90Children & SchoolsVol. 24, No. 2April 2002

CCC Code: 0162-7961/02 $3.00 © 2002, National Association of Social Workers, Inc.

By Gary L. Bowen and Richard A. Van Dorn

Community Violent Crime Ratesand School Danger

The study discussed in this article investigated the associationbetween community violent crime rates and middle schoolstudents’ perceptions of school danger. School danger wasdefined as fighting among students, destruction of schoolproperty, students carrying weapons, and gang fights. Datawere collected from a nationally representative sample of 857middle school students. Findings indicate that communitycrime rates are associated with male middle school students’reports of school danger but not female students’ reports.Implications for community- and school-based preventiveinterventions are discussed in the context of socialdisorganization theory.

Key words: community capacity building; middle schoolstudents; school environment; school violence; socialdisorganization; violent crime

Past research examining school vio-lence has focused primarily on stu-dent and school variables that havebeen correlated with crime and vio-lence. Accordingly, schools often aretreated as if they are closed systems.However, recent research shows linksbetween school success and studentexperiences in and perceptions of sys-tems outside of the school setting,particularly the neighborhood(Bowen, Bowen, & Ware, in press).Unfortunately, the larger communitysetting, which provides both a struc-tural and normative context for op-portunities and constraints in the

school setting, has often been ne-glected when it comes to understand-ing and intervening in school vio-lence (Laub & Lauritsen, 1998). Oneaspect of this broader structural andnormative context is the violent crimerate of the community in which theschool is situated.

This investigation examines theassociation between the communityviolent crime rate and middle schoolstudents’ perceptions of school dan-ger. We focused our attention on thedevelopmental stage of early adoles-cence. Unlike their high school coun-terparts, middle school students haveless freedom and mobility to escapepotentially dangerous situations in thecommunity. Intense peer orientationof middle school students also mayresult in greater social contagion be-tween events in the community andevents at school.

The association between commu-nity violence and perceived schooldanger was examined controlling forschool size on the basis of earlier re-search (Bowen, Bowen, & Richman,2000). In addition, separate analyseswere conducted for boys and girls inthe context of boys’ greater exposureto violent crime in the community asperpetrators, victims, and witnesses(Farrington & Loeber, 2000;Kaufman et al., 2000). Furthermore,

91Community Violent

Crime Rates andSchool Danger

boys are more likely than girls to re-port personal threats at school(Bowen & Bowen, 1999) and to bemore accepting of violence as a con-flict resolution strategy (Pryor, Sarri,Bombyk, & Nikolovska, 1999).

The results have potential impli-cations for informing social work in-terventions both in schools and thebroader community. The aim is toidentify multiple leverage points forreducing school danger. The com-munity context in which the schoolsand students are embedded is onesuch leverage point (Bogenschneider,1996). The identification of multipleleverage points allows communitiesto have a choice in how they achieveintended outcomes such as schoolsafety (Hawkins & Catalano, 1992).

A Contextual PerspectiveInterest in community-level effects

has a long tradition in the behavioraland social sciences. For example,Hull-House Maps and Papers, pub-lished in 1895, is a classic in socialwork, underscoring the power ofcommunity-level data for informingpublic policy. Social science research-ers have maintained the tradition ofexamining contextual effects and theireffect on the lives of individuals andfamilies (Sampson, Morenoff, &Earls, 1999; Sampson, Raudenbush,& Earls, 1997).

There are many advantages to acontextual perspective that are con-sistent with social work values andpractice principles. When problemsare viewed in context, the focus ofintervention moves from blaming theindividual to addressing situationalconstraints. Consequently, there is amovement away from problems be-ing associated with certain groups or“kinds of people” (Sampson, 1997).In addition, when the focus shiftsfrom the individual to the situation,

solutions depend on a communityresponse, as well as an individual re-sponse—everyone has a stake in re-dress. Specific to this article, “com-munities” may begin to view the issueof school danger in a broader con-text, one requiring thoughtful inter-ventions at multiple levels.

Crime and Violence inSchools and Communities

Youth and adult violence have deeproots in U.S. society (Gilligan, 1997).Violence touches the lives of nearlyall adults and children in the UnitedStates. Many families and childrenreside in areas where violence andcrime have become commonplace(Bowen, Bowen, & Richman, 1998).For this reason, the implications andconsequences of violence are felt inall aspects of society. Recent schoolshootings and other highly publicizedincidents of school violence, orplanned violence at schools, graphi-cally show that crime and violencehave crossed the threshold from com-munities into schools (Astor, Varga,O’Neal-Pitner, & Meyer, 1999;Prothrow-Stith, 2000).

School Crime and ViolenceSince the mid-1990s, public opin-

ion surveys have indicated that safetyat schools is a major concern in thiscountry (Rose, Gallup, & Elam, 1997).These concerns are unlikely to changein the context of recent schoolshootings in various communitiesacross the United States. Schools alsomust deal with other forms of vio-lence that occur on a regular basis,including assaults and physical attacks(Hill & Drolet, 1999), weapon carry-ing (Welsh, Stokes, & Greene, 2000),gangs (Bjerregaard & Smith, 1993),sexual harassment (Hand & Sanchez,2000), dating violence (Erickson &Rapkin, 1991), robbery (Bastian &

92Children & SchoolsVol. 24, No. 2April 2002

Taylor, 1991), and bullying (Olweus,1991).

Given this information, it is notsurprising that almost one in six jun-ior and senior high school students,in a recent survey, reported that heor she had been violently victimizedin or around school (Harris and As-sociates, 1996). In the same study,one in four junior high school stu-dents and one in three senior highschool students felt that violence attheir school had increased in the pastyear. Many middle and high schoolstudents witnessed and feared crimeand violence while on school grounds,and from one-quarter to one-third ofstudents reported that they were con-cerned about their safety at school(Bowen et al., 1998).

Consequences of School Crimeand Violence

A number of negative outcomeshave been associated with schoolcrime and violence. First, becausephysical or psychological harm is of-ten a consequence of the variousforms of violence mentioned, schoolsaffected by violence and its sequelaeprovide a poor context for overallschool success. Recent research indi-cates that school crime and violencehad a significant negative effect onschool attendance, trouble avoidance,and grades in the context of demo-graphic controls (Bowen & Bowen,1999). Furthermore, youths whoseattendance and grades are poor aremore likely to use and abuse sub-stances (Hallfors & Van Dorn, inpress) and have lower levels of bond-ing to school (Williams, 1994), whichplaces youths at increased risk of fu-ture violence (Maguin et al., 1995)and gang membership (Hill, Howell,Hawkins, & Battin Pearson, 1999).

The cyclical nature of violence isevident. As violent acts take place in

schools, youths report feeling unsafeand less connected to the school.Consequently, youths’ attendanceand grades suffer, which, in turn, in-creases the probability of substanceuse, gang membership, and futureinvolvement in delinquency or vio-lence. Although the exact nature ofthis cycle may vary from student tostudent, crime and violence in schoolscompromise the educational oppor-tunities and potential of all students,especially students who are most vul-nerable to school failure.

Community Crime and ViolenceAlthough school crime and vio-

lence continue to provide profoundchallenges for school personnel, in-tervention specialists, researchers, andpolicy makers, societal or communityviolence poses similar challenges.Violent crime rates (VCRs), afterpeaking in 1991, have been decliningslowly over the past several years (Fed-eral Bureau of Investigation [FBI],1999). However, rates of crime andviolence in some communities remainalarmingly high. In addition, not ev-eryone has the same probability ofbeing a victim of crime. Males, peopleof color, people who are poor, andindividuals living in urban areas havea higher probability of being the vic-tim of a violent crime. Homicide ratesare much higher for black males thanfor white males and for black femalesthan white females (FBI).

Interestingly, youths ages 12 to 19,based on the 1997 National CrimeVictimization Survey, were two tothree times as likely as their adultcounterparts to be the victim of aviolent crime (for example, rape, rob-bery, or assault) and three times aslikely to be a victim of simple assault(Snyder & Sickmund, 1999). On theother hand, juveniles commit a dis-proportionate amount of violent

93Community Violent

Crime Rates andSchool Danger

crimes. In 1997 juveniles under theage of 18 were responsible for 27percent of all serious violent victim-izations, including 14 percent of allsexual assaults, 30 percent of robber-ies, and 27 percent of aggravated as-saults (Snyder & Sickmund). Avail-able research also suggests that youthswitness high levels of crime and vio-lence in their communities in addi-tion to their roles as victims and per-petrators of crime and violence (Buka,Stichick, Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001).Consequently, students face the perilof crime, violence, and victimizationnot only in their schools, but also intheir communities. The intersectionbetween these two worlds was thefocus of this investigation.

Theoretical Modelfor this Research

Shaw and McKay (1942), from themid-1930s forward, postulated socialdisorganization theory to account forthe differential rates of delinquencyin urban neighborhoods. Shaw andMcKay posited that communitycharacteristics, specifically the sys-tem of values and economic status,affected rates of delinquency. Com-munity-level data showing that de-linquency rates remained relativelyconstant despite successive and mul-tiple changes in the racial and ethnicmakeup of the community supportedthis argument.

Research increasingly confirms thenotion that neighborhood effects, bethey positive or negative, affect thedevelopment of children. This re-search posits that environmental fac-tors affect family functioning, whichin turn influences individual develop-ment (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). There-fore, it can be said that communitieswith high levels of social disorganiza-tion, or ecological disadvantage, aremore prone to negative outcomes.

Violent crime in a community, inconcordance with social disorganiza-tion theory, is considered an indica-tor of ecological disadvantage. Eco-logical disadvantage includes multiplefactors. The availability of guns ; bar-riers to, or a lack of, access to services(Williams, Pierce, Young, & VanDorn, 2001); residential mobility ;high rates of unemployment (Loeber& Dishon, 1983); community drugand alcohol use (Roncek & Maier,1991); and a presence of gangs (Hillet al., 1999) can affect rates of vio-lence and contribute to ecologicaldisadvantage.

Over time, a high level of violentcrime in the community is assumedto break down community organiza-tion and culture in at least two ways.First, opportunities for prosocial pur-suits decrease, while opportunities forantisocial acts increase. Second, thereis a reduction in the social integrationamong residents and a weakening ofvarious mechanisms of social control.These ideas resonate with earlier re-search (Catalano & Hawkins, 1996)in which it is assumed that opportu-nities to be antisocial have a directeffect on antisocial behaviors (Will-iams, Van Dorn, Hawkins, Abbott, &Catalano, 2001).

Crane’s (1991) epidemic theoryis one hypothesis of how neighbor-hood effects, including violence, in-fluence individual behavior. Cranefound that the likelihood of teenagechildbearing and dropping out ofschool was inversely related to thequality of neighborhoods. Furthersupport for the idea that communi-ties influence individual and groupdevelopment is found in Sampsonand colleagues’ (1999) notion of“spatial externalities.” This idea pos-its that positive and negative effects(for example, collective efficacy andsocial disorganization) can “spill

94Children & SchoolsVol. 24, No. 2April 2002

over” into other communities andschools.

Like neighborhoods, schools donot stand in isolation from the broadercommunity in which they are situ-ated. Consequently, we expect thatstudents’ perceptions of school dan-ger are related to the community’soverall violent crime rate. Just as otherresearch examining threshold effectshas shown (Pollard, Hawkins, &Arthur, 1999), this relationship shouldbe most pronounced for students wholive in communities with high rates ofviolent crime. Finally, we believedthat the relationships posited wouldbe stronger for boys than girls. Aspreviously stated, this hypothesis in-corporates findings suggesting thatboys are at an increased risk of notonly involvement in violence, but alsovictimization and witnessing violencein the community.

Method

Data SourcesHarris and Associates (1997) col-

lected the data for this investigationbetween October 1996 and February1997. A two-stage stratified samplingdesign was used to obtain data from anationally representative sample of2,099 public school students in grades6 through 12. Of the 93 schools se-lected in the first stage of the sam-pling process, 39 included grades 6through 8 (middle schools), and 54included grades 9 through 12 (highschools). The population of studentsfrom one randomly selected Englishclass at each school participated inthe investigation. The sampling de-sign ensures adequate representationof students by gender, race, size ofplace, grade enrollment, and region.This highly stratified two-stage sam-pling design is similar to designs in-corporated by the National Center

for Education Statistics in its variousnational surveys of students andschools.

Data were collected using theSchool Success Profile (SSP) (Bowen,Woolley, Richman, & Bowen, 2001),a self-administered survey instrument.The SSP assesses students’ percep-tions of their social environment; theirschool-related attitudes, behavior,and performance; and their physicalhealth and psychological well-being.

Student ProfileData for 857 middle school stu-

dents (grades 6 through 8), with com-plete data on the variables analyzed,were used. Cases with missing dataon any of the analyzed variables (8.9percent of the original sample) wereexcluded. Seventy percent of the stu-dents were either sixth graders (34.8percent) or seventh graders (35.2 per-cent). The remaining students wereeighth graders (30.0 percent). Thesample was almost evenly split be-tween boys (51.0 percent) and girls(49.0 percent). A little more than one-third of the sample were adolescentsof color (33.6 percent), including 13.3percent African American and 9.7percent Hispanic or Latino. The re-maining students reported their ra-cial or ethnic identity as white. Aboutone-third of the students reportedreceiving free or reduced-price lunchat school (31.4 percent). The studentslived in a variety of family configura-tions: two parent (76.4 percent), singleparent (18.6 percent), and other fam-ily situations or alone (5.0 percent).

The students attended 39 schoolsin 35 counties across 21 states. Allschools had unique zip codes. Mostof the students attended schools inrural (43.1 percent) or suburban ar-eas (45.5 percent); only 11.3 percentattended schools in urban areas. Onaverage, students attended schools

95Community Violent

Crime Rates andSchool Danger

that had fewer than 700 students (M= 677). The smallest school in thesample had 70 students; the largesthad 1,393 students.

MeasuresSchool Danger. The dependent

variable, school danger, was a sum-mary variable ranging from 4 to 12.This scale was based on responses tofour items assessing whether variousstudent behaviors were perceived asa big problem, a slight problem, ornot a problem at the school. Itemswere recoded for analysis to rangefrom 1 = not at problem to 3 = a bigproblem. Each item was adapted fromthe eighth-grade questionnaire of theNational Education LongitudinalStudy of 1988 (National Center forEducation Statistics, 1988). Items in-cluded fights among students, de-struction of school property, studentscarrying weapons, and gang fights.The mean of this scale was 6.73 witha standard deviation of 2.27. Themean values for girls (M = 6.82, SD =2.33) and boys (M = 6.65, SD = 2.20)were similar [t(855) = 1.11, p > .05].

Violent Crime Rate. The indepen-dent variable, the 1993 violent crimerate for the county in which the schoolis located, was provided by the FBIthrough its Uniform Crime Report-ing (UCR). The UCR program con-sists of monthly and annual reportsfrom law enforcement agencies. Thefour violent crimes included for theseanalyses were murder and nonnegli-gent manslaughter, forcible rape (in-cluding attempts), robbery (by forceor threat of force), and aggravatedassault.

The VCR for the counties includedin the investigation ranged from oneto 21 violent crimes per 1,000 com-munity members. Informed by Pol-lard and colleagues’ (1999) earlier riskanalysis, the independent variable was

divided into quintiles (levels 1 to 5)for purposes of analysis (Table 1).The ordinal coding of the indepen-dent variable provides a means forexamining the potential for curvilin-ear or threshold effects (Crane, 1991).Newcomb and Felix-Ortiz (1992)considered a risk factor to be a scorelying in the upper quintile of a scale’sdistribution.

Control Variable. One macro-level control variable was included inthe analysis to help clarify the rela-tionship between violent crime in thecommunity and school danger:school size. The total number of stu-dents enrolled in each school in thesample represented the measure ofschool size. Bowen and colleagues(2000) reported a significant associa-tion between enrollment size andperceptions of school safety formiddle school students—students’reports of crime and violence in-creased as enrollment sizes increased.As a key structural feature of schools,school size is likely a proxy variablefor many contextual effects operat-ing at the school level. Consequently,its entry as a control variable is con-sidered to control for a number ofrelevant school-related effects asso-ciated with school size and related to

Table 1

Number of Schools and Cases, byViolent Crime Rate Quintile

Number of NumberSchools for of Cases

Violent Crime Boys Girls Boys GirlsRate Quintile (39) (38) (437) (420)1. .001–.002 8 8 100 862. .003–.004 7 6 89 643. .005–.006 8 8 76 1044. .007–.009 8 8 83 805. .010–.021 8 8 89 86

96Children & SchoolsVol. 24, No. 2April 2002

variation in students’ perceptions ofschool danger.

Data AnalysisThe association between the vio-

lent crime rate and school danger wastested with MANOVA for univariateanalysis using SPSS, Version 10.0(SPSS, Inc., 1999). The multistagesampling design resulted in studentsbeing nested within schools, andMANOVA provided a means to ad-just for the “intraclass correlation”introduced into the data by the sam-pling of students in schools. Ignoringthis sampling design can lead to in-flated standard errors, which can re-sult in a Type I error (Lohr, 1999).Separate analyses were conducted forboys and girls. Although we couldhave specified an interaction termbetween gender and the violent crimerate risk level, girls were located inonly 38 of the 39 sample schools. A.05 level of statistical significance wasused to evaluate the results from theMANOVA analyses.

School size was entered as acovariate in the analysis on the basisof earlier research. Yet, since thenested design examines the effect ofschools within the five categories ofthe violent crime level, the analysisprocedure controls for random ef-fects associated with differences be-tween schools. This results in a con-servative test of the associationbetween community crime rates andstudents’ perceptions of crime andviolence in schools.

Significant effects in both stagesof the analysis were followed up withleast-significant difference pairwisecomparisons to determine statisticallysignificant differences between sub-groups. Because of the exploratorynature of the investigation, alpha wasset at .10 for examining mean differ-ences between subgroups.

The 39 schools for boys and the 38schools for girls were nearly equallydivided across the five risk categoriesof the independent variable (Table1). With the exception of risk level 2,each risk-level category had eightschools. The number of students ineach risk-level category ranged from64 to 104.

ResultsThe violent crime rate had a sig-

nificant main effect on variation instudents’ perceptions of school dan-ger beyond the effect of school sizein the model for boys only [F(4, 33) =2.81, p < .05]. Variation in the violentcrime rate did not have a statisticallysignificant effect on girls’ perceptionof school danger beyond the influ-ence of school size [F(4, 32) = 1.35, p> .05].

The significant main effect for boysresulted, in part, from the significantdifferences among students in the twohigh categories of risk (risk levels 4and 5) and each of the three lowerlevels of risk (risk levels 1, 2, and 3)(Table 2). Mean differences weregreatest between the lowest risk cat-egory (one to two violent crimes per1,000) and risk categories four andfive (seven to 21 violent crimes per1,000). The group mean for risk level2 also was significantly higher thanthe group mean for either risk level 1or risk level 3, which had similar groupmeans (p > .10). In combination, thesefindings suggest that the rate of vio-lent crime in a community exerts apotential threshold effect on schoolcrime and violence. In other words,violent crime in the community be-comes a risk factor for increasingschool danger in the upper 40 per-cent of the scale’s distribution.

Although not the central focus ofthe investigation, the results con-firmed the importance of school size,

97Community Violent

Crime Rates andSchool Danger

which was used as a control variablein the analysis. However, similar tothe findings for the main effect, theinfluence of school size was statisti-cally significant for boys [( = .140, t =2.51, p < .05], but not for girls [( =.130, t = 1.36, p > .05]. Boys’ percep-tions of school danger increased asschool size increased.

Summary and DiscussionThe findings support expectations

from social disorganization theory andearlier work suggesting that condi-tions in the larger community influ-ence events in smaller communitymicrosystems. Overall, the findingsindicate that higher levels of violentcrime in a community are related toincreased perceptions of school dan-ger, or crime and violence in theschool, for middle school boys but notfor middle school girls. The findingsfor middle school boys are consistentwith a community importation model,or Sampson and colleagues’ (1999)notion of spatial externality, whichsuggests a congruency between eventsacross microsystems.

These findings provide interest-ing implications. First, given the lackof significant findings with regard togirls, it appears that boys experiencegreater potential spill over betweencommunity and school events and situ-ations. This finding is consistent with

earlier research showing that malesboth commit and are victims of moreviolent crime than females (Farrington& Loeber, 2000; Kaufman et al., 2000).Furthermore, it is plausible that boysspend more unsupervised time in thecommunity, meaning that they alsowitness more violent crime than girls(Loeber, Farrington, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Van Kammen, 1998).

Second, consistent with earlier re-search examining threshold effects(Pollard et al., 1999), the associationbetween the rate of violent crime inthe community and perceptions ofschool danger appears to follow acurvilinear pattern. Statistically sig-nificant increases in boys’ perceptionsof school danger were evident at theupper two levels of risk exposure. Al-though perceptions of school dangerwere also higher for boys in the sec-ond category of risk (.003 to .004)than in the first and third categoriesof risk, this appears to be a statisticalartifact. Other than the number ofschools and the number of studentsacross each level of violent crime risk,schools in each risk category weremore similar than different in schooland student characteristics.

Although our findings support theidea that community effects, in thiscase, the violent crime rate, can in-fluence middle school boys’ percep-tions of school danger, the study does

Table 2

Mean Comparisons for School Danger, by the Violent Crime Rate for Males

Violent Crime Rate Risk Level (Low to High)

Scale 1 2 3 4 5School dangera 5.8 (1.9)a 6.7 (2.1)b 6.1 (1.9)a,c 7.3 (2.4)d 7.3 (2.3)d

NOTE: Unique superscripts indicate pairwise contrasts that are significantly different fromeach other (p < .10).aThe scale values for school danger ranged from a low of 4 to a high of 12.

98Children & SchoolsVol. 24, No. 2April 2002

have limitations. First, no assertionof causality can be inferred fromcross-sectional data. For example, theassociation between the violent crimerate and school danger may be spu-rious with variations in both ex-plained by influences not includedin the model. Second, the aggrega-tion of the violent crime rate iscounty-level data. Although thesedata are independent of students’perceptions, reports of violent crimeat levels of community aggregationlower than the county (for example,census tract, zip code) may producestronger effects. Third, in the ab-sence of measures of context-specificsocial processes, we can only hypoth-esize about the influences that medi-ate the association between the vio-lent crime rate and school danger,such as negative peer influences, lackof parental monitoring, and poor so-cial climate and student support atschool. The violent crime rate in acommunity may have a stronger in-direct than direct association withschool danger. Unfortunately, gov-ernment agencies and independentresearchers do not routinely collectaggregate measures of community-level social processes. Last, separateanalyses were conducted only forboys and girls. Other potential vari-ables of interest, such as race andethnicity, could not be examined be-cause of sample constraints withinparticular schools (the sample of stu-dents in a school included onlywhite students, for example). TheMANOVA procedure for adjustingfor nested effects in the sampling de-sign required student subgroups tobe represented in each sample school.

Despite these limitations, ourstudy demonstrates an associationbetween community crime and malestudent’ perceptions of school dan-ger, controlling for school size.

Practice Implications at theSchool Level

School officials have committedsignificant resources during the pastdecade in an attempt to reduce crimeand violence in schools and to helpstudents cope with the consequencesof violent acts. Catalano, Arthur,Hawkins, Berglund, and Olson (1998)reviewed many effective and ineffec-tive interventions at the school level.Interventions incorporating multiplerisk factors, the school context, andpsychological and behavioral aspectsappear promising in the reduction ofschool violence. Project Peace (deAnda, 1999), a 10-session group vio-lence prevention program for highschool students, is an example of sucha multifaceted intervention. The pro-gram, which has implications for in-forming interventions with middleschool students, has demonstratedeffectiveness in reducing violent be-havior by helping students identifytriggers for anger arousal and learnskills in conflict resolution, as well aspromoting a more supportive andcaring school climate.

Astor and colleagues (1999) sug-gested and provided examples of aninnovative strategy for reducingschool violence that involves “map-ping” the school environment. Thisprocess, in conjunction with focusgroups, allows school personnel toidentify the most violent events andthe places in and around the schoolwhere these events occurred. Withthe information obtained throughfocus groups and mapping, specificinterventions tailored to the schoolenvironment can be implemented.

We believe that such mapping canbe extended to the community level.Much in the way that law enforce-ment agencies have begun using “hot-spot” mapping (see next section) toindicate areas of high crime and

99Community Violent

Crime Rates andSchool Danger

danger, we believe schools could dothe same. More than one in threemiddle school students in Bowen andcolleagues’ (1998) national study re-ported feeling unsafe in their neigh-borhoods or afraid on the way to andfrom school. If schools, in partner-ship with local residents and law en-forcement agencies, can map the mostavoided areas of the community onthe way to and from school or theareas with the most reported inci-dents of crime and violence, inter-ventions addressing this lack of safety,or disorganization, can be designedand implemented. For example,schools and law enforcement agen-cies can work together with parentsto develop strategies, such as neigh-borhood block watch programs, tomonitor unsafe areas in their neigh-borhoods before and after school,reducing the propensity of students,especially boys, to get in the middleof available dangerous situations aseither spectators or participants. Suchinterventions may reduce students’experiences with crime and violencein the community and the resultingcontagion of crime and violence fromthe community into the schoolsthrough peer networks and personalexperiences.

Practice Implications at theCommunity Level

Earlier research indicates that resi-dents’ perceived lack of safety in theircommunity may result in a generalfeeling of powerlessness and decreasedaccess to available services (Williams,Pierce, et al., 2001). Consequently,residents of high-crime or violentcommunities may isolate themselves,further eroding the fabric of socialorder (Brodsky, 1996) as well as in-hibiting the development of commu-nity-based assets such as social capi-tal. However, we feel that to improve

situations in schools there must be aneffort to increase collective efficacyin the community. According toSampson and colleagues (1997), col-lective efficacy is enhanced throughthe promotion of trust and sharedvalues among neighbors, a sense ofshared responsibility for the behaviorof children in the neighborhood, anda willingness to act collectively to pre-serve or obtain neighborhood re-sources. We believe that social workpractitioners, including school socialworkers, are well suited to organizethis comprehensive approach.

Nelson (2000) provides a step-by-step guide for practitioners interestedin working with communities to ad-dress concerns, such as crime andviolence, and to build community ca-pacity. The process begins by iden-tifying community groups who arewilling to participate in a commu-nity “self-governance” dialogue. In-creasing community participationand forging connections among resi-dents are important first steps instrengthening a sense of communityand increasing the community’s re-solve to tackle tough challenges likecrime and violence (Bowen, Martin,Mancini, & Nelson, 2001).

Sponsored by a host agency, par-ticipation is sought from a cross-sec-tion of the community, includingpublic and private agency represen-tatives, school personnel, membersof the faith and business community,and lay members of the community,including families and youths. Theaim is to specify performance out-comes for the community, such asreduction of community crime andviolence, and to develop a commu-nity action plan for achieving the out-comes that the entire community iswilling to own. Having input fromparents and youths in the search forsolutions is critical if they are to be

100Children & SchoolsVol. 24, No. 2April 2002

expected to contribute to successfulinterventions (compare Pryor et al.,1999). Similar guides to communitymobilization and development can befound in the literature, which offershelpful information, guidelines, andexercises for community social workpractice (for example, Bowen,Orthner, Martin, & Mancini, 2001;Chaskin, Brown, Venkatesh, & Vidal,2001; Hawkins & Catalano, 1992).

Community-based interventionsthat focus on the reduction of spe-cific risk factors while attempting toenhance protective factors have dem-onstrated positive effects. Variouspolicing strategies (for example, hot-spot patrols and directed patrols) havedemonstrated reductions in the avail-ability of weapons, in robbery, and ingeneral disorder (Sherman, 1997).Community policing where officerspatrol on foot or bicycle and interactpositively and personally with resi-dents is consistent with building col-lective efficacy in neighborhoods.These policing strategies appear tobe one way of providing an appropri-ate mechanism for linking commu-nity mobilization and clearly definedoutcomes. Also, earlier research in-dicates that faith-based organizationsare an important and often underusedsource of support and collaborationin communities (Williams, Pierce, etal., 2001). Places of worship can serveas safe havens for youths living in

dangerous neighborhoods and pro-vide a location for community meet-ings and functions. The componentsof these and other effective commu-nity-based interventions, includingefforts to reduce poverty and increaseresidents’ access to community ser-vices and resources through school-and neighborhood-based partner-ships, adhere to the theoretical un-derpinnings of social disorganizationtheory. In combination, they providea framework for working with com-munities and schools to reduce com-munity crime and violence and in-crease school safety. ■

About the AuthorsGary L. Bowen, PhD, is Kenan Dis-tinguished Professor, and Richard A.Van Dorn, MSW, is a doctoral stu-dent, School of Social Work, Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill,CB#3550, 301 Pittsboro Street, ChapelHill, NC 27599-3550. This article wasprepared with grant support from theJohn S. and James L. Knight Founda-tion, Miami, Florida. The authors thankDr. William B. Ware, professor, Schoolof Education, University of North Caro-lina at Chapel Hill, for his consultationin the statistical analysis of the data.Correspondence should be addressed toGary L. Bowen; e-mail: glbowen@email.unc.edu.

ReferencesAstor, R. A., Varga, L. A., O’Neal-Pitner, R., & Meyer, H. A. (1999).

School violence: Research, theory, and practice. In J. M. Jenson & M.O. Howard (Eds.), Youth violence: Current research and recent practiceinnovations (pp. 139–172). Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Bastian, L., & Taylor, B. (1991). School crime: A national crime victimizationsurvey report . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

101Community Violent

Crime Rates andSchool Danger

Bjerregaard, B., & Smith, C. (1993). Gender differences in gangparticipation, delinquency, and substance use. Journal of QuantitativeCriminology, 9, 329–355.

Bogenschneider, K. (1996). An ecological risk/protective theory forbuilding prevention programs, policies, and community capacity tosupport youth. Family Relations, 45, 127–138.

Bowen, G. L., Bowen, N. K., & Richman, J. M. (1998). Students in peril:Crime and violence in neighborhoods and schools . Chapel Hill: Universityof North Carolina, School of Social Work, Jordan Institute forFamilies.

Bowen, G. L., Bowen, N. K., & Richman, J. M. (2000). School size andmiddle school students’ perceptions of the school environment. SocialWork in Education, 22, 69–82.

Bowen, G. L., Martin, J. A., Mancini, J. A., & Nelson, J. P. (2001). Civicengagement and sense of community in the military. Journal ofCommunity Practice, 9(2), 71–93.

Bowen, G. L., Orthner, D. K., Martin, J. A., & Mancini, J. A. (2001).Building community capacity. Chapel Hill, NC: A Better ImagePrinting.

Bowen, G. L., Woolley, M. E., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, N. K. (2001).Brief intervention in schools: The school success profile. BriefTreatment and Crisis Intervention, 1, 43–54.

Bowen, N. K., & Bowen, G. L. (1999). Effects of crime and violence inneighborhoods and schools on the school behavior and performanceof adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 319–342.

Bowen, N. K., Bowen, G. L., & Ware, W. B. (in press). Neighborhoodsocial disorganization, families, and the educational behavior ofadolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research.

Brodsky, A. E. (1996). Resilient single mothers in risky neighborhoods.Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 347–363.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for humandevelopment: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22,723–742.

Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistle, I., & Earls, F. J. (2001). Youthexposure to violence: Prevalence, risks, and consequences. AmericanJournal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 298–310.

Catalano, R. F., Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Berglund, L., & Olson, J.J. (1998). Comprehensive community- and school-basedinterventions to prevent antisocial behavior. In R. Loeber & D. P.Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors andsuccessful interventions (pp. 248–283). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, J. D. (1996). The social development model:A theory of antisocial behavior. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquencyand crime: Current theories (pp. 149–197). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Chaskin, R. J., Brown, P., Venkatesh, S., & Vidal, A. (2001). Buildingcommunity capacity. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

102Children & SchoolsVol. 24, No. 2April 2002

Crane, J. (1991). The epidemic theory of ghettos and neighborhood effectson dropping out and teenage childbearing. American Journal ofSociology, 96, 1226–1259.

de Anda, D. (1999). Project Peace: The evaluation of a skills-basedviolence prevention program for high school adolescents. Social Workin Education, 21, 137–149.

Erickson, P. I., & Rapkin, A. J. (1991). Unwanted sexual experiencesamong middle and high school youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 12,319–325.

Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2000). Epidemiology of youth violence.Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 9, 733–748.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1999). Uniform crime reports: Crime in theUnited States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Gilligan, J. (1997). Violence: Reflections on a national epidemic. New York:Vintage Books.

Hallfors, D., & Van Dorn, R. A. (in press). Strengthening the role of twokey institutions in the prevention of adolescent substance abuse.Journal of Adolescent Health.

Hand, J. Z., & Sanchez, L. (2000). Badgering or bantering? Genderdifferences in experience of, and reactions to, sexual harassmentamong U.S. high school students. Gender & Society, 14, 718–746.

Harris and Associates. (1996). The Metropolitan Life survey of the Americanteacher, 1994. New York: Author.

Harris and Associates (1997). School success profile (Study No. 628173). NewYork: Author.

Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F., Jr. (1992). Communities that care: Actionfor drug abuse prevention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hill, K. G., Howell, J. C., Hawkins, J. D., & Battin Pearson, S. R. (1999).Childhood risk factors for adolescent gang membership: Results fromthe Seattle Social Development Project. Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency, 36, 300–322.

Hill, S. C., & Drolet, J. C. (1999). School-related violence among highschool students in the United States, 1993–1995. Journal of SchoolHealth, 69, 264–272.

Kaufman, P., Chen, X., Choy, S. P., Ruddy, S. A., Miller, A. K., Fluery, J.K., Chandler, K. A., Rand, M. R., Klaus, P., & Planty, M. G. (2000).Indicators of school crime and safety, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S.Departments of Education and Justice.

Laub, J. H., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1998). The interdependence of schoolviolence with neighborhood and family conditions. In D. S. Elliott,B. A. Hamburg, & K. R. Williams (Eds.), Violence in American schools:A new perspective (pp. 127–158). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Loeber, R., & Dishon, T. (1983). Early predictors of male delinquency: Areview. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 68–99.

Loeber, R., Farrington, D. P., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Van Kammen,W. B. (1998). Antisocial behavior and mental health problems:Explanatory factors in childhood and adolescence. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum.

103Community Violent

Crime Rates andSchool Danger

Lohr, S. L. (1999). Sampling: Design and analysis. New York: Duxbury.Maguin, E., Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R. F., Hill, K., Abbott, R., &

Herrenkohl, T. (1995, November). Risk factors measured at three agesfor violence at age 17–18. Paper presented at the American Society ofCriminology, Boston.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1988). Eighth-gradequestionnaire: National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988(OMB No. 1850-0593). Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofEducation.

Nelson, G. M. (2000). Self-governance in communities and families. SanFrancisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Newcomb, M. D., & Felix-Ortiz, M. (1992). Multiple protective and riskfactors and drug use and abuse: Cross-sectional and prospectivefindings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 564–577.

Olweus, D. (1991). Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basicfacts and effects of a school-based intervention program. In D. J.Pepler & K. H. Rubin (Eds.), The development and treatment ofchildhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pollard, J. A., Hawkins, J. D., & Arthur, M. W. (1999). Risk andprotection: Are both necessary to understand diverse behavioraloutcomes in adolescence? Social Work Research, 23, 145–158.

Prothrow-Stith, D. (2000). Youth risk and resilience: Communityapproaches to violence prevention. In J. M. Richman & M. W. Fraser(Eds.), The context of youth violence: Risk, resilience, and protection (pp.97–114). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Pryor, C. B., Sarri, R. C., Bombyk, M., & Nikolovska, L. (1999). Urbanyouths’ views of violence in their communities: Implications forschools. Social Work in Education, 21, 72–87.

Roncek, D., & Maier, P. A. (1991). Bars, blocks and crime revisited:Linking the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of hotspots. Criminology, 29, 725–753.

Rose, L., Gallup, A., & Elam, S. (1997). The 29th annual Phi DeltaKappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward public schools. PhiDelta Kappan, 79, 41–56.

Sampson, R. J. (1997). The embeddedness of child and adolescentdevelopment: A community-level perspective on urban violence. In J.McCord (Ed.), Violence and childhood in the inner city (pp. 31–77). NewYork: Cambridge University Press.

Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital:Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. AmericanSociological Review, 64, 633–660.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoodsand violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science,277, 1–7.

Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sherman, L. W. (1997). Policing for crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman,D. Gottfredson, D. MacKenzie, J. Eck, P. Reuter, & S. Bushway

104Children & SchoolsVol. 24, No. 2April 2002

(Eds.), Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t and what’s promising(pp. 8-1 – 8-65). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.

SPSS, Inc. (1999). Version 10.0. Chicago: Author.Welsh, W. N., Stokes, R., & Greene, J. R. (2000). A macro-level model of

school disorder. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 243–283.

Williams, J. H. (1994). Understanding substance use, delinquency involvement,and juvenile justice system involvement among African-American andEuropean-American adolescents. Unpublished dissertation, Universityof Washington, Seattle.

Williams, J. H., Pierce, B., Young, N. S., & Van Dorn, R. A. (2001).Service utilization in high crime communities: Consumer views onsupports and barriers. Families in Society, 82, 409–418.

Williams, J. H., Van Dorn, R. A., Hawkins, J. D., Abbott, R., & Catalano,R. F. (2001). Interpersonal, family, and community correlates offemale violence: An analysis of gender differences in youngadulthood. Violence and Victims, 16, 371–388.

Accepted October 24, 2001