Responses and Discussions related to Community and School Violence.

 Response of Kathy Sanders-Phillips, Ph.D., Howard University.

Dr. Phillips came to the discussion of community violence from the perspective of a drug abuse researcher, and as a public health researcher in general. She is interested in the impact of exposure to community violence on risk behaviors such as substance abuse, particularly among minority adolescent populations. She discussed her work examining the impact of community violence on HIV infection and other risk behaviors linked to health disparities in South African adolescent girls. Dr. Phillips then discussed theoretical models and the importance of modifying those models as research yields new information. The first critical theoretical model to consider is that children and families are embedded in social and cultural systems. We cannot understand the development of behaviors or responses without reference to the social system in which children live and grow. Therefore, we must examine these systems, as well as race and ethnicity, and incorporate them into our theoretical models. Referring to Dr. McCloskey’s presentation, Dr. Phillips mentioned the disparate identification of males for intervention services to illustrate the plight of African-American boys. The literature suggests that adolescent male victims, if African American, are more likely to be identified by the juvenile justice system and incarcerated. By contrast, white adolescent males are more likely to be identified by the mental health system. There are cumulative effects from multiple experiences of poverty, violence, racism, and oppression, and other forms of abuse. These experiences reinforce alienation from society, and feelings of helplessness and powerlessness. Therefore, it is important to examine how the experiences of children of color impact their responses to violence. It is also critical to understand the mechanisms by which exposure to violence impacts psychological dysfunction. More research is needed on the psychological, physical, and social mechanisms in children, as well as the impacts on parental behaviors, social norms, cultural norms, and how these multiple levels of experiences interact to foster dysfunction. We need to incorporate our theoretical findings into interventions and consider the multiple avenues where intervention can take place. It is also important to train health care personnel on how to assess and treat exposure to violence, and to develop strategies to help schools protect children. 

Response of Gregory A. Thomas, M.S., New York City Board of Education 

Mr. Thomas prefaced his remarks by describing the New York City school system, which has over one million children in over one thousand schools. Schools are generally safe but what happens on weekends carries over into the schools. His goal is trying to reduce violence in New York City schools and the surrounding community. He emphasized that we must be careful about how we define violence, because perceptions vary for urban and suburban areas. What is normal for one community may seem violent to another community. In addition, tolerance of violence in urban communities may lead to lower incidence of reporting in these areas. The more children see violence and get used to it, the less likely they are to report it. Mr. Thomas also discussed the “No Child Left Behind Law,” which allows parents to transfer children from persistently dangerous schools (those schools deemed dangerous for 2 concurrent years). One measure of how dangerous schools are is the number of weapons identified in the schools. However, while weapon scanning can identify weapons in schools that have these devices, not all schools have scanning systems. Mr. Thomas also referred to an article on the World Trade Center attacks and the impact on schools. A number of schools were in the proximity of the World Trade Center attacks, and a number of students lost parents or knew people killed in the attacks. This attack was seen as a violent episode in the minds of children, and had a devastating impact. Thus, researchers should consider the long-term effects of this act in future studies. 

 Discussion

 There was a significant discussion about how gang violence is conceptualized, which has not been consistently addressed in the literature. Dr. Lynch noted that gang violence is often subsumed under school violence, while Dr. Phillips noted that in some areas, community violence is defined by gang violence. In addition, many gang members see the gang as part of their family system, which can further complicate outsiders’ perspectives of the issue. Dr. Stein cautioned, however, that we are creating somewhat artificial categories to group sexual, community, domestic, and school violence. We must consider the complexity of these issues and the relationships between these forms of violence. There was also some discussion about the use of high-risk samples to inform community violence research. For instance, Dr. Fantuzzo suggested that high-risk samples may compromise the content validity of surveys. Dr. Stein agreed that this is a problem, and that there are few studies of the general population to give us a broader perspective on the prevalence of violence. Dr. Hill added that we need to look beyond paper and pencil instruments and ask the community to help interpret answers in their social context. This will allow researchers to construct studies that can yield more relevant data. Other participants urged the research community to consider the neurological pathways resulting from exposure to violence, particularly how they affect impulse control and aggressive behavior. There was also discussion about the need to separate out pre-existing mental health conditions and behavior tendencies when considering the effects of violence. Dr. Lynch suggested that a possible solution to this is to start early identifying impacts and precursors of violence. In real life there are millions of things that account for all the variances. Dr. Leavitt concluded the discussion by reminding the group to look at its ultimate goals: Fostering resilience, determining the underlying pathways that lead to problems in children exposed to violence, and developing interventions. Dr. Stein agreed that the goal is interventions that will have a greater likelihood of actually being used in communities. We have to understand the different communities to help different children. During the breakout group discussion, the group posed the concept that the community is not just the location of the violence or a set of people, houses, and apartments. The community is a set of interconnecting relationships. The group also made the assumption that violence in schools often stems from the community, and that the school can be viewed as an integral part of the community; therefore, it does not make sense to distinguish between school violence and community violence, except in unique issues such as bullying. We also need to understand school violence in terms of chronic conditions, not just acute events like Columbine. 

Participants discussed research needed to inform policymakers about best practices, including on the relationship between witnessing violence and violent behavior, the psychological and physiological mechanisms linking the two, whether and how violence may exacerbate health disparities between racial and ethnic groups, and the physical effects of living in a violent community. Additional research on how schools influence occurrence and consequences of neighborhood or school-related violence is also needed. Specifically, how does violence within a school setting impede educational achievement and ultimate escape from the community? What are the educational outcomes associated with community violence? What is the role of schools in mediating violence? If you reduce family and community violence, does it change how children behave in schools? How do you link government and education to improve the community? What are the effects of bullying, particularly at younger ages? Participants also discussed the importance of developing interventions directed not just at the individual child, but at the community as well to help foster resilience. 

As part of this discussion, participants raised a number of research questions, including:

 • How does violence affect the social contract within the community?

 • How do different groups define community, family, and neighborhood?

 • How is the community affected by violence? 

• What is the role of the community as a potential buffer for violence and for how its people react to that violence? 

• How does community reaction to violence affect children, their reactions, and their development? • How does violence in the community affect the overall area, not just individuals? 

• Is there a relationship between community violence and a violent community? 

• What are the effects of direct and indirect exposure to community violence? How do the two compare?

 Further discussion focused on identifying the mechanism that occurs between witnessing violence and violent behavior to understand the biological and psychological pathways. In particular, researchers should examine: 

• How violence affects children at different developmental stages; 

• The underlying mechanisms leading to violence that can inform interventions; 

• The impact of direct or indirect exposure to violence on outcomes such as behaviors and feelings; 

• Younger children’s constructions of community;

 • How poverty, culture, and ethnicity mediate exposure to violence and outcomes, including the causes for feelings of alienation and hopelessness within groups;

 • Protective factors, assets, etc. in a community that foster resilience to violence; 

• Specific outcomes of children exposed to dual violence (e.g., domestic and community);

 • Gun control policies internationally and their effects on community violence.