Understanding School Effects on Students’ Willingness to Report Peer Weapon Carrying

Abstract

Research on student willingness to report peer weapon carrying points to the importance of school climate and contributions favorable to reporting. This study fills a gap by examining the etiology of willingness to report weapons on campus using predictors at the individual- and school levels. We utilize data from high school student self-reporting; results suggest that 34% of students reported having seen or having personal knowledge of a weapon in school in the prior 3 months. Students who report higher levels of school attachment, seeing or knowing of a weapon, have higher grades, and know about security measures were significantly more likely to report seeing weapons. Implications are discussed.

Keywords

schools violence weapons delinquency

Introduction

Hardly a week goes by without media coverage of another violent outbreak in our nation’s schools. While these types of incidents are relatively rare, recent coverage of the student stabbing outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (Fitzsimmons & Williams, 2014) and the memory of the fatal shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Sandy Hook, Connecticut (Barron, 2012), are often at the forefront of people’s thoughts. As a result, concerns about school safety and the overall well-being of students have taken on a special significance in the last 15 years, for both the public and the academic community. One increasingly examined area of behavior is that of student weapon carrying, with schools around the country implementing zero tolerance and other strict policies in order to discourage and respond to internal threats, with varying levels of success (see Sullivan, Dollard, Sellers, & Mayo, 2010, for a comprehensive discussion). Less studied, however, are the nondisciplinary ways in which students can be encouraged to come forward and report the risky behavior of their peers, such as weapon carrying, bullying, or drug use. These nondisciplinary approaches, however, may be successful by engaging the school community and helping to create a school environment that promotes safety and positive behaviors.

The importance of the school environment on student behavior is well documented. Schools play key roles in teaching adolescents the necessary skills and tools to grow into contributing members of society (Gottfredson, 2001). This process, commonly referred to as “socialization,” encompasses influence from a broad array of social institutions, of which the school is a major contributor, especially in light of the amount of time youth spend under its control. Schools create a climate that establishes the parameters of acceptable behavior, teach students how to appropriately navigate social situations, and apply a level of responsibility to ensure that children abide by these expectations, all while imparting the foundations of reading, writing, and arithmetic (Welsh, 2000). This task has been complicated in recent decades due to the spillover into schools of neighborhood violence in many communities, especially those that are located in relatively poor and urban settings. As a result, we have seen an increasing concern about the level of violence in our schools and its impact on students’ well-being (Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson, 2005).

The School Crime Supplement (SCS) from National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reported that in 2009, 5% of the sample have either personally seen or otherwise knew of a gun at their school. Another 3% of these youth reported having brought a gun or knife into school to be used explicitly as a weapon (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). The data available, however, do not shed light on the reasons why students would choose to bring a weapon to class or what processes are most likely to encourage a student to report the presence of a weapon on campus. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to understand juvenile decisions about reporting peer weapon carrying in a school. This information will help shed light on possible intervention strategies to promote student reporting of weapon carrying in schools, enhancing safety for all students, faculty, and staff.

When a student’s perception of his physical and emotional safety becomes negatively affected, confidence in the sanctioning power of school administrators may become weakened, and positive informal social bonds may deteriorate (Welsh, 2000). The larger problem then lies in the student’s adaptations to his perceptions of fear and lack of safety. A body of research suggests that in response to feelings of vulnerability, some students will carry weapons as a means of protection (Wilcox, May, & Roberts, 2007). Bailey, Flewelling, and Rosenbaum (1997) found that the strongest predictor of individual weapon carrying was the perception of weapon carrying occurring among peers. Similarly, adolescent offending or misbehavior may be related to perceptions of “being cool” by peers (Welsh, 2000) as well as association with delinquent peers (McGloin & Stickle, 2011). The potential dangers posed by students carrying weapons to school is every parent’s worst nightmare, as armed youth with low self-control could cause a relatively minor altercation to escalate in to a potentially deadly one.

Lacking from this research is the examination of to whom students are willing to report peer weapon carrying and what types of situations will encourage them to do so. The SCS shows that 14% of youth aged 12–18 did not know whether there was an authority figure to whom they could report a threat, and another 8% reported that there is no person to whom to report such a threat. As such, over a quarter of youth are unsure of where to find help in situations that have the potential to be dangerous to all involved (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009). Research that has examined reporting likelihood and conditions conducive to reporting have included a variety of potential punishment outcomes (see Brank et al., 2007) but has not, to date, included any inquiry into whom students feel safest reporting. In this study, we examine the individual and contextual determinants of a student’s willingness not only to report a weapon on campus but also to determine to whom he or she would report that weapon. Of particular interest is whether student willingness is related to the weapon of record; we argue that students may be more willing to report a gun, due to its perceived lethality, than a knife or other type of weapon. Research on the viability of this assertion has been lacking thus far, with no examination of whether reporting behavior will differ based on weapon characteristics. With this additional understanding of reporting behavior, interventions can not only have the intended effect of increasing reporting, and thereby decreasing weapon carrying, but also have an additional impact on improving communication between students and adults in school and related settings.

Literature Review

The NCVS-SCS is the only official national crime statistic that gathers information from school-aged respondents on their personal experience with weapons while at school. The NCVS surveys entire household units, and residents within who are 12 and older. Adolescents aged 12–18, who were enrolled in primary or secondary schools and whose households were a part of the NCVS sample, were given the School Crime Supplement to gather information relating to students’ experiences with crime and safety. The 2009 report (the most current SCS available with this information) shows us that 128 students have reported bringing a gun or knife to school to be used as a weapon and 261 reported either having seen or knowing of a gun on their campus.

The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, a national survey overseen by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found that 5% of students had carried a weapon to school in the 30 days leading up the survey (CDC, 2012). In a study of 1,700 Boston high school students, Hemenway, Vriniotis, Johnson, Miller, and Azrael (2011) found that 5% of their sample reported carrying a gun. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 2011 Uniform Crime Report, there were a reported 300 murders of adolescents aged 13–16; of that, 238 were murders via firearm (79%). While it is important to understand that the risk of homicide for adolescents is relatively rare, even more so while on a school campus, the incidence of weapon carrying has been implicated as a contributor to rates of youth violence overall (Webster, Gainer, & Champion, 1993). Additionally, the presence of a weapon poses serious risks for not only the adolescent carrying the weapon but for those in the surrounding vicinity. A weapon could cause a verbal altercation to turn into something physical with potentially lethal outcomes.

Students and Weapon Carrying

Perhaps the easiest assumption to make about students who carry weapons to school is that these students are more fearful, either because they fear violence at school or, more likely, in the area directly around the school. The hypothesis of fear and victimization, as stated by Wright, Rossi and Daly (1983), suggests that those who are more fearful of crime are more likely to possess weapons. More pertinent to adolescents, Cao, Zhang, and He (2008) write that youth who fear repeated victimization or who feel vulnerable due to ineffective security measures within their school are more likely to carry weapons for self-preservation. Furthermore, the relationship between students who engage in violent behaviors, such as fighting, those who have engaged in or been victims of violent threats, or have been victims of physical harm (stabbings), is positively associated with weapon carrying at school (Cao, Zhang, & He, 2008).

Conversely, Bailey et al. (1997) found that students’ personal safety concerns were not significantly associated with carrying a weapon to school. What was noted was a positive relationship between male students, previous engagement in risky behaviors (skipping school and substance use), reported victimization at school, and increased perceptions of weapon carrying among peers were strong predictors of weapons carrying.

Supporting the relationship between weapon carrying and exposure to physical victimization, Rudatsikira, Singh, Job, and Knutsen (2007) found that students who experienced any relational or physical abuse were more than 6 times as likely to carry a weapon. The authors concluded that physical victimization for males and relational victimization for females were the major predictors of weapons carrying for school-aged adolescents. Males were more than 4 times as likely to carry a weapon as females; specifically, Hispanic males saw an 81% increase in odds of weapon carrying when compared with White males. Asian females had 338% greater odds of carrying a weapon to school compared with non–Asian females, potentially due to the fact that victimization and subsequent responses vary due to both race and gender (Rudatsikira, Singh, Job, & Knutsen, 2007).¹

Welsh (2003) found that individual characteristics, such as age, race, gender, clarity of rules, and levels of attachment to school and friends, account for the rates of a variety of kinds of offending by students within the school, including weapon carrying. Gottfredson (2001) concludes that attitudes and behaviors related to school-level engagement and happiness, as well as school performance, moderately correlates with school-related delinquency, a category that would include weapon carrying. Research also supports the notion that female students report higher levels of attachment to schools, so are therefore less likely to be involved in school-related delinquency, which could explain many of the discrepancies in weapon carrying behavior described previously (Jenkins, 1997).

School Safety and School Climate

Welsh (2000) warns that perceptions of fear and personal safety may not be a reflection of the school climate but a response to the neighborhood or larger community characteristics, such as a gang presence. When considering the role that the school environment might play in delinquency as a whole, and weapons carrying specifically, it is important to remember that schools exist within neighborhoods, not a vacuum. Chaos and disorder that exist within a school may be more representative of chaos and disorder found in the neighborhood (see Gottfredson, 2001). While many studies highlight the correlation between neighborhood chaos and school disorder, the pathways of influence remain unclear.

Elaborating on the correlation between school disorder, such as carrying a weapon, and external neighborhood chaos, Rudatsikira and colleagues (2006) found a nearly 500% increase in odds of carrying a weapon among seventh- and eighth-grade students who reported fearing for their safety. This finding reflects that of previous research, which concluded that one of the strongest predictors of weapons carrying was the perception that peers carried a weapon, speaking to normative expectations that weapons carrying is common, customary, or expected behavior (Bailey, Flewelling, & Rosenbaum, 1997). The National Institute of Education’s (1977) Safe School Study found that systematic and uniform discipline were significant contributors to levels of school disorder.

Violent victimizations perpetrated by and against students, including simple assaults, are just as likely to occur on school campuses as they are off (Gottfredson et al., 2005). Protective factors against school crime appear to be high teacher morale, leadership, and involvement, implying clear and consistent implementation of school rules, as well as their clarity, can play incredibly important roles in the creation of the school climate(Gottfredson et al., 2005). Furthermore, unwritten beliefs such as communication patterns, school norms, and reward/sanction perceptions, values, and attitudes pertaining to the interaction between students and teachers are the backbone of creating cohesive, safe, and positive school climate (Welsh, 2000).

Current Study

To advance the understanding of the relationship between positive school environments and violence, the current research will examine the effect of school-level variables on the reporting of risky behaviors, specifically weapon carrying and students’ willingness to report weapons carried by other students. We believe that if a student is aware of weapons on campus but reluctant to report such an incident to an authority figure, the student’s cohesiveness with school and peers will be negatively impacted. We examine this hypothesis in light of Gottfredson’s (2001) argument that students alienated from the prosocial influence of the school environment, which can be the result of a variety of factors, are at an increased risk of delinquency.

The current research consists of three research questions. First, we examine whether reporting behaviors differ by weapon type. Rountree (2000) suggested that gun-carrying students and other weapon (nongun) carrying students were not entirely different from one another. However, empirical research examining weapon reporting by type is extremely limited. Therefore, we hypothesize that reporting behaviors differ when students observe peers with guns compared with knives. Second, we explore which individual- and school-level factors are influential in a student’s willingness to report a weapon to an authority figure at school, as a way to extend Brank and colleague’s (2007) results that described willingness of reporting by potential outcome but not with regard to whom reporting happened; and, we disaggregate reporting behavior by gender in order to examine whether boys and girls have different factors driving decision making. Finally, we explore the relationship between reporting behavior for each type of weapon (as well as both guns and knife reporting combined), and to whom students are most likely to report suspected weapon carrying to in school settings.

Method

Data and Sampling

Data were collected as part of a statewide, multiyear implementation and evaluation of a social norms program to reduce substance use among secondary school students in a northeastern state. The project consisted of detailed data collection of a variety of student information, including self-reported alcohol, tobacco, and other substance use. Surveys were administered to students in Grades 9–12 in each participating school 3 months after the start of the school year (approximately mid-November). The overall goal of the project was to gather information to be used to implement substance use prevention programming in the participating schools; here, we discuss findings from 10 schools that participated in the project between 2008 and 2011.

Anonymous online surveys were administered to students asking a variety of questions regarding school experiences, lifetime and recent substance use, attitudes toward substance use, and safety issues within the school, as well as self-identified demographic characteristics. A total of 4,372 students in 14 schools completed the survey, and an examination of missing data left us with a final sample of 3,099. A total of 3,022 provided the information required for inclusion in this study. Therefore, 77 students were deleted listwise due to item-level missing data.

An active consent form process was utilized, with students returning signed permission slips to survey administrators before being allowed to take the survey. As would be expected in such a design, no school had full participation; the sample population has slightly higher participation of females and White students, which is consistent with the fact that many minority communities are reluctant to participate in research, given fear of repeat past victimization, before institutional review board protocols were commonplace (Sheikh, 2006; Wendler et al., 2006). Post hoc analyses indicated that despite less than 100% participation, most schools were able to collect surveys from a cross section of students that was very similar to the school population in terms of gender, race, and grade (results available from authors). The size and diversity, as well as the prevalence of weapon carrying, in our sample highlight the usefulness of the data for the exploratory design of this study. Table 1 provides the sample descriptions of the students included in the final analysis.

Table 1.

Sample Description.

	N	Survey %
Student-level variables
Perceived safety at school (M, SE; Range: 1–10)	8.03(.14)
School attachment scale (M, SE; Range: 1–10)	2.49(.04)
Seen a weapon in school	408	13.21
Know that someone had a weapon in school	650	21.04
Grade enrollment (M, SE; Range: 123–432)	305.99(51.72)
Grades (higher scores indicate higher grades; M, SE; Range: 1–7)	5.87(.11)
Perceived number of security features present at their school
0	45	1.48
1	31	1.02
2	114	3.75
3	242	7.98
4	550	18.15
5	999	32.96
6	811	26.76
7	239	7.89
Demographics
White race	2,231	71.99
Female	1,668	53.82

Note. M = mean; SE = standard error, n = 3,022.

Outcome Variables

Willingness to report weapons to school official

Students were asked seven questions each on their willingness to report a gun or knife if one was seen. The options were tell a principal, teacher, counselor, police officer, parent, friend, or no one. The options were collapsed with principal, teacher, or counselor being combined as a “school official,” responses regarding reporting behaviors were dichotomously coded as 0 = No and 1 = Yes. Without consideration for any other variables, 75.6% of students stated that they would report a knife to a school official, while 88.8% said they would report a gun.

Individual Student-Level Variables

Demographics

Student age, grade, race/ethnicity, academics, gender were included.

Perceptions of safety

The survey contained one question that asked, “On a scale of 1–10, how safe do you feel at school?” (M = 8.0, SD = 1.77).

Seeing/Knowing of weapon

Students were asked whether they had either seen or knew of a weapon being brought to school during the preceding 3 months. Answers were coded as 1 = Yes and 2 = No, and 10 cases were missing for each question (Seen weapon M = 1.87, SD = .34; Know of weapon M = 1.79, SD = .41).

Aggregate School Variables

School climate

Three questions, adapted from various measures of attachment and bonding to school, were used to create a school climate scale; “I feel like I belong at this school,” “I wish I did not attend this school,” “This school is a pretty good school to go to”; coded as 0 = false and 1 = true. (M = 2.49, SD = .89, Cronbach’s α = .70).

Safety measures

Students were asked seven questions regarding their knowledge of various safety procedures present in their school: school staff member supervising hallways; locked doors during the day; required sign in for visitors; locker checks; required ID badge worn on shirt; security cameras; and, whether their school has a code of student conduct. The answer choices were “Yes,” “No,” and “I don’t know.” The real answers were known, as the majority of these safety procedures were state mandated, and any ambiguity was clarified by a school administrator. Using student knowledge of these safety procedures helps us tap into any potential school-level differences in the way that students received information about the safety procedures and in the legitimacy that students felt for safety procedures. Due to the fact that other types of objective safety ratings were not available, as they are not made public by the state or the schools, this variable helps gather insight into the ways that students navigate safety issues. A right/wrong scale was then created where the “no” and “I don’t know” answers were collapsed into “wrong” (M = 4.86, SD = 1.39).

Grade enrollment

To obtain a true school-level variable, grade enrollment was calculated by the number of students enrolled in each grade, at each school, independently. That resulted in 11 four-item variables that were then summated into one (M = 305.9, SD = 106.8).

Analytical Method

Prior to data analysis, all theoretical variables were examined using descriptive methods to assess their relationship to weapon reporting. All theoretically relevant variables were retained in the analysis, regardless of their significance in bivariate testing. The overlap between the two dependent variables (gun and knife reporting) was examined using a survey χ² test, which indicated a very high level of dependency between these two variables. Therefore, to examine the predictors of a student’s willingness to tell someone if they were to see a gun or a knife in school (Hypothesis 1), we used a survey bivariate probit model (Greene, 1993). This method is commonly used when a research question includes two or more dependent variables that are intrinsically correlated, by modeling them simultaneously (Chib & Greenberg, 1998). Similarly, to examine gender differences in predictors, bivariate probit models were stratified by gender. Survey-corrected prevalence rates were used to assess differences in which school personnel students would report a gun or weapon to (as these measures were not independent in nature and did not address a specific hypothesis). All models were corrected for the hierarchical nature of the data, as students were nested within schools. All analyses were conducted using STATA 13 (StataCorp, 2013).

Results

Data included 3,022 students attending 14 high schools in the northeastern United States. The majority of students were White (71.99%), female (53.82%), and received good grades (M = 5.87; SE = .11; range = 1–7). Students rated their level of school safety as high (M = 8.03; SE = .14; range = 1–10), but reported relatively low attachment to school overall (M = 2.49; SE = .04; range = 1–10). Thirteen percent of the students reported seeing a weapon in their school during the past year, and 21% reported knowing about (but not seeing) a weapon in school. A very small number of students perceived their school to have no security features to protect students (1.5%); however, 97% reported believing that their school had several security measures in place. All schools included in this study had all security measures listed; therefore, students were unaware of many security measures. Only 7.9% of students believed that their school had implemented all seven security measures presented to them.

As detailed in Table 2, there were several predictors that were associated with students’ willingness to tell someone about a gun or a knife. Greater attachment to school was associated with an increased willingness to report a gun (b = .25; 95% confidential interval [CI]: [.08, −.42]) or a knife (b = .22; 95% CI: [.10, −.34]). Having seen a weapon or known about a weapon in school were both associated reduced willingness to tell someone about a gun and a knife. Students with higher grades were more likely to tell about a gun (b = .29; 95% CI: [.17, −.41]) or a knife (b = .22; 95% CI: [.14, −.31]). There was also a clear relationship between the perceived number of security measures in place at school and the willingness to tell someone about a gun and a knife. Although knowledge of one security measure did not significantly differ from knowledge of zero security measures, those who were aware of two or more security measures in their school were more likely than those who knew of zero to tell someone about a knife or a gun. Females were more likely than males to report a gun (b = .65; 95% CI: [.33, −1.01]) or a knife (b = .80; 95% CI: [.58, −1.02]).

Table 2.

Multilevel Mixed Effects Regression Examining Characteristics Associated with Willingness to Tell Someone About a Gun or Knife.

	Tell about a gun		Tell about a knife or other weapon
	b	95% CI	B	95% CI
Perceived safety at school (1–10)	.04	[−.05, .12]	−.04	[−.10, .03]
School attachment scale (1–10)	.25**	[.08, .42]	.22***	[.10, .34]
Seen a weapon in school	−.51*	[−.99, −.02]	−.93***	[−1.25, −.612]
Know that someone had a weapon in school	−.51*	[−.95, −.06]	−.49**	[−.78, 0.20]
Grade enrollment	−.001	[0.006, .002]	−.002*	[−.003, −.0004]
Grades (higher scores indicate higher grades)	.29***	[.17, .41]	.22***	[.14, .31]
Perceived number of security features present at their school (0 = referent)
1	1.02	[−.31, 2.34]	.34	[−.76, 1.44]
2	1.91***	[.84, 2.98]	.94*	[.08, 1.79]
3	1.76***	[.99, 2.63]	.92*	[.16, 1.68]
4	2.28***	[1.46, 3.10]	1.22**	[.50, 1.94]
5	2.11***	[1.35, 2.87]	1.06**	[.36, 1.75]
6	2.11***	[1.32, 2.90]	1.29***	[.58, 1.99]
7	2.17***	[1.22, 3.11]	1.11**	[.40, 1.89]
Demographics
White race	−.008	[−.36, .34]	−.19	[−.42, .05]
Female	.65***	[.33, 1.01]	.80***	[.58, 1.02]

Note. n = 3,022.

***p < 0.001. **p < .10. *p < .05.

Gender-specific models are displayed in Table 3. Attachment to school was associated with willingness to report a gun among females only (b = .31; SE = .13), while high academic achievement and knowledge of a greater number of security features in the school was associated with willingness to report guns across both genders. For both genders, school attachment, higher grades, and a greater perceived number of security measures increased willingness to report a knife, while having seen a weapon in school decreased the likelihood of reporting. Among males only, knowledge of a weapon decreased the likelihood of reporting (b = −.51; SE = .19).

Table 3.

Multilevel Mixed Model Examining Characteristics Associated with Willingness to Tell Someone About a Gun or Knife, Stratified by Gender.

	Tell about a gun		Tell about a knife or other weapon
	Male b (SE)	Female b (SE)	Male b (SE)	Female b (SE)
Perceived safety at school (1–10)	.03 (.05)	.06 (.07)	−.04 (.04)	−.001 (.05)
School attachment scale (1−10)	.19 (.12)	.31* (.13)	.17* (.09)	.25** (.09)
Seen a weapon in school	−.43 (.31)	−.69 (.42)	−.91*** (.20)	−1.00*** (.28)
Know that someone had a weapon in school	−.46 (.29)	−.63 (.37)	−.51** (.19)	−.45 (.24)
Grade enrollment	−.001 (.01)	−.002 (.001)	−.001 (.001)	−.001 (.001)
Grades (higher scores indicate higher grades)	.34*** (.08)	.21* (.11)	.24*** (.06)	.21** (.07)
Perceived number of security features present at their school (0 = referent)
1	.59 (1.134)	1.44 (.92)	.61 (.94)	.08 (.81)
2	1.73* (.68)	2.38* (.95)	1.30* (.57)	.48 (.74)
3	2.03*** (.57)	1.54* (.71)	1.49** (.50)	.22 (.67)
4	2.39*** (.54)	2.28*** (.69)	1.36** (.47)	1.01 (.66)
5	2.25*** (.49)	2.08** (.65)	1.38** (.45)	.60 (.64)
6	2.11*** (.51)	2.32** (.67)	1.44** (.46)	1.04 (.65)
7	1.83** (.57)	3.51** (1.19)	1.25* (.50)	.78 (.71)
Demographics
White race	−.02 (.23)	.01 (.30)	−.14 (.15)	−.27 (.20)

Note. n = 3,022.

***p < .001. **p < .10. *p < .05.

Finally, we explored the question of to whom students would report a gun or a knife if they suspected someone was carrying a weapon in the school setting (see Table 4). Although most youth would tell a parent, teacher, counselor, and/or a police officer or security guard about a knife and a gun (e.g., would report both weapons to a school official), there were differences in the incidence of reporting only a gun or a knife to an adult. For instance, parents and family members were most frequently the person a student would tell about both guns and knives in a school setting, while principals had the lowest likelihood of obtaining information from students about both types of weapons. Students reported being likely to report guns to principals or police officers rather than family members.

Table 4.

Description of Who Students Would Tell About a Gun or a Knife.

	A principal or assistant principal	Teacher	Counselor	Parent or family member	Police officer or security guard
Would not tell	21.1%	14.6%	19.9%	15.0%	14.3%
Would tell about a knife only	20.6%	15.8%	15.6%	11.4%	17.0%
Would tell about a gun only	1.7%	2.1%	2.4%	1.6%	1.4%
Would tell about both guns and knives	56.6%	64.5%	62.1%	72.0%	67.2%

Discussion

This research highlights the importance of examining multilevel factors that may influence a student’s willingness to report weapons to school officials. Differences were found not only among the students who were willing to report weapons but also to which authority member they would most likely report. Students who reported a higher level of attachment to school, had seen or knew of a weapon, received higher grades, and were knowledgeable of at least two security measures, were significantly more likely to report both a gun or knife. This is expected in that these students are also most likely to be engaged in the normative activities and behaviors. These results are supported by prior research which has found that knowledge of effective security measures can moderate the carrying of a weapon to school by a student (Cao et al., 2008), as well as the importance of attachment to school as a prosocial institution (Hirschi, 2002). Once the sample was stratified by gender, female students were consistently more likely to report either weapon as well as report higher knowledge of school safety measures.

We found differences in which authority figure students would tell if they observed a weapon at school. While most students reported that they would tell all available authority figures if either weapon were on the school campus, school counselors were least likely to be told while parents and family members were most frequently informed. These incidence rates appear to indicate that students understand the extent of threat that a gun may present and are willing to inform authorities in order to keep themselves and their schools safe. Unfortunately, in the event that students wait too long to contact authorities (for instance, by calling parents or family first), preventive efforts may not be relayed to the school until it is too late. Current wisdom suggests that weapons reporting behaviors among students are consistent regardless of the type of weapon (see Rountree, 2000); however, our results suggest that students are more nuanced in their reporting behaviors and most likely are making decisions based on a variety of factors yet to be distinguished, including those related to peer interactions.

We acknowledge that there are limitations to this study, most specifically the fact that the use of cross-sectional research cannot disentangle the temporal ordering between student behavior and school-based attachment variables. We also do not have information about actual reporting behavior, so students are asked to speculate on what they would do if they observed a weapon. At the time of data collection, students did not have access to anonymous reporting about their peers’ behavior, a mechanism that previous research points out is an important predictor of willingness to report (Wilcox et al., 2007). Due to the sensitive nature of questions related to reporting, especially in light of the recent school shooting events across the United States, we were also unable to gather data from the schools with regard to weapon incidences. As such, we have no way of tracking whether there was a correlation between reported student intention and disciplinary reports at the school level. As a result, there is a limitation with regard to the fact that our measure is more about student intent to report and we cannot know how closely related intention will be to future behavior, particularly in the case of such a low probability event such as weapons carrying.

Furthermore, we are limited in the external validity of the results; specifically, the geographical and racial homogeneity. Therefore, future epidemiological and criminological studies should be conducted to increase the generalizability in research on reporting behaviors of weapons in school settings. Despite these limitations, we believe that this study opens the door to a new way to understand student behaviors, whether it be weapon reporting or other risk behaviors in schools. Further, the strong relationship between numbers of perceived security measures indicates that schools should highlight the number of security measures in place at their institution, as this appears to increase weapon reporting among students. Increases in the attachment of students to their school, as well as programs that improve the school climate, may be influential in increasing weapon-reporting behaviors among students. Overall, this study fills a gap in the literature by extending our knowledge of school climate and how the school itself may influence behavior of the students attending the school. This helps to inform the conversation about how to best engage students in school-based security protocols, therefore, enhancing school safety.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funds for the collection of data association with the Social Norms project were provided in full by a grant to the New Jersey Department of Education from the United States Department of Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, under Title IV, Part A: the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.

Note

References

Bailey

S. L.

Flewelling

R. L.

Rosenbaum

D. P.

(1997). Characteristics of students who bring weapons to school. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20, 261–270.

Barron

(2012, December 14). Nation reels after gunman massacres 20 children at school in Connecticut. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregion/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school.html?pagewanted=all

Brank

E. M.

Woolard

J. L.

Brown

V. W.

Fondacaro

Luescher

J. L.

Chinn

R. G.

Miller

S. A.

(2007). Will they tell? Weapons reporting by middle-school youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 5, 125–146.

Cao

Zhang

(2008). Carrying weapons to school for protection: An analysis of the 2001 school crime supplement data. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 154–164.

Chib

Greenberg

(1998). Analysis of multivariate probit models. Biometrika, 85, 347–361.

Fitzsimmons

E. G.

Williams

(2014, April 9). Student stabs 21 people at a high school outside Pittsburge. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/10/us/stabbings-franklin-regional-high-school-murrysville.html?_r=0

Gottfredson

D. C.

(2001). Schools and delinquency. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gottfredson

G. D.

Gottfredson

D. C.

Payne

A. A.

Gottfredson

N. C.

(2005). School climate predictors of school disorder: Results from a national study of delinquency prevention in schools. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 412–444.

Greene

(1993). A statistical model for credit scoring (Working Paper #EC-92-29, 1993). Department of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York University$.

10.

Hemenway

Vriniotis

Johnson

R. M.

Miller

Azrael

(2011). Gun carrying by high school students in Boston, MA: Does overestimation of peer gun carrying matter? Journal of Adolescence, 34, 997–1003.

11.

Hirschi

(2002). Causes of delinquency. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

12.

Jenkins

P. H.

(1997). School delinquency and the school social bond. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 337–367.

13.

McGloin

J. M.

Stickle

W. P.

(2011). Influence or convenience? Disentangling peer influence and co-offending for chronic offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48, 419–447.

14.

National Institute of Education. (1977). Violent schools- safe schools: The safe school study report to the Congress: Executive summary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Institute of Education.

15.

Rountree

P. W.

(2000). Weapons at school: Are the predictors generalizable across context? Sociological Spectrum, 20, 291–324.

16.

Rudatsikira

Singh

Job

Knutsen

(2007). Variables associated with weapon-carrying among young adolescents in Southern California. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40, 470–473.

17.

Sheikh

(2006). Why are ethnic minorities under-represented in US research studies? PloS Med, 3, e49.

18.

Sullivan

C. J.

Dollard

Sellers

Mayo

(2010). Rebalancing response to school-based offenses: A civil citation program. Youth Violence & Juvenile Justice, 8, 279–294.

19.

StataCorp. (2013). Stata statistical software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

20.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2012). Youth risk behavior surveillance-United States, 2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 61, 1–168.

21.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009). National Crime Victimization Survey: School Crime Supplement. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.

22.

Webster

D. W.

Gainer

P. S.

Champion

H. R.

(1993). Weapon carrying among inner-city junior high school students: Defensive behavior vs aggressive delinquency. American Journal of Public Health, 83, 1604–1608.

23.

Welsh

W. N.

(2003). Individual and institutional predictors of school disorder. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1, 346–368.

24.

Welsh

W. N.

(2000). The effects of school climate on school disorder. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567, 88–107.

25.

Wendler

Kington

Madans

Van Wye

Christ-Schmidt

Pratt

L. A.

… Emanuel

(2006). Are racial and ethnic minorities less willing to participate in health research. PLoS Med, 3(2), e19.

26.

Wilcox

May

D. C.

Roberts

S. D.

(2007). Student weapon possession and the “fear and victimization hypothesis”: Unraveling the temporal order. Justice Quarterly, 23, 502–529.

27.

Wright

Rossi

Daly

(1983). Under the gun: Weapons, Crime and violence in America. New York, NY: Aldine.