Assessing School and Student Predictors of Weapons Reporting

• Author: Veda E. Brown,Mark R. Fondacaro,Lindsey E. Wylie,Eve M. Brank,Scott A. Miller,Chris L. Gibson,Stephen W. Smith
• Published date: 01 October 2010
• Date: 01 October 2010
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1541204010368641
• Published By: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Subject Matter: Articles

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
8(4) 351-372
Assessing School and
ª The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
Student Predictors of
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204010368641
http://yvjj.sagepub.com
Weapons Reporting
Lindsey E. Wylie,1 Chris L. Gibson,2
Eve M. Brank,1 Mark R. Fondacaro,3
Stephen W. Smith,2 Veda E. Brown,4 and
Scott A. Miller2
Abstract
School violence and weapons at school are a major concern for community members, school
administrators, and policy makers. This research examines both student-level and school-level vari-
ables that predict middle school students’ willingness to report a weapon at school under several
reporting conditions. Results substantiate previous analyses of these data that student-level variables
explain students’ willingness to report a weapon but extend these findings to include school climate
variables that affect willingness to report (i.e., collective identity and conflict). School climate vari-
ables were also shown to influence reporting under conditions where there would be consequences
for the weapons-carrying student or for the reporting student; however, school climate was not
found to influence anonymous reporting conditions. Although policies aimed at improving school
climate may increase a student’s willingness to report and are important in their own right, improv-
ing a school’s climate may be a daunting task. This research, therefore, suggests that the most effi-
cient way to encourage weapons reporting is to provide students with an anonymous way to report.
Keywords
Weapons reporting, school climate, school violence
Introduction
Although school-associated violent deaths account for less than 1% of homicides among school-age
children (Anderson et al., 2001), there is widespread fear among parents and school officials that
school shootings could take place in their community (Garcia, 2004; Sullivan, 2002). Moreover, stu-
dents are also fearful of school violence and report that they are more afraid of being attacked in
1 University of Nebraska-Lincoln, NE, USA
2 University of Florida, Gainesville, USA
3 City University of New York, USA
4 Beaumont Independent School District, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
Eve M. Brank, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, P.O. Box 880308, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
Email: ebrank2@unl.edu
351

---

352
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 8(4)
school than outside of school (Dinkes, Cataldi, & Lin-Kelly, 2007). With this emerging fear, and
wave of media reports about school shootings, law enforcement and school officials are searching
for solutions to reduce school violence generally and weapons-related violence more specifically.
Currently, several initiatives have emerged to target school violence. Most notable are zero tol-
erance policies that require a minimum 1 year suspension for weapons possession in school (Federal
Gun-Free Schools Act, 1994). Schools have also implemented other preventative measures such as
security cameras, the presence of law enforcement, random searches, locked entrances, duress
alarms, and metal detectors to ‘‘beef up’’ security (Garcia, 2004; U.S. Department of Education,
2009). Most of these options, however, have generated some controversy. For example, random
searches by school officials arguably violate students’ rights (Beger, 2003) and are thought to be
ineffective (Mawson, Lapsley, Hoffman, & Guignard, 2002). Furthermore, metal detectors are very
expensive and their effectiveness is questionable (Garcia, 2004; Skiba et al., 2006; U.S. Department
of Education, 2009).
Because these policies have not been met with much success, policy makers are exploring alter-
natives to these strict and punitive measures. In 2002, one such program was initiated by PAX (Real
Solutions to Gun Violence), a non-profit agency aimed at reducing gun violence toward children and
families. The agency’s ‘‘Speak Up’’ program is a national campaign that includes an anonymous
hotline and public service announcements that encourage students to report other students who may
be threatening violence or carrying a weapon to school (About Speak Up, 2006). In Tennessee, an
effort called ‘‘Be Cool, Don’t Let Guns Rule’’ is similarly encouraging students to report potential
weapons at school and school events through an anonymous hotline as a joint effort between a local
sheriff’s office, Crime Stoppers, and the U.S. Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (Koch,
2008). According to the Safe School Initiative, encouraging students to report a weapon is important
because in approximately three fourths of the recent school attacks, at least one person had informa-
tion about the potential attack and in most cases this person was a peer, friend, school mate, or sib-
ling (Vossekuil, Fein, Reddy, Borum, & Modzeleski, 2002).
A recent study by Brank et al. (2007) explored student characteristics associated with willingness
to report but did not examine school-level characteristics. Other research has indicated that account-
ing for school variables can further contribute to understanding predictive characteristics of stu-
dent’s behavior (e.g., Beaver, Wright, & Maume, 2008; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Payne, 2008;
Stewart, 2003; Wilcox & Clayton, 2001) like weapons reporting. Therefore, the current research
investigates how school characteristics may influence willingness to report weapon carrying, while
extending the analyses from Brank et al. (2007), which accounted for student characteristics.
Informed by research on school climate—school structural and social characteristics are examined
to better understand how context might influence willingness to report and willingness to report
under various situations. In other words, how are the correlates of weapons reporting different if
reporting is anonymous, if there are known consequences for the person reporting, and if there are
known consequences for the student carrying the weapon?
Literature Review
To date, research examining how school context influences adolescent behavior has largely focused
on how school variables predict delinquency, violence, victimization, academic performance, and
self-control (e.g., Anderson, 1982; Beaver et al., 2008; Burrow & Apel, 2008; Brookmeyer, Fanti,
& Henrich, 2006; Payne, Gottfredson, & Gottfredson, 2003; Plucker, 1998; Stewart, 2003; Turner,
Piquero, & Pratt, 2005; Welsch, Greene, & Jenkins, 1999; Wilcox & Clayton, 2001); however, how
school contextual factors influence weapons reporting among students has received virtually no
empirical attention. Furthermore, no research to date has examined both school climate factors that
352

---

Wylie et al.
353
influence reporting and different circumstances in which students are willing to report other students
carrying weapons.
Before describing the methods and data used for the current analysis, we discuss several key lit-
eratures on schools and weapons. First, we discuss the prevalence of weapons in schools and current
policy initiatives surrounding school violence, weapons at schools, and aims at efforts to reduce
school attacks. Then, we discuss the limited research that has assessed factors related to students
reporting other students for carrying weapons at school. Finally, relying on research on school cli-
mate and community research, we discuss how schools that adolescents attend not only vary but how
these contexts can influence reporting practices.
Current Policies Addressing Weapons in School
A national survey on school crime and safety found that approximately 6% of students reported car-
rying a weapon to school during the prior 30 days. Although from 1993 to 1999 the percentage of
students carrying a weapon to school declined from 12% to 6%, no measurable change has been
observed from 1999 to 2007 (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). In a recent analysis of the
2001 School Crime Supplement of the National Crime Victimization Survey, consisting of a nation-
ally representative sample of students, about 5% of students reported that they knew a peer had car-
ried a weapon to school (Cao, Zhang, & He, 2008). Similarly, one in five students reported fear of
being victimized with a weapon at school (Brown & Benedict, 2004) and between 4% and 11% of
students (varying across participating states) reported being injured or threatened with a weapon at
school (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).
Endeavors for reducing weapons in school have focused on methods that reduce opportunities for
weapons carrying by increasing associated risks and decreasing rewards (see Theory of Situational
Crime Prevention [SCP] in Clarke, 1997). For example, school officials have increased security
measures to now include security cameras, locker checks, metal detectors, the presence of security
guards or police officers, increased adult supervision in hallways, and locked entrances (Garcia,
2004; Snell, Bailey, Carona, & Mebane, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2009). With respect
to metal detectors, a nationwide sample indicated that 10% of schools contained metal detectors in
2007 (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Although metal detectors may reduce weapons in
schools (Catalano, Loeber, & McKinney, 1999), opponents argue that the advantages do not out-
weigh the disadvantages. School officials claim they are too expensive and are ineffective because
monitoring students is difficult when the majority of students enter school just minutes before the
bell (De Vise, 2008; Garcia, 2004). Furthermore, if a student is highly motivated to bring a weapon
into school, the student could simply...