Violence in Schools – A Comparison 1

Running Head: VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS – A COMPARISON

Violence in Schools: A Comparison between Older Secondary Schools, Newer Secondary

Schools and Wards (Government Industrial Schools) in Barbados.

PSYC3011: Research Paper in Psychology

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Degree of Bachelors of Arts

(Psychology)

At

The University of the West Indies

Martin Hall

May, 2005

Faculty of Humanities

Cave Hill Campus

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 2

Abstract

This paper compares violence levels amongst adolescents in older and newer secondary schools

and in the Government Industrial Schools (GIS) in Barbados. Through the use of an amended

version of the National School Crime and Safety Survey, data was collected and submitted to the

Statistical Package of the Social Sciences (SPSS) to be analysed. The results showed high levels

of violence in all areas of measure. The results also showed that violence levels in the wards-GIS

were higher than the level of violence in students from older secondary schools. Differences in

violence were compared amongst gender and living arrangements. Significant differences were

also seen within categorical schools. Moreover, recommendations to assist in the problem of

violence were given.

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 3

The rising level of violence in schools in Barbados is an ongoing problem mirroring the

rising level of violence in society as a whole. Although some researchers and groups believe that

there is an exaggeration of violence in schools (Mills, 2001), others believe that any level of

violence, even the lowest amount, is too high and the writer of this paper agrees. On the 12th May

2006 in the Nation Newspaper, psychiatrist Dr. Ermine Belle reported that teachers are not

equipped to handle the high levels of uncontrollable violence. Stating clearly that violence in

schools is not an exaggerated idea but a simple fact. Additionally, a principal at one of the

secondary schools in Barbados warned that levels of violence amongst the girls and the number

of fights that they were being involved in was becoming increasingly high (Best, 2005). Also,

Kim Ramsay, Director of the National Task Force on Crime Prevention said that 40% of the

persons incarcerated in Barbados for homicide were under the age of thirty. She also stated that

more youth were committing acts of violence than ever before, particularly young women (The

Nation Newspaper, 20 September, 2006). Furthermore, The White Paper on Education (1995)

cites a high rate of suspensions and expulsions from secondary schools due to fighting,

vandalism and assaulting or threatening teachers and principals. These reports on the subject

clearly show the conundrum that we are faced with as it relates to youth violence.

As a result, it is necessary through questionnaires, observations, interviews and any other

means possible to identify the causes of violence and areas where it is most likely to occur and to

develop possible interventions that could help to reduce it. Many psychologists, sociologists, and

researchers in general have done extensive work in the area of school violence. However,

extensive research on the topic has not been conducted in the Caribbean, Barbados in particular,

compared to research in other parts of the world.

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 4

It is very important that a definition of adolescent is reached. There is no one definition

of adolescence. Although many proffer a definition relating to age range, it is much more than

just chronological age. It includes the physical, social and cognitive development of the child as

well as age. Some may even go further and propose that it is the development from puberty until

an individual achieves economic independence. What is most important is that the particular

needs of the child, if not explicitly mentioned, at least, are implicitly implied. A definition of age

11 to 18 will suffice as a reasonable definition for adolescence for this paper.

In this paper, the term adolescence will be used synonymously with youth, and violence

and aggression are to be taken to mean the same thing. The Panel on the Understanding and

Causes of Violent Behaviour defined violence as “behaviours by individuals that intentionally

threaten, attempt or inflict physical harm on others” (Reiss & Roth, 1993). There are many

definitions of aggression; this is due to the multiplicity of approaches to the study of aggression

(Zillmann, 1979). According to Geen (2000), “aggression is the delivery of an aversive stimulus

from one person to another, with intent to harm and with an expectation of causing such harm,

when the other person is motivated to escape or avoid the stimulus.” Geen (2000) calls this a

working definition due to the simplicity of the definition. It is admitted that this definition does

not cover all aspects of aggression, for example, reciprocal relationships, and therefore it may be

attacked on several points; but, it goes further than the simplest of definitions and includes

variables that are used in this paper, and thus is appropriate. These definitions are extremely

similar, and when adopted include not just physical harm but any behavior actuated to cause

harm and therefore spreading vicious gossip about someone in hopes of ruining that person’s

reputation would be considered aggression (Geen, 2000). Another effective way of aggressing

against someone could be damaging or destroying their property or even the display of controlled
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 5

gestures like a social snub can be a powerful source of harm, one that is intended by the person

delivering it (Geen, 2000).

It is very important that the causes of aggression be explored. Various theories were

formulated and reasons postulated to explain aggression. These theories include instinct theories,

biological theories, environmental theories, the Cognitive Neo-Association Theory, the Social

Learning Theory and the Script Theory. Additionally, other factors that influence aggression

especially in young persons will be explored, for example, the family, the neighbourhood, the

school and peer context, and the adolescence – adulthood transition.

There are two types of aggression, these are hostile aggression and instrumental

aggression. When someone uses hostile aggression their primary purpose is to harm or injure.

This type of aggression is provoked by pain and anger and other upsetting emotions (Toch,

1992). Instrumental aggression, on the other hand, is not necessarily evoked by anger; it is

deployed mainly for gain (Toch, 1992).

Instinct theorists believe that aggression is inherited and not learnt; it is some form of

innate human drive (Gillespie, 1971). Freud explained aggression in terms of a death wish or

instinct (thanatos) that is turned outward towards others, through a process called displacement.

Aggressive impulses that are not channelled towards a particular person or group are expressed

indirectly through safe and acceptable activities like sports, a process referred to in the

Psychoanalytic theory as catharsis (Toch, 1992; Dugan, 2004; Smith, 1999). Lorenz (1966)

looked at instinctual aggressiveness as a product of evolution. He combined Freud’s theory of

aggression and Charles Darwin theory of natural selection. In his interpretation, aggression is

beneficial for survival. Stronger animals will eliminate weaker ones and the result will be a
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 6

stronger and healthier population. Today, these theories are discredited in favour of other

explanations but are still referred to for a complete understanding of the topic.

Like instinct theories, biological theories believe that aggression stems from inside an

individual. It is different to instinct theories because they attempt to describe the mechanism that

causes it. Cairns (1972) proposed a theory using mice to support the notion that one’s gene

affects aggression; this was also done by Maxon (1998). This was then applied to humans as a

genetic explanation for aggression and as a result aggressive people that procreate using this

theory would most likely have aggressive offspring (Brain & Benton, 1980). To support the

theory, that there is some biological basis to aggression, there is evidence that men with two Y

chromosomes commit more violent crimes (Goldstein, 2003). In addition, it is widely believed

that male sex hormones cause aggression and that men are more aggressive than women.

Adopting this view could cause some controversy. This is because men learn from society to be

aggressive, so the issue is whether or not there are gender differences in aggression in young

children. Archer (1993) suggests that both genders would behave in very similar ways if they

were to be treated identically. Eagly (1987) stated that even though previous research focused on

violence differences in children the tendency was that males were more aggressive than females,

more so in childhood than in adulthood, but that this disparity occurred in both psychological and

ethnographic research, showing that there maybe some difference.

Environmental theories purport that stress, frustration, and other factors in the

environment cause aggression. One such theory, the Frustration-Aggression Theory, states that

there is a cause and effect relationship between frustration and aggression (Landis, 1939). In

other words, aggression is always due to frustration and frustration is always due to aggression.

When we are blocked from achieving our goal this leads to frustration and ultimately aggression
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 7

((Morlan, 1949). This theory was proposed by a group of researchers led by John Dollard and

involved early studies using inmates. The results showed that the higher the frustration, the more

likely the person was to behave aggressively (Smith, 2004). Berkowitz revising the Frustration-

Aggression Theory stated that frustration led to anger, and anger can sometimes lead to

aggressive behaviour (Geen & Berkowitz 1967; Smith, 2004; Beck, 2005). Geen & Berkowitz

(1967) also stated that frustration is a weak instigator of aggression and that there are other

environmental cues that elicit more aggressive behaviour for example, heat, noise and crowding.

This theory explains another environmental theory - the Theory of Aggressive Cues, which states

that presence of items or persons that are associated with aggression, influences frustrated

persons and leads them to aggression. The Weapon Effects Study supports this theory. “The

results suggest that weapons can increase the instigation to aggression in aroused and uninhibited

individuals.” (Turner, Simons, Berkowitz & Frodi, 1977).

Berkowitz expanded on the Aggressive Cues theory and refers to it as the Cognitive

Neoassociation Theory. He extended his view after he observed that aggression can result even

when actions are not directed directly towards individuals (as cited in Potter, 1999, p. 20). For

example the environment may be uncomfortably hot and may make a person irritable and

aggressive but it does not mean that the heat was created for them individually. “The effects

process begins with an aversive event that stimulates a chain reaction leading to anger which is

an emotion which people feel when they become inclined to assault someone verbally or

physically” (Potter, 1999). This evokes two compulsive reactions – fight, which is associated

with aggression related thoughts and memories and flight, which is associated with escape

related responses (Krahé, 2001). After this, further cognitive processing takes place which

involves the evaluation of the stimulus situation, possible outcomes, related experiences, and
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 8

socially accepted expressions of emotions (Krahé, 2001). The final emotional state is the by

product of cognitive processes.

In contrast to instinct theories, the social learning theory of aggression focuses on learnt

behaviour. It is one of the most radical and well documented theories that explain aggression.

This approach focuses on the role that social influences such as models and reinforcement play

on the acquisition of aggression. Children learn aggression by observing it in their parents and

peers, and cultural form such as movies, television and colouring books. The Bobo Doll studies

show extensively how this aggressive behaviour is adapted. The results suggest that there is a

strong correlation between media violence and aggression (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961).

“Viewing violence can elicit aggressive behaviour by increasing the viewer’s arousal,

desensitising viewers to violence, reducing restraints on aggressive behaviour, and distorting

views about conflict resolution” (Collins, & Getz, 1976). Children tend to pay more attention to

models that are attractive to them. To adapt behaviour, they go through the process of attention,

retention, motivation and motor reproduction (Berk, 2006). Motivation can come from vicarious

experiences and other forms of reinforcement such as rewards.

Script theory is another theory which seeks to explain aggression. Scripts are a set of

well-rehearsed highly associated concepts in memory, often involving casual links, goals, and

action plans (Abelson, 1981). When items are strongly linked they form a script, which becomes

a unitary concept in semantic memory.

The learning of an aggressive script can be divided in three distinct phases, as can

most learning processes. One is the acquisition and encoding phase, in which the script or

rule for guiding behaviour is first acquired and represented internally. The second is the

maintenance phase, in which the internal representation is strengthened and elaborated.

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 9

The third is the retrieval and emission phase, in which the internal representation

manifests itself in actual behaviour (Huesmann & Malamuth, 1986, p. 3).

The acquisition of aggressive scripts is similar to modelling behaviour in the social learning

theory of aggression. Therefore, media violence plays a similar role in this theory. Additionally,

the family and peers also help to form these scripts/schemas.

As was suggested, the family and home setting sets the atmosphere in a child’s life. Early

exposure to violence in the family may involve witnessing violence or physical abuse. This is the

first environment that the child comes into extended contact with, and learns to accept as normal

(Berk, 2006). Therefore, if the home is one which has a lot of noise then the likely result is noisy

children and if the setting is an aggressive one then the likely result is an aggressive child. This is

especially so if the child is mimicking someone who they look up to and view as a role model.

As was previously stated media violence which occurs in abundance in homes, is another

instigator of aggressive behaviour. “In many homes, television is the de facto babysitter, with

little or no monitoring or supervision of content” (Elliott, 1994).

In addition to the family context, some neighborhoods provide avenues for learning and

engaging in violence. The existence of gangs and illegal markets soliciting illegal drugs and

alcohol provides high levels of exposure to violence and positive rewards for seriously violent

behavior. These rewards or reinforcements, makes violence seem necessary and right. Moreover,

when people are in a large group or crowd, they tend to loose a sense of their individual identity

and take on the identity of the group; this is called deindividuation, for example, members of

gangs or football hooliganism.

Patterns learnt in the family could be carried over to the school context. The school

provides situations where conflict and frustration can cause anger and result in someone
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 10

aggressing against another. For example, when a student does not live up to an exceptional

standard such as, high academic achievement, personal confidence and a capacity for developing

and maintaining interpersonal relationships, the demands placed on them by the school and peer

groups create stress and conflict. Friends are important sources of companionship and recreation;

they share exclusive information and serve as loyal allies. Most importantly, friends provide

stability in time of stress, and aid their comrades through their transitioning stages. In light of the

above, peer rejected children tend to be more aggressive than other children (Asher & Coie,

1990).

When adolescents travel smoothly through the adolescence-adulthood transition it

appears to reduce involvement in violent behavior. Adolescents often experience identity

confusion which too is a stressor in a person’s life and which also breeds conflict. Elliot (1994)

suggests that this transition is made harder when the adolescent is under privileged and therefore

open to less opportunities. “Youth from … [poor and disorganized] neighborhoods have lower

levels of personal competence, self-efficacy, social skills, and self-discipline” (Elliot, 1994).

Due to the preceding statement, broad classes of the potential causes of violence were

formed by Moore, Petrie, Braga, & McLaughlin (2003). These are macrosocial structures

affecting the communities in which violence occurs. Stable characteristics of the aggressors that

make them susceptible to committing violence, these characteristics are produced by some

combination of social factors operating on individuals and individual inheritances and

experiences that they have. Microsocial processes that create the social dynamics that make it

important for the offenders to act violently, directing their violence towards more or less

particular targets and enabling the action to be taken. The failure of control mechanisms in the
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 11

family, the community, and at the institutional level, that should have been successful in

preventing and controlling the violent events.

It is clear that there are several explanations to explain aggression; some are more

accepted than others depending on a person’s school of thought. Nevertheless, due to the wealth

of information, violent crimes should be on the decline but the contrary is in occurrence. As a

result many studies have been conducted, to measure violence but more importantly, reduce it.

Some of the studies that were conducted in Barbados and the Caribbean will be examined.

Furthermore, the need for this present study will be explained.

Victor Hutchinson (2000) conducted a case study on violence in one of the newer

secondary schools in Barbados. His study involved interviews and observations of the principal,

the guidance counsellor, schools teachers who were teaching at the school for substantial periods

and ten students, five who were considered deviant and five who were considered non-deviant.

The case study also involved interviews and observations of the parents or guardians of the

children interviewed. The study also examined records of the school, relating to incidents of

violence. Hutchinson analysed data by percentage distribution frequency counts and compared

for patterns. He found that there were high levels of violence and indiscipline correlates between

student life and family life. The structure of his study allowed him to examine not only self

report answers from students but to capture a fuller picture from teachers and guidance

counsellors. In addition, it allowed him to examine the living atmosphere in which each child

resided and to draw conclusions from it and thus deserves great merit. Unfortunately,

conclusions drawn from ten students might not accurately reflect societal problems as it relates to

violence, as a result, a larger sample might be more useful.

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 12

In a much larger study conducted by the United Nations Secretary General (2006) on

youth violence in the Caribbean, various aspects of violence were explored. That study, which

looked at 16 nations in the Caribbean, collected information in stages. The first major source of

information was from published sources and researchers in the area, working in the Caribbean.

The second was from questionnaires which were sent by the office of the United Nations High

Commissioner on Human Rights to all governments in the region. These questionnaires were to

provide information on legal framework, institutional framework, and the role of civil society in

addressing violence against children. In addition, policies and programmes to address violence

against children, data collection and research, awareness, advocacy and training were also topics

which the questionnaire sought to gain information. Information was also taken from the

Caribbean Consultation on Violence against Children held on March 9-11, 2005 in Port of Spain,

Trinidad. This extensive study speaks to violence in work situations, homes and families,

communities and on the streets, schools and institutions. The study reports that there is a high

level of violence in schools and that a high number of students in the Caribbean had witnessed a

violent act at some point in their lives. In addition, the study stated that many students do not feel

safe at school. This study which references another study carried out in Jamaica states that 78.5%

of the students had witnessed violence in their communities, 60.8% in their schools and 44.7% in

their homes. More surprisingly, some students even reported having caused serious injury to

persons.

The study does admit that further research is needed as it relates to violence against

children in institutions. Children’s homes in Jamaica were investigated and the results named the

children’s status as dangerous and one that could possibly thwart development. These children

were subject to some form of abuse but that abuse was seemingly random. The study did not
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 13

state explicitly if the perpetrators in these cases were staff or other juveniles or if the abuse

occurred before they were institutionalised.

Subsequently Director of Youth Affairs, Richard Carter (2005) conducted further

research on youth violence. The survey, done in the form of a self-administered questionnaire,

involved five hundred and twenty-one (521) first to sixth form students from twenty (20) public

secondary schools in Barbados. Carter’s research suggested that there is the potential for extreme

violence in our school setting. More than half of the students that were interviewed in the study

reported that they did not consider school a safe place with 35.1 % cent worried about being hurt

whilst there. 60 % of the respondents witnessed fights weekly with 64.3 % of the respondents

stating that they had been involved in a violent incident in school. This study encompasses a

wide range of students of varying levels and therefore creates a much clearer picture of violence

levels in Barbados. The study however does not show which schools show higher levels of

violence so that those schools can be dealt with first, a huge disadvantage. If youth violence is to

be combated, due to limited resources, policy makers need to know which schools take priority,

or simply whether the interventions should start in older secondary schools or newer secondary

schools.

A long time ago, the only schools that were managed by the Government of Barbados

were considered older secondary schools and were modelled after the English Grammar schools

and were highly academic in nature. Government then sought to establish other schools for

students who did not pass to the prestigious older secondary schools. These schools came to be

known as newer secondary schools and had a curriculum that included academics, vocational and

technical subjects. Although the Education Act 1990 named all of these schools public schools,
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 14

they are still referred to by Barbadians as older and newer secondary schools and the

fundamental differences that existed years ago still persist today.

This research project seeks to measure the level of violence in the older and newer

secondary schools, and also in the Government Industrial Schools (GIS) Summervale (females)

and Dodd’s (males) and to compare the results. Of the 263 questionnaires that were distributed,

203 (77%) were returned completed. The older secondary schools that were chosen are Queens

College and Combermere Secondary and the two newer secondary schools that were chosen are

St. George Secondary and Princess Margaret Secondary. The terms older secondary and upper

secondary will be used interchangeably and are taken to mean the same thing as well as the terms

newer secondary and lower secondary. This approach is necessary so that levels of violence

could be attributed to particular schools for expeditious intervention in those schools as opposed

to a more difficult nation wide attempt to reduce school violence. It is certainly not intended to

single out any particular school or to widen the gap of inequality between them, but to help foster

the preparation of a plan for a safer society and safer schools.

This present study utilises the National School Crime and Safety Survey (NSCSS) (Used

with permission from Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence, see Appendix

II) which is a revised instrument with one of the first instruments being the Adolescence

Violence Survey. The Adolescence Violence Survey examined varying types of violence such as

inventive violence; common violence; passive aggression; menacing language; severe menacing

and impulsive violence (Kingery, 1998). The NSCSS like the Adolescence Violence Survey is a

self report questionnaire with multiple response options, yes and no and several likert style

scales, where students report their likely actions if they were shoved or hit etcetera or if they

believed they were good fighters and so on. The instrument measures student perpetration of
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 15

crime, victimization, defence mechanisms and perceived ability to fight. The predicted outcome

of the study is that all three areas of measure would reveal some level of violence but that on a

scale GIS would be higher than the older and newer secondary schools and that the newer

secondary schools would show a higher level of violence than the older secondary schools. This

might be so because of the categories that these three levels are placed in society. With the older

secondary schools being labelled as prestigious, the newer secondary being labelled as not as

academic and GIS labelled as the deviant group.

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 16

Method

Subjects

They were 203 participants in this study. Some of the participants were from public

secondary schools and the others were from the Government Industrial Schools (GIS). The

students were selected randomly with the assistance of teaching staff. There were 35 students

from Combermere Secondary School, 52 students from Queens College, 16 students from

Princess Margaret Secondary, 61 students from St. George Secondary School and 39 students

from GIS. These students ranged from age 11 to age 19 with a mean age of 14.3 years (SD =

1.56). There were 91 males and 112 females. The male complement was comprised of 11

students from Combermere, 34 from Queens College, 6 from Princess Margaret Secondary , 17

from St. George Secondary, and 23 wards from GIS (Dodd’s). The female complement was

comprised of 24 students from Combermere Secondary, 18 from Queens College, 10 from

Princess Margaret Secondary, 44 from St. George Secondary and 16 wards from GIS

(Summervale). Each of the students participated voluntarily and was each given specially

marked pencils to encourage participation.

Materials

The National School Crime and Safety Survey (NSCSS) was used but was amended with

permission after a test – retest was done (see Appendix I). A copy of the permission letter to use

instrument and amend it is attached (D. White, personal communication, May 9, 2008) (see

Appendix II). The amended questionnaire consists of ten (10) items. The first four (4) items

collect demographic information such as age and gender. The fifth item and sixth item measures

the adolescent’s motivation to fight and their perceived ability to fight respectively. The seventh

item measures defence mechanisms and the last two (2) items measures victimisation by
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 17

common aggression and common perpetration. Sample item for motivation to fight is – “I will

probably get into a fight if someone (a) shoved me – and allows for answers on a likert scale, for

example, 1 strongly agrees – 5 strongly disagree. Reliability alpha was .71, this alpha was

deemed to indicate high internal consistency reliability for all scales.

Design

The design of the questionnaire is a between subjects design. The participants were

selected based on the categories they were in, example older secondary, newer secondary and

GIS but were selected randomly within the category. The dependent variable in this study was

violence and this was measured in various scales. There was the overall violence scale, the

defence mechanisms scale, the common perpetration scale, the victimization by common

aggression scale, the perceived ability to fight scale and the motivation to fight scale. The

independent variables are the various categories that these schools are placed in as previously

mentioned.

Procedure

Initially a letter seeking permission to conduct interviews and distribute questionnaires

was sent to the Ministry of Education. Principals of the various schools involved gave

permission to interview students, after receiving a letter detailing specific research that was

going to be carried out. Students were told about the importance of the research and about the

problem that Barbados faces as it relates to violence in schools. They were also told that their

answers would remain confidential and that they should answer freely. The questionnaires were

administered to GIS (Dodds) individually, through the form of an interview, as some of the

juveniles there needed help interpreting some of the questions due to literacy problems. All other

questionnaires were administered to the students in a classroom setting. The students at the
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 18

various schools were chosen randomly and the institutions were chosen based on their status as

an older secondary school or a newer secondary school or Government Industrial School. The

test took approximately 35 minutes to complete and the information was collected over a period

of five weeks.
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 19

Results

Scores received from students were processed using One-Way ANOVA and Independent

Sample t-test. The results show that there was a no significant mean difference amongst the

different categories on overall scores on the overall violence scale. F (2,198) = 2.24, N = 203, p

> .05. Table 1 shows the results.

Table 1 Mean scores within the categories of lower secondary, upper secondary and wards

on the overall violence scale.

Mean Standard Deviation

Lower 50.53 8.49
Upper 52.94 9.63
Wards 54.20 11.29

There was no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall

scores on the defence mechanisms scale. F (2, 200) = 1.19, N = 203, p > .05. However, there

was a significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall scores on the

common perpetration scale. F (2, 200) = 6.28, N = 203, p < .05. As illustrated in Figure 1,

students in the categories of the lower secondary school show lower levels of violence as it

relates to common perpetration (M = 10.08, SD = 4.21) than students in the upper secondary

category (M = 11.25, SD = 5.08) and in the wards (M = 13.56, SD = 6.14)

Figure 1 Mean plots of student scores within the categories of lower secondary, upper

secondary and wards on the common perpetration scale.

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 20

Error Bars show 95.0% Cl of Mean

Comm on Perpetration

14.00
13.56


12.00

11.25


10.08

10.00

8.00

lower upper wards

category

CI – Confidence Interval

These significant differences were between lower secondary schools and wards (M =

3.49, p = .001) and between upper secondary schools and wards (M = 2.31, p = .046) see Figure

1. There was no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall scores

on the victimization by common aggression scale F (2, 200) = 2.23, N = 203, p > .05.

Additionally there was no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall

scores on the perceived ability to fight scale F (2, 200) = 2.42, N = 203, p > .05. Moreover, there

was no significant mean difference amongst the different categories on overall scores on the

motivation to fight scale F (2, 200) = .09, N = 203, p > .05.

When scores from the various schools and institutions were submitted the results showed

that there was a significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall

scores on the overall violence scale. F (5,195) = 4.40, N = 203, p < .05. Table 2 shows the

results, also see Figure 2 below.

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 21

Table 2 Mean scores from the various schools and institutions on the overall violence

scale.

Mean Standard Deviation

Dodds 51.83 8.54
Summervale 57.63 13.95
Queen’s College 55.90 10.43
Princess Margaret 51.50 6.97
Combermere 48.54 6.17
St. George Secondary 50.27 8.90

Figure 2, below, illustrates clearly that there was a significant mean difference between

Summervale and Combermere on the overall violence scale (M = 9.08, p = .02), that there was a

significant mean difference between Queen’s College and Combermere on the overall violence

scale (M = 7.36, p = .005) and that there was a significant mean difference between Queens’s

College and St. George Secondary on the overall violence scale (M = 5.63, p = .020)

Figure 2 Mean plots of student scores from the various schools and institutions on the

overall violence scale.

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 22

60

58

56
Mean of Overall Violence

54

52

50

48
Dodds Queen's College Combermere
Summervale Princess Margaret St. George Secondary

School or Institution

There was no significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on

overall scores on the defence mechanisms scale. F (5,197) = .76, N = 203, p > .05. However,

there was a significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall scores

on the common perpetration scale. F (5, 197) = 4.89, N = 203, p < .05. As illustrated in Table 3,

these significant differences were between Summervale and Princess Margaret (M = 5.37, p = .

027), between Summervale and Combermere (M = 6.03, p = .001) and between Summervale and

St. George Secondary (M = 5.67, p = .001)

Table 3 Mean scores from the various schools and institutions on the common

perpetration scale.

Mean Standard Deviation

Dodds 12.09 5.13
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 23

Summervale 15.69 6.99

Queen’s College 15.33 5.87
Princess Margaret 10.31 4.39
Combermere 9.65 3.04
St. George Secondary 10.01 4.20

There was a significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall

scores on the victimization by common aggression scale F (5, 197) = 4.18, N = 203, p < .05.

There was a significant mean difference between Queen’s College and Combermere (M = 4.12, p

= .004) and there was a significant mean difference between Queen’s College and St. George (M

= 3.22, p = .012) the results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Mean scores from the various schools and institutions on the victimisation by

common aggression scale.

Mean Standard Deviation

Dodds 13.47 4.60
Summervale 15.94 7.30
Queen’s College 16.35 5.95
Princess Margaret 12.69 4.80
Combermere 12.22 2.80
St. George Secondary 13.13 4.73

There was no significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on

overall scores on the perceived ability to fight scale F (5, 197) = 1.73, N = 203, p > .05

Neither, was there a significant mean difference amongst the different types of schools on overall

scores on the motivation to fight scale F (5, 195) = .400, N = 203, p > .05.

No significant mean difference amongst gender on overall scores on the overall violence

scale was seen t (199) = 1.650, p = .10. Table 5 illustrates means score for males were (M =

53.52, SD = 9.91) and females (M = 51.30, SD = 9.33)

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 24

Table 5 Mean scores of males and females on the overall violence scale.

Mean Standard Deviation

Male 53.52 9.91
Female 51.30 9.33

There was no significant mean difference amongst gender on the defence mechanisms

scale t (201) = -.134, p = .90. Table 6 illustrates mean score for males (M = 6.38, SD = 1.85) and

females (M = 6.42, SD = 1.84)

Table 6 Mean scores of males and females on the defence mechanism scale

Mean Standard Deviation

Male 6.38 1.85
Female 6.42 1.84

There however was a significant mean difference amongst gender on the common

perpetration scale t (201) = 2.253, p = .02. Table 7 illustrates mean score for males (M = 12.14,

SD = 5.60) and females (M = 10.52, SD = 5.70)

Table 7 Mean scores of males and females on the common perpetration scale.

Mean Standard Deviation

Male 12.14 5.60
Female 10.52 5.70

There was no significant mean difference amongst gender on the victimization by

common aggression scale t (201) = .959, p = .34. Table 8 illustrates mean score for males (M =

14.42, SD = 5.70) and females (M = 13.71, SD = 4.91)

Table 8 Mean scores of males and females on the victimization by common aggression

scale.

Mean Standard Deviation

Male 14.42 5.70
Female 13.71 4.91
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 25

There was a significant mean difference amongst gender on the perceived ability to fight

scale t (201) = -3.81, p = .000. Table 9 illustrates mean score for males (M = 6.04, SD = 1.94)

and females (M = 6.97, SD = 1.53)

Table 9 Mean scores of males and females on the perceived ability to fight scale.

Mean Standard Deviation

Male 6.04 1.94
Female 6.97 1.53

There was a significant mean difference amongst gender on the motivation to fight scale t

(199) = 1.33, p = .19. Table 10 illustrates mean score for males (M = 14.53, SD = 4.99) and

females (M = 13.70, SD = 4.06)

Table 10 Mean scores of males and females on the motivation to fight scale.

Mean Standard Deviation

Male 14.53 4.99
Female 13.70 4.06

There were 121 students who lived in single parent homes, 69 who lived in nuclear

family structures and 13 who lived in homes with an extended family structure, Figure 3

illustrates the statistics.

Figure 3 The number of participants who lived in single parent, nuclear or extended

family structure.
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 26

Living With
140

120

100

80

60

40
Frequency

20

0
Single Parent Nuclear Family Extended Family

Living With

There was no significant mean difference on overall scores relative to the living

arrangements on the overall violence scale F (2, 198) = 1.73 N = 203, p > .05

Neither, was there a significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living arrangements

on the defence mechanism scale F (2, 200) = .10 N = 203, p > .05. However, there was a

significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living arrangements on the common

perpetration scale F (2, 200) = 3.62 N = 203, p < .05. Table 11 illustrates the results.

Table 11 Mean scores of students in various living arrangements on the common

perpetration scale.

Mean Standard Deviation

Single Parent 11.21 5.20
Nuclear Family 10.70 4.62
Extended Family 14.80 6.40

There was no significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living

arrangements on the victimisation by common aggression scale F (2, 200) = .84, N = 203, p > .
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 27

05. Neither was there a significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living

arrangements on the perceived ability to fight scale F (2, 200) = 2.64, N = 203, p > .05 nor was

there a significant mean difference on overall scores relative to living arrangements on the

motivation to fight scale F (2, 198) = 1.73 N = 203, p > .06

Discussion
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 28

203 students from three separate school categories were interviewed in this study, and all

of them showed some degree of violence. Interestingly, there was no significant difference

between the categories of lower secondary, upper secondary and wards on the overall violence

scale. However, GIS did score a higher mean than the other two institutions, and therefore the

first research hypothesis, i.e. that GIS students would demonstrate a higher level of violence,

must be accepted. The upper secondary category scored higher than the lower secondary

category and therefore the second research hypothesis had to be rejected. One possible

explanation is that the attention that is placed on the violence which occurs in lower secondary

schools and the attention placed on the perceived deviant wards shadows violence which occurs

in the upper secondary schools.

Lower secondary schools have been plagued with the notion that they were non-

academic, deviant, more vocational, and more suited for under achievers. These results could

serve to enlighten persons who always thought negatively of the lower secondary schools.

Although the reason that the lower secondary schools scored lower on this scale could be due a

sampling bias by the lower secondary schools as students were selected with the assistance of the

guidance counsellor. This could be avoided by increasing the sample size of a future study.

Findings also show that there is no significant difference on the defence mechanisms

scale this implies that the youth in this sample choose to defend themselves in similar ways. Not

surprisingly on the common perpetration scale, wards showed a higher mean than the other two

categories. This result was expected and is in accordance with the research hypothesis, but the

higher secondary schools, measure higher on this scale than the lower secondary. This may have

been due to the similar reasons discussed above.

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 29

No differences were seen on the common aggression scale, the perceived ability to fight

scale or the motivation to fight scale. It is not unreasonable to suggest that most adolescents deal

with violence on these scales in similar ways, hence the reason there are no significant

differences but again this result could be due to a sampling bias.

When scores were processed by ANOVA in the category of institutions, there were

differences between schools on the overall violence scale. As expected there were differences

between Summervale and Combermere because of the category they were in (Summervale –

wards, Combermere – upper Secondary). There were also differences between Queen’s College

and St. George Secondary for the same reason mentioned above. There was also a difference

between Queen’s College and Combermere, this was not expected because they both fall into the

category of upper secondary school.

Again on the defence mechanisms scale, there were no significant differences amongst

the types of school, again implying that students or at least this sample dealt with violence in

similar ways. On the common perpetration scale, there were significant differences amongst

schools; these were between Summervale and Princess Margaret, Summervale and Combermere

and Summervale and St. George Secondary. This is because they all fall into different categories.

Summervale being labelled as one of the deviant group show that deviant potentiality suits that

class.

On the victimisation by common aggression scale, there was also a significant difference.

These differences were between Queen’s College and Combermere and Queen’s College and St.

George Secondary.
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 30

There were no differences on the motivation to fight scale or the perceived ability to fight

scale. This maybe that generally adolescents have similar perceptions about fighting ability and

are motivated to fight on similar levels and for similar reasons.

Both males and females measure similarly on the overall scale. There was no significant

difference, although males scored a slightly higher mean than females, it is not enough to address

the issue that one sex is more aggressive than the next. This similarity between genders could be

that, at least at school, males and females are treated in similar ways. These results are validated

by research conducted prior to this study. According to Archer (1993), “men and women would

behave identically if treated identically”. The finding that there was no significance difference

between genders in aggression scales was also found in previous research by Richardson (2005).

She found that aggressive acts between the genders could have been a function of the nature of

the relationship of participants, whether intimate, and close friendships or acquaintances. Her

findings and this present study suggests that there are more dimensions to aggression and that

gender in of itself is not always a clear indicator, although it does impact on aggression. Lines

(2007) suggested also that a range of factors exist like mixing with different friends or the efforts

of significant teachers and youth leaders who have willed them to be positive products. Some of

these factors serve to agitate acute violence.

There were no significant differences on the defence mechanism scale. However, in the

common perpetration scale males showed a significantly higher mean than females. Males are

thought of as more deviant than females and findings on this scale partially confirms that. Their

socialisation ensures this. Girls are taught to be lady like and so on, and therefore do not always

exude the same amount of deviance as some males (Maccoby & Jacklin, 1974). According to

Frisén, Jonsson, & Persson, (2007) research has shown that boys are more often involved in
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 31

physical bullying than girls, both as bullies and victims but the sex difference is less pronounced

for verbal bullying and is sometimes the reverse for indirect bullying.

There was no significant mean difference amongst gender on the victimisation by

common aggression scale but there were significant differences on the perceived ability to fight

scale. Males perceive themselves as being more able to fight than females. Findings also show

that males were more motivated to fight than females. Although, “there is the possibility that the

two genders have the same degree of motivation to be aggressive but … men are more likely to

act out such violent impulses [more so] than women” (Archer & Lloyd, 1985).

Most of the students in this study lived in a single parent household 121 (59.6 %) with

only 13 (6.4 %) students living in homes with an extended family structure. There were no

significant differences on any scale except in the common perpetration scale. Surprisingly,

children in extended family homes scored higher on this scale, this result may have been

different if the sample size was larger. Previous research suggests that adolescents in single

parent homes are more deviant because single parents have fewer resources (Lareau, 1989;

Thompson, Alexander & Entwisle, 1988), have less time to supervise them (Thomson,

McLanahan, & Curtin, 1992) and are less likely to form strong parent child bonds as the only

breadwinner (Bellair & Roscigno, 2000).

This study adds to the body of literature on violence research studies in Barbados.

Violence from these findings appears to be a social epidemic. To reduce it persons must first

admit that the violence levels are out of control. Although some of the results received were not

expected. The study shows that there is a high level of violence and that the highest level is seen

in the Government Industrial Schools. Therefore social partners should seek recommendations as

how to deal with this problem and employ any interventions at the GIS first.
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 32

Increased security, which in an intervention that has limited scope, is one of the most

common recommendations aiming to reduce violence, however, evidence shows through

research that this is very ineffective (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). This could be due to the

previously discussed frustration aggression theory, where a more intense secured atmosphere

serves as a precipitate to violence. A neighbourhood or community intervention which is a

comprehensive approach involving all institutions that serve the youth is a reasonable deterrence

for violence (Elliott, 1994). It should include all institutions that serve youth, such as, the family,

school, health agencies, and justice systems. This umbrella group could then develop task focus

groups such as family support programmes, community development cooperation, school based

clinics and counselling facilities.

These specialised focus groups are important, studies have shown that single approach

programmes prove to have a mild positive affect in reducing aggression and violence behaviour

even when compared to multiple approach programmes (Park-Higgerson, Perumean-Chaney,

Bartolucci, Grimley, & Singh, 2008). For example, the counselling role should be one that is

focused on by one sub group, if it is generalised the focus may be lost and others factors may

become the focus. According to Lines (2007) not all high-risk youngsters become violent adults

and sometimes counselling provides positive change.

It is recommended for future research to conduct longitudinal studies to see how the

students within the three main categories progress. These studies could test whether adolescents

in the various categories continue to be aggressive or if they become productive products of

society. Also, teachers could be interviewed, using the already developed teacher version of the

questionnaire, to see if there is any connection between what they view as violent and what

adolescents view as violent. Additionally, future research should compare socio-economic status
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 33

within the categories; this could provide social care providers with the much needed information

necessary to attend the problem of underachievement and aggression due to poverty. Finally, a

larger sample size should be used, collecting data from a larger number of the secondary schools,

thereby allowing for the research interest to paint a clearer picture of the problem on the whole.
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 34

References

Abelson, R. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist,

36(7), 715-729. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/

login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1982-04621-001&site=ehost-live&scope

=site

Archer, J. (1993). Male Violence: London: Routledge

Archer, J. & Lloyd, B. Sex and Gender. USA: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation

of aggressive models. Journal Of Abnormal And Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.

Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct

=true&db=mnh&AN=13864605&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Beck, S. (2005). Social Psychology. Retrieved on January 9, 2009, from

http://www1.appstate.edu/~beckhp/aggfrustrationagg.htm

Bellair, P., & Roscigno, V. (2000, June). Local Labor-Market Opportunity and

Adolescent Delinquency. Social Forces, 78(4), 1509-1538. Retrieved February 24, 2009,

from Academic Search Complete database http://search.ebscohost.com/

login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=3421673&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Berk, L. E. (2006). Child Development (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Best, R. (2005, June 14). Best on Tuesday – Violence among girls. The Nation

Newspaper. from http://www.nationnews.com

Brain, P. F. & Benton, D. (1980). The Biology of Aggression. Netherlands: Sijthoff and

Noordhoh International Publishers

Cairns, R. B. (1973). Fighting and Punishment from a Developmental Perspective.

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 35

Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1972 (pp. 59-124). Lincoln: University of Nebraska

Press.

Carter, R. (2005). Report on Violence in Schools and Community Survey. Ministry of

Education. Barbados

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A. & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990) Peer Rejection in Childhood (S. R.

Asher & J. D.Coie, Eds). USA: Cambridge University Press

Collins, W., & Getz, S. (1976). Children's social responses following modeled reactions to

provocation: Prosocial effects of a television drama. Journal of Personality, 44(3), 488.

Retrieved April 29, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx ?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=7379415&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Dugan, M. A. (2004). Beyond Intractability. Retrieve January 8, 2009, from

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/aggression/

Eagly, A. H. (1987) Sex Differences in Social Behaviour: A Social-role Interpretation.

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Education Act 1990 Cap 41 of the Laws of Barbados

Elliott, D. S. (1994). Youth Violence: An Overview. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from

http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/publications/papers/CSPV-008.pdf

Frisén, A., Jonsson, A., & Persson, C. (2007). Adolescents’ Perception of Bullying: Who

is the Victim? Who is the Bully? What Can Be Done To Stop Bullying? Adolescence.

Retrieved January 18, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=

28031059&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Geen, R. G. (2000). Human Aggression (2nd ed.). Retrieved January 05, 2009, from
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 36

http://www.mcgrawhill.co.uk/openup/chapters/0335204716.pdf

Geen, R., & Berkowitz, L. (1967). Some conditions facilitating the occurrence

of aggression after the observation of violence. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 666-676.

Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=aph&AN=8935140&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Gillespie, W. (1971). Aggression and instinct theory. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis,

52(2), 155-160. Retrieved October 2, 2009, from PsycINFO database from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1974-20267-

001&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Goldstein, J. S. (2003). War and Gender: How Gender Shapes the War System and

Vice Versa. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Government Information Service. (2006). Out of Control. The Nation

Newspaper. from http://www.nationnews.com

Huesmann, L. R., & Malamuth, N. M. (1986). Media Violence and Antisocial Behaviour:

An Overview. Journal of Social Issues. 42, 1-6 Retrieved on January 11, 2009, from

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/86jsi42_1.pdf

Hutchinson, V. (2000). A study of violence and indiscipline in a secondary school in

Barbados. MA. University of the West Indies. Barbados

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1995). Reducing School Violence through Conflict

Resolution. USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Kingery, P. M., 1998 the Adolescent Violence Survey – A Psychometric Analysis

University of Kentucky, USA

Krahé, B. (2001). The Social Psychology of Aggression. New York: Psychology Press.
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 37

Landis, C. (1939). [Review of Frustration and aggression]. Psychological Bulletin, 36(8),

699-700. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2006-01837-018&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Lareau, A. (1989) Home Advantage: Social Class & Parental in Elementary Education.

New York: Falmer Press

Lines, D. (2007). Violence in School: What Can We Do?. Pastoral Care in

Education. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://search.ebscohost.com/

login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24998472&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Lorenz, K. (1966). On Aggression. London. Harcourt, Brace & World.

Maccoby, E. E. & Jacklin, C. N. (1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences. USA:

Stanford University Press

Maxon, S. C. (1998). Homologous Genes, Aggression and Animal Models.

Developmental Neuropsychology, 14, 143–156

Moore, M. H., Petrie, C. V., Braga, A. A., McLaughlin, B. L., (Eds). (2003). Deadly

Lessons: Understanding Lethal School Violence. Case Studies of School Violence

Committee: National Research Council and Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral

and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

Morlan, G. (1949). A note on the frustration-aggression theories of Dollard and

his associates. Psychological Review, 56(1), 1-8. Retrieved April 29, 2009 from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=1949-03113-

001&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Park-Higgerson, H., Perumean-Chaney, S., Bartolucci, A., Grimley, D., & Singh, K.
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 38

(2008). The Evaluation of School-Based Violence Prevention Programs: A Meta-

Analysis. Journal of School Health. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=33533368&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Potter, J. W. (1999). On Media Violence. New York: SAGE.

Reiss, A. J., & Roth, J. A. (1993). Understanding and Preventing Violence: A

Sourcebook of International Research. New York: National Academies Press.

Richardson, D. (2005). The Myth of Female Passivity: Thirty Years of

Revelations About Female Aggression. Psychology of Women Quarterly. Retrieved

October 19, 2008 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=

true&db=a9h&AN=18035858&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Smith, A. (2004). Theories of Aggression. Retrieved November 29, 2008, from

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1809

The National School Crime and Safety Survey. (1998). Hamilton Fish Institute on School

and Community Violence. The George Washington University.

Thomson, E., McLanahan, S., & Curtin, R. (1992). Family Structure, Gender, and

Parental Socialization. Journal of Marriage & Family, 54(2), 368-378. Retrieved

February 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9206082090&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Thompson, M., Alexander, K., & Entwisle, D. (1988). Household

Composition, Parental Expectations, and School Achievement. Social Forces, 67(2), 424.

Retrieved February 24, 2009, from Academic Search Complete database

 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 39

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=5285587&site=ehost-

live&scope=site

Toch, H. (1992). Violent Men: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Violence. Hyattsville,

MD: American Psychological Association.

Turner, C., Simons, L., Berkowitz, L., & Frodi, A. (1977). The Stimulating and Inhibiting

Effects of Weapons on Aggressive Behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 3(4), 355-378.

Retrieved January 9, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

United Nations Secretary General. (2006). Violence against Children in the Caribbean

Region Regional Assessment: Study on Violence against Children. Retrieved on

November 16, 2008 from http://www.uwi.edu/ccdc/downloads/

Violence_against_children.pdf

White Paper on Education Reform for Barbados. The Planning Section, Ministry of

Education, Youth Affairs and Culture, Barbados. July 1995.

Youth Crime on rise. (2006, September 20). The Nation Newspaper. from

http://www.nationnews.com

Zillmann, D. (1979). Hostility and Aggression. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 40

Appendix I
Violence in Schools – A Comparison 41
Violence in Schools – A Comparison 42
 Violence in Schools – A Comparison 43

Appendix II

Dear Martin Hall,

The original Adolescent Violence Survey has been revised more than
a few times. In its current form, it is called the National School
Crime and Safety Survey or NSCSS.

There are no restrictions on the use of the NSCSS; we simply ask

that you cite the Hamilton Fish Institute as the source for the
instrument.

Please note that questions 1-15 on the student form and questions
1-13 on the staff form are standard. You may add questions to the
supplemental section for your specific needs.

I have attached current versions of both surveys.

Good luck. We look forward to reading your research paper. Please

let us know if you have any other questions.

Sincerely yours,

Dennis L. White, Research & Policy Analyst

Hamilton Fish Institute on School and Community Violence
The George Washington University
2121 K Street NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20037-1830
202-496-8491
202-496-6244 (fax)
http://www.hamfish.org