This study investigates how community characteristics, student background, school climate, and zero-tolerance policies interact to affect school crime. The study articulates and fits a school crime model to 712 high schools participating in the 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety, confirming that school location and student socioeconomic status have moderate effects on school crime. Much of the contextual effects are mediated via school climate. School climate reflected by school size, student mobility, and student misbehavior affect school safety in profound and predicted ways. Larger size and schools with higher student transience and misbehavior predict higher levels of criminal incidents. School security program is correlated with lower school crime; however, the effect is small and nonsignificant. Tough on crime policy is associated with higher level of school crime, controlling for community and school variables. Consequently, a positive school climate in combination with necessary security control is recommended to improve school safety and reduce school crimes.
Anderson, C.S. (1982). The search for school climate: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 52, 368-420.
2.
Anderson, D.C. (1998). Curriculum, culture and community: The challenge of school violence. In M. Tonry & M. H. Moore (Eds.), Youth violence (pp. 317-363). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Astor, R.A., Meyer, H.A., Benbenishty, R., Marachi, R., & Rosemond, M. (2005). School safety interventions: Best practices and programs. Children & Schools, 24(1), 17-32.
4.
Bowen, N.K., & Bowen, G.L. (1999). Effects of crime and violence in neighborhoods and schools on the school behavior and performance of adolescents. Journal of Adolescents Research, 14(3), 319-342.
5.
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Byrne, B.M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Casella, R. (2003). Zero tolerance policy in schools: Rationale, consequences, and alternatives. Teachers College Record, 105(5), 872-892
8.
Chaney, B., Chowdhury, S., Chu, A., Lee, J., Wobus, P., Chandler, K., et al. (2003). 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety: Public-use data file user's manual. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
9.
Clark, R.D., & Lab, S.P. (2000). Community characteristics and in-school criminal victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 33-42.
10.
Conant, J.B. (1967). The comprehensive school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11.
Flannery, D.J. (1997). School violence: Risk, preventive intervention, and policy (Urban Diversity Series 109). New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
12.
Gottfredson, G.D., & Daiger, D.C. (1979). Disruption in six hundred schools: The social ecology of personal victimization in the nation's public schools. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
13.
Gottfredson, G.D., & Gottfredson, D.C. (1985). Victimization in schools . New York: Plenum.
14.
Hellamn, D.A., & Beaton, S. (1986). The pattern of violence in urban public schools: The influence of school and community. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 102-127.
15.
Kramer, R. (2000). Poverty, inequality, and youth violence. Annals AAPSS, 567, 123-139.
16.
Lee, V.E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social contexts: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist , 35(2), 125-141.
17.
MacCallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., & Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149.
18.
Mateu-Gelabert, P. (2003). School violence: The bidirectional conflict flow between neighborhood and school. City & Community, 2(4), 353-367.
19.
Mayer, M.J., & Leone, P.E. (1999). A structural analysis of school violence and disruption: Implications for creating safer schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 336-356.
20.
Miller, A.K., & Chandler, K. (2005). Violence in U.S. public schools: 2000 School Survey on Crime and Safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
21.
Morrison, G.M. (2001). Predicting violence from school misbehavior: Promises and perils. Psychology in the Schools, 38(2), 173-184.
22.
National Institute of Education. (1978). Violent schools, safe schools: The Safe School Study Report to Congress. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
23.
Olweus, D. (1996). Bully/victim problems at school: Facts and effective interventions. Reclaiming children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Problems, 5(1), 15-22.
24.
Payne, A.A., Gottfredson, G.D., & Gottfredson, D.C. (2003). Schools as communities: The relationships among communal school organization, student bonding, and school disorder. Criminology, 41(3), 749-777.
25.
Robinson, P. (2001). Punishing dangerousness: Cloaking preventive detention as criminal justice. Harvard Law Review, 114, 1429-1456.
26.
Rutter, M. (1983). School effects on pupil progress: Research findings and policy implications. Child Development, 54, 1-29.
27.
Welsh, W.N. (2000). The effects of school climate on school disorder . Annals AAPSS, 567, 88-107.
28.
Welsh, W.N. (2003). Individual and institutional predictors of school disorder. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1(4), 346-368.
29.
Welsh, W.N., Stokes, R., & Greene, J.R. (2000). A macro-level model of school disorder. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(3), 243-283.
30.
Wilson, S.J., & Lipsey, M.W. (2005). The effectiveness of school-based violence prevention programs for reducing disruptive and aggressive behavior. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Center for Evaluation Research and Methodology Institute for Public Policy Studies.
