Presented at the 18th Annual APS Convention May 26, 2006 - New York City, NY

1. Reducing Weapons Victimization Among Elementary School Students: An Analyses of the Effects of PeaceBuilders Presented at the 18th Annual APS Convention May 26, 2006 - New York City, NY Faith Lamb-Parker1, Alexander Vazsonyi2, Gregg Powell3, Nicole G. Ives3, Daniel J Flannery4, Dennis D. Embry5 1Columbia University, 2Auburn University, 3R&P Associates, LTD., 4Kent State University, 5PAXIS Institute

2. Abstract PeaceBuilders is a universal, elementary-school-based violence prevention program that aims to alter the climate of a school by teaching students and staff simple rules and activities for improving child social competence and reducing aggressive behavior. Eight matched schools (N = 4,000 students in Grades K–5) were randomly assigned to either immediate post baseline intervention or to a delayed intervention one year following the initial one. General linear modeling (GLM) was used to test for program effects between baseline and initial follow-up in both cohorts. Significant changes were found for perceived threats by a gun or knife. No significant slopes effects were found in models that tested for differential race effects. Implications for early universal school-based prevention are discussed.

3. Introduction • Prior to 1970s, gunshot injuries to children were rare.1 • Beginning in late 1980’s, youth weapon carrying and arrest rates increased dramatically.2 • In the same time period, more and more of the penetrating injuries occurred as the result of peer victimization.3,4,5 • In the USA alone, approximately 20,000 children and youth under age 20 have been killed or injured by guns.6 • Random shootings and other violent acts with weapons are occurring in American middle and high schools.7 • Students exposed to threats carry weapons for protection and engaging in unsafe gun behavior at home.8

4. Introduction Cont’d. • Carrying a weapon on school property is associated with being a victim of a threat or injury with a weapon on school property.9 • Students’ perceptions that other students are carrying weapons to school increased the likelihood of their carrying weapons to school.10 • Carrying a knife or club is associated with being threatened with a weapon at school, drastically increasing the likelihood of there being a lethal confrontation.11 • Thus, being threatened by someone carrying a weapon in school and its consequences have become major concerns for students, parents, teachers, school administrators, and policymakers.

5. Theoretical Perspective • Aggression is a known developmental risk factor for negative adolescent outcomes,12, 13, 14 and early aggression predicts weapons use.15 • One theory: Early aggression is an adaptation to a predatory environment. Changing the environment may affect perceptions of danger.16 • An adaptation model approach to violence prevention: changing the proximal peer environment to signal peace, rather than predatory threat.17

6. Research Question Does PeaceBuilders have an impact on victimization by weapons among elementary-school children?

7. Method Subjects: Of N = 1,897 (Mean age = 9.8 years), n = 1,466 completed pre and post measure (response rate = 77%). (see Table 2). Measure: Two items from a 100-item survey18,19,20 measuring child reported prosocial behaviors, aggression, and PeaceBuilder behaviors—perceived threat and victimization: • “Somebody tried to hurt me with a gun or knife.” • “I saw kids doing gang activities at school.” Questions asked children to think back over the past two weeks and to assess to what extent these statements were true; they were rated as 1 = no, 2 = a little, and 3 = a lot.

8. Method Cont’d. Data Analyses: • General Linear Modeling (GLM) repeated-measures procedures were used. • Models were tested by sex and race due to known differences in both perpetration and victimization among children by sex, and by racial group. Age was included in the model that tested effects by sex as a covariate, while both age and sex were included in the model that tested effects by race.

9. Method Cont’d. • Pair wise comparisons were conducted based on the estimated marginal means. Because differences over time were hypothesized a priori, significant pair wise comparisons were reported regardless of the significance of the omnibus F statistic. • This analytic approach was completed twice, once for each construct of interest (gun/ knife and gangs).

10. Results: Guns and Knives • Across all grade levels and for both boys and girls, about 10% of students reported threat by a gun or knife, with slightly increasing frequencies between 3rd and 4th grades, followed by a very slight decline in 5th grade. • A statistically significant change in gun/knife from pretest to posttest (time, F [1, 1362] =9.42, p < .01) as well as a significant time*sex effects (F [1, 1362] = 4.74, p < .03). • Follow-up mean level comparisons of estimated marginal means suggested statistically significant decreases in girls (M change = .092, p < .001) and no statistically significant changes on boys, though the value at posttest was lower than at pretest.

11. Results: Gang Activity • Over 1/3 and in some cases almost half of all students reported witnessing some gang activity at school. • With the exception of 3rd grade, boys tended to report higher levels of gang activity than girls. • Across grade levels, the level of witnessing gang activity was quite similar, though 4th graders witnessed more than 3rd graders, while 5th graders witnessed slightly less than 4th graders.

12. Results: Gang Activity Cont’d. • A statistically significant change in gangs from pretest to posttest (time, F [1, 1354] =3.940, p < .05). • No other effects (time*age or time*sex). • Follow-up estimated marginal mean comparisons suggested statistically significant decreases in girls (M change = .098, p < .001) and no statistically significant changes on boys, though the value at posttest was similarly lower than at pretest.

13. Discussion • Secondary analyses of data from the original PeaceBuilders study21 suggest that PeaceBuilders, based on Embry’s adaptation model for violence prevention, had positive effects on reducing potential weapon’s and gang victimization, particularly among girls. • No iatrogenic effects were found, unlike those documented in other studies of children living in criminogenic environments.22

14. Discussion Cont’d. • There were no increases in weapons or gang behavior among boys. Boys tend to become increasingly aggressive during this developmental phase—especially in neighborhoods with criminogenic qualities.23 This flat-line picture suggests that the PeaceBulders experience might have altered the aggression/violence trajectory for boys into the future.

15. Implications • Appears to be first study showing reduced weapons and gang behaviors among pre-adolescent, elementary-school students, an important predictive factor for reduced antisocial involvement during adolescence and young adulthood. 24 • Pronounced beneficial effects on girls in being less exposed to potential weapon and gang victimization. • Reduced involvement of girls in gang activity, over time could reduce such public health and safe issues as teen pregnancy, secondary or intergenerational child abuse and neglect, sexually transmitted diseases, and involvement with highly dangerous drugs, like met amphetamine.25,26

16. References 1 Laraque, D., Barlow, B., Durkin, M., Howell, J., Cladis, F., Friedman, D.,DiScala, C., Ivatury, R., & Stahl,W. (1995). Children who are shot: a 30-year experience. Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 30(7), 1072-1075; discussion 1075-1076. 2 Blumstein, A. (2002) Youth guns, and violent crime. The Future of Children, 12(2), 39-53. 3 Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2000). Epidemiology of juvenile violence. Child & Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 9(4), 733-748. 4 Sayre, J. W. (1994). Violence: a growing danger to children. The American case. Turkish Journal of Pediatrics, 36(1), 49-55. 5 Zun, L. S., Downey, L., & Rosen, J. M. (2005). Who Are the Young Victims of Violence? Pediatric Emergency Care, 21(9), 568-573. 6 Reich, K., Culross, P. L., & Behrman, R. E. (2002). Children, Youth, and Gun Violence: Analysis and Recommendations. Future of Children, 12(2), 5. 7 Kimmel, M., Mahler, M.(2003) Adolescent Masculinity. Homophobia, and Violence. American Behavioural Scientist, 46 (10), 1439-1458. 8 Vacha, E. F., & McLaughlin, T. F. (2004). Risky firearms behavior in low-income families of elementary school children: The impact of fpoverty, fear of crime, and crime victimization on keeping and storing firearms. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 175-184. 9 DuRant, R. H., Kahn, J., Beckford, P. H., & Woods, E. R. (1997). The association of weapon carrying and fighting on school property and other health risk and problem behaviors among high school students. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 360-366. 10 Bailey, S.L., Flewelling, R.L., & Rosenbaum, D.P. (1997) Characteristics of students who bring weapons to school. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20, 261-270.

17. References Cont’d. 11 DuRant, R. H., Krowchuk, D. P., Kreiter, S., Sinal, S. H., & Woods, C. R. (1999). Weapon carrying on school property among middle school students. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 153(1), 21-26. 12 Coie, J.D., Lochman, J.E., Terry, R., & Hyman, C. (1992). Predicting early adolescent disorder from childhood aggression and peer rejection. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 783-792. 13 Vazsonyi, A. T., Belliston, L. M., & Flannery, D. J. (2004). Evaluation of a School-Based, Universal Violence Prevention Program: Low-, Medium-, and High-Risk Children. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2(2), 185-206.14 Wasserman, G., McReynolds, L., Lucas, C., Fisher, P., Santos, L. (2003). With Incarcerated Male Youths: Prevalence of Disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(3), 314-321.15 Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2000). Epidemiology of juvenile violence. Child Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 9(4), 733-748.16 Embry, D. D., & Flannery, D. J. (1999). Two sides of the coin: Multi-level prevention and intervention to reduce youth violent behavior. In D. J. Flannery & C. R. Huff (Eds.), Youth Violence: Prevention, Intervention and Social Policy. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.17 Embry, D. D., Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Powell, K. E., & Atha, H. (1996).PeaceBuilders: A theoretically driven, school-based model for early violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5, Suppl), 91.18 Embry, D. D., Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Powell, K. E., & Atha, H. (1996). PeaceBuilders: A theoretically driven, school-based model for early violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5, Suppl), 91.

18. References Cont’d. 19 Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Liau, A. K., Guo, S., Powell, K. E., Atha, H,Vesterdal, W.,& Embry, D. (2003). Initial behavior outcomes for the PeaceBuilders universal school-based violence prevention program. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 292-308.20 Vazsonyi, A. T., Vesterdal, W. J., Flannery, D. J., & Belliston, L. (1999). The utility of child self-reports and teacher ratings in classifying children's official delinquency status. Studies on Crime & Crime Prevention, 8(2), 225-244. 21 Embry, D. D., Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Powell, K. E., & Atha, H. (1996). PeaceBuilders: A theoretically driven, school-based model for early violence prevention. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5, Suppl), 91.22 Eron, L., Huesmann, R., Spindler, A., Guerra, N., Henry, D., & Tolan, P. (2002). A cognitive-ecological approach to preventing aggression in urban settings: Initial outcomes for high-risk children. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 70(1), 179-199. 23 Simon, T. R., Dent, C. W., & Sussman, S. (1997). Vulnerability to victimization, concurrent problem behaviors, and peer influence as predictors of in-school weapon carrying among high school students. Violence & Victims, 12(3), 277-289.24 Cepeda, A., & Valdez, A. (2003). Risk behaviors among young Mexican American gang-associated females: Sexual relations, partying, substance use, and crime. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18(1), 90-106.25 Hunt, G. P., Joe-Laidler, K., & Evans, K. (2002). The meaning and gendered culture of getting high: Gang girls and drug use issues. Contemporary Drug Problems, 29(2), 375-415.26 Robinson, C. J. (2001). Methamphetamine use and sales among gang members: The cross-over effect. Journal of Gang Research, 9(1), 39-52.

19. Table 1. Child Self-Report (Grade 3-5) with Pre/Posttest Total N 1,466 Boys 759/757 Girls 707/700 _______________________________ 1 Study n’s varied by the two main dependent variables (gun/knife versus witnessing gang activity)

20. Contact Information Faith Lamb-Parker, Ph.D. C. Gregg Powell, Ph.D. Mailman School of Public Health R & P Associates, , LTD Columbia University 116 S. Lee Street 60 Haven Ave. B2 Alexandria, VA 22314 New York, NY 10032 703/836-3552 212/304-7314 cgpowell@aol.com flp1@columbia.edu