ANN ARBOR—Although more than two-thirds of school social workers say that at least one life-threatening incident occurred at their school in the last year, only about one in five report that violence among students is a big problem at their school, says a University of Michigan researcher.

According to Ron A. Astor, U-M assistant professor of social work and education, social workers—much like the rest of society—are aware and concerned about school violence, but tend to report that most schools are safe, with little or no violence problem.

He says, however, that a majority of school social workers do not view school violence from a zero-tolerance perspective, in which even a single potentially lethal incident is enough to portray a school as having a serious violence problem.

“A zero-tolerance perspective would assert that as few as one or as many as five shootings should both be perceived as a big problem, and knowledge of any form of assaultive or potentially lethal violence should be sufficient to view a school as having a big problem,” Astor says.

“Multiple assaultive or potentially lethal types of school violence should not be used as the threshold for creating a schoolwide awareness to reduce school violence. We suggest that more common behaviors, such as pushing, grabbing, kicking, punching, fist fights and property stolen by force, be used as a threshold to create a zero-tolerance school environment.”

In his study of more than 600 members of the National Association of Social Workers, Astor found that more than 70 percent of school social workers say that at least one lethal or potentially lethal event involving guns, knives or other weapons occurred at their school during the past year.

However, about 43 percent report that violence is little or no problem and 37 percent say that violence is a moderate problem at their school, he says. Only 20 percent cite violence as a big problem.

While school social workers tend to underestimate the extent of the problem, Astor notes that this also may, in part, be due to societal views of violence prevalent in American popular culture.

“Frequently, the causes of school violence are attributed to the individual, community or family—not the school organization,” he says. “Consequently, social workers could be aware of violence in the school but not associate these events with the school’s organizational response or non-response to violence.”

According to the U-M study, school social workers’ perceptions of violence are greatly influenced by the community setting in which they work (inner city, urban, suburban, rural or multiple-community locations) and by the presence of multiple forms of violence at their school.

While the percentages of social workers surveyed who reported at least one potentially lethal event at their school ranged from 70 percent in suburban settings to 87 percent in the inner city, 43 percent of the latter identified violence as a big problem at their school, compared with 29 percent at multiple- community locations, 18 percent in urban settings, 13 percent in rural areas and 10 percent in suburban schools.

Moreover, Astor says, social workers who do perceive violence as a big problem at their school are more likely to report a greater variety of violent incidents, ranging from low- level aggression and intimidating acts to physical assaults and potentially lethal events. This is especially true for social workers in inner-city schools, he adds.

Astor’s colleagues on the study included John M. Wallace, U-M assistant professor of social work, and graduate students William J. Behre and Kimberly A. Fravil. The study will appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Social Work.

U-M News and Information ServicesUniversity of Michigan