|
Abstract
|
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this article by Kingery et al. was to present the findings of a study conducted at Texas A & M University which investigated the prevalence of and the relationships between drug use and violence in U.S. rural schools.
METHODOLOGY:
The authors presented the findings from a quasi-experimental, cross-sectional study, conducted at Texas A & M University. The research was aimed at identifying relationships between drug use and violence in rural communities. The authors reported that 1,004 8th grade students (50.6%) and 10th grade students (49.4%), attending schools in 23 small central Texas communities, participated in the study. The sample consisted of mostly white students (81.5%). The remaining students were african-american (12.5%), hispanic (3.6%), and other ethnic minorities (2.4%). The gender makeup of the sample was boys (46.9%) and girls (53.1%). Students were residents of communities located between 32 and 147 miles from central Houston, Texas. Community populations ranged from 40 to 6,808. The authors reported that the researchers utilized the drug use and violence sections of the National Adolescent Student Health Survey (NASH) (1987). This survey was originally used to examine the behavior, knowledge and attitudes of U.S. teens on health issues. Violence related questions included fighting frequency, carrying weapons at school, entering into high-violence-risk situations, and access to guns. Student perceptions of authority figure concerns and thoughts regarding fighting and negative outcome expectations, ways to avoid fighting, judgments on whether to fight, or not, and victimization frequency, in and out of school, were also examined. Illegal drug use frequency was investigated to study the relationship between violence and drug use.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The authors stated that 53.2% of boys and 20.5% of girls reported having been involved in at least one physical fight in the previous year in which weapons were used. 20.1% of males and 6.4% of females had been involved in at least three physical fights. 25% of all students reported that they had carried weapons at school (40.8% of males & 8.9% of females). While most carried a knife at least once (40% of males and 7.7% of females), approximately 6% of males reported having had carried a hand-gun. The authors stated that 42.3% of students reported easy access to guns. The authors stated that students frequently reported being engaged in high risk behaviors. 71.7% reported being outside, alone, late at night during the previous year. 58% went to known dangerous places, 37.5% indicated that they allowed people to see the amount of cash they had. 26.5% reported speaking with strangers, 27.6% reported walking through dangerous neighborhoods, 22.3% sold items door to door, and 8.9% reported that they had hitchhiked with a stranger.
Almost 53% of students reported that their parents influenced their thinking regarding fighting avoidance. 51.3% were concerned about keeping out of school trouble. Getting hurt (42.7%) and peers beliefs (24.7%) were also named as fight avoidance influences. 66.7% of students believed that fighting resulted in school suspension. 47.8% expected friendship loss, 31.5% anticipated the need for medical care, or missing school or work (25.1%) because of injuries. 15.6% expected to attend juvenile court, and 14.7% anticipated being killed. It was reported that fight avoidance resulted from refusing to pass on fighting information (77.5%), ignoring an insult (69.9%), avoiding someone who wants to fight (65.7%), conflict resolution by talking (58.3%), and apologizing (51.7%).
The researchers found that maladaptive responses to aggression included threats of weapon use (25.0%) or carrying a weapon (10.5%), posturing (16.9%), and gang membership for protection (9.3%). Fighting was reported to be appropriate when responding to being hit (78.6%), when protecting a friend (74.2%), when protecting an insulted family member (58.6%), when someone purposefully breaks a valued object (53.1%), when something has been stolen (49.1%), when publicly insulted (29.2%), if someone flirts with an intimate (28.8%), in response to an aggressor (18.6%), in response to name calling (16.4%), and when someone pushes in when in line (6.9%).
23.2% of students reported illegal drug use at least once (25.5% of boys, 21.7% of girls). The authors reported that drug use frequency was moderately associated with risk-taking frequency, weapon carrying at school, and fighting. 34.1% of students reported being threatened at, or on the way to/from, school. 15.2% reported theft by force or threat of bodily harm, 14.1% reported being physically attacked, and 6.8% reported being forced into sex (7.1% girls and 6.5% boys).
Outside of school supervision 30.6% indicated that they had been threatened, 18.3% reported being forced into sex, 16.5% stated that they had been physically attacked, and 15.9% reported having been victims of theft by force. The authors stated that there was a relationship between taking more risks, using drugs more frequently, and violence victimization at school (or on the school bus) outside of school supervision. For both boys and girls, a high frequency of school victimization (or on the school bus) was associated with a high frequency of victimization while not under school supervision.
The authors argued that the results suggested that students who were victims of violence, inside and outside of school supervision, could be characterized by risk taking behavior and drug usage. Over 52.3% of students stated that they hadn't received fight avoidance instructions at school, and those who had, did not differ on levels of violence involvement, risk taking, or fighting beliefs. This statistic was reported to have provided evidence that students possibly develop their own coping strategies to violence based on experiences, regardless of instruction.
The authors argued that adolescents in rural areas were experiencing greater problems than the average U.S. youth. For example, 40% of boys carried a knife at least once in the previous year compared with only 23% of the national (NASH) sample. Boys were twice as likely to take handguns to school (6% rurally, 3% nationally), girls were more likely to be forced into sex (25%) compared with the national study girls (18%). The authors stated that the results of this study may not be representative of all the nation since various aspects of rural Texas schools were different from other schools. For example students in Texan rural schools may be more exposed to drug traffic, a more machoistic type culture, and a greater availability of weapons.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors suggested that, since adequate instruction and training and effective school policy enforcement was absent in these schools, students were reacting inappropriately (e.g., carrying weapons) while attempting to decrease their risk of violence victimization. Therefore, prevention, intervention and response strategies were needed in rural towns. They suggested the use of intervention strategies, such as the identification of high risk behaviors and safety skills training. Strict enforcement of school policies concerning violent behavior was also recommended.
(CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
Drug Use Effects
Drug Related Violence
School Substance Use Activity
School Violence
Urban School
Urban Violence
Urban Youth
Rural School
Rural Violence
Rural Youth
Grade 8
Grade 10
Junior High School Student
Senior High School Student
Weapons In School
Firearms In School
Juvenile Weapons Carrying
Juvenile Firearms Carrying
Juvenile Substance Use
Student Violence
Student Substance Use
Substance Use Incidence and Prevalence
Substance Use Effects
Substance Use-Violence Co-Occurence
Drug Use Incidence and Prevalence
Violence Causes
Violence Incidence and Prevalence
Juvenile Violence
Juvenile Offender
Texas
Early Adolescence
Late Adolescence
04-05 |