School Violence

School Violence
Gordon Capp, University of Southern California, Hadass Moore, University of Southern
California, Ronald Pitner, University of South Carolina, Aidyn Iachini, University of South
Carolina, Ruth Berkowitz, University of Haifa, Ron Avi Astor, University of Southern California,
, and Rami Benbenishty, Bar Ilan University, Israel

https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.78
Published online: 27 February 2017

Summary
School violence can be understood as any behavior that is intended to harm other people at schools or near school
grounds. This may include bullying and victimization, or more severe forms of violence involving weapons. To
respond effectively to school violence, school personnel and leaders must understand the influences on their
schools that come from individuals, the surrounding community, and cultural and political spheres. Careful and
ongoing assessment of the needs of any given school is also a prerequisite to effective intervention. The severity of
violence, the exact location of violent acts, and how different groups on a school campus experience violence are all
key details to understanding and measuring problems. With this information, schools are then able to choose
intervention programs that will utilize a whole-school approach. Sometimes, existing Evidence Based Programs can
address the needs of a particular school and surrounding community. Other times, schools need to either modify
existing interventions or create their own to address the particular forms of violence that exist in their schools and
communities.

Keywords: school violence, bullying, victimization, prevention, evidence-based intervention, systematic monitoring

Subjects: Cognition, Emotion, and Learning

Introduction

Other than the home, schools are perhaps the single most important places for the overall
development of children and youth. Schools promote social-emotional well-being and cognitive
development necessary for success throughout the lifespan. Schools also provide opportunities
for social mobility and encourage participation in a democratic society (Labaree, 1997). Being safe
at school allows teachers, staff, and students to work together to reach academic milestones and
develop social and emotional skills. Indeed, school safety is a prerequisite for staff and students
to be able to engage in educational activities. A major focus of school personnel, then, is to
promote safety and prevent violence in schools (Berkowitz, De Pedro, Couture, & Benbenishty,
2014; Cawood, 2013; Dupper, 2010; Gilreath, Astor, Estrada, Benbenishty, & Unger, 2014;
Goodemann, Zammitt, & Hagerdorn, 2012; Johnson, Burke, & Gielen, 2012; Pitner, Astor, &
Benbenishty, 2015; Pitner, Marachi, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2015).

School personnel, including teachers, administrators, counselors and social workers, can work
together to shape and implement policy, interventions, and procedures that make schools safer
(e.g., Astor, Capp, Moore, & Benbenishty, 2015; Astor, Guerra, & Van Acker, 2010; Benbenishty &
Page 1 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

Astor, 2005; Benbenishty & Astor, 2012a; Benbenishty & Astor, 2012b; Schiff et al., 2010; Schiff et
al., 2012). School staff must therefore be aware of current empirical and theoretical issues
surrounding school violence and of available effective school violence programs. This article
presents an overview of a systematic approach to monitoring the needs and activities at schools
that facilitate the adoption of a “whole-school” approach to school safety and the prevention of
violence. Information about evidence-based programs (EBPs) or interventions is presented,
along with examples of how systematic monitoring can help educators and other school
personnel make school-wide decisions and changes.

School Safety, Bullying, and Violence

Recently, public attention in many countries has focused on lethal and tragic school shootings.
These events dominate discussions about violence in schools and sometimes motivate drastic
action relating to school safety. Events at places such as Sandy Hook and Columbine have become
part of our cultural lexicon and both led to major changes in legislation and policies at many
levels. Clearly, these are frightening and impactful events. However, bullying and victimization in
schools are more common types of school violence. Defined as repeated psychological or physical
oppression of a less powerful person by a more powerful person (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011),
bullying has significant negative long-term and short-term effects on students, teachers, and
schools. Extant literature suggests that beyond the obvious and immediate pain and suffering
that accompany incidences of bullying, victims may experience psychological, behavioral, and
somatic outcomes. These can include difficulty sleeping, abdominal pain, headaches, substance
use, depression, loneliness, anxiety, low self-esteem, suicidal ideation, decreased academic
performance, and school attendance (e.g., Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Schneider, O’Donnell,
Stueve, & Coulter, 2012). The link with depression may be especially powerful, as some research
suggests that the probability of being depressed long after leaving school (up to 36 years later)
was much higher for children who were bullied at school compared to those who were not (Ttofi,
Farrington, Losel, & Loeber, 2011); this effect likely occurs before students leave school as well, as
students who were bullied were more likely to be depressed even after controlling for other risk
factors. Cyberbulling presents equally negative results and victims of these interactions also
experience multiple negative outcomes (Cassidy, Faucher, & Jackson, 2013).

It is important to acknowledge that students are not the only ones in schools who may experience
bullying and victimization. Teachers and staff also experience victimization (Astor, Behre,
Wallace, & Fravil, 1998; Espelage et al., 2013; Reddy et al., 2013; Ziera, Astor, & Benbenishty,
2004). In a recent national study of teachers, 80% reported being victimized in the last two years,
and 94% of these reports indicated staff were bullied by students (McMahon et al., 2014). This
same study indicated that teachers reported being victimized by two primary groups of
perpetrators—students and parents.

School shootings and suicides are two rare, extreme, and highly publicized potential outcomes of
school victimization. Teachers, administrators, social workers, school counselors, and other staff
are also aware of other kinds of violence and victimization that occur in schools but do not
necessarily follow the above definition of bullying, or do not result in fatalities. Many other

Page 2 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

behaviors also fall into the category of school violence or victimization and have a powerful and
negative impact on students, staff, and schools, including bringing weapons to school, sexual
harassment and assault, threatening students and staff, and social exclusion, either in person or
through online platforms (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Benbenishty, Astor, & Estrada, 2008).
Thus, the promotion of school safety and violence prevention needs to address a range of
challenges for a variety of school stakeholders.

Definitions of school violence have varied in recent years. In this chapter, our definition reflects a
consensus among researchers that school violence includes a range of intentional behaviors that
aim to harm others on or around school grounds (Astor, Benbenishty, & Estrada, 2009; Pitner,
Astor, & Benbenishty, 2015). We are also guided by a recent American Educational Research
Association (AERA) position that bullying is “part of the larger phenomenon of violence in
schools” (AERA, 2013). While bullying and other forms of school violence are generally results of
individual behaviors, the effects of violence reach outward into schools and surrounding
communities.

Socio-ecological Approach to School Violence

Programs that aim to prevent violence are largely predicated on understanding causes, risks, and
protective factors that are connected to violence in schools. Bullying and violence in schools have
frequently been explained by theories focused on interpersonal and intrapersonal dynamics
(Hudley Britsch, Wakefield, Demorat, & Cho, 1998; Rocque, 2012). These theories depend on
understanding how and why individuals engage in particular behaviors or respond in certain
ways. However, other theories have emerged that utilize a socio-ecological approach to
understand school violence (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005; Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Easton, &
Luppescu, 2010; Espelage, 2014). These socio-ecological theories are important for
understanding influences within the school and outside of the school. School organization and
decision making are increasingly recognized as key factors that help schools cope with violence
(e.g., Astor, Meyer, Behre, 1999). In some schools, readiness for change and a willingness to learn
are low (Berkowitz, Bowen, Benbenishty, & Powers, 2013, Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-
D’Alessandro, 2013). In other schools, strong leadership helps to deal with external influences,
including neighborhood poverty, crime, and oppression (Astor, Benbenishty, & Estrada, 2009).

Socio-ecological models of school violence integrate both external factors and internal
characteristics and dynamics of schools. These models acknowledge that schools are nested
within a community and a district, and each district is nested within a larger region, county,
state, and country. Each of these ecological layers exerts some influence on the school, whether it
be cultural, religious, or political influence. All of this creates a complex picture that must be
understood to appropriately and effectively address school violence and victimization. This
ecological understanding of a “school in context” allows school staff to consider what might be
shared by schools in a particular context and what might be unique to individual schools
(Benbenishty & Astor, 2012a, Benbenishty & Astor, 2012b). This model of a school in context also
assumes that the individual behaviors of students, parents, teachers and other staff members
contribute to the overall safety of a school (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). In addition, the

Page 3 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

surrounding community is connected to schools in this model; violence that occurs in a school,
for instance, may impact the surrounding community and may also occur in the surrounding
community.

Fostering an ecological perspective is especially important for school staff who are planning
interventions; this allows planning an intervention to include multiple constituents (e.g.,
students, teachers, administrators, etc.) and to address environmental or structural changes to
make schools safer. For example, knowing the times and places at a particular school that are
vulnerable to violence allows school leaders and personnel to develop an intervention focusing
directly on the specific challenges faced by this school. Benbenishty and Astor (2012b) illustrate
that interventions as simple as opening one more gate at the end of the school day, or placing a
staff member at a bus station at a particular time of day, can prevent violence. In this example,
the community is an important part of the school context, and interventions that address
violence should not necessarily be restricted to school grounds.

Empirically Supported Prevention and Intervention Programs

This section presents examples of prevention and intervention programs that are available for
schools. This is not a comprehensive list of all programs available, but we provide examples of
commonly used and effective programs that help illustrate what an effective program can do for a
school.

Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) Program

PATHS was designed to reduce aggression and problem behaviors and to promote social and
emotional competence in grades K–5. Research and field testing has been in mainstream and
special needs classes for students who are hearing-impaired, learning disabled, emotionally
disturbed, mildly intellectually delayed and gifted (see Riggs, Greenberg, Kusché, & Pentz, 2006).
PATHS focuses on five domains of student functioning: (1) friendship skills and pro-social
behavior; (2) self-control; (3) emotional understanding; (4) conflict resolution and
communication; and (5) problem solving skills (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group,
2011). Teachers and counselors receive training, lesson modules, and ongoing consultation.
PATHS also provides information and activities for parents to review and complete with their
children.

Five conceptual models provide the foundation for PATHS (Greenberg, Kusché, & Mihalic, 1998).
The first conceptual model, affective-behavioral-cognitive-dynamic (ABCD), informs
developmentally appropriate skill building. The second model, an eco-behavioral system
perspective, focuses on allowing the teacher to use these skills in building a healthy classroom
atmosphere. The third model emphasizes the importance of neurobiology and brain organization
for understanding development. The fourth model is influenced by developmental
psychodynamic theory. Finally, the fifth model is based on psychological concepts of emotional

Page 4 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

awareness or emotional intelligence. These conceptual models are used in concert in the PATHS
curriculum to create a comprehensive and developmentally appropriate program that addresses
students’ cognition, emotion, and behavior.

Research from at least six groups across the nation has demonstrated that PATHS is a model or
effective program for violence prevention. Results showed decreases in aggressive behavior,
conduct problems, violent responses to social problems, and increases in emotionally expressive
vocabulary, self-control, frustration tolerance, conflict-resolution strategies, and cognitive skills
(SAMHSA Model Programs, 2003). These findings are based on teacher reports, student self-
reports, and child assessments and interviews. PATHS is one of the highest-rated social-
emotional learning programs, and is recognized internationally because of the strong evidence
base, theoretical foundation and ease of implementation. Both the National Institute on Drug
Abuse and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention have also recognized PATHS
for its effectiveness.

Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP)

OBPP is another school-wide, comprehensive program designed to reduce and prevent bullying
in grades 1 through 9. This EBP has been translated into more than 12 languages, implemented in
more than 15 countries, and is based on a systematic restructuring of a school environment. This
restructuring redirects bullying behavior and rewards pro-social behaviors. The conceptual
framework for this intervention is based on research on the development and modification of
aggressive behavior, as well as positive child-rearing dimensions (Olweus & Limber, 2010a). The
goal of OBPP is to structure a school environment where adults are engaged, caring, set limits
regarding unacceptable behavior and provide negative consequences for violence, and where
adults act as authorities and positive role models (Limber, 2012).

The success of OBPP is largely due to the integration of these principles into the school
environment. Students and adults participate in nearly all the program’s components, which
means that the success of this program does not rest on a few individuals in the school. Through
their involvement, and through assessments of the school, staff and parents should become
aware of the extent that bullying is present in their school and understand the significance of
bullying and resulting harm, as well as being active in enforcing rules and discouraging bullying
behavior (Olweus & Limber, 2010a). In many cultures, schools implementing this program have
observed significant reductions in bullying, including fighting, vandalism, truancy, and theft.
Beyond these reductions, student reports indicate improvements in order and discipline,
attitudes toward school and school work, and social relationships (Limber, 2012; Olweus &
Limber, 2010a).

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)

PBIS is a comprehensive, proactive, whole-school intervention that was designed to create
positive school environments, promote student success, and reduce student problem behaviors in
elementary, middle, and high schools. Guided by principles from applied behavioral analysis, the

Page 5 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

PBIS model consists of teaching, modeling, and reinforcing pro-social or desired behaviors
(Horner et al., 2009). PBIS utilizes three levels of intervention within each school: primary,
secondary, and tertiary. Primary intervention includes teaching, modeling, and reinforcing
behavior and expectations for all students. For example, a school-wide token system might be
used to reinforce specific prosocial behaviors. Secondary level interventions are intended for
either specific school settings, like a cafeteria or hallway, or for students who continue to be at
risk for problem behaviors after primary level intervention. Tertiary level interventions are
individualized for students with chronic behavioral problems (Pugh & Chitiyo, 2012). One critical
aspect of PBIS involves the ongoing collection of data in order to monitor progress, solve
problems, and make decisions about behavioral challenges in schools (Solomon, Tobin, &
Schutte, 2015). Several studies show that PBIS implementation, utilizing a school-wide model
and associated monitoring, is effective for reducing problem behaviors in schools (Bradshaw et
al., 2012; Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010; Horner et al., 2009; Molly, Moore, Trail, Van Epps, &
Hopfer, 2013; Szu-Yin, 2015).

Characteristics of Successful Interventions

The three programs presented above provide examples of successful interventions for bullying
and school violence. Some researchers posit that there are characteristics that are the foundation
for effective interventions (Pitner, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2015). Pitner et al. (2015) examined
evidence-based violence prevention/intervention programs and note that successful school-wide
interventions share core characteristics: (1) they are comprehensive interventions enacted in all
ecological layers of a school community; (2) they raise awareness, investment, and responsibility
from students, teachers, and parents regarding the types of violence in schools (e.g., fighting,
sexual harassment, weapons); (3) they establish clear expectations and rules for the whole
school; (4) they increase supervision and monitoring outside of classrooms; (5) they use faculty,
staff, and parents to plan, implement and sustain the intervention; (6) they often fit naturally
into the flow and routines of the school; (7) they create clear expectations and procedures before,
during, and after incidences of violence, and (8) they include continuous monitoring in order for
schools to tailor interventions to their unique environments and thus increase the potential for
success (Pitner et al., 2015). The complexity of these characteristics and the number of evidence-
based school violence interventions available for schools to use raise important questions.
Perhaps the most pressing question is: How do school staff decide which program is the best fit
for their school?

Selecting the Right EBP for a School

As school leaders look for programs to address violence and bullying, it is important that they
search for interventions with strong empirical support. Model programs with large-scale
research studies demonstrating their effectiveness have a better chance of working in schools
(Marachi, Astor, & Benbenishty, 2013). One important consideration, though, is to determine
whether or not a particular violence prevention program will be as effective in one particular

Page 6 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

school as it was elsewhere (Shlonsky & Benbenishty, 2014). Thus, schools need to ensure that any
intervention matches the resources, needs, and values of a school and the surrounding
community.

Often, evidence-based programs that address school violence or bullying are introduced to
schools through “top-down” approaches, with little or no attention to variations that exist in
local school contexts (Pitner et al., 2015). This approach has important limitations to consider.
Each school has unique sociocultural influences, a unique school climate, and may not share the
same problems or the same severity of problems with other schools that are implementing the
same intervention. Thus, implementing a single program to address school violence in schools
that have different needs is unlikely to adequately and effectively address issues of violence. All of
this indicates that any adoption of an intervention needs to be preceded by a careful assessment
of a school’s problems, values, needs, and available resources. There may already be staff
members, such as teachers, school social workers, school counselors, or principals who are
particularly suited to assessing a school’s needs. Based on their experience and professional
training, staff members may have valuable information that enables them to assess needs and
problems in their schools. This preliminary assessment would indicate the suitability of
implementing an EBP in a school or district. Furthermore, even though fidelity is a crucial
component for effective EBP implementation, evidence suggests that programs require some
adjustment to fit with local contexts (Sundell & Ferrer-Wreder, 2014). Thus, it is appropriate to
identify these adjustments that allow a particular program to retain its effective components,
while tailoring it to the needs of a school. Again, one challenge for schools is finding people that
are available to do this work; schools can designate a staff member or create a multiprofessional
committee of school staff to focus on this process. In addition, school social workers and school
counselors may be an especially valuable resource for these activities (Franklin & Kelly, 2009).

One important element of choosing an intervention, then, is a careful and accurate assessment of
the target school, and the identification of specific violence issues that a school may be facing. In
some places, discrimination-based violence or conflict between groups may be the most salient
issue, other schools may have problems with social exclusion, and still others could experience
high levels of weapon use and gang activity. Along with an assessment of what problems exist,
there should be consideration of what the school community views as a priority. This information
becomes the foundation for choosing an EBP and making any necessary adjustments.

It is possible that after a thorough assessment is completed, and after available EBPs are
examined, existing programs may not be the best fit for a school. Sometimes schools or school
districts have developed “grass-roots” programs or interventions that seem promising but do
not have empirical evidence. Despite this lack of evidence, these programs are still implemented
and sometimes yield promising results. It is essential to document these programs and monitor
their effectiveness. Whether a school implements an EBP or a locally developed grass root
intervention, it is essential to assess the outcomes of such implementation. Like any other
intervention, data is needed to assess whether these programs are meeting the needs of schools
and communities. In the following sections, systematic monitoring is presented as a way of
continually assess schools and their needs.

Page 7 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

One additional caveat is warranted here as well. In many schools, school social workers or
counselors may be available to oversee the assessment of a school and subsequent evaluation of
whether a particular school safety/violence intervention is effective. This is not true in all schools
though. One challenge then is who will do the work to gather this information. Given that whole-
school interventions are critical, and that buy-in is important from all stakeholders, it is
important for schools to collaboratively develop ways to gather this information.

Systematic Monitoring as a Method and Process

Merely implementing a violence prevention program is not enough to ensure long-term success.
Using data in an ongoing and interactive manner is important for successful interventions and
continuous improvement (Astor, Benbenishty, Estrada, 2009; Astor, Rosemond, Pitner, &
Marachi, 2006; Benbenishty & Astor, 2007; Benbenishty & Astor, 2012a; Benbenishty & Astor,
2005; Benbenishty, Astor, & Estrada, 2008). Data collected during the process of assessment and
intervention can be used for many purposes: to build awareness; motivate and mobilize
constituents; assess the extent of problems; monitor the implementation of interventions, and
evaluate their success. School-specific data should continually be provided to various groups
throughout assessment and implementation. This way, schools can identify their needs,
strengths, resources, and limitations. School communities can then discuss and choose how to
work toward achieving their goals.

Toward this end, systematic monitoring is a way of using data. Schools are dynamic
organizations that change constantly, and systematic monitoring is a way to continually assess
and share with school constituents what is happening with issues of violence or bullying. Ongoing
collection and sharing of data creates a “whole school” approach to understanding and
addressing a problem. Part of the assumption is that tailoring an intervention to a school requires
some grassroots participation from all stakeholders, and empowers students and teachers to deal
with the problem. Pitner et al. (2015) extend these ideas and argue that democracy is an important
element of violence prevention and that schools should champion a “proactive vision” about
violence problems. For example, school staff can work with students to create maps of their
school and mark places and times that are more dangerous to particular groups of students.
Students and staff can then discuss the results of this activity and explore reasons that these
trouble spots exist and then collaborate to find solutions (Pitner et al., 2015). Given the
importance of local influence, and the unique dynamics of individual schools, the
implementation of interventions is expected to be slightly different at each school site.

What makes systematic monitoring valuable is the customized contextual information for any
given school. For example, describing the frequency of certain behaviors at one specific point in
time, and then over an extended period, can be understood as the first step in using systematic
monitoring. Then, schools can compare this information within and between settings. In
selecting and adopting a violence prevention/intervention program, it is necessary to determine
which kinds of violence are more prevalent and problematic, as well as which grade levels
experience more victimization. Recent media attention and research emphasizes the importance
of understanding how different vulnerable groups experience violence. Gendered violence

Page 8 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

(Carrington, 2013; Oliver, Soler, & Flecha, 2009), racism, sexism, and homophobia continue to
put particular groups of people at risk for increased violence (Peguero & Williams, 2013). There
are many vulnerable groups in any school, and issues of gender, race, and religion are key areas of
study and are the focus of research around the world (Benbenishty & Astor, 2012a; DeBarbieux,
Blaya, & Vidal, 2003; Oliver et al., 2009; Smith, 2004). These considerations may seem like
common sense, but systematic information often remains elusive for schools. In the United
States, schools frequently purchase and implement expensive violence programs without
understanding the nature of problems in their schools. This can lead to difficulties in
implementation and subsequent evaluation. For instance, if the problem was not clearly
established, it will be difficult to determine whether an intervention was effective.

Much of the discussion in this article has addressed the importance of monitoring for school-
based decisions. There are many advantages when monitoring is conducted similarly and
consistently across levels (e.g., districts, regions, and even states). Schools that are part of a
multilevel system can compare themselves to other schools. This perspective is important both
for assessing the presence of violence and in evaluating changes that may come from an
intervention. Further, resources and experiences can be easily shared between schools within a
particular system, including locally developed interventions or adjustments made to existing
EBPs. Multilevel monitoring is also an important tool for generating policy and research. These
systems allow researchers and educators to identify schools and particular student groups that
may be doing better or worse than others and then to consider reasons for these discrepancies
and adjust practices and policies accordingly. As data accumulates over time, research can
examine longitudinal trends and changes that help schools understand and address changes in
populations, identify trends related to violence and bullying, and lead to better interventions.

Applications of Systematic Monitoring

Using Monitoring to Address Bullying, School Safety, and Weapon Use

Previous research from the United States, Israel, France, and other countries describes in detail
how systematic monitoring can be used to collect and interpret data from multiple ecological
layers (see Benbenishty & Astor, 2012b; Astor, Benbenishty, Wong, & Jacobson, 2014), and to
quantify and explore issues of concern in particular communities or regions (Astor, 2013a; Astor,
2013b; Astor & Benbenishty, 2014; Berkowitz et al., 2014; Cederbaum et al., 2013; Cederbaum et
al., 2014; De Pedro, Esqueda, Cederbaum, & Astor, 2014; Esqueda et al., 2014; Gilreath, Astor,
Cederbaum, Atuel, & Benbenishty, 2013; Gilreath, Cederbaum et al., 2013; Gilreath, Estrada et al.,
2014; Gilreath, Astor et al., 2014). In the United States, for example, 145 schools used monitoring
data and identified the following areas of concern that required intervention: bullying, school
safety, weapon use, and substance use (Astor, Benbenishty, Wong, & Jacobson, 2014). Data
collected from students were provided to each principal and vice principal, along with members
of the teaching staff for each school. These data included comparisons to other student reports
from their districts, regions, and the state. Each school then chose various EBPs to implement for
their particular school needs. Among the interventions chosen and implemented were: the OBPP,
Second Step, Student-to-Student, Safe School Ambassadors, and Cognitive Behavioral

Page 9 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS) (Astor, Benbenishty, Wong, & Jacobson, 2014). Other
schools implemented grassroots interventions developed with the surrounding community. As
schools were part of a multilevel monitoring system, many school sites shared successful
programing and interventions. In addition, schools were able to support the sustained
implementation of programs by utilizing military, community, and university resources.

Systematic Monitoring to Address Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors

One area where systematic monitoring has been applied to address widespread concerns is
suicide. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that in 2013, 17% of 9th to 12th grade
students seriously considered suicide, and that nearly 14% of 9th to 12th graders made a plan
about how they would attempt suicide (CDC, 2015). In a research project in California, secondary
schools received information containing student reports of depressive symptoms and suicidal
ideation (Astor, Benbenishty, Wong, & Jacobson, 2014; Benbenishty, 2014; Benbenishty & Astor,
2012a; Benbenishty & Astor, 2012b; Gilreath Estrada et al., 2014; Gilreath et al., 2015). Consistent
with principles of systematic monitoring, schools received information about their own students
and comparisons with other schools in their district and across the state. The rates of suicidal
ideation surprised some administrators and teachers, but the ability to compare their schools to
other schools in the region allowed them to see that students in nearby schools were reporting
similar experiences. Additionally, when administrators examined subgroups of students, they
discovered that military-connected students (those with siblings and/or parents serving in the
military) had higher rates of suicidal ideation than other groups of students (Astor, Benbenishty,
Wong, & Jacobson, 2014; Benbenishty, 2014; Cederbaum et al., 2013). Educators could use such
information to seek interventions that would address general concerns about suicidal ideation in
students and to hone interventions in specific regions to target military-connected students.

Current concerns about school accountability systems that may penalize rather than support
schools can lead to a reluctance to participate in monitoring. These examples about suicidal
ideation and violence provide a potent alternative viewpoint to the positive and empowering use
of data and monitoring systems. The same principles and ideas are applicable to concerns about
school violence. When school communities are given the opportunity to see information about
their students, they can take meaningful action. School district personnel, county organizations,
and parent groups can organize and share resources to find ways to provide needed supports for
schools and their students. The ability to understand the scope of the problem and the relevance
to specific schools is necessary to build coalitions and expand a school’s capacity to deal with
various challenges.

Implications for Schools and Educators

School violence remains a pervasive concern for schools around the world, and coordinated
efforts are necessary to make meaningful changes in how school communities address violence
and other problems. While concerns about violence are pervasive, every school is different. Some
of these differences are obvious, including schools in different countries and on different

Page 10 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

continents. Culture, religion, socioeconomic status and ethnicity also influence the dynamics
within a school, and may vary within a country, city, district or even a school. The socio-
ecological model addressed in this chapter helps to frame the importance of understanding the
influences that surround a school (Benbenishty & Astor, 2005). A school’s surrounding
community, including the influence of culture and religion or socioeconomic status, is a key
influence on the behaviors of individuals who attend the school. Thus, interventions to address
dynamics and interactions within a school necessarily must consider the surrounding community
and influences.

Whole-school interventions are powerful and effective ways to address violence and
victimization, and require the participation of all people who work in any given school. The EBPs
presented in this article require different behaviors from everyone involved in these
interventions, meaning that it is not merely one act of violence that is targeted but that the
school’s mission in general is shifted. This kind of large-scale change is difficult and complicated
by the already rigorous demands for teachers and school staff.

Given the complexity of school communities, the nature of violence, and the demands of
interventions, it is even more important that decision makers understand the nature of problems
in their schools, and the relevant context. Just responding to violence in a school is not enough.
Instead, school leaders and stakeholders must have access to data that allows them to hone in on
specific problems experienced by specific groups of people in their schools. It is then possible to
assess whether violence and victimization have decreased.

When everyone in a school—including administrators, teachers, staff, parents, and students—

clearly understand the scope and severity of violence and other problems, they can work together
to find solutions. This requires a conceptual and practical shift and the adaptation to “whole-
school” approaches for all staff members and stakeholders. This process will allow for the
understanding of the different strengths and possible contributions of each member, while also
encompassing the nested nature of schools in districts and regions. Using systematic monitoring
to gather and share data allows a school community to pursue a shared mission of a nonviolent,
safe environment where social, emotional, and academic progress are fostered.

Bibliography
American Educational Research Association. (2013). Prevention of bullying in schools, colleges, and universities:
Research report and recommendations. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association

Astor, R.A., Cornell, D.G., Espelage, D.L., Furlong, M.J., Jimerson, S.R., Mayer, M.G. et al. (2013). A call for more effective
prevention of violence. The School Psychologist, 67(2), 40–43.

Astor, R.A., Guerra, N., & Van Acker, R. (2010). How can we improve school safety research? Educational Researcher, 39,
69–78.

Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood, family, school, and gender. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Page 11 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2007). Monitoring indicators of children’s victimization in school: Linking national-,
regional-, and site-level indicators. Social Indicators, 84, 333–348.

Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2012b). Monitoring school violence in Israel, National studies and beyond: Implications
for theory, practice, and policy. In S. R. Jimerson, A.B. Nickerson, M.J. Mayer & M. J. Furlong (Eds). Handbook of school
violence and school safety: International research and practice (2d ed., pp. 191–202). New York: Routledge.

Interdisciplinary Group on Preventing School and Community Violence (2013). December 2012 Connecticut School
Shooting Position Statement. Journal of School Violence, 12(2), 119–133.

Jimerson, S. R., Nickerson, A. B., Mayer, M. J, & Furlong, M. J. (Eds). (2012). Handbook of school violence and school
safety: International research and practice (2d ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., et al. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015
(NCES 2015-144). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved
[February 21, 2016] from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch <http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch>.

References
American Educational Research Association. (2013). Prevention of bullying in schools, colleges, and universities:
Research report and recommendations. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Astor, R.A. Educational opportunity for military children. (March 2012). Huffington Post. Editorial. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-avi-astor/military-children-education_b_1386074.html <http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-avi-astor/military-children-education_b_1386074.html>.

Astor, R.A. Creating the schools we want for our children. (December 2013a). Education Week. Retrieved from http://
blogs.edweek.org/edweek/op_education/2013/12/creating_the_schools_we_want_f.html <http://blogs.edweek.org/
edweek/op_education/2013/12/creating_the_schools_we_want_f.html>.

Astor, R.A. Military kids at higher risk of suicidal thoughts. (December 2013b). Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-avi-stor/military_kids_b_4318573.html <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-avi-stor/
military_kids_b_4318573.html>.

Astor, R. A., Behre, W. J., Wallace, J. M., & Fravil, K. A. (1998). School social workers and school violence: Personal
safety, training, and violence programs <http://doi.org/10.1093/sw/43.3.223>. Social Work, 43(3), 223–232.

Astor, R. A. and Benbenishty R. (2014). Supporting military-connected students: The role of school social work.
Children and Schools, 36, 5–7.

Astor, R.A., Benbenishty, R. & Estrada, J. (2009). School violence and theoretically atypical schools: The principal’s
centrality in orchestrating safe schools. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 423–461.

Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Wong, M., & Jacobson, L (2014). Building capacity in military-connected schools: Annual
Report Year 4, Los Angeles, CA: USC School of Social Work. Building Capacity_2013-2014 Annual Report 4.

Page 12 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

Astor, R. A., Capp, G. Moore, H., & Benbenishty, R. (2015). Lessons from monitoring social emotional learning in Israel
and California schools. In Shute, R. H., & Slee, P. T. (Eds.), Mental health through schools: The way forward. Hove, UK:
Routledge.

Astor, R.A., Guerra, N., & Van Acker, R. (2010). How can we improve school safety research? Educational Researcher, 39,
69–78.

Astor, R. A., Jacobson, L., Benbenishty, R., Atuel, H., Gilreath, T., and Wong, M., et al. (2012a). A school administrator’s
guide to creating supportive schools for military students. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.

Astor, R. A., Jacobson, L., Benbenishty, R., Atuel, H., Gilreath, T., and Wong, M., et al. (2012b). A teacher’s guide to
supporting military students in the classroom. New York: Columbia University, Teachers College Press.

Astor, R. A., Jacobson, L., Benbenishty, R., Cederbaum, J., Atuel, H., Gilreath, T., and Wong, et al. (2012c). A military
parent’s guide to supporting their children in School. New York: Columbia University Teachers College Press.

Astor, R. A., Jacobson, L., Benbenishty, R., Pineda, D., Atuel, H., Gilreath, T., and Wong, M., et al. (2012d). A pupil
personnel guide to creating supportive schools for military students. New York: Columbia University Teachers College
Press.

Astor, R. A., Meyer, H. A., & Behre, W. J. (1999). Unowned places and times: Maps and interviews about violence in high
schools. American educational research journal, 36(1), 3–42.

Astor, R. A., Rosemond, M., Pitner, R. O., & Marachi, R. (2006). An overview of best violence prevention practices in
schools. In C. Franklin, M. B. Harris, & P. Allen-Meares (Eds.). School social work and mental health worker’s training and
resource manual (chapter 43). New York: Oxford University Press.

Benbenishty, R. (2014). Building capacity in military schools: Final technical evaluation report. Los Angeles, CA: USC
School of Social Work.

Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2005). School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood, family, school, and gender. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2007). Monitoring indicators of children’s victimization in school: Linking national-,
regional-, and site-level indicators. Social Indicators, 84, 333–348.

Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2012a). Making the case for an international perspective on school violence:
Implications for theory, research, policy, and assessment. In S. R. Jimerson, A.B. Nickerson, M.J. Mayer & M. J. Furlong
(Eds). Handbook of school violence and school safety: International research and practice, second edition (pp. 15–26).
New York: Routledge.

Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2012b). Monitoring school violence in Israel, National studies and beyond: Implications
for theory, practice, and policy. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nicker son, M. J. Mayer & M. J. Furlong (Eds). Handbook of
school violence and school safety: International research and practice (2d ed.) (pp. 191–202). New York: Routledge.

Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Estrada, J. N. (2008). School violence assessment: A conceptual framework, instruments
and methods. Children & Schools, 30(2), 71–81.

Page 13 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A. & Zeira, A. (2003). Monitoring school violence: Linking, national-, district-, and school-level
data over time. Journal of School Violence, 2, 29–50.

Berkowitz, R., Bowen, G., Benbenishty, R., & Powers, J. (2013). A cross-cultural validity study of the school success
profile learning organization measure in Israel. Children & Schools, 35, 137–146.

Berkowitz, R., De Pedro, K.T., Couture, J., & Benbenishty, R. (2014). Military parents’ perceptions of public school
supports for their children <http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdt024>. Children and Schools, 36, e1–e8,

Bradshaw, C. Pas, E., Bloom, J., Barrett, S., Hershefeldt, P., Alexander, A., McKenna, M. Chafin, A., & Leaf, P. (2012). A
statewide partnership to promote safe and supportive schools: The PBIS Maryland Initiative. Administration and Policy
in Mental Health Services Research, 39, 225–237.

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Easton, J. Q., & Luppescu, S. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement:
Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Carrington, K. (2013). Girls and violence: The case for a feminist theory of female violence. International Journal for
Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 2(2), 63–79.

Cassidy, W., Faucher, C., & Jackson, M. (2013). Cyberbullying among youth: A comprehensive review of current
international research and its implications and application to policy and practice. School Psychology International,
34(6), 575–612.

Cawood, N. D. (2013). Addressing interpersonal violence in the school context: Awareness and use of evidence-
supported programs. Children & Schools, 35, 41–52.

Cederbaum, J. A., Gilreath, T. D., Benbenishty, R., Astor, R. A., & Pineda, D., & De Pedro, K. T., et al. (2013). Wellbeing
and suicidal ideation of public middle/high school students by military-connectedness <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jadohealth.2013.09.006>. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(6), 672–677.

Cederbaum, J.A, Malchi, K., Esqueda, M. C., Benbenishty. R., Atuel, H.R., & Astor, R. A. (2014). Student-instructor
assessments: Examining the skills and competencies of social work students placed in military-connected schools.
Children and Schools, 36, 51–59.

Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention (2015).
Suicide. Facts at a glance. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-
a.pdf <https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/suicide-datasheet-a.pdf>.

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2011). The effects of the Fast Track preventive intervention on the
development of conduct disorder across childhood. Child Development 82, 331–345.

De Pedro, K.T., Atuel, H., Malchi, K., Esqueda, M. C., Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2014). Responding to the needs of
military students and military-connected schools: The perceptions and actions of school administrators. Children and
Schools, 36, e18–e25.

De Pedro, K.T., Esqueda, M.C., Cederbaum, J.A., & Astor, R.A. (November 2014). District, school, and community
stakeholder perspectives on the experiences of military-connected students. Teachers’ College Record, 116, 1–32.

Page 14 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

Debarbieux, E., Blaya, C., & Vidal, D. (2003). Tackling violence in schools. A report from France. In P. K. Smith (Ed.)
(2004). Violence in schools: The response in Europe. London: Routledge.

Dupper, D. R. (2010). A new model of school discipline: Engaging students and preventing behavior problems. New
York: Oxford University Press.

Espelage, D., Anderman, E. M., Brown, V. E., Jones, A., Lane, K. L., McMahon, S. D. et al. (2013). Understanding and
preventing violence directed against teachers: Recommendations for a national research, practice, and policy
agenda <http://doi.org/10.1037/a0031307>. American Psychologist, 68(2), 75–87.

Espelage, D. L. (2014). Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression, & victimization. Theory into Practice,
53, 257–264.

Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. (2003). Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where
do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32, 365–383.

Esqueda, M. C., Cederbaum, J. A., Malchi, K., Pineda, D., Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. (2014). The military social work
fieldwork placement: An analysis of the time and activities graduate student interns provide military-connected
schools. Children and Schools, 36, 41–50.

Franklin, C., & Kelly, M. S. (2009). Becoming evidence-informed in the real world of school social work practice.
Children & Schools, 31, 46.

Gilreath, T. D., Astor, R. A., Cederbaum, J. A., Atuel, H., & Benbenishty, R. (2013). Prevalence and correlates of
victimization and weapon carrying among military-and nonmilitary-connected youth in Southern California <http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.12.002>. Preventive Medicine, 60, 21–26.

Gilreath, T. D., Astor, R. A., Estrada, J. N., Benbenishty, R., & Unger, J. B. (2014). School victimization and substance use
among adolescents in California <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-013-0449-8>. Prevention Science, 15(6), 897–906.

Gilreath, T.D., Cederbaum, J.A., Astor, R.A., Benbenishty, R., Pineda, D., & Atuel, H. (2013). Substance use among
military-connected youth: The California Healthy Kids Survey. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 44, 150–153.

Gilreath, T. D., Estrada, J. N., Pineda, D., Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. (2014). Development and use of the California
Healthy Kids Survey Military Module to support students in military-connected schools. Children and Schools, 36, 23–
29.

Gilreath, T. D., Wrabel, S. L., Sullivan, K. S., Capp, G. P., Roziner, I., Benbenishty, R., & Astor, R. A. (2015). Suicidality
among military-connected adolescents in California schools. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 25(1), 61–66.

Goodemann, C., Zammitt, K., & Hagerdorn, M. (2012). The wolf in sheep’s clothing: Student harassment veiled as
bullying. Children & Schools, 34, 124–127.

Greenberg, M. T., Kusché, C. & Mihalic, S. F. (1998). Blueprints for violence prevention, book ten: Promoting Alternative
Thinking Strategies (PATHS). Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C.M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior
support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42, 1–14.

Page 15 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A.W., Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized, waitlist
controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133–144.

Hudley, C., Britsch, B., Wakefield, T., Demorat, M., & Cho, S. (1998). An attribution retraining program to reduce
aggression in elementary school students. Psychology in the Schools, 35, 271–282.

Johnson, S., Burke, J., & Gielen, A. (2012). Urban students’ perceptions of school environment’s influence on school
violence. Children & Schools, 34, 92–102.

Labaree, D. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American
Educational Research Journal, 34(1), 39–81.

Limber, S. (2012). The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: An overview of its implementation and research basis. In
S. Jimerson, A. Nickerson, M. Mayer, & M. Furlong (Eds). (2d ed.). Handbook of school violence and school safety:
International research and practice (pp. 369–381). New York: Routledge.

Marachi, R., Astor, R.A., & Benbenishty, R. (2013). Evidence-based violence prevention programs and best
implementation practices (pp. 253–472). In C. Franklin, M. B. Harris, & P. Allen-Meares (Eds.). The school services
sourcebook: A guide for school-based professionals. New York: Oxford University Press.

McMahon, S. D., Martinez, A., Espelage, D., Rose, C., Reddy, L. A., Lane, K., et al. (2014). Violence directed against
teachers: Results from a national survey. Psychology in the Schools, 51(7), 753–766.

Molly, L., Moore, J., Trail, J., Van Epps, J., & Hopfer, S. (2013). Understanding real-world implementation quality and
“active ingredients” of PBIS. Prevention Science, 14, 593–605.

National School Climate Council (2015). School Climate and Prosocial Educational Improvement: Essential Goals and
Processes that Support Student Success for All. Teachers College Record, Date Published: May 05, 2015 http://
www.tcrecord.org <http://www.tcrecord.org> ID Number: 17954, Date Accessed: August 04, 2016.

Oliver, E., Soler, M., & Flecha, R. (2009). Opening schools to all (women): efforts to overcome gender violence in Spain.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30(2), 207–218.

Olweus, D., & Limber, S. (2010a). Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention
Program. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 124–134.

Peguero, A. A., & Williams, L. M. (2013). Racial and ethnic stereotypes and bullying victimization <http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0044118X11424757>. Youth & Society, 45, 545–564.

Pitner, R., Astor, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2015). Violence in schools. In P. Allen-Meares (Ed.) Social work services in school
(7th ed., pp. 265–296). Boston: Pearson.

Pitner, R., Marachi, R., Astor, R., & Benbenishty, R., (2015). Evidence-based violence prevention programs and best
implementation practices. In K. Corcoran (Ed.) Social Workers’ Desk Reference (3d ed., pp. 1050–1068). New York:
Oxford University Press.

Pugh, R., & Chitiyo, M. (2012). The problem of bullying in schools and the promise of positive behavior supports.
Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 12, 47–53.

Page 16 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

Reddy, L. A., Espelage, D., McMahon, S. D., Anderman, E. M., Lane, K. L., and Brown, V. E., et al. (2013). Violence against
teachers: Case studies from the APA Task Force <http://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2013.837019>. International Journal
of School & Educational Psychology, 1(4), 231–245.

Riggs, N. R., Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., & Pentz, M. A. (2006). The mediational role of neurocognition in the
behavioral outcomes of a social-emotional prevention program in elementary school students: Effects of the PATHS
curriculum. Prevention Science, 7, 91–102.

Rocque, M. (2012). Exploring school rampage shootings: Research, theory, and policy. Social Science Journal, 49, 304–
313.

Schiff, M., Pat-Horenczyk, R., Benbenishty, R., Brom, D., Baum, N., & Astor, R.A. (2010). Do adolescents know that they
need help in the aftermath of war? Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23, 657–660.

Schiff, M., Pat-Horenczyk, R., Benbenishty, R., Brom, D., Baum, N., & Astor, R.A. (2012). School students’ posttraumatic
symptoms, substance use and violence perpetration in the aftermath of war. Social Science and Medicine, 75, 1321–
1328.

Schneider, S. K., O’Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. W. (2012). Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological
distress: A regional census of high school students. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 171–177.

Shlonsky, A., & Benbenishty, R. (2014). From evidence to outcomes in child welfare. In A. Shlonsky & R. Benbenishty
(Eds.), From evidence to outcomes in child welfare: An international reader (pp. 3–23). New York: Oxford University
Press.

Smith, P. K. (Ed.). (2004). Violence in schools: The response in Europe. London: Routledge.

Solomon, B. G., Tobin, K. G., & Schutter, G. M. (2015). Examining the reliability and validity of the effective behavior
support self-assessment survey. Education and Treatment of Children, 38, 175–192.

Sundrell, K., & Ferrer-Wreder, L. (2014). The transportability of empirically supported interventions. In A. Shlonsky & R.
Benbenisty (Eds.), From evidence to outcomes in child welfare: An international reader (pp. xx). New York: Oxford
University Press

Szu-Yin, C. (2015). An investigation of the effectiveness of family-centered positive behavior support of young children
with disabilities. International Journal of Early Years Education, 23, 172–191.

Tfoti, M., & Farrington, D. (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: A systematic and meta-
analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 27–56.

Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of
Educational Research, 83, 357–385.

Ttofi, M., Farrington, D., Losel, F., & Loeber, R. (2011). Do the victims of school bullies tend to become depressed later
in life? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace
Research, 3, 63–73.

Page 17 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024
School Violence

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services-Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
(SAMHSA) National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices: http://nrepp.samhsa.gov <http://
nrepp.samhsa.gov>.

Zeira, A., Astor, R. A., & Benbenishty, R. (2004). School Violence in Israel: Perceptions of Homeroom Teachers <http://
doi.org/10.1177/0143034304043679>. School Psychology International, 25(2), 149–166.

Related Articles
School Climate

School Climate and Academic Performance

School Crisis Prevention and Intervention

School-Based Family Counseling

Page 18 of 18

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out
a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 28 October 2024