase over the next -five years according to 83
percent of the principals from this area.
percent feel that it will decrease,
vandalism would remain the same.

Seventeen

and, no one stated that

This is quite different

than the 52 percent of principals in the suburban school
districts who feel that vandalism will increase.

Seventeen

percent of suburban principals feel that vandalism will not
increase or decrease at all; while 30 percent,
vandalism will decrease in the next five years.

feel that
Seventy-

five percent of rural principals feel that vandalism will

#

Ti

increase in the next -five years.

This -figure, while not as

great as that o-f urban school districts, but combined with
the statistic that rural schools

(25 percent) feel that

vandalism will stay at its current rate shows that they,
too, feel strongly .about the future of vandalism.
TABLE 12
THE EXPECTED TREND OF VANDALISM OF THE 1983-84
SCHOOL YEAR AS PERCEIVED BY PRINCIPALS
ITEM <c>

Increased

Same

6
1007.

0
07.

0
07.

Suburban

10
437.

4
177.

9
397.

Rural

8
677.

4
337.

0
07.

Total

24
597.

8
207.

9
227.

Location
Urban

Decreased

Table 12 continues the thoughts of Table 11, brought
to a closer future.

The question on the trend of vandalism

for the 1983—84 school year shows almost the same results
as Table 11.

The urban schools again unanimously agreed

that the 1983-84 school year will show an increase in
vandalism.

This combined with the suburban perception that

it will increase by only 43 percent shows a remarkable
difference in expected vandalism.

Thirty-nine percent of

suburban principals feel that school vandalism will
decrease next school year, while 17 percent feel that it
will not change at all.

The rural school districts feel

that this is a serious problem for next year as they cite
that the vandalism in their community will increase or stay
the same.

Nobody from this community can foresee the

problem lessening.
TABLE 13
THE LOCATION WHERE VANDALISM IS THE WORST
ITEM

(d)

Suburban

Rural

Location

Urban

Urban

6
1007.

OV.

0
07.

Suburban

17
747.

6
267.

0
07.

Rural

8
677.

2
17%

2
177.

Total

31
767.

8
207.

2
57.

0

The strongest argument for the first research question
comes from Item d, on Table 13.

This table shows that 100

percent of the principals in the urban community feel that

^ 8-3

they have the worst vandalism problem.

As a group, they do

not cite the other two categories as having serious
vandalism problems.

The suburban community seems to be

undecided between the urban schools and themselves;
seventy— four percent chose the. urban schools while
twenty-six percent chose themselves.

Again, nobody chose

the rural schools as having a serious problem.

The rural

community chose the urban people as having the most serious
problem.

Sixty-seven percent o-f the rural principals chose

the urban, while 17 percent chose the suburban and 17
percent chose themselves as having the most serious
vandalism problem.
In reviewing these items and tables, one can see that
the urban principals -feel that they have the most serious
problem regarding vandalism.

Not only do they -feel this,

but the other two groups also concur that this is where the
most serious vandalism appears.

These items and tables

combined with Table 2, show that S3 percent o-f the urban
schools have twenty— three hundred dollars a year or more
vandalism.

Building principals in urban high schools

perceive their schools as experiencing more vandalism than
their suburban and rural counterparts.

Question Two, Three and Four:
^i*Qdi*ii.sm:
insi.de Factors V . . S Outsi.de Factors
The second,

third,

and -fourth questions proposed -for

the study were -formulated to delineate groups of

94
principals.

The questions are presented below:

Qu estion 2.
Do building principals in urban
school districts
cite factors outside of their
schools as contributing to vandalism inside their
schools?
Question 3.
Do building principals in
suburban school districts cite factors outside
their schools as contributing to vandalism inside
their school?
Question 4.
Do building principals in rural
school districts
cite factors outside their
schools as contributing to vandalism inside their
schools?
The item for these questions included in the survey was
stated as follows:
Are there factors outside of your school
which contribute to vandalism of the school?
(List them)
A.

Declining neighborhoods

B.

Adult education

(night time)

C.
Parks and recreation using your
faci1iti es
D.
Industrial areas which are not populated
at night
E.

Cutbacks by police patrol by city

F.

Cutbacks in mi 11 age— schools more vacant

G.
(other)
In research question number two, urban principals were
asked if there were any outside situations that may add or
contribute to the vandalism within their school.

The

answer, on Table 14, shows that 100 percent of the
principals from this category claim there are outside
factors adding to the vandalism of their schools.

TABLE 14
FACTORS OUTSIDE SCHOOL CAUSING VANDALISM

Location

Yes

Urban

6
100’
/.

No
0
07.

Suburban

17
74%

6
26%

Rural

10
837.

2
17%

Total

33
807.

8
20%

Table IS explains the factors that were most commonly
given that contribute to vandalism.

In urban schools the

most often answer was "declining neighborhoods."

Most of

the urban high schools were in declining neighborhoods.
Answer number two, three and four are not surprising.

The

middle three items. Table 15, are items that a high school
principal has little control over.

These factors give a

great deal of support to the premise that a good school
district needs support from the community and the people
within it before it can expect to control vandalism.
The suburban school principals also fault outside
factors for much of the vandalism within their schools.
Seventy-four percent of the principals cited external

r8&

■factors for much o-f the vandalism.

Twenty six percent say

that their own population is responsible for vandalism.
The reasons for externally caused vandalism in the suburban
schools range from:

<1> adult education, which uses the

buildings during the evening, to
patrol school property.

(5) police refuse to

If one looks closely at all five

of the reasons for suburban school vandalism according to
the principals, one can see that the highest three
responses show innocent people who probably do not even
know they are vandalizing.

Number four and five are items

that a high school principal has little control over.

TABLE 15
FACTORS OUTSIDE OF SCHOOLS CAUSING VANDALISM

Location— Urban

(most popular answers in order)

Declining neighborhoods
Industrial areas which are
not populated at night
Cutbacks in mi 11 age
Cutbacks in policy by city
Not enough jobs for students
Locati on— Suburban

(most popular answers in order)

TABLE 15 — Cgntinued

Location— Suburban

(most popular answers in order)

Adult education using schools
at night
Parks and recreation using
facilities
No respect by visiting students
during extra-curricular
activities* i.e., football and
basketbal1 games
Cutbacks in mi 11 age— more
schools vacant
Police refuse to patrol school
property
Location— Rural

(most popular answers in order)

School location— most rural
areas not that developed
Adult education using buildings
at night
Police not able to patrol because
of shortage of police departments,
i.e., many rural schools are
patroled by the County Sheriff
Patrol and they have too much
territory now
Cutbacks in mi 11 age— schools more
vacant
Parks and recreation using your
facilities at night

Question number four deals with the rural principal

88
m

and whether he cites outside -factors contributing to his
school’s vandalism.

Ten out o-f thie twelve, or 83 percent,

say "yes'* there are outside -factors.

The reasons cited are

not different than those for the other two groups with the
exception of the first reason.

In the rural areas, they

cited that the number one reason for outside vandalism is
that the areas around the schools are not that well
developed and this creates a non—populated area around the
schools.
support

Adult education

(number two),

lack of police

(number three), cutbacks in millage

and parks and recreation

(number four)

(number five) all seem to have

appeared in the other areas also.
All three areas indicate outside factors for vandalism
in their schools.

A total of 80 percent

(Table 14) have

cited outside factors, while only 20 percent of the total
population blame their own students,
administration.

staff and

The reasons for the outside vandalism seem

to be closely linked, except for a few responses,

and most

of these seem to be either innocent people who are ignorant
to what they are doing or a non-control 1 able item that an
administrator cannot do anything about.

Questi on V :

Maj.gr Types of Vandal ism

The fifth item asked for responses to the following:
Please list the five types of vandalism which
occur most frequently in your building.
Rank by
order of frequency— greatest first.

59
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.

I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.

Walls
Alarm
Lackers
Doors
Thefts
Books
G1ass .
Stair rails

Graffiti
Furni ture
Lights
Speakers
Spray paints
Break-ins
Equipment
Desks

Lawns
Ceiling tiles
Rest rooms
Litter
Fires

Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.

(other)

This item was included in the survey instrument to
provide in-formation to answer the research question:
Ulhat are the top -five major types of vandalism
cited by principals in the three groups of school
settings?
In the responses of the survey question, there was no
clear answer as a whole.

The items of "furniture/desks"

ranked high but only because it was the number one answer
of the suburban school districts with more principals than
the other two groups.

The question was then divided into

urban, suburban and rural to decide where each was having
difficulty with vandalism.
The urban group had "thefts" as their number one
vandalism problem.

Thefts from the school

included

equipment and stealing from fellow students or teachers.
Vandalism should be considered when stealing happens,
if it is from each other.

The second choice was "fires."

Most fires were set intentionally.

Vending machines were

third, followed by "graffiti/wal1 s . "
"break-ins/glass" was last
urban school districts,
and pre-meditated.

even

Lastly,

(See Table 16).

In analysing

vandalism appears to be malicious

TABLE 16
TOP FIVE TYPES OF VANDALISM

Location— Urban

(most popular answers in order)

Thefts— both from the school
and from people within the
school
Fi res
Vending Machines
Sraffite/wal1s
it is written)

(this is where

Break— ins/glass (normally breaking
of windows to enter building)
Location— Suburban

(most popular answers in order)

Furniture/desks
Equipment,
equipment,

i.e. typewriters, lab.
and office equipment

Break-ins/lockers (although they
vandalize breaking into the
building, they also break into
lockers)
Walls/graffiti
Lawns (many people drive across
them and some set fire to them)
Location— Rural
G1 ass
Furniture/desks

(most popular answers in order)

TABLE 16 - Continued

L o c a t i o n — Rural

<most

popular

answer

in

order)

W a l 1s / g r a f f i t i
Fences
Books

The

suburban

schools

■frequently v a n d a liz e d .
the

desks

to

breaking

" e q u ip e m e n t."
not
of

the

This

stealing

lockers",

This,
itself

as
as
The

taxpayers
innocent

furniture.
to

Thirdly,

the

urban

chose

the

vandalistic

"prank"

or

is

problem,

who o b s e r v e

by p e o p l e

group

it,

who f e e l

the

bein g most

- f r om w r i t i n g
second

was

themselves

and

"break-ins

vandalism.
is

a

degree

districts.
problem

a serious

of

but

of

the

Lastly,
"lawns."
it

classifies

crime.

although
seems
“they

to

on

choice

chose

again

to

school

"goofing-around"

vandalism

and p e o p l e
in n a t u r e

vandalism

hardly

as

machines

This

from

of

The

pre-meditated

but

types

suburban

of

problem,

answers
group

a sign

the
this

"w alls/graffiti."

other
a

them.

destruction

chose

vandalistic

suburban

of

be

is

serious

the

parts

can

which

they

three

This

"-furniture/desks"

v a n d a l is m was

of

Fourth,

first

list

serious
be

have

to

basically
done

-92

nothing wrong."

The exception is the pre-meditated

vandalism of breaking into lockers,

a serious and malicious

vandalistic act.
The rural areas chose glass breakage as their number
one response.
malicious acts.

This is not related to break-ins or other
Second on the list was "furniture/desks,"

by people who feel they are not vandalising but in reality
are.

"Walls/graffiti" was the next choice and this, again,

seems to be present in all schools.

The fourth choice is

different than the other two groups as the rural community
cited "fences" as a major vandalism problem.

the fifth,

problem by the rural group was "books."
The rural principals,
a mild version.

who have vandalism,

seem to have

The problems cited seem to be a degree

that people within a community accept.

The difference

between the rural and the urban is that the rural community
experiences a very innocent vandalism,

while the urban

schools have malicious and intentional vandalism

(see Table

16 ).

:

6 Def i_ni_ti_on

The sixth question centered on discovering the
definitions of vandilism as used by the principals.

The

survey item presented to the principals for their responses
was as follows:
Please give your definition of vandalism of
school property

93

This survey question corresponds to the research question
o-f:
Do principals in urban and suburban school
districts differ from principals in rural
districts in how they define vandalism?
Each principal of each group focused on a given aspect
of vandalism in their responses.

However, their answers

paralleled their response in Table 10.

All six of the

urban principals gave definitions of malicious intent and
seriousness,

while the rural principals centered on the

"pranks" and the "childish" behaviors which cause
vandalism.

The suburban principals defined vandalism as a

serious issue that is expected to happen to our schools.
These definitions of vandalism show the attitudes of the
principals of the three groups reacting to their own
vandalistic problems and not vandalism as a whole.

Question VII:

The Se r iousness of Vandal ism

In the seventh question, the principals were asked to
respond about the seriousness of vandalism in their
schools.

The research question was stated as fallows:

Is vandalism perceived by building principals as
being a serious problem in their schools?
The survey question presented to the principals was stated
as follows:
Is vandalism a serious problem in your building?

'SSL

And
If you had a rash o-f acts o-f vandalism in a
given month, how would your superintendent react?
Your school board?
A.

Verbal reprimand

B.

Work closely with you to solve problems

C.

Written reprimand

D.

Direct more -funds for clean-up

E.

Direct more funds for more security

F. Discuss the problem with students,
and administration
G.

Ask the local media for support

H.

Remove you from your position

staff

I. Look toward universities for seminars
and information
J. Ask local law enforcement people for
assi stance
K.
L.

Decrease your merit pay
_____________________
(other)

In attempting to analyse this question, one must refer
back to research question six:

principals define vandalism

according to their own situation.

This may also be true

with regards to research question seven.

The seriousness

of the vandalism problem may be only as serious as the
repercussions an administrator will feel if vandalism is
high in his building.

Table 17 shows that the initial

responses of superintendents and school boards will be a
warning of some nature.

Even the middle steps do not

harshly reprimand the administrator and it is not until the
last steps of "decreasing merit pay," "temporari1y
replacing you" or "removing you from your position" that
the administrators really begin to feel pressure.

This

could explain the reason for Table 10 as well as Table 17.
In Table 10,

100 percent of the administrators

of

urban communities felt that vandalism was a serious
problem, and in reviewing Table 17 we see that the school
boards of those communities will tolerate and help the
administrator without "replacing him."

This, of course,

allows the administrator to be extremely open and candid
about the amount of vandalism.

The superintendent is the

only person that administrators feel would severely punish
them; however, the superintendent cannot pursue this action
without the school b o a r d ’s aproval.
The suburban principals,

according to Table 10, show

only 48 percent of the principals feel that there is a
serious problem.

When we look at Table 17 we see that

three out of five responses by both the superintendent and
the school board are severe reprimands that result in loss
of pay or position.

These principals would have a greater

reason to feel that vandalism is not serious— to protect
themselves.

TABLE 17
SERIOUSNESS VERSUS PRIORITY

(most popular answers in order)

Locati on— Urban
Superi ntendent

School Board

Discuss the problem with
administration only

Written reprimand

Verbal reprimand

Local law enforcement

Written reprimand

Funds -for security

Decrease merit pay/
promotion

Local media -for help

Remove you -from your
posi tion

Decrease merit pay

Locati on— Suburban

(most popular answers in order)

Superi ntendent

School Board

Verbal reprimand

Written reprimand

Written reprimand

Disccuss with administratoi

Temporarily replace you

Decrease merit pay

Decrease m e r i t

Temporarily replace you

pay

Remove you -from your
posi ti on
Locati on— Rural

Remove you -from your
position
(most popular answers in order)

Superi ntendent

School Board

Severe discussion with
admi ni strati on

Written reprimand

--^97

TABLE 17 — Continued

Location— Rural '

(most popular answers in order)

Written reprimand

Ask to confront
admi ni strati on

Decrease salary

Decrease salary

Ask administrati on to
confront school board

Temporarily replace
admi ni strati on

Remove you from your
posi ti on

Remove you from your
position

The rural principals -feel the same as the suburban
principals.

Four out of five of the superintendents'

actions result in showing an unfavored administrator, and
four out of five responses of the school boards'

actions

would cause a principal to say that vandalism is not a
major problem.
In essence, the ostensible seriousness of the
buildings'

vandalism may rest on the reprimand that the

principal will feel if he does have a rash of vandalistic
acts.

Again,

the perception of administrators is reflected

by their own situation.

Question VIII:

Fc i D E i E S i S C o n t r o l 1 i nq Vand al ism

The eighth question focused on the issue of whether or

98
not principals believed they could control vandalism in
their schools.

The research question was stated as:

Do principals believe they can control
vandali sm?
The literature has suggested that many principals,
plus other members of school communities, may ignore
vandalism.

Some principals may choose to ignore vandalism

rather than attempt to control

it.

Principals may believe that they do not have the
authority or "backing" from their superiors,

to enforce

existing rules to curtail an existing level of vandalism.
Item <a> requests the following:
Item <a). In your opinion, what measures
should be taken by a principal to control
vandali sm?
A.
vandals

Offer rewards for the conviction of

B.
school

Hire security guards for patrol during

C.
school

Hire security guards for patrol after

D. Have more teachers/administrators
patrolling the hallways during the school day
E.
Have student clean-up crews during the
day to minimize vandalism
F.
When caught vandalizing, the vandals
must pay for the entire clean—up project
G.
When caught vandalizing, the vandals
must clean entire problem themselves
H.
Develop better relationships between
students and staff
I.
areas

Students monitor in hallways and bath

99
0

J.
Night custodians pinpoint what adult
education class or organizations were vandalized
K.
Better and more light inside and outside
o-f buildings
L.

______________________
(other)

As supplements o-f the item above, the principals were
presented the following items:
Item (b).
Does your budget have a special
line item for the repair and replacement of
property damaged by vandalism?
Item <c>.
Does your district's central
office expect you to report all acts of vandalism
in you building?
Item (d>.
Does your district provide you
with either a policy or written guidelines on how
to prevent or control vandalism in your school?
The majority of administrators in Oakland County feel
that they have the authority to control vandalism.

Table

18 clearly shows that 85 percent-of the principals feel
they have control over vandalism.

These figures show that

only 50 percent of the urban districts,

the ones with the

most vandalism, have control over vandalism.

In the

suburban districts 91 percent of its principals have
control even though 57 percent of their schools have had
twenty-three hundred dollars or more vandalism in the past
year.

The rural school principals,

percentage of vandalism,

with the lowest

claim that they have the authority

to control vandalism.
Item <a> is clear that the majority of principals feel
that they have authority to control vandalism

(85 percent),

100
but if they have control, why did Oakland County have
nearly $100,OdO in vandalism last year?
TABLE 18
HAVING AUTHORITY TO CONTROL VANDALISM
ITEM <a>

Location

Yes

NO

Urban

3
50’
/.

3
507.

Suburban

21
917.

2
97.

Rural

11
927.

1
87.

Total

35
857.

6
157.

Item (b> reflects that only 22 percent of all the high
schools in Oakland County have vandalism as a budget item.
This could be a message to most school districts that:
it does not appear on the budget list,

"if

it is not important"

(see Table 19).
Item <c>, Table 20, shows that 83 percent of the
schools require a report on vandalism.

This indicates that

100 percent of the urban schools must report, while only 78
percent of the suburban and 83 percent of the rural schools
are required to report.

This may be the area in which some

schools are actually hiding vandalism,

and it may also be

101
the reason why urban schools are showing the most
vandalism.

Th'e other two groups may be hiding -facts on

vandali sm.
TABLE 19
VANDALISM AS A BUDGET ITEM
ITEM (b)

Location

Yes

Urban

No

0
07.

6
1007.

Suburban

4
17%

19
83%

Rural

5
427.

7
587.

Total

9
227.

32
787.

Item <d>, which is shown in Table 21, shows that only
15 percent o-f the schools in Oakland County have written
guideline on handling vandalism.

This may be the reason

why many principals believe that they have control when
they in essence do not.

They are trying their own policies

or programs to deter vandalism,

when in reality these may

be very poor and unproven techniques.
principal
control.

This could cause a

to believe he is in control when he really lacks

TABLE 20
REQUIREMENT OF REPORTING VANDALISM
ITEM (c)

Location

Yes

Urban

6
1007.

0
07.

Suburban

18
787.

5
227.

Rural

10
837.

2
177.

34
837.

7
177.

•
Total

No

The entire question o-f whether principals have control
over vandalism or not seems to be negantive.

The

principals -feel that they do have control but the facts of
*100,000 worth of vandalism last year show that they really
do not have good control.

Their perceptions and the

reality do not seem to coincide.

To support this fact,

question number five on the survey instrument reflects such
a widespread diversity that it is not possible to graph.
All principals have different techniques to control
vandalism;

and, only a few seem to be working.

However,

techniques which are not working, may never be abandoned,
because the principals using them perceive the practices to

103
9

be working.
TABLE 21
WRITTEN GUIDELINES FDR PRINCIPALS
ITEM (d)

Location

Yes

No

Urban

2
33’
/.

4
677i

Suburban

3
137.

20
877.

Rural

1
87.

11
927.

Total

6
157.

35
857.

Question IX:

Vandal.ism — Past and Future

The ninth research question relates to a segment of
question number one.

This section pertains to the issue of

how principals perceive the trend of vandalism in their
schools.

That is to say, do principals perceive the trend

of vandalism decreasing or increasing?

The question for

the study was as follows:
Item (a).
vandalism:

Over the past five years has

-104

1.
2.
3.

increased
stayed the same
decreased

in you school?
Item (b).
1.
2.
3.

Do you expect the amount o-f vandalism to:

decrease
stay the same
increase

in you school during the next school year?
This discussion is an extension o-f research question
one.

The principals,

as a whole, do not perceive vandalism

decreasing over the next five years.

Returning to Table

11, we see that 80 percent of all principals in Oakland
County feel that it will increase or stay the same, while
20 percent feel that it will decrease.

The suburban school

districts seem to feel the strongest about vandalism
decreasing; 30 percent of its principals feel that
vandalism will actually decrease.

No principal

in the

rural communities foresees a decrease and only one of the
six urban principals predicts a decrease in the next five
years.
The 1983-84 school year does not appear to be any
brighter in regard to vandalism.

Seventy—nine percent of

all the principals of Oakland County feel that vandalism
will increase or stay the same, while 22 percent feel that
it will decrease.
The perception of principals dealing with vandalism is

-10S

a negative one.

They cannot see vandalism decreasing,

as a

whole; however, many of these principals feel that
vandalism is not a serious issue in their schools.
Possibly,

they feel that vandalism is more serious in other

places, but never could it affect their schools.

Question X:

Parents as SugQorts

Question ten was simply stated as follows:
Do principals perceive parents as supporting
their efforts to control vandalism?
The item for the principals’ responses is presented below:
Have the parents of your students supported your
procedures for working against vandalism?
In Table 22, we see that the principals perceive the
parents to support their programs.

Ninety— three percent of

the total principal ship of Oakland County believes this
while only 7 percent felt that the parents did not support
their policies.

The rural schools,

which also show the

least amount of vandalism, perceive that their parents
support their policies unanimously.

This may be compared

to the urban schools, which have the most vandalism per
capita, which say

(67 percent) that the parents support

them while the other 33 percent, say the opposite.
Possibly,

this supports the assumption that parents play a

very important and definite role in school vandalism

106
control.

Table 22
PARENTAL SUPPORT VERSUS ADMINISTRATION

Yes

Location

No

Urban

4
677.

2
33%

Suburban

22
967.

1
47.

12
1007.

o%

38
93%

3
7%

Rural

Total

Question XI:

O

Pol^c^es and Practices: A Link to Vandalism?

Discipline is another
controlling vandalism.

area related to the issue of

The policies of acceptable student

school behavior are normally reflected in rules and
procedures.

Question eleven was stated as follows:

Do principals link discipline policies and
practices with the level of vandalism in their
schools?
The principals of Oakland County

(76 percent)

perceive

that there is a relationship between school discipline
policies and school vandalism.

#107

THE REL AT I ONS HI P BETWEEN SCHOOL D I S C I P L I N E
P O L I C I E S AND SCHOOL VANDALISM

L o c a t i on

Yes

No

Urban

5
83X

1
17%

Suburban

16
70 %

30%

Rural

10
83%

2
17%

Total

31

10
24%

7

76V .

Even

schools with

greater

schools,

S3 p e r c e n t

suburban

schools

of

vandalism

them a g r e e ,

and 83 p e r c e n t

of

agree.
while

In

the

urban

70 p e r c e n t

the

rural

among

the

of

schools

the

are

in

agreement.
Although
do have
be

vandalism;

considerably

relationship
not

be

there

is

agreement

however,

different.

between

the

policies

The

principals

policies

and

of

three
each

groups,
group

would

may p e r c e i v e

discipline,

but

the

all

a

link

may

strong.

Question

XII

and X I I I s

Aministrator

Exposure

-

Is

it

Important?

108

In question twelve and thirteen the issue is whether a
principal’s relationship with his/her students is related
to the amount of vandalism reported by the school.

The

questions were given as follows:
Question 12.
Do principals who are not
known by all of their students experience greater
levels of vandalism in their schools?
Question 13.
Do principals who are not
available and "visible after school" experience
greater vandalism in their school?
The survey questions corresponding to these questins are
listed below:
Question IS.
As the principal of your
school, are you known by the majority of your
students?
Question 19.
As the principal are you
available during after— school activities?
Table 24 shows a total of 13/41, of 32 percent of the
principals perceive themselves as being well-known.
this sub-group of thirteen administrators,

In

the average

vandalism was $301 to one thousand dollars with no
vandalism costing fifteen hundred dollars or more reported.
A total of 84 percent of this group experienced one
thousand dollars or less in vandalism,

while 16 percent was

at the one thousand dollars to fifteen hundred dollars
range.

This figure is far below the twenty— three hundred

dollars average for vandalism in Oakland County.
In comparison to these figures a r e -the twenty-eight

109
principals, or 6S percent o-f the principals who are not
known by their students.

This sub-group shows that 71

percent o-f the vandalism in these schools costs
twenty-three hundred dollars and more.

This -figure is 49

percent o-f all the principals in Oakland County.

The

second highest figure in this sub-group is the $501 to
$1,000 category into which 28 percent of the schools fall.
As a total figure,

this second sub-group has 75 percent of

its schools with fifteen hundred dollars or higher
vandalism, while 25 percent have between zero dollars and
one thousand dollars.

Table 24
PRINCIPAL BEING KNOWN VERSUS VANDALISM

$1O O 1—
$1500

under
$500

$501$1000

6

5

2

Total sub-group

467.

3S7.

Total principal

157.

127.

1

6

Total sub-group

47.

Total principal

27.

Principal

known

Yes (13 total)

No (23 total)

Total

7
177.

$1501$2300

over
$2300

0

0

157.

07.

07.

57.

07.

07.

0

1

20

217.

07.

47.

717.

157.

07.

27.

497.

11

2

1

20

277.

57.

27.

497.

-110

These statistics seem to indicate that a "well-known"
principal will have less vandalism.

The principals who are

not seen and not well-known are experiencing more
vandalism.

Being "well-known" by all people in a community

seems to be important.

Whether it is talking to high

school students or visiting adult education classes or
parks and recreation games, it appears that some personal
contact could deter some vandalism.
Questions twelve and
thirteen are a definite "yes" when it comes to being
unknown around your own building.
Question XIV:

Student Rol.es i.n Control.l.i.ng Vandalism

The -fourteenth question in the study looked at the
issue o-f principals interacting with students as a
deterrent to vandalism.

The question was stated in the

•following terms:
Do principals challenge their students to control
vandalism?
Only one item was presented to the principals;

it is:

As the principal, do you discuss with your
students, other than those that have vandalised,
how vandalism effects their school?
Table 23 shows that S3 percent of the total population
of principals claim to discuss the problems with their
students.

Sixty— seven percent of the urban principals, 83

percent of the suburban

principals and 92 percent of the

rural principals discuss vandalism;

and, vandalism still

Ill
cost <100,000 in the past school year.
Table 25
DISCUSSIONS OF VANDALISM
VERSUS VANDALISM

Location

Yes

NO

Urban

4
677.

2
337.

Suburban

19
837.

4
177.

Rural

11
927.

1
87.

Total

34
837.

7
17%

Possibly talking is not the answer, or that administrators
are talking to the wrong people.

Perhaps,

discuss it with the outside influences
students, parks and recreation,

they should

(i.e., night school

etc.) that were mentioned

earlier.
In the survey instrument a question that relates to
this conversation is:
Have you ever held an assembly or partial
assembly with vandalism as the topic of the
assembly?
None of the principals claim they have had an assembly or
partial assembly to discuss vandalism.

This,

in essence,

is showing that the administrators are perceiving

112
themselves to be talking,' but possibly the time and place
is not correct.
Question XV:

School Vandalism:

Youth Vi Si Adults

The research question as stated:
Is vandalism by youth more frequent and more serious than
destruction by adults?
This question refers back to Tables 14 and 15 concerning
outside factors causing vandalism.

Eighty percent of the

principals stated that outside factors caused vandalism and
that the majority of outside vandalism came from adult
education, parks and recreation,
activities.

and other after— school

This question combined with question thirteen

which asks:
Please estimate how much of administrative time
is spent during an average week with student
discipline problems concerning vandalism.
shows that at least 50 percent of the vandalism is
perceived by principals to come from the adult sector.
Question thirteen had a response of 15 percent on the
average for the entire County.

Fifteen percent does not

require that much time be devoted to vandalism and its
problems; however,

the question stated "students

discipline" and not correction of vandalism.

This

indicates a high rate of adult or outside vandalism
occuring in the schools.
This concludes the presentation of the findings of the
study.

The following chapter will

include a summary of

findings, conclusions and recommendations.

CHAPTER V
Summary, Conclusion,

Recommendations

Introduction
This study examined the high school principals’
perception o-f vandalism.

A survey instrument was

distributed among high school principals of Oakland County.
This survey was in relationship to fifteen research
questions developed to guide the study.

A summary of those

findings will follow below.
Summary of Findings
In the county of Oakland, State of Michigan,
forty— one high schools.

there are

The survey contacted and received

responses from all forty—one schools.

The principals from

the forty-one schools were divided into the following three
groups:

Urban, Suburban,

and Rural.

The urban schools

consisted of six schools, or 15 percent of the total
population?

the suburban schools consisted of twenty-three

schools, or 56 percent of the total schools? while the
rural districts consisted of twelve schools or 29 percent
of the total.
A general profile was established of the principals
and their schools,
A.

wherein it was noted:

The principals ranged from age twenty—six through

113

114
sixty-two years.
B.

Y e a r s ' of experience ranged from two through

twenty-one years.
C.

The average urban high school in Oakland County

has a population of 1891 students
D.

The average cost for vandalism in urban high

schools is *3,283 for the 1981-82 school year
E.

The average cost per student in urban schools is

*1.74 for the school year 1981—82
F.

The average suburban high school in Oakland County

has a population of 1221 students
G.

The average cost for vandalism in suburban high

schools is *2,782 for the school year 1981—82
H.

The average cost per student in suburban high

schools is *2.26 for the school year 1981-82
I.

The average rural high school in Oakland County

has a population of 984 students
J.

The average cost for vandalism in rural high

schools is *925 for the school year 1981-82
K.

The average cost per student in rural high schools

is *0.94 for the school year 1981—82
L.

The average per student cost for vandalism in

Oakland County is *1.84 for the 1981-82 school year
The fallowing statements will serve as summaries of
the principals’ responses to the items of vandalism:
A.

Forty-nine percent of Oakland County principals

perceive vandalism as a serious issue

115
#

B.

Sixty-three percent of the respondents feel that

vandalism has increased over the past five years
C.

Fifty-nine percent of Oakland County principals

feel that vandalism will increase during the next school
year
0.

Seventy—six percent of Oakland County principals

believe that urban schools have the most vandalism while
only 5 percent feel that rural schools have the most
E.

Eighty percent of the principals feel that there

are factors outside of school that cause vandalism
F.

Factors outside of schools causing vandalism

varied from urban to suburban to rural school districts
6.

The definition of vandalism varied among the

principals
H.

The top five types of vandalism varied between the

three different groups of school districts
1.
have the
J.

Eighty-five percent of the principals feel they
authority to control vandalism
Eighty-three percent of the principals stated

they were required to
K.

report

that

all vandalism

Only 15 percent of the respondents have written

guidelines on controlling or deterring vandalism
L.

Ninety-three percent of the administrators feel

they have parental support in controlling vandalism
M.

Seventy—six percent of the respondents feel that

there is a relationship between school discipline policies
and school vandalism

116
N.

Fifty—one percent of the principals indicated that

the cost of vandalism fe^i between three hundred dollars
and twenty— three hundred dollars for the past school year
0.

Only 32 percent of the principals in Oakland

County feel they are known by the majority of their
students
P.

Eighty-three percent of the.principals have had

discussions with their students regarding vandalism

Conclusion
Oakland'County school districts are continually faced
with the problem of vandalism, which takes funds from other
needed programs.

Vandalism is an everyday occurrence which

is beginning to concern more people.

The present study

sought to open a viewpoint on the problem of vandalism and
how secondary principals perceive it.
A.

Vandalism is widespread and occurs in urban,

suburban and rural school districts without regard to the
age of the complex or to whom is administering the
building.

The cost of vandalism averages twenty—three

hundred dollars per school.
B.

Most agree that vandalism is more serious in the

urban schools.

Although 83 percent of the urban schools

have been vandalised at twenty-three hundred dollars or
more, the suburban schools have 57 percent of its schools
on the same plateau and the rural schools have 25 percent

117
•

of its schools on the same level.
Perception towards the urban schools has another side.
Table 2 (pg. 80) shows that the suburban schools have the
most per—student cost of $2.26.

The urban school has $1.74

per— student vandalism cost which equates to $0.52 less
per—student.
C.

There is reason to believe that the urban schools

have the

most violent forms of vandalism.

Although it does

not have

the highest per— student vandalism cost,

it does

classify as the most dangerous vandalism of the three
groups.

Table 16 (pg.

100) shows that the urban vandalism

comes in th forms of thefts from each other, fires
building or to the areas around them)
destruction of vending machines.

(to the

and the malicious

The other two catagories

.rank more passive forms of vandalism such as writing on
furniture, books or the damaging of lawns.
D.

The size of schools plays a very important role

vandalism.
individuals,

The urban schools,

which house the most

are frequent receivers of vandalism.

occurs while suburban schools,

This

in the middle in regard to

population, have less than the urban but more than the
. f r u ■'

' •”

■ ■'

rural ? rural house the Least^iamottrrt— of people.
E.

Administrators of high schools are pessimistic

about the future in regard to vandalism.

Their forecast

for next year is that 79 percent of these administrators
predict the same or more vandalism.
F.

Administrators are frustrated by the problem of

in

118
vandalism.
vandalism

Administrators -feel they have control o-f
(85%) and they have parental support

<937i>, but

there are many outside factors which cause vandalism.

The

administrator has control of the student in his building
during school hours but he does not have control of other
individuals who use or enter the buildings and grounds.
G.

There is no universal definition of vandalism.

This is shown by the difference in answers and perceptions
throughout the study.
H.

Principals who are not well-known have more

problems concerning vandalism than those who are
well-known.

As shown in Table 24, twenty—eight principals

claim not to be well-known;
twenty-eight principals,

and from this list of

twenty of them had vandalism in

excess of twenty— three hundred dollars in their school
during the past year.

Only one principal from this group

had five hundred dollars or less in vandalism costs.
There are thirteen principals who feel they are
well-known;

and, from this list no principal had vandalism

over fifteen hundred dollars.

Forty-six percent of this

group had vandalism under five hundred dollars and 85
percent had one thousand dollars or less damage from
vandali sm.
I.

With the absence of written guidelines,

many

principals may not be certain of what is expected of them
controlling vandalism.

This is especially true when many

principals reported factors outside of their schools

119
*

influenced the levels of vandalism inside.
Many of the principals believed that they had support
from their administrators and parents to control vandalism.
Yet, they seem ,to be guided more by unwritten policies.

Recommendations
Ten recommendations have been developed as a result of
the current study.
1.

The recommendations are listed below:

An effort should be undertaken, by either an

educational group or the state, to develop a consensus
among educators on which acts of behavior constitute
vandalism.
2.

There should be a study to develop and define what

"outside” factors cause vandalism and its effect on the
overall administrative role in controlling vandalism.
3.

A complete seminar/course program should be

developed by local universities or agencies to address the
current vandalistic situation and create relevancy for the
administrator.

This curriculum should be a "hands on"

program that administrators can practice in their
buildings.

This possibly means gearing each seminar/course

to particular schools or types of school districts.
4.

A program of observation should be developed

between school districts to give administrators the
opportunity to see other preventive measures that may work
for them.

This program should be interchanged between

120
rural— suburban and urban school districts.
5.

Administrators should be motivated in a positive

■fashion by school board members and central o-f-fice
personnel.

Either an incentive program or a program of

positive reinforcement should be used.
6.

A second principal should be hired to control

night functions or extra—curricular activities.

One

principal cannot stay within a building every day and night
to prevent vandalism.
7.
active.

Principals must become more visible and verbally
This includes visiting night classes,

extra—curricular activities,

attending

and hourly hall patrol or

school patrol during the day hours.
8.

Central office and school boards should give

written guidelines for the control,

prevention and

reporting of vandalism.
9.

Principals as well as central office personnel

should review the school's discipline policies and observe
how they relate to vandalism.
10. Principals should discuss more seriously with
students the affects of vandalism upon their school.
should be done in an assembly,
as hallways,

impersonal

This

surroundings such

or on a one—to—one basis when necessary.

APPENDIX A

E£Sli.!DlC3£¥ Study arid Analysis
Before a valid study could be pursued on vandalism, a
preliminary study was performed.

This preliminary study on

vandalism was necessary to test the instrument for validity
and structuring of questions.
place in Macomb County,

The preliminary study took

which is adjacent to Oakland

County, where the major study took place.

The preliminary

study consists of two separate phases.
The first phase used ten high schools and their
principals.

These principals were personally interviewed,

with their reactions and responses recorded.

This part of

the preliminary study resulted in the rewriting of eleven
questions on the original

questionnaire.

The preliminary study led to the strenghening of
several questions,

as follows:

Question two originally read:
Please list the five types of vandalism which
occur most frequently in your building.
Rank by
order of frequency— greatest first.
This question proved to be too ambiguous and was not
direct enough.
the question.

The people who were interviewed challenged
This cannot be done using a mailed

questionnaire.

Having heard their answers after the

proctoring, the idea of listing many choices for their
convenience,

with the use of "other" as a last choice.

121

seemed to be a preferable system.

The question on the

final survey reads:
Please list the five types of vandalism which
occur most frequently in your building.
Rank
by order of frequently— greatest first.
1 . wal 1 s
2. alarms
3. 1ockers
4. doors
5. thefts
6. books
7. gl ass
8 . stair rails

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

graffiti
furni ture
1i ghts
speakers
spray paints
break-i ns
equi pment
desks

17.
18.
19.
.20.
21.
22.

1 awns
ce i 1ing
rest rooms
litter
f ires
<oth er >
--------

The question now becomes one that has a choice for a
respondent to choose from.
Number five created a great deal of conversation
between the respondent and the proctor.

Also, the answers

were so varied that it caused a question of legality versus
ethics.

What can a principal do to control vandalism?

This is not the question; however,

it became the answer the

majority of the respondents gave.

The minority of answers

were dealing themselves with,
of controlling vandalism?"
parking lots?

"What are the legal aspects

For example, can police patrol

What is the due process of students?

What

about students who vandalize on weekends— are they students
or citizens?
of proctoring,
questionnaire.

All of this conversation created a great deal
something that cannot be done on the final
In order to assist the respondents,

list was created.

Question number five now reads:

In your opinion, what measures should be
taken by a principal to control vandalism?
Please rank, in order, the top five answers.

a guide

123

A.
Offer rewards for the conviction of
vandals
B.
Hire security guards for patrol during
school hours
C.
Hire security guards for patrol after
school hours
D.
Have more teachers/administrators
patrolling the hallways during the school day
E.
Have student clean—up crews during the
day to minimize vandalism
F.
When caught vandalizing, the vandals
must pay for the entire clean-up project
G.
When caught vandalizing, they must clean
entire problem themselves
H.
Develop better relationship between
students and staff
I.
Student monitors in hallways and rest
areas
J.
Night custodians pinpoint what adult
education classes or organizations have
vandali zed

K.
Better and more light inside and outside
of buildings
L.

Other

This allows all respondents a choice of answers.
The next question revised is number six on the
original

questionnaire:

Does your district’s central office expect you to report
all acts of vandalism in your building?
This question was challenged by all of the respondents in
the preliminary study.

They felt limited in their answers

to the inside of their building.

During the proctoring of

124

the
as

question, other
being part

places
and

places

of . the

included:

reporting

parking

athletics fields.
Does y o u r
acts

of

responsible
This

allows

answers;

The

question

in

jurisdiction

noted

on v a n d a l i s m . T h e s e
exterior

is

of

the

now r e v i s e d

office

a n d on

were

expect

school

to s t a t e :

you

grounds

building

to

reportall

that

you

are

for?

for

and,

lawns,

central

to,

their

process

lots,

d istrict's

vanalism

within

respondents

forces

them

to

to

have more

be more

freedom

honest

in

their

and not

hide

the

fac t s .
The n e x t

observation

answered w ithout
In your

During
the

the

to

the

question
number

In your

opinion,

their

responding

question

son
of
to

vandalism,

but

read

of

was

not

was

rewritten

so

that

from

be

it

could

not

question
taken

became

five.

be

stated:

by a

apparent

that

The

solution

was

the

respondents.

to

read;

a principal
been

expect

disciplined

of

parents,

for

an

rule?
it

was n o t

respondents

question
purpose

it

should

confusing

has

question,

the

The

number

daughter

The

the

to

should

a school
this

nine

five.

question,

originally

what

was a s k i n g .

course,

this

keep

ten

or

number

number

vandalism?

of

to

that

measures

was r e d u n d a n t

infraction
In

control

Question

when

what

discussion

question

discard

discussing

opinion,

principal

was

knew

t o me a n

of

addressed

the

clear

all

the

what

survey

the
dealt

discipline.

question.

The

with

This,

question

125

the problem of vandalism.

The question now is stated:

In your opinion, what should a principal expect o-f
parents when their son or daughter has been disciplined
for an infraction of a school rule concerning vandalism?
Question number thirteen, on the original survey,
caused some serious problems with regard to the statistics
that would be presented.

The question was stated:

Please estimate how much of your time is spent during an
average week with student discipline problems.
In answer to this question,
than 10 percent.

principals were stating less

However, this is not representing the

entire administrative staff.

Many principals are away from

the building a great deal of the time and they are not
aware of all the vandalism— just the major problems.

This

resulted in the statistics of this question being biased.
When the question was restated,

the results of the

question soared in the opposite direction.

The question is

now stated:
Please estimate how much of administrative time is spent
during an average week with student discipline problems
concerning vandalism.
With this as the question, the administrators averaged 25
percent of administrative time was spent on vandalism
problems— no matter how minor.

The changing of this

question is vital to having a successful

instrument.

The next change occurs in question seventeen,
originally stated:
Are there factors outside of your school which
contribute to vandalism inside your school?

126

This question, as others, was too open-ended and became
extremely difficult to answer.
the respondents,

During the discussions with

a list was created that could aid the

respondents in their answers.

The question, rephrased,

creates a choice from which a respondent can choose.

The

new question is stated:
Have you ever held an assembly with vandalism as
the topic of the assembly?
This question states that a complete assembly would help to
prevent vandalism.

The notion that there should be

assemblies that deal completely with vandalism has merit;
but realistically does not appear feasible.

The question

was reconstructed to include more of an option to the
respondent.

The question now reads:

Have your ever held an assembly or partial
assembly with vandalism as the topic of the
assembly?
This leaves room for assemblies that have vandalism
discussed in partial

form.

The results of the question

changed from "absolutely not," in the original

question,

"a great deal" in the reconstructed question.
The last question that needed change was number
twenty-four.

As this question was read, people became

flustered and could not answer.

The reason being,

the

respondent had no direction and they felt intimidated by
the question.

The original

question asked:

to

127

If you had a rash o-f acts o-f vandalism in a
given month, how would your superintendent react?
Your school board?
During this discussion,
developed.

a list o-f consequences were

This list gives the respondent a chance to

review what might be said or done plus gives him an option
to write in his own thought.

The newly written question

is:
If you had a rash of acts of vandalism in a
given month, how would your superintendent react?
1.
x. •

3.
4.
3.
Your school board?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A.

Verbal reprimand

B.

Work closely with you to solve problems

C.

Written reprimand

D.

Direct more funds for clean-up

E.

Direct more funds for security

F.
Discuss the problem wi th students,
and administration
G.

Ask the local media for support

H.

Remove you from your position

staff

I.
Look toward universities for seminars and
information materials
J.

Ask local law enforcement people for

128
assistance
K.

Decrease

your m e rit

pay

L. -------- •-----------(other)

after

The

second

the

new q u e s t i o n s

different
test

the

high
new

aspect

schools

were

had

any q u e s t i o n s

in

All

felt

valid

to

Again,

be

the

the

were

developed.

without
good.

regard

Not
to

are

preliminary

study,

vandalistic

problems

pointed

a stro n g weakness

could

out

have

resulted

in

in

do

one

the

not

This

an

took

place

included

The

of

purpose

invalid

five

instrument
in

the

a need

education.
in

the

the major

indicate

public

study

five
was

to

any p r o c t o r i n g .

and s t r o n g

results
but

preliminary

i n Ma c o mb C o u n t y .

instrument

The r e s u l t s

it

o-f

the

sense

its
of

structure.

expression.

emphases of
for
The

original

study.

or

respondents

this

correction

of

preliminary
instrument

study

which

APPENDIX

Joseph C. Goslin
2255 Highbury
Troy, Michigan 48098

Dear Principal:
School vandalism is an issue which has drawn considerable
public attention during recent years.
In an effort to
expand the field of educational administration's under­
standing of the problem, I am soliciting your assistance
to complete the questionnaire enclosed.
I recognize that this is a hectic time for your office.
Nevertheless, I would appreciate your taking a few minutes
to complete the form, which includes only thirty-five items.
Your responses will be kept in complete confidence.
Please return the completed questionnaire in the stamped
envelope enclosed with the form.
Gratefully,

Joseph C . Goslin

129

130
Questionnaire on Vandalism
Background Information

Location of school?
(To determine place of school)
2.

Age of principal ? ___________ years

3.

Total years of experience as a secondary school
principal? ___________ years

4.

Number of years as principal at present location?
___________ years

5.

Number of students in your building in grades 10 to 12
or 9 to 12? __________ students

6.

Approximate cost of vandalism in your school, for the
year 1981-82 school year? $__________ (estimate)

7.

Age of facility? __________

8.

Number of custodians? __________ custodians

9.

Have you ever attended a seminar on vandalism?
Yes

10.

(circle answer)

Does your district have a security officer or director
of security?
Yes

11.

No

years

No

(circle answer)

Does your budget have a special line item for the
repair and replacement of property damaged by vandalism?
Yes

No

(circle answer)

Please complete the following questions;
1.

Please give your definition of vandalism of school
property.

131
2.

Please list the five types of vandalism which occur
most frequently in your building.
Rank by order of
frequency— greatest first.
1.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
P.
G.
H.

3.

2.
Walls
Alarms
Lockers
Doors
Thefts
Books
Glass
Stair rails

Graffiti
Furniture
Lights
Speakers
Spray paints
Break-ins
Equipment
Desks

5.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
V.

Lawns
Ceiling tiles
Rest rooms
Litter
Fires
(other)

No (circle answer)

Is vandalism a serious problem in your building?
Yes

5.

I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
0.
P.

4.

Does your district provide you with either a policy or
written guidelines on how to prevent or control vanda­
lism in your school?
Yes

4.

3.

No (circle answer)

In your opinion, what measures should be taken by a
principal to control vandalism? Please rank in order,
the top five.
1. _____
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
P.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.

2.

3.

4.

5.

_____

Offer rewards for the conviction of vandals
Hire security guards for patrol during school
hours
Hire security guards for patrol after school hours
Have more teachers/administrators patrolling the
hallways during the school day
Have student clean-up crews during the day to
minimize vandalism
When caught vandalizing, the vandals must pay for
the entire clean-up project
When caught vandalizing, the vandals must clean
entire problem themselves
Develop better relationships between students and
staff
Student monitors in hallways and rest areas
Night custodians pinpoint what adult education
class or organisations have vandalized
Better and more light inside and outside of
buildings

L.
(other)

132
6.

Does your district's central office expect you to
report all acts of vandalism to, in and on school
grounds that you are responsible for?
Yes

7.

No

Has your office ever been vandalized?
Yes

8.

No

10.

(.circle answer)

In your opinion, is there a relationship between a
school's discipline policies and the level of vandalism
experienced in a school?
Yes

9.

(circle answer)

No

(circle answer)

In your opinion, what should a principal expect of
parents when their son/daughter has been disciplined
for an infraction of a school rule concerning vandalism?

In your opinion, do high school students of today
display:
greater
the same
less
self-discipline them students of ten years ago?

11.

During your academic preparation in administration, did
any of your courses cover student discipline practices
or vandalism prevention?
Yes

No

(circle answer)

If yes, please describe:

133
12.

Please estimate how much of administrative time is
spent during an average week with student discipline
problems concerning vandalism.

13.

Do you expect the amount of vandalism to:
decrease
stay the same
increase
in your school during the next school year?

14.

In your position, do you believe that you have enough
authority and support to control vandalism in your
school?
Yes

15.

No

Have the parents of your students supported your
procedures for working against vandalism?
Yes

16.

No

(circle answer)

Are there factors outside of your school which con­
tribute to vandalism of the school?
(List if yes.)
1. _____
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.

17.

(circle answer)

2.

3.

4.

5._____

Declining neighborhood
Adult education (night)
Parks and recreation using your facilities
Industrial areas which are not populated at night
Cutbacks by police patrol by city
Cutbacks in millage— schools more vacant
_____ _______________
(other)

Over the past five years has vandalism:
increased
stayed the same
decreased
in your school?

134
18.

As the principal of your school, are you known by the
majority of your students?
Yes

19.

No

As the principal, are you available during "after
school" activities?
Yes

20.

No

No

(circle answer)

Have you ever held an assembly or partial assembly
with vandalism as the topic of the assembly?
Yes

22.

(circle answer)

As the principal, do you discuss with your students,
other than those that have vandalized, how vandalism
affects their school?
Yes

21.

(circle answer)

No

(circle answer)

In your opinion, is vandalism more of a problem in an:
urban
suburban
_____ rural
school district?

23.

If you had a rash of acts of vandalism in a given month,
how would your superintendent react?
(List five things)
1. _____

2.

3.

4.

5._________

3.

4.

5.___ _____

Your school board?
1. _____
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.

2.

Verbal reprimand
Work closely with you to solve problem
Written reprimand
Direct more funds for clean-up
Direct more funds for more security
Discuss the problem with students, staff and
administration
Ask the local media for support
Remove you from your position
Look toward university for seminars and informational
material
Ask local law enforcement people for assistance
Decrease your merit pay
_________
(other)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, V. L . , and Greenberger, D. B.
"Aesthetic Factors in
School Vandalism" In School Crime and Disruption.
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education,
1978, pp. 35-46.
Arnold, A. Antonio Jr.
"Vandalism in an Inner City School
Administrative Complex.
Its Relationship to
Educational Consumers' Perceptions of their Schools."
Unpublished dissertation, 1976.
Bayh, Birch.
"School Violence and Vandalism:
Problems and
Solutions." Journal of Research and Development in
Education, Vol. 11, 1978, pp. 3-7.
Bellinger, S.
"What will Stop Vandalism?"
School and Home
St. Louis Public Schools, 17:5, 1980, p. 3.
Cistone, Peter J.
"Educational Policy Making."
Forum, Vol. 42, 1979, pp. 80-100.

Educational

Clarke, S. C. T . , AND Hanka, Steve.
"Comparative Views on
School Discipline."
The Alberta Journal of Education
Research, Vol. 23, 1977, pp. 305-316.
Cohen, Stanley.
"Can It Be Controlled."
December 12, 1968, p. 878.

The New Society,

________ . "Campaigning Against Vandalism." Colin Ward (Ed.)
Vandalism. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1973,
pp. 215-257.
________ . "Property Destruction:
Motives and Meanings."
Colin Ward (Ed.), Vandalism. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1973, pp. 23-63.
________ . "The Nature of Vandalism."
December 12, 1968, p. 876.

The New Society,

Conant, James.
The American High School Today.
McGraw Hill, 1959.

New York:

Coursen, David.
"Vandalism Prevention." ACSA School
Management Digest, Series No. 2 ERIC:ED137894.
135

136
DeCecco, John P., and Richards, A, K. Growing Pains: Uses
of School Conflict. New York: Aberdeen Press, 1974.
Deitz, Marcia.
"Final Report: Ad Hoc Committee to Study
School Vandalism." New Jersey School Boards
Association, May, 1976.
Deiullo, Anthony M.- "Of Adolescent Cultures and Subcultures."
Educational Leadership, Vol. 35, April, 1978,
pp. 517-520.
Duke, Daniel L.
"How the Adults in Your Schools Cause
Student Discipline Problems— and What to do About
it." The American School Board Journal, vol. 165,
1978, p. 29.
Erickson, Maynard L .; Gibbs, Jack P .; and Jenson, G . F .
"The Deterrence Doctrine and the Perceived Certainty
of Legal Punishments." American Sociological
Review, vol. 42, 1979.
Garrett, J. R . ; Bass, S. A.; and Casserty, M. O.
"Studying
School Crime.
A Prescription to Research-Based
Prevention."
In School Crime and Disruption.
Goffman, Irving.
Encounters:
Two Studies in the Sociology
of Interaction.
Indianapolis:
Bobbs-Merrill Co.,
1961.
Goldman, Nathan. A Socio-Psychological Study of School
Vandalism. Syracuse:
Syracuse University Research
Institute, 1959.
Good, Carter V., ed. Dictionary of Education, 3rd edition.
New York: McGraw Hill, 1973.
Guba, Egon G.
"Experiments, Studies, Surveys, and
Investigations."
In Educational Research:
New
Perspectives, pp. 237-248. Jack Culbertson and
Stephen P. Hencley. Danville: The Interstate
Printers and Pub., Inc., 1963.
Hardin, G.
"Meaningless of the Word Protoplasm".
Frank
Johnson (Ed). Alienation: Concept, Term and
Meanings. New York:
Seminar Press, 1973, pp. 112-120.
Harris, Marlene E.
"The Relationship Between Student
Attitudes and Vandalism in Urban Seconary Schools."
Unpublished dissertation, 1979.

Ianni, F. A. S.
"The Social Organizationof the High-School
Specific Aspects of School Crime."
In School Crime
and Disruption. Washington, D.C.: National Insti­
tute of Education, 1978, pp. 11-23.
Irwin, Frank G.
"A Study of Features for Lessening
Vandalism for Consideration in the Planning of
Educational.Facilities." Unpublished dissertation,
1975.
Johnson, Frank, ed.
"Alienation:
Overview and Introduction."
In Alienation:
Concept, Term and Meanings. New
York:
Seminar Press, 1973.
Jones, Ernest.
"A Status Report:
Crime and Disruptive
Behavior."
St. Louis Public Schools, February, 1978.
Madison, Arnold. Vandalism:
The Not-So-Senseless Crime.
New York: The Seabury Press, 1970.
Marrota, Joseph A.; McGrath, John H.; and Williams,
J. Sherwood.
"Schools: Antiquated System of Social
Control," 1978, ERIC:ED157191.
Martin, John M.
"Toward a Political Definition of
Delinquency Prevention."
In PHEW, The Challenge of
Youth Service Bureaus, 1970.
Mays, J. B. Growing up in the City. Liverpool:
University
Press, 1954. As quoted by Stanley Cohen, "Property
Destruction; Motives and Meanings."
In Colin Ward
(Ed.) Vandalism.
New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold,
1973, p. 24.
Miessner, William W. The Assault on Authority: Dialogue
or Dilemma? Mary Knoll: Orbis Books, 1971.
Moore, Royce P.
"The Status of Vandalism in Selected Arizona
Public Schools." Unpublished dissertation, 1980.
Murrillo, Robert B.
"Vandalism and School Attitudes."
Unpublished dissertation, 1977.
McCrasky, Cherie L,
"School Vandalism in the United States."
Unpublished dissertation, 1979.
Neill, Shirley Boes.
"Causes of School Violence and Vanda­
lism." The Education Digest, April, 1976, pp. 6-9.
Newman, Joan, and Newman, G.
"Crime and Punishment in the
Schooling Process:
A Historical Analysis.
ERIC:
ED157192.

138
Nowakowski, Rodney E.
"Vandals and Vandalism in the
Schools: An Analysis of VAndalism in Large School
Systems and a Description of Ninety-three Vandals
in Dade County Schools." Unpublished dissertation,
1966.
Panko, Walter L. Taxonomy of School Vandalism. Ann Arbor:
University Microfilms International/ 1978.
Rose, Floyd S. Jr.
"The Effect of'Violence and Vandalism
on the Completion of the Educational Process.”
Unpublished dissertation, 1978.
Rubel, Robert J. The Unruly School— Disorders/ Disruptions/
and Crime. Lexington: Lexington Books, 1979.
"Socia.l Organization of the High School Study." Horace
Mann, Lincoln Institute for School Experimentation,
1975.
ERIC.-ED129711.
Shackelford, Doyle.
"Vandalism."
1978, pp. 1-3.

NCPT Hotline, summer,

Stalford, Charles B.
"Historical Perspectives and Disruption
and Violence in Schools." April, 1977, ERIC:
ED139124.
Talmage, Harriet and Ornstein, A. C.
"School Superintendents1
Attitudes Toward Community Participation:
Advisement
versus Control." The Journal of Educational
Administration, vol. 14, 1976, pp. 162-173.
Taylor, Laurie.
"The Meaning of the Environment."
In Colin
Ward (Ed.) Vandalism. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1973, pp. 54-63.
Thaw, Richard F.
"An Acts— Against Property Model: A Case
Study. An Extension of the Traditional Vandalism
Model." Unpublished dissertation, May, 1979.
Thompson, George H.
"Discipline and the High School Teacher."
The Clearing H ouse, 49:9, 1976, pp. 408-412.
Van Patten, James J.
"Violence and Vandalism in Schools."
Education Forum, 12:1, 1979, pp. 57-65.
Weiss, J. Norbert.
"Vandalism:
An Environmental Concern."
National Association of Secondary School Principals,
58:379, 1974.
Williams, John W.
"Discipline in the Public Schools: A Pro­
blem of Perception."
Phi Delta Kappan, 60:5, 1979,
pp. 385-387.

139
Zimbardo, Philip G.
"A Socio-psychological Analysis of
Vandalism: Making Sense of Senseless Violence."
Springfield: National Technical Information Service,
z-05, December, 1970.
Zimring, Franklin E. Perspectives on Deterrence. Washington,
D.C.: National Institute of Mental Health, January,
1971.