Youth and Violence

YOUTH AND VIOLENCE

Youth Crime in Canada

 Many adolescents commit antisocial and delinquent acts at some time during their adolescence.Such manifestations of risk-taking, rebellion, and rejection of traditional values are a part of normal development.Atwater (1983), for example, reported that 75% of American youth admitted to committing one or more delinquent behaviours during adolescence.This figure is likely an underestimate as West (1984) reported that over 90% of Canadian high school boys reported committing some delinquent acts, based on self-reports.Typical behaviours include swearing, fighting, shoplifting, truancy, drinking, and experimentation with drugs.

 Prevalence rates for delinquent behaviour have also been reported for school-aged children.LeBlanc, McDuff, Charlebois, Gagnon, Larrivee, and Tremblay (1991), for example, found that 21.8% of their sample of disadvantaged Canadian youth had committed at least one of three serious delinquent offences (fighting with a weapon, entering and stealing, or stealing goods worth more than $100) between the age of 4 and 9 years.In his review of the literature, Loeber (1987) reported that as many as 50% of elementary-school children have engaged in theft and as many as 37% of boys have been involved in physical assault.Based on self-report data from an American sample of 748 children aged 11 to 12 years Richards, Berk, and Forster (1979) found that 22% had defaced property, 9% had damaged property, 5% had been truant, 3.9% had used marijuana, and 1.5% had stolen a bicycle.

 In most cases, however, the incidence of delinquent behaviours diminishes as the youth enters early adulthood.This transition comes about as a result of the individual assuming greater responsibility for his or her own behaviour, making decisions about what is socially appropriate and acceptable, demonstrating the necessary self-control skills to conduct oneself as a responsible individual, and showing empathy towards others and establishing healthy relationships with adults and peers.It is generally accepted that the school system can help foster and promote these skills and build self-esteem by conveying the message, through policy and programming, that students are valued and respected rather than feared, dismissed, or held in contempt.

 Indeed, only a small percentage of adolescents become identified as "offenders" in a legal sense, as determined by the YOA.The YOA, which came into effect in 1984, "applies to all offences in the Criminal Code committed by a person between the age of 12 and 17 years" (Roher, 1993, p. 1).Children under the age of 12 years cannot be criminally charged but are covered under provincial child welfare legislation such as the Child and Family Services Act (1984) in Ontario.

 Within the general community, criminal behaviour resulting in an arrest occurs among a small percentage of youth.Based on court records, only 3% of the Canadian population of adolescents aged 12 to 17 years were seen in youth court in 1992-1993 (Statistics Canada, 1993).Across the country, this figure ranged from 1.2% in Quebec to 6.6% in the Yukon.In most cases, the charges involved property crimes (e.g., theft under $1,000, break and enter), accounting for 54% of the cases heard in youth court in 1992-1993.In the same period, violent offences accounted for 19% of the cases (Statistics Canada, 1993).

 At the same time, recent police data from the Uniform Crime Report (UCR), indicated that the number of youths aged 12 to 17 years who were arrested by the police in Canada, rose 18% between 1986 and 1992.Moreover, in the same period, the number of charged youths who were charged with a violent crime rose 75%, from 8% to 14%.Indeed, the rate of increase for violent crimes was 2.3 times faster for young offenders than for adult offenders.Most of this increase was due to a greater number of minor assault cases (Statistics Canada, 1993).Interestingly, the number of charged youths who were charged with a property crime decreased 14% between 1986 and 1992.However, this figure was less than the change rate for adult offenders which showed a decrease of 33% (Hung & Lipinski, 1994).More recently, an article in The Globe and Mail ("Crime rate," 1994) reported that, while the crime rate, in general, decreased by 5%, the rate for violent crimes among young offenders increased by 13% in 1993.

 It should also be noted that a relatively small percentage of offenders account for much of the criminal charges, particularly violent crimes.Day, Minevich, Hunt, and Hrynkiw-Augimeri (1994) reported that 21% of a sample of young offenders in Toronto accounted for 65% of the total number of charges incurred by the sample.This finding is consistent with other studies conducted in the United States and England (Farrington, 1983; Shannon, 1980; Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1990).Within the general population, only 6-7% of adolescents are responsible for committing the majority of officially-recorded crimes (Shannon, 1980; Tracy et al., 1990).

 Youth involvement in criminal behaviour is also reflected in victimization rates. According to Statistics Canada (1992a) "23% of all violent crime victims were teenagers between 12 and 19 years, double their representation in the 1990 Canadian population" (p. 1).Particularly disconcerting is the finding that "23% of those accused of crimes against younger teen victims were 12-15 themselves and a further 23% were 16-19" (p. 1).Lastly, 30% of those accused of violent crimes against older teens were 16-19 years themselves.

 With regard to the use of guns, firearms are not as significant a problem in youth crime in Canada as they are in the United States."In 1990 there were 276 firearm deaths among 15-24 year olds in Canada" (Leonard, 1994, p. 128), or approximately 7.2 firearm related deaths per 100,000 population.Firearm deaths were "the third leading cause of death in this age group, ranking below motor vehicle accidents (997) and non-firearm suicides (358)" (p. 128).It should be noted that these figures included both accidental deaths and suicides.

 In comparison, the data for the United States paint a more grim picture.Yoshikawa (1994) reported that arrests for those under the age of 18 years for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rose an astonishing 60.1% between 1981 and 1990, compared with an increase of only 5.2% for those over the age of 18.McDonald (1992) noted that "homicide is the second leading cause of death among young people aged 15-24 years...and the leading cause of death for blacks aged 15 to 24" (p. 1-2).In 1987, in the United States, the homicide rate for youth was 21.9 per 100,000 (Prothrow-Stith, 1991) and 84.6 per 100,000 for African American males in the same age group (Wilson-Brewer, Cohen, O'Donnell, & Goodman, 1991).Lastly, "youth age 16-19 have the highest rates of victimization for rape, robbery, and assault and most are victims of their own age group" (McDonald, 1992, p. 5).

 In summary, while milder forms of delinquent behaviour are considered normal among adolescents, only a small percentage of youth in Canada is charged with criminal offences.Most of these are for property offences.At the same time, relative to the adult crime rate which is decreasing, violent criminal offences among adolescents are increasing.Finally, adolescents are becoming the victims of violent crime at an increasing rate, and often at the hands of other adolescents.These findings are of concern to school officials as violence spills over into the school setting, giving rise to the growing sense of urgency of how to deal with antisocial and aggressive behaviour among children and youth.In comparison, data collected in the United States clearly indicate that the scope of youth violence is much larger and more severe in nature than in Canada.

 The next section reviews the literature on violence in schools.There is no shortage of information concerning school violence.Much of the available literature, however, is based on American data, reflecting the American situation vis a vis the proliferation of guns and weapons, heightened racial tensions, and the escalation of gang activity and protection of turf.The Canadian literature is not as prolific and the data are based largely on impressionistic reports and formal and informal surveys of school personnel.

 Nonetheless, however sparse, the Canadian literature will be reviewed separately from the American literature.This will serve both to highlight the differences in the scope and extent of the problem between Canada and the United States and to point out some of the possibilities that may be lying ahead for us in Canada (rather than what is de facto awaiting us).Moreover, while the American literature is valuable in furthering our knowledge and understanding of the issues, there is a danger of "fuelling the flames of fear" and creating an illusory portrayal of school violence in Canada by focusing on the American-based data which, although, readily available, are a reflection of a social, political, economic, and cultural situation that is not our own.

School-based Violence
 Over the past several years, violence within our schools has been seen as an increasingly serious problem.Incidents range from minor discipline problems such as disobedience, teasing, and taunting, to obscene gesturing, verbal and physical threats, aggression, bullying, assault (with and without a weapon), vandalism, extortion, and gang-related activities.School violence affects not only the perpetrator and the victim, but the entire student body, the staff, and the community as a whole, as well.

 Moreover, school violence is not a recent phenomenon.Events of violence can be traced historically over the existence of schools.Cusson (1990) relates an incident in which the students of le Collège de La Flèche, during the Mardi Gras festival in 1646, attacked their school armed "jusqu'aux dents" requiring their teachers and servants to resort to the use of firearms to resist them.Throughout the history of education, events such as this are commonplace and well-documented in the annals and minutes of the administration of these institutions (du Boulay, 1673).Fortunately, today, students are not mounting mass attacks against their schools.Nonetheless, there is a growing concern with the violence that takes place on or around the school premises.

(a) Canada

 Surveys of teachers in British Columbia (British Columbia Teachers' Federation [BCTF], 1993), Ontario (Roher, 1993; Ontario Teachers' Federation [OTF], 1991), Alberta ("Teacher associations," 1992), Manitoba (The Manitoba Teachers' Society [MTS], 1993), and Nova Scotia (Robb, 1993) indicate that violence is of increasing concern in Canadian schools.Indeed, an Environics poll conducted in April, 1993, revealed that violence is the top educational concern, even surpassing academic standards (MacDougall, 1993).

 A survey of 2,286 teachers in Manitoba reported that 47% had been subjected to abuse (MTS, 1993).This represents a 37% increase from a previous survey conducted in 1990.As well, 45% of the teachers reported being verbally abused and 10% had been physically abused.Only 7% of teachers reported being physically abused in 1990.Moreover, 72% of the teachers and 42% of the administrators agreed with the statement, "Abuse is on the increase."An interesting finding is that only 12% of the teachers reported that there was any support available for abused teachers from either the school division or the MTS.Moreover, in a survey conducted in Alberta, 50% of teachers reported that physical and emotional abuse is on the increase.However, when asked if their school had a policy or procedure to deal with abuse, 19% said "no" and 62% reported that they "didn't know" ("Teacher associations," 1992).

 Another survey of 1,440 principals, teachers, and caretakers at 700 schools in Ontario found that, while 95% of the respondents reported feeling safe in their school, only 67.8% indicated that they felt as safe now as they did five years ago (Safe School Task Force, 1994b).This result was particularly evident among staff at large urban secondary schools.In descending order, the concerns that these school personnel had that made them feel less safe at work were trespassers, verbal assaults, working alone, school architecture, physical assaults, weapons, lack of personal alarms, and a lack of two-way portable communicators.

 According to Roher (1993), the results of a survey of 881 responding schools conducted by the OTF (1991), revealed a 150% increase in major incidents such as biting, kicking, punching, and the use of weapons, and a 50% increase in minor incidents such as verbal abuse over a three-year period, between 1987 and 1990.Much of this aggression was reported to have been perpetrated against other students, although teachers and other school personnel were also victims.The study also found that an increasing number of teachers were assaulted while breaking up fights; the incidence of trespassers had increased, as did the reported consumption of alcohol on field trips and athletic activities held outside the school; and the possession of weapons had become a serious problem.

 The results of the OTF survey must be interpreted with caution, however, as the number of schools that provided data for the three time periods (1987-88, 1988-89, and 1989-90) varied.For example, data were provided by 454 schools for the baseline year, 881 schools for the second year, and 561 schools for the third year.The study's findings, therefore, were based on the number of incidents reported by nearly half the number of schools for the first year as for the second year.The fact that more schools contributed data for the second and third years would artificially increase the incremental values across time.Moreover, in a cautionary note, the OTF report noted that "a significant number of schools did not record any incidents of assault" (1991, p. 14-15).

 Lastly, a survey of 177 elementary and 173 secondary separate schools, conducted by the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association (OECTA, 1992) indicated that, between 1990-91 and 1991-92, the reported number of verbal assaults increased 6.1% and 20.5% in elementary and secondary schools, respectively.The reported number of physical assaults increased 3.2% and 2.4% in elementary and secondary schools, respectively.Some regional differences were observed as were differences across elementary and secondary grade levels and in schools of different size.With respect to student-teacher incidents, verbal assaults were more likely to occur with less experienced teachers whereas the reverse was true for physical assaults: more experienced teachers were more likely to have been subjected to physical assaults.Many teachers attributed student violence to societal factors such as the economy, the pervasiveness of violence in our society and the media, an overemphasis on individual rights with an underemphasis on individual responsibility, a perceived lack of sanctions in the YOA, and lack of religion and general moral decay of society.

 At the same time, an informal survey of 700 teachers in British Columbia revealed that teachers felt a greater sense of fear for the safety of their students than for their own safety (BCTF, 1994).Indeed, surveys of students indicate that school-based violence affects a large number of children and youth.In a recent study of 850 Ontario students in grades 6-9, 45% reported that there was "some" to "a lot" of violence in their schools and 29% said that they felt safe "sometimes" or "not at all" while at school (Ryan, Matthews, & Banner, 1993).However, this finding is in contrast to a survey completed by students in the Niagara Region of Ontario which found that a "vast majority... feel safe at school, and are not particularly concerned about their safety while at school" (Rodgers, 1993, p. 12).The disparity in findings is likely due to regional differences.

 In another survey of 146 children in grades 3-8, in two inner-city Toronto schools, Pal and Day (1991) found that 20% of the respondents had experienced bullying "now and then" or "more frequently."This rate of one child in five is comparable to the figure reported in a similar survey of 211 students in 17 schools (which included both inner-city and non-inner-city schools), grades 4-8, by the Toronto Board of Education (Zeigler & Rosenstein-Manner, 1991).Moreover, while the number of students who had ever been subjected to milder forms of bullying (e.g., teasing) was comparable in the two studies (37% and 33% in the Pal and Day and Zeigler and Rosenstein-Manner studies, respectively), the rate for violent bullying (e.g., hitting, kicking) was found to be higher in the two inner-city schools reported in the Pal and Day survey (34%) than in the Toronto Board of Education's sample (21%).

 Pal and Day (1991) also found that, when asked why students bully, the two most popular responses were "to be cool" (63%) and "to feel powerful" (58%).In this regard, bullying appears to be a means by which children attempt to fit in with or impress their peers or to enhance their reputation as "tough."Interestingly, this response pattern did not differ for children who were self-identified as bullies.Note that these responses are the same reasons given to account for why youth in Canada carry guns, with the exception of "for protection" (Walker, 1994).The response "low self-esteem" was endorsed by only 16% of the respondents and slightly fewer of the self-identified bullies.Lastly, an important finding that is often overlooked when considering aggressive behaviour was that bullies were often found to be victims of bullying themselves, usually at the hands of a group of children who were older than they.

 Self-report surveys such as the one used by Pal and Day (1991) and Zeigler and Rosenstein-Manner (1991), developed originally by Dan Olweus (1991), may provide more accurate data on the prevalence of school-based violence than those based on teacher reports (Bonta & Hanson, 1994).Students may be more aware than teachers of aggressive incidents in the schools, particularly if there is a high degree of underreporting.In addition, self-report surveys provide valuable insights into the nature of bullies and victims that cannot be obtained by other measures.Lastly, self-report surveys have been used to evaluate the effectiveness of school-based violence prevention programs (Day & Hartley, unpublished data, 1994; Olweus, 1991; Pepler, Craig, Zeigler, & Charach, 1993).

 In the absence of good data collected over multiple time periods, it is difficult to determine, with any certainty, the level of school violence in Canada.With the exception of the few student surveys, much of the available data are based on the perceptions of a single source, teachers.The difficulty with this is that, teachers' views, just like any other source, are not based on an unbiased assessment of the situation.Moreover, we believe that the perceived level of school violence by teachers is inextricably tied to (a) their sense of personal confidence or self-efficacy to manage discipline problems, both in the classroom and the schoolyard and (b) the level of support they perceive to be available from the school administration.This support is in the form of clear, concise policies that adequately address the range of unacceptable behaviours and delineate an appropriate array of consequences and corrective measures that are implemented and followed through in a firm, fair, and consistent manner.The greater the sense of personal self-efficacy to manage behaviour problems and the higher the perceived support from the school and the school board, the lower the level of perceived violence.In this way, we believe that school boards may achieve a reduction in the level of school violence, as reported by teachers, by establishing and enforcing policies and programs of which teachers are aware and providing training workshops to enhance teachers' level of knowledge and understanding of aggression in children and youth and their personal skills to prevent and manage behavioural problems in the classroom.

 It is interesting to note that some authors, like Rodgers (1993), have contested the reported increase in school violence in Canada, claiming that the prevalence has actually declined (Fitzpatrick, 1994; J. Newman & G. Newman, 1980; West, 1993).Cusson (1990) noted that the rate of violent acts committed by students of the Montreal Catholic School Commission was the same in 1985 as it was in 1974, with the exception of gang activity which involved 10.3% of the students in 1974 and 17.5% in 1985.

 In terms of discerning what is reality and what is perception vis a vis the incidence and prevalence of school-based violence, there seems to have emerged two distinct camps.On the one hand, there are those who appear to "hard sell" youth violence, claiming that youth violence is virtually rampant on our streets and in schools and that the face of youth violence in Canada has changed so dramatically that, if nothing is done now, we will invariably meet with the same destiny as seen in the United States.As Auty noted, "the kids in our schools are moving to the beat of a different drum, a rhythm foreign to the experience of many educational decision-makers.We could no longer afford the luxury of being out of touch" (p. 9).Note that this is the image that is perpetuated through the media (Schmidt, Paquette, & Dickinson, 1990).

 On the other hand, there are those who tend to downplay the reported levels of youth violence, dismissing increasing trends as differences in definitions used, awareness, and methods of reporting (Cusson, 1990; West, 1993).As West (1993) admonishes, "[v]iolence in Canadian schools is comparatively low key and we need to beware of simply assuming our schools are going the way of American ones" (p. 7).

 As noted previously, these conflicting views may be attributed, in part, to regional differences.For example, Rodgers (1993) noted that students in the Niagara region, a predominantly rural area of Ontario, claimed that, aside from some mention of weapons in school, most notably knives, school violence was a "non-issue" (p. 12).As well, Robb (1993) reported that weapons were not a problem in Nova Scotia, although they are seen as a problem in other provinces.A similar conclusion was drawn in separate reports on the low incidence of youth crime and school violence in Kelowna, British Columbia (Child and Youth Committee, 1994) and Newfoundland (Fitzpatrick, 1994).

 One thing on which we can agree is that there is an increasing concern for violence among children and youth.Aggression is no longer something that can be easily dismissed as "kids will be kids."There appears to be a growing sensitivity to and public abhorrence for violence, in spite of its greater acceptance in society; violence appears to be almost ubiquitous as it pervades the media.So whether we are just "seeing" more children and youth engage in violence, where we did not "see" it before, is the result of greater awareness or sensitivity, or whether the numbers are actually growing, is debatable.The reality is that school violence is a social problem, reflecting the violence in society, in general.As such, it is difficult to ignore when a knife is pulled on the schoolgrounds.While the use of weapons is not proliferating in the schoolyards across Canada (Walker, 1994), they are seen with greater frequency by both school personnel and students.This can and does lead to more serious outcomes in schoolyard altercations.Moreover, teachers would agree that they are spending more of their time having to discipline students and this takes time away from their teaching.

(b) United States

 According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1991), half of all crimes against teenagers occurred in school buildings, on school property, or on the street.Moreover, "44% of teachers in the United States reported that student misbehaviour interfered substantially with their teaching" (Aleem & Moles, 1993, p. 5).Another survey found that school principals considered physical student conflicts (76%), vandalism of school property (53%), and verbal abuse of teachers (55%) to be as serious a problem as student and staff absenteeism, tobacco-related offences, and lateness.Other serious problems were theft over $10 (38%), trespassing (34%), racism (26%), and weapons (20%) (Mansfield & Farris, 1992).

 Although Mansfield and Farris (1992) found that only 20% of principals indicated that weapons were a problem, it is estimated that 568,000 teens or about 5% of the student population of American schools are in possession of a firearm--about half as many as carry pocket video games (Harrington-Lueker, 1992).The weapons policy of the City School District of the City of New York enumerates the following items as weapons: (a) pistol, handgun, firearm silencer, electronic dart gun; (b) shotgun, rifle, machinegun, or any weapon that simulates or is adaptable for use as a machine gun; (c) switchblade knife, gravity knife, cane sword; (d) billy club, blackjack, bludgeon, chucka stick, metal knuckles; (e) sandbag and sandclub; (f) slingshot; (g) explosive, incendiary bomb, bombshell; and (h) airgun or spring gun (e.g., a BB gun).Other items considered weapons include acid or other dangerous chemicals, imitation pistols, loaded or blank cartridges and ammunition, and sharp, pointed objects such as broken glass, chains, wire, and nailfiles (Butterfield & Turner, 1989).

 Statistics on the prevalence of school-based violence in the United States are astonishing.Violent assaults in schools are reported to have escalated 14% in the years between 1987 and 1990 (Landen, 1992).Approximately 28,200 students are physically attacked in schools each month (Hranitz & Eddowes, 1990).Approximately 21% of students, ranging in age from 12 to 19 years, fear an attack at school (Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1991).Assaults on teachers have increased at a steady rate from 41,000 to 110,000, between 1971 and 1979 (Goldstein, Apter, & Harootunian, 1984)."The National Association of School Security Directors estimates that each year there are 9,000 rapes, 12,000 armed robberies, 270,000 burglaries, and 204,000 aggravated assaults in schools.Moreover, an estimated 70,000 serious physical assaults each year are made on teachers" (Rich, 1992, p. 35; see also Gorski & Pilotto, 1993; Roper, 1991).As a national goal, the United States is committed to the attainment of the sixth National Education Goal which states that "[b]y the year 2000, every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning" (Aleem & Moles, 1993, p. 1)

 In summary, there is an emerging perception that violence has become more pervasive in society, including our schools.School violence is reported to be on the rise and increasing in intensity, particularly in the form of verbal assault, as teachers see students becoming more confrontative.In the main, violence is still perpetrated against other students (i.e., teasing, bullying, assault), although teachers can also be victims.Some teachers in Canada reported that they have become more hesitant to break up fights in the fear that they may become seriously injured, particularly in the event that a weapon is used (Robb, 1993).By and large, however, despite regional differences, occasional serious occurrences, and sensational and anecdotal reports, the data indicate that Canadian schools are safe places for students and staff.

 The next section examines some of the causal factors associated with the development of aggressive and antisocial behaviour in children and youth.The development of associated features or correlates of aggression in children such as impulsivity, poor self-control, hyperactivity, and noncompliance are also considered.As Landen (1992) noted, "[u]nderstanding the causes [of violence] is crucial to determining appropriate solutions" (p. 3; see also Crux, 1993). 

THE ROOT CAUSES OF VIOLENCE

 Much of the aggressive behaviour we observe among children and youth is sufficiently mild to be no cause for alarm or concern.For some children, displays of aggression are low level, infrequent, and more likely reactive (i.e., responding to others' aggression) than proactive (i.e., provoking aggression in others).Sometimes, a child's aggressive behaviour will be accompanied by other disruptive behaviours such as inattentiveness, noncompliance, defiance, and poor self-control.

 For other children, however, the level of aggression will be more extreme, persistent, involve groups of children, and occur across multiple settings (i.e., home, school, community).Children with serious behaviour problems may meet the criteria for conduct disorder, a psychiatric diagnosis given for "a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others or major age-appropriate societal norms or rules are violated" (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, p. 85).According to the Ontario Child Health Study (OCHS), 5.5% of the general population of children in Ontario, between the ages of 4 and 16 years, meet the criteria for conduct disorder (Offord, Alder, & Boyle, 1986).The OCHS also found that while many cases come to the attention of mental health centres and other social service agencies, a large number of children with severe conduct problems goes undetected.

 In terms of its causal factors, aggression may be understood as multiply determined, having determinants in both biological and environmental factors.As well, it is important to understand aggression and violence as having a developmental progression or trajectory.In this regard, strategic prevention and intervention efforts must be both multifaceted and developmentally appropriate.

Biological Factors

 Research on the biological bases of aggressive behaviour has examined a range of factors.Studies on genetic influences, for example, have noted a greater preponderance of criminals among sons whose biological parents were also criminals (Lytton, 1990).The well-documented finding that males have a greater propensity for aggression than girls has been attributed to higher levels of testosterone and the presence of the Y chromosome. Indeed, some research examining the incidence of aggression among males with an extra Y chromosome (XYY) has found higher rates of criminal convictions than among XY males (Crowell, 1987), although the findings of these studies have been disputed (Mednick, Moffitt, Gabrielli, & Hutchings, 1986).For girls, early onset of menarche has been associated with higher rates of antisocial behaviour (Caspi & Moffitt, 1991; Magnusson, Stattin, & Allen, 1986).However, the observed delinquency among early maturing girls occurred only when they also associated more with older girls (Loeber, 1991).Nevertheless, while the specific causal factors remain undiscovered, a biological basis of aggression relating to gender differences appears to hold even beyond the effects due to sex-specific socialization practices (Eme, 1979).

 In addition to these inherited biological characteristics, acquired biological deficits can also influence the child's behaviour patterns.Even before birth, factors may conspire against the developing fetus, predisposing it towards impulsive, hyperactive, and aggressive behaviour.A lack of proper nutrients during critical periods of development or pre- or postnatal exposure to toxic agents (e.g., fetal alcohol, lead, drugs) may result in mild or severe deficits in cognition and behaviour.These deficits may lead to a wide range of conditions such as poor motor coordination, low intelligence, hyperactivity, language impairment, impulsivity, self-control problems, poor frustration tolerance, social information-processing deficits, and learning disabilities.These features are known to be markers of aggressive behaviour in children.

 Moffitt (1993) has shown how early neurological abnormalities, giving rise to later verbal deficits, may lead to the development of aggression, antisocial behaviour, and conduct disorder.

[A] preschooler who has difficulty understanding language may resist his mother's efforts to read to him, which delays his school readiness.When he enters school, the modal curriculum may not allow for teaching that is tailored to his readiness level....After a few years of school failure, he will be chronologically older than his classmates and, thus, socially rejected....He may be tracked into a remedial class, containing pupils who have behavioral disorders as well as learning disabilities.Daily association with conduct disordered pupils brings familiarity with delinquent behaviors, and he adopts delinquent ways to gain acceptance by peers (p. 138).

It is generally acknowledged that "children with verbal deficits rely more on physical modes of self-expression; resorting to hitting rather than discussion" (Moffitt, 1993, p. 137).Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) have also suggested that:

low verbal intelligence contributes to a present-oriented cognitive style which, in turn, fosters irresponsible and exploitative behavior....Normal language development is thus an essential ingredient in prosocial processes such as delay of gratification, anticipating consequences, and linking belated punishments with earlier transgressions" (Moffitt, 1993, p. 142).

 As can be seen, a relatively minor neurological problem resulting in a verbal deficit may lead a child into a potentially negative spiral of academic failure and peer rejection, on a pathway towards delinquency.Moffitt's scenario also emphasizes the role of labeling, leading to special class placement and association with a deviant group in the development of antisocial behaviour.

 Child temperament has also been identified as a contributing factor in the development of childhood aggression.Some infants may be described as fussy or having a "difficult" temperament.These infants are not easily soothed and cry often.Many parents of such infants come to experience difficulties in the caregiving role, feeling unable or incapable of providing for their child.As a result, disruptions may arise in an effort to socialize their child, as the parent becomes increasingly less involved in directing the child's behaviour and in the teaching process.This could have long-term implications leading to poor social functioning at school.For example, in a study conducted by Buss, Block, and Block (1980), at seven years old, children identified as highly active three-year olds, were rated by their teachers, as "aggressive, manipulative, noncompliant, and more likely to push limits and stretch the rules in many social situations" (Moffitt, 1993, p. 140).

Environmental Factors

(a) The Parent-Child Relationship
 While the presence of certain biological deficits may place a child at risk for aggressiveness, environmental factors may mitigate these negative influences.For example, a child with a serious language deficit who receives special attention, guidance, and support from his or her family may learn to cope with and compensate for the effects of the condition.Indeed, it is well known that a caring, loving, attentive, supportive upbringing during infancy provides the foundation for a secure attachment throughout one's life.Children who are securely attached to a primary caregiver are less likely to develop behaviour and social problems such as aggression and poor peer relations and are better able to regulate their negative emotional states (e.g., anger) than their insecurely attached counterparts (Greenberg, Speltz, & DeKlyen, 1993).Sroufe (1988) posited that a secure attachment relates to "the child's developing sense of inner confidence, efficacy, and self-worth and aspects of intimate personal relationship (the capacity to be emotionally close, to seek and receive care, and to give care to others)" (p. 26).

 At the same time, however, numerous forces external to the child (i.e., social and environmental factors) have been identified as contributing to the development of maladaptive outcomes such as academic, social, and behavioural problems.Considerable attention has been given to the quality of the parent-child interaction, for example, as contributing to the development of childhood aggression.As noted previously, the affective quality of the parent-child relationship in early infancy, as reflected by the parent's ability to be attentive, responsive, sensitive, and reinforce positive social interactions with his or her child relate to the healthy social, emotional, and physical development of the child.However, in the absence of an early supportive parent-child relation, such as one characterized by a neglectful, unresponsive, inattentive, or overly protective parent, maladaptive child outcomes are likely to ensue.Factors that could adversely affect the early attachment process include life stress, family hardship, lack of parental social support, parental psychopathology, and child health problems (Greenberg et al., 1993).

 As the child matures and becomes more independent, the nature of the parent-child relationship takes on a new dimension as the parent spends considerably more time attempting to guide and control or manage his or her child's actions and behaviours.For the parent, noncompliance and the use of effective disciplinary responses become critical issues during this period.The extent to which the parent's discipline style yields compliance and also fosters growth and independence in the child, the more positive the parent-child interaction.Moreover, the degree to which parents feel successful (i.e., high perceived self-efficacy) in managing their child's behaviour, the more positive the parent-child relationship.In a study conducted by Day, Factor, and Szkiba-Day (1994), for example, it was found that parents who felt effective in managing their child's behaviour, that is experienced a high degree of self-efficacy in the caregiver role, were less likely to use coercive discipline techniques such as hitting, spanking, slapping, and yelling in response to child misbehaviour and also rated their child as having fewer behaviour problems than parents who perceived themselves as having a low degree of self-efficacy.In this way, the quality of the parent-child interaction was enhanced by both the parents' feelings of self-efficacy and their use of non-coercive discipline techniques.

 Extensive research has also shown that an ineffective parenting style, particularly the use of harsh and inconsistent discipline techniques are good predictors of aggression and conduct problem behaviours (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986).Based on a decade of research, Patterson (1982) has developed a model of parent-child interactions that lead to the development of childhood aggression.The typical scenario described by Patterson begins with the parent asking the child to do (or not do) something.The child responds by ignoring the parent's command.The parent responds by increasing the intensity of the command and begins yelling at the child.The child responds in kind by yelling back.The parent, feeling frustrated by the lack of compliance, escalates the interchange by physically grabbing the child, to which the child responds, increasing the intensity further, by hitting and kicking the beleaguered parent.At this point, feeling frustrated and defeated, the parent withdraws from the situation as the child returns to his or her previous activity.
 In this scenario, the parent's feelings of ineffectiveness as a caregiver are positively reinforced while the child's use of aversive behaviours in response to the parent's request for compliance is negatively reinforced as a result of the parent's ultimate termination of the initial request.As well, the child learns to control other people's behaviour through coercive means and to use yelling, grabbing, and other aggressive tactics to deal with conflict situations.Furthermore, as Patterson et al. (1989) noted, "[t]he training for deviant behavior is paralleled by a lack of training for many prosocial skills" (p. 330).

(b) From the Family Environment to the School Setting
 It is also well documented that the early training the child receives in the home for aggressive behaviour carries over into the school setting in the form of comparable coercive interactions with teachers and peers (Ramsey, Bank, Patterson, & Walker, 1990).It is not a far leap to recognize that the escalations in aversive behaviours described in Patterson's coercive family process model are equally applicable to many encounters experienced by some teachers with students in the classroom or on the playground.As we have seen for parents, it is obviously important that teachers refrain from entering into a power struggle (i.e., coercive process) with students as this invariably leads to an escalation in "control tactics" from which neither the teacher nor the student comes out a winner.Many effective techniques for dealing with conflict situations with children and youth are available, some of which are described in the teacher manuals and handbooks referred to previously.

(c) Personal Identity
 In late childhood and early adolescence, the influence of the family diminishes as the peer group and school environment play a larger role in the adolescent's life.Peer pressure becomes a significant factor as the search for an identity and a desire to fit in looms large.As well, various patterns of thinking such as a heightened self-consciousness or egocentrism, characteristic of adolescents, become prominent.This can become manifested as two beliefs about the self: (a) that everyone is looking at them, that is, that others are as preoccupied with their behaviour as they are, known as the "imaginary audience" and (b) that they are virtually impervious to harm, that is, that nothing bad will happen to them and that they are so unique that no one can understand how they really feel, known as the "personal fable" (Santrock, 1981).The imaginary audience belief leads to attention-getting behaviour and a desire to be visible and "on stage."The personal fable construction leads one to engage in risk-taking behaviour such as experimentation with alcohol and drugs, having sex without birth control, even engaging in petty crimes such as shoplifting.While these thought patterns, in themselves, do not lead to aggressive and antisocial behaviour, they may be contributing factors for those adolescents whose developmental history carries with it problems of academic and social competence, peer rejection, poor self-concept, low self-worth, and early aggressive behaviour.This may hold particularly for those adolescents who, due to disruptions in their family, home, and school life (due to factors reviewed above) experience a lack of ties to conventional social bonds, hold antisocial attitudes, and develop an outward appearance of tough, anti-authority posturing.

(d) Contextual Factors
 Canada is a country with a changing demographic profile.The median age of the population is rising and is expected to continue to rise until the year 2036 (McKie, 1993).Over the past several decades, many changes have resulted in threats to our social and economic security: increased rate of divorce, more single-parent families, particularly female-led, more dual-income households, wage freezes, and job losses.Eighty-two percent of lone-parent households were mothers who tend to be younger than their male counterparts (La Novara, 1993).Changes in the workforce have led to hundreds of thousands of full time employment positions lost since 1990 and an unemployment rate of 9.6% in November, 1994, (Statistics Canada, 1994).In 1966, a typical unemployment figure was 3.4% (Forum Directors Group, 1993).

 One of the most significant changes observed over the past two decades is the increasing number of people living in poverty.What is most disturbing is the trend towards more younger people, under the age of 25 years, and particularly young families, living in poverty with the concomitant number of children living under the poverty line."The rate of poverty among young families has grown from 21% in 1981 to 37% in 1991, while the poverty rate for elderly families (65 years and over) decreased from 13% to 8% during the same timespan....In 1992, approximately 40% of all welfare beneficiaries were dependent children" (Forum Directors Group, 1993, p. 8).The Canadian Institute of Child Health (CICH; 1994) reported a number of negative outcomes for poor children including more health, mental health, and academic problems.The results of these sweeping changes are that, for a growing number of children, their primary needs are not being met and, as a result, "their development, prospects, and future productiveness are being seriously undermined" (Steinhauer, 1994, p. 15).

 A number of longitudinal studies has examined the effects of these environmental risk factors on developmental outcomes in children and youth (e.g., Offord et al., 1986; Offord, Boyle, Racine, Fleming, et al., 1992; Werner, 1985).A risk factor is defined as a variable that "increases the likelihood that a subsequent negative outcome will occur (such as delinquency)" (Loeber, 1990, p. 4).In Canada, the OCHS examined the effects of a variety of environmental risk factors on school and social impairments and on the presence of a diagnosable psychiatric disorder in several thousand children aged 4 to 16 years over a four-year period, between 1983 and 1987.

 According to the OCHS, there was a high degree of overlap among risk factors in families that were studied.For example, the rate of social assistance among single-parent families was 41.1%.The rate for two-parent families was 2.2%.Fifty percent of children living in subsidized housing were living in families on social assistance (Offord, Boyle, & Racine, 1989)."Obviously, children who are environmentally disadvantaged in one sociodemographic area are at great risk of being disadvantaged in another" (p. ii).

 With regard to the prevalence of a psychiatric disorder, 18.1% of children aged 4-16 years met the criteria for at least one psychiatric diagnosis.The most prevalent disorders among boys were hyperactivity (8.9%) and conduct disorder (8.1%).The comparable rates for girls were 2.7% and 3.3%, respectively.In contrast, the prevalence rate for an emotional disorder among girls was 11.9%; the rate for boys was 7.9%.As with risk factors, the rate of overlap among disorders, referred to as co-morbidity, was also high.The largest overlap was between hyperactivity and conduct disorder in the 4-11 year old group, at almost 60%.In the 12-16 year old group, about 33% of the conduct disordered youths were seen as hyperactive (Offord et al., 1986).Lastly, "23.7% of the children with psychiatric disorder also perform poorly at school; the rate of poor school performance among those without psychiatric disorder was 13.0%" (Offord et al., 1989, p. ii).

 Risk factors were also examined in terms of their relation to aggressive behaviour (i.e., a conduct disorder diagnosis).It was found that being on welfare and living in subsidized housing were most strongly related to the presence of conduct disorder in children.However, the authors noted that the relationship between the disorder and low socioeconomic status is likely not a direct one but is mediated by other variables such as marital discord and disturbed family functioning.In addition, low income was found to be the single best predictor in the development of conduct disorder in children over the study's four year duration.Again, the casual relation between economic disadvantage and conduct problems remains unclear and is probably due to the presence of other mediating factors (Offord et al., 1992).

 What is clear, however, is that as we continue to experience an increase in the number of children growing up in situations characterized by economic privation, inadequate housing, and lack of parental supervision we will continue to see more children coming to school who are ill-prepared to deal with the social, emotional, behavioural, and academic demands placed on them by the rigours of the school setting.We know that as the number of risk factors increases, so do the negative outcomes that children experience.While studies have shown that most children are able to cope with up to four risk factors, beyond that, the chance of developing serious learning and behavioural problems increases dramatically (Werner, 1985).At the same time, as stated previously, the presence of protective factors (e.g., social and academic competence, large support network) serves to reduce or nullify the person's response to environmental conditions that predispose to a maladaptive outcome.In somewhat simplistic terms, the aim of long-term prevention is to reduce the number of risk factors in a child's environment and to increase or strengthen the presence of protective factors.

 A number of other contextual factors have been implicated in the development of aggression and violence in children.These include parental criminality, parental stress, family discord and violence in the home, child abuse and neglect, alcoholism and psychiatric problems such as depression, living in high crime neighbourhoods, the lack of a large social network of friends and family from which children can draw for emotional support, and the ubiquitous nature of violence in both the entertainment and news media.

 With regard to the media, research conducted over the last 40 years indicates that young children and teenagers in the United States spend 28 and 23 hours each week, respectively, watching television (APA, 1993).During the last 20 years, "the level of violence on prime-time television has remained constant at five to six violent acts per hour; there are 20 to 25 violent acts per hour on Saturday morning children's programs" (p. 32).Canadian research indicates that, by the time children graduate from elementary school, each one will have witnessed in excess of 8,000 murders and over 100,000 miscellaneous acts of violence (Campbell, 1993), and that, although they will spend a total of 12,000 hours attending elementary school, as average viewers, they will watch 18,000 hours of television over the same period (Manley-Casmir, 1992).Films that are popular with young people and are readily available on videocassette add many more violent acts; "Die Hard 2 (264 violent deaths), Robocop (81 deaths) and Total Recall (74 deaths) are part of children's culture" (Campbell, 1993, p. 13).

 As early as 1969, Dr. Milton Eisenhower, Chairman of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence in the United States, suggested that "a constant diet of violent behavior on television has an adverse effect on human character and attitudes....It encourages violent forms of behaviour, and fosters moral and social values about violence in daily life which are unacceptable in a civilized society" (Hammonds, 1984, p. 16).The undesirable effects of television have been confirmed in a series of three major studies conducted in the United States in 1972, 1982, and 1992 which led to the "irrefutable conclusion that viewing television increases violence" (APA, 1993, p. 33). 

 Two additional concerns about media violence are first, through media violence, children learn to value rather than devalue the use of violence to solve conflicts.Second, children will not learn, through mass media viewing, to use alternative, prosocial responses to express intense feelings and deal with conflict.The vocabulary and language skills needed to enact these behaviours are learned from parents and other significant adult role models in the child's life.

 The popularity of video games has also helped to compound the negative effects of television.Children spend an estimated two hours a day playing video games, in addition to the time spent watching television.In many of these games, the player is allowed to participate in the violent activity portrayed on the screen.Although the themes of these games are most frequently the triumph of good over evil, the way to success often involves highly violent means, death, and destruction (Provenzo, 1992).As well, the effect of visual images lasts a lifetime; "Images have great power to evoke feeling, shape beliefs, and inform behaviour" (Campbell, 1993, p. 12).Lastly, Provenzo (1992) suggests that the sex-role stereotyping in video games is distorted and unacceptable, as women are usually portrayed as victims, dependent upon the actions of the games' male heroes.

 Drugs and alcohol also contribute to school-related violence.Gaustad (1991) suggests that, aside from the harmful mental and physiological effects of narcotics on the individual user, the vast amounts of money that illegal substances generate has resulted in an increase in the size and influence of youth gangs.In the United States, the average "crack" user needs over $250 per week to support his or her habit, amounting to over $13,000 a year.Many of these users come from families with an average income of less than $11,000 per year (Donaldson, 1993).Pre-teenagers are often used by gangs to serve as lookouts and couriers for the gangs' illicit drug activity, since children of a young age (under 12 years in Canada) cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution (Gaustad, 1991; Prothrow-Stith, 1991).Eventually, some of these children may become "user-dealers" and are absorbed by the gang for which they work.Although not all teenage users of drugs are members of a gang and, in fact, most are not (Knox, Laske, & Tromanhauser, 1992), it is wise to remember that all drug activity in Canada and the United States is illegal and that any use of drugs will enhance the activity and strength of criminal organizations.

 As can be seen from this brief review, the causes of violence are many and complex and the task facing educators a challenging one.The search for general laws leads to the identification of countless causal factors that are complexly related to aggression and other maladaptive outcomes.Both biological and environmental factors transposed over a developmental paradigm are seen as contributing to the development of (a) markers of aggressive behaviour such as impulsivity and poor self-control, (b) aggressive behavior itself, and (c) delinquent and antisocial tendencies, characteristics associated with the conduct disorder diagnosis.Moreover, as Loeber (1990, p. 31) noted, children and youth who act aggressively do not just "spring out of the cabbage" when they commit their first aggressive or antisocial act.Such children bring with them a developmental history of risk factors, as they display a progression from mild to more serious disruptive behaviour patterns.

 Lastly, much of the literature is based on research conducted with boys.Although there are relatively few published studies on conduct problems in girls, the extant literature indicates that different correlates and predictors come into play, suggesting a need for gender-specific models and developmental pathways (Keenan & Shaw, 1994; Zoccolillo, 1993).

 The next section reviews the literature concerning models for dealing with violence in schools.Descriptions of specific school-based programs that have been implemented in Canada and the United States are presented in Appendix A.Where available, evaluative data are integrated into the discussion of the programs.