JPRC

Building Evidence on What Works for School Safety

Blog

Building Evidence on What Works for School Safety

by

By Ashley Boal

Classrooms should be safe spaces for students, but they have unfortunately become the backdrop to some of the nation’s most devastating tragedies. Over the years, school safety has garnered national attention, particularly following mass casualty events. Despite a unified interest in the safety of students and staff, there is still a great deal of uncertainty about which measures best support school safety.

Research and evaluation are valuable tools to help leaders better understand the implementation and impact of the strategies available to improve school safety. This post explores five school safety projects led by WestEd’s Justice and Prevention Research Center, highlighting both completed studies with actionable findings and ongoing work that continues to build evidence for safer, more supportive schools.

State School Safety Centers

State school safety centers (SSSCs) can serve as powerful, centralized hubs that provide resources, training, and technical assistance to diverse interest holders as they plan for and respond to school safety incidents. Despite their important role in supporting school safety infrastructure within states, little information exists about the origins of these centers, their structure and focus, the supports they offer, and the ways district and school leaders interact with them. To address this knowledge gap, WestEd conducted a study to develop a comprehensive understanding of SSSC characteristics and activities, as well as intended users’ awareness, use, and perceptions of their SSSC.

Evaluation results moved quickly from evidence to action, helping shape decisions at the highest levels of government and supporting the development of safer, more supportive schools nationwide.

Key Findings: Findings from this study, which was completed in 2024, provide rich information to support policymakers and agency leaders in developing effective systems to support school safety, including a framework to guide the development and refinement of SSSCs. For example, the study’s recommendations encourage SSSCs to diversify their funding streams, build multidisciplinary teams, and use data to ensure the consistent delivery of high-quality services and supports.

School Police Reform

Existing research on police in schools is mixed and largely suggests a detrimental impact on student experiences; however, there is a limited body of evidence on the impact of school-based police, and even less is known about the impact of policies to remove police. To better understand what happens when police are removed from schools, WestEd conducted a mixed-methods study to examine the impact of school police reform on student safety, behavior, well-being, and disciplinary outcomes in California schools.

Key Findings: Preliminary results from the study suggest that although police reform didn’t affect discipline rates, student behavior, or safety perceptions, removing police from schools

  • enhances student–staff relationships,
  • improves student engagement, and
  • protects against negative outcomes linked to insufficient mental health staffing.

Behavioral Threat Assessment

Behavior threat assessment (BTA) is a systematic process to address school safety concerns by identifying, investigating, assessing, and intervening in potential safety threats. Although BTA is commonly used, implementation of this process varies widely across states, local education agencies, and schools. Given this variation and its potential impact on the effectiveness of BTA, WestEd conducted a study of BTA in Texas to develop a better understanding of the necessary elements to facilitate successful implementation—supporting BTA teams in navigating challenges to implementation and enacting structures and norms that support strong BTA implementation.

Key Findings: Successful BTA implementation requires the following key qualities:

  • ample school and community resources
  • a positive school culture
  • consistent communication

These findings also inform the technical assistance supports WestEd provides to BTA teams across the country.

Training for Police in Schools

The use of police in schools, most commonly school resource officers (SROs), is a widely used practice across the United States for preventing and responding to crime. Although placement of SROs in schools is common, it is widely acknowledged that working in schools requires a distinct skill set and specialized training is necessary. However, there is limited research about the quality and effectiveness of such training.

To address this gap, WestEd is evaluating SRO training funded by the National Association of School Resource Officers, the largest trainer of SROs nationwide. This study examines the quality, relevance, and usefulness of training, as well as growth in trainee knowledge, skills, and ability to keep schools safe.

Findings from this study will be available in 2026 and will be used to improve SRO training and to provide important information to the field about the extent to which training improves SRO knowledge and skills.

School-Based Firearms

Previous research suggests that safe gun storage, including gun safes, trigger locks, and separate ammunition, is an effective strategy to limit unauthorized access to guns and that most Americans are supportive of safe gun storage practices. In 2023, Texas became one of the few states to legislatively mandate and hold schools responsible for communicating the importance of safe firearms storage practices to parents and guardians.

WestEd, in partnership with the Texas School Safety Center, is conducting the first empirical study to examine the potential impact of a school-based statewide legislative mandate to deliver safe firearms storage information to families.

This study seeks to fill a critical knowledge gap about the impact of such legislation, which may be used within Texas and other states and localities seeking to implement and refine such campaigns.

How We Help: Building Safe and Healthy Communities

Research and evaluation to better understand the most effective strategies to prevent and respond to school safety incidents is vital. WestEd’s Justice and Prevention Research Center builds evidence to guide school safety policies and practices that help educators, policymakers, and community leaders create safe and supportive schools.

Contact us to learn how we can partner to support school safety in your state.

About Our Author

Ashley Boal is a research director with WestEd’s Justice and Prevention Research Center. She leads mixed-methods research and evaluation studies on topics such as school safety, training for law enforcement and educators, community schools, and school climate.

What Is Correctional Education? Why It Matters, and Where It’s Headed

by

By Jessica Keach

More than nine in ten people incarcerated in federal, state, and private prisons housing state and federal incarcerated individuals have a high school credential or less, and nearly a third lack even that. Even more concerning, 58 percent of people who are incarcerated do not complete any additional education during their time in prison, leaving many people without the skills and education needed to build stable, fulfilling lives upon release.

This blog post explores

  • the definition of correctional education,
  • recent research about the effectiveness and economic returns of correctional education,
  • emerging Vocational Villages as an innovative learning model, and
  • WestEd’s goal of increasing access to education and training for learners who are incarcerated.

What Is Correctional Education?

Education and training for adults who are incarcerated include a wide range of programming, including adult basic education and literacy, secondary education leading to a high school diploma or equivalency, vocational or career and technical education, postsecondary education, English as a second language instruction, and other programming to support life skills and reentry. Some of these terms are used interchangeably, and inconsistent language can make it difficult for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers to understand exactly which types of programs are effective, for whom, and in what context.

For example, community colleges offer education in correctional settings. They are institutions of higher education, but oftentimes they offer career-oriented education and training. Is this postsecondary education in prison? Is it vocational education? Is it both?

Dr. Ben Stickle and Dr. Steven Sprick Schuster’s recent research studied the impact of four types of correctional education: adult basic education/literacy, adult secondary education, vocational education, and college education. Their work broadly classifies these types of education as the following:

  • Adult Basic Education/Literacy: Remedial instruction focused on fundamental skills such as reading, writing, and mathematics, typically below the secondary school (high school) level. This education is often geared toward learners who need basic literacy or numeracy skills.
  • Adult Secondary Education: Programs aimed at earning a high school diploma or equivalent (e.g., GED preparation and testing).
  • Vocational Education: Job skills training designed to prepare incarcerated individuals for employment in specific trades or industries (e.g., carpentry, welding, culinary arts, automotive repair). These programs are typically nondegree certifications.
  • College Education: Postsecondary academic education offered through associate’s, bachelor’s, or even master’s degree programs, usually delivered in partnership with accredited colleges or universities.

Fresh Evidence on Effectiveness

Correctional education works, and it pays off.

Stickle and Schuster’s meta-analysis, covering 79 studies published between 1980 and 2023, confirms that, while there is variation across types, all four types of education studied reduce recidivism. Among them, college programs have the strongest effect on keeping people out of prison after release.

But the benefits go beyond community safety. Each type of education studied delivers a positive return on investment, driven largely by the substantial costs of incarceration. According to Stickle and Schuster, investing in vocational education is especially worthwhile due to its strong rate of return of $3.05 for every dollar spent, and it doesn’t have to be an either-or choice—individuals can participate in vocational and academic programs at the same time.

These findings reinforce the need for flexible, integrated learning models that meet learners where they are. For example, adult education programs can be intentionally designed to combine workforce training, workforce preparation, and adult education and literacy through Integrated Education and Training (IET) models. These evidence-based models support accelerated instruction—rather than traditional sequential coursework—to better prepare adult learners with lower levels of education and literacy for employment.

In comparison, college education in prison programs include courses intentionally developed for people with a high school education, and these programs have admission policies that require participants to have a secondary credential or use the Ability to Benefit for enrollment.

This fresh evidence on effectiveness and economic return moves the conversation in the field beyond asking which program type is most effective to a more pressing question: How can we design comprehensive continuums of education, training, and services that

  • address the full range of learning needs of people who are incarcerated—from adult basic education through postsecondary education—and
  • support seamless transitions between programs and services, both during incarceration and after release?

To do this well, we also need clear, consistent definitions of program types—ones that reflect how people engage with learning in correctional settings. For many, the most effective approach may not fit neatly into a single category. Integrated models like IET, for example, blur traditional lines by combining literacy, workforce skills, and job training in a way that accelerates learning and boosts impact.

An Emerging Model: Vocational Villages

An emerging model in the vocational space, Vocational Villages are becoming increasingly common across the United States. In this model, individuals who are incarcerated are housed together in a centralized space where they live, learn, and access support services.

Established in 2016, Michigan’s pioneering program offers “full days of training and classroom instruction intended to mimic a typical workday outside prison walls.” Participants earn industry-recognized credentials to support employability upon release. Originally at one facility, the program now operates at three sites: Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility, Parnall Correctional Facility, and Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility.

Further south, Ingram State Technical College—Alabama’s sole institution dedicated to offering education and training to people in correctional institutions—partnered with the Alabama Department of Corrections to transition a general population dorm into a Vocational Village Dorm. The college president says that “Vocational Village is a living and learning community inside the correctional facility. All residents of the dorm are educational-driven and share the same goals—program completion, reentry, and job placement.” Ingram State intends to replicate the Vocational Village model across every correctional facility in the state.

Nevada’s Vocational Village, spearheaded by Hope for Prisoners, includes a “120,000-square-foot vocational training complex” and “features a first-in-the-nation American Job Center co-located within [the] training facility with training activities that provide certifications in: Welding, Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC), Plumbing, Masonry, Electrical, and Warehouse Logistics.” The program focuses on males who are within 90 days to 18 months of release and “will serve 120 men at any given time with programming including: cognitive and life skills training, substance misuse treatment and therapy, higher education enrollment, intensive case management, job readiness training and job placement assistance, leadership development and more.”

Finally, while not officially established, Wisconsin’s governor is prioritizing prison reform, including “a plan to put about $250 million toward transforming the Waupun Correctional Institution … into a Vocational Village.”

Implications for the Field and How WestEd Can Help

While the field lacks a comprehensive taxonomy of correctional education program types, promising models continue to emerge, including Vocational Villages and IET in correctional settings.

For partners interested in exploring IET in correctional settings, the Integrated Education and Training (IET) in Corrections: A Companion Guide to the IET Design Toolkit offers insights into developing effective IET programs in correctional settings.

One thing is certain: This work requires strong partnerships—both within and across agencies. Bringing correctional staff and leadership, educators, employers and workforce partners, community-based organizations, and justice-impacted populations to a common table is essential for developing comprehensive continuums of education, training, and support services that lead to job placement, further education and training, and successful reentry.

As state leaders, policymakers, and practitioners explore these conversations, WestEd is here to help. We provide research-based technical assistance to design evidence-driven programs; conduct needs sensing and labor market analyses to align efforts with the needs of incarcerated learners, employers, and broader communities; and offer deep expertise in research and evaluation to help leaders understand the extent to which their programs are meeting their intended outcomes—and help them pivot if they’re not.

Connect With Us

Are you attending the Correctional Education Association International Conference in Pittsburgh, PA, August 10–13? WestEd staff will be there, and we welcome the opportunity to connect:

  • Jessica Keach, Manager of Research and Policy at WestEd’s Justice and Prevention Research Center
  • Meghan McBride, Director of Adult Education Projects at WestEd’s Center for Economic Mobility
  • Ann Edwards, Senior Director of Mathematics Education at WestEd
  • Trevor Fronius, Director of Justice and Prevention at WestEd

If you’re not attending the conference, we’d still love to hear from you. Contact us to learn how we can support your efforts to expand access to correctional education.

Jessica Keach is a Manager of Research and Policy at WestEd, where she leads applied research, program evaluation, and technical assistance focused on adult and workforce education, substance misuse, and justice reform. She currently directs the evaluation of Connecticut’s Vocational Village program, helping to shape evidence-informed corrections education policy and practice.  

Partnering for Peace: A Q&A With the Lt. Governor of Pennsylvania and the Director of Justice TA at WestEd

by

Homicide rates have dropped to historic lows in some cities, including Philadelphia, which has seen a 40 percent decline. Yet, tens of thousands of Americans still experience violence each year. Without sustained funding and continued intervention, recent public safety gains could be at risk—especially for communities and individuals most vulnerable to violence. 

With federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds set to expire, ongoing state investment in Community Violence Intervention (CVI) is essential to sustaining progress. CVI relies on evidence-based, community-driven strategies to prevent violence. 

As a national leader in CVI, Pennsylvania’s PA Peace Alliance has supported more than 240 organizations working to prevent and reduce community and gun violence. Established by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) in partnership with WestEd’s Justice and Prevention Research Center (JPRC) and the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), the Alliance is the first statewide initiative of its kind. It equips violence prevention professionals with the resources, training, and support needed to build safer, thriving communities. 

In this Q&A, PCCD Chairman Lt. Governor Austin Davis and WestEd’s Director of Justice Technical Assistance, Lori Toscano, discuss the PA Peace Alliance’s impact on community violence intervention, the importance of state investment, and the power of cross-sector collaboration. They also highlight how WestEd’s technical assistance and data-driven strategies are empowering community organizations to reduce gun violence.

The PA Peace Alliance is a first-of-its-kind initiative in the United States. What lessons has Pennsylvania learned from implementing this model, and what advice would you give to other states looking to build a comprehensive violence reduction strategy? 

Lt. Gov. Austin Davis: 

I think one of the things that we’ve learned is that many communities, regardless of where they’re located geographically, are experiencing similar issues. And the PA Peace Alliance has given us the opportunity to build community in this violence reduction space across Pennsylvania so that an organization in Erie can connect with an organization in Philadelphia and to make sure they can share best practices and build a community and build that collaboration that’s really sustainable.  

I think we recognize that government makes a lot of investments in public safety, a lot of investments in violence prevention, but we can’t do it alone. And we need organizations who are not just going to collaborate with government but who are going to collaborate with each other and who are going to learn from each other and who are going to implement strategies that are working in different places. And I think the PA Peace Alliance has allowed us to do that very effectively. 

With homicide rates dropping in cities like Philadelphia, we’re seeing how sustained investment in community violence intervention can save lives. As federal funding declines, what role do states play in ensuring these efforts continue, and what steps has Pennsylvania taken to secure long-term support? 

Lt. Gov. Austin Davis: 

I think we play a huge role in these efforts. And in Pennsylvania, the governor and I proposed in our last budget in February that we’re trying to enact in June a $10 million increase to our wildly successful Violence Intervention and Prevention grant program, taking us up to $50 million in terms of investment in these programs. And what we’re investing in is community-based organizations who are doing the work every day to eliminate violence in our communities, like funding violence interrupters in our communities to make sure that people defuse situations to funding after school programs that give young people safe places to go after school that are enriching to them from a learning perspective. 

As we have seen the federal government become less of a partner, we as states have had to step up. I’m really proud that Governor Shapiro and I are standing up the first ever Office of Gun Violence Prevention and the Commonwealth to make sure we are coordinating all of our efforts across agencies to tackle these issues and to make our community safer. And I’d encourage leaders in other states to be putting their money where their mouth is to make the investments and making our community safer because we’ve proven here in Pennsylvania that it delivers real results. 

Collaboration between state agencies, law enforcement, and grassroots organizations can be challenging. How has Pennsylvania successfully fostered partnerships across these sectors, and what lessons can other states learn from your approach?

Lt. Gov. Austin Davis:

Yeah. Look, I think the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency has been a meeting place where folks have been able to come together, not just to get funding but to collaborate with other organizations to do that through the PA Peace Alliance to really build a dialogue and work with each other and understand that everybody has the same end goal. We may have different ways to go about it, but our goal is the same. And I think we have to recognize that we have to take a comprehensive approach to these problems. 

We’re not going to solely police our way out of it, while we need law enforcement at the table. We can’t only fund community-based organizations to do this work, but we have to have them at the table and fund them. We can’t just fund victim services after an incident has happened. We have to be preventative on the front end. So, we’re doing all of those things under the umbrella of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. And every other state has an organization like PCCD that has great organizations that are working in their communities. They just have to create a space for people to come together to listen to each other and to learn from each other and to work together. 

You became interested in violence prevention at 16, so what advice do you have for youth who want to reduce gun violence in their communities, and what advice do you have for states in regard to elevating youth voices to inform initiatives like the Pennsylvania Peace Alliance? 

Lt. Gov. Austin Davis: 

I got involved at the grassroots level. When I started at 16, if you would’ve told me I’d be Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor by the age of 35, I would’ve thought you were crazy. But I got involved and started a youth-led violence intervention program in my community. It was a group of people who just wanted to come together and make our community a better place and who engaged with local elected officials. Now it takes elected officials being willing to engage with young people, but I think that’s critical. Their voices are just as important as any other voice in our community, and we have a responsibility as leaders to make sure not that we’re just making space for them at the table, that we’re creating ladders of opportunity for them to succeed, to make sure we’re investing in programs like the PA Peace Alliance, like the Boost Initiative for after-school programs that we’re doing here in Pennsylvania, to allow them to live the American dream, whatever that looks like. 

So, I would say to young people who are looking to get involved, start in your community, start in your neighborhood. It starts with a small group of committed people who want to make a difference in their communities, and you never know where it’ll take you. It took me from the streets of my small town in southwestern Pennsylvania called McKeesport to the highest halls of power in Harrisburg and everywhere in between. And I think that’s a lesson that young people can take from, that they can emulate; and they should know that they have an enormous amount of power and that they should use their power to make a difference in this moment now more than ever. 

WestEd has provided 800 technical assistance sessions to 135 community-based organizations in Pennsylvania via the PA Peace Alliance; how has your team tailored its approach to meet the unique needs of each group? 

Lori Toscano: 

Our initial approach is really getting to know the organization and their needs. I think, traditionally, technical assistance has been a little bit more prescribed in nature—that there’s been this checklist of things to go through. I think what we’re doing that’s different is we’re really getting to know the organizations and their staff and meeting them where they’re at. 

By building that relationship, we can really focus on what they’ve identified as what their needs are and what their priorities are. Instead of us saying, “The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency believes that you should be doing X, Y, and Z,” this is really coming from their (grantees’) expertise, their needs, their wants—what they think would have the most impact if we supported them in each specific way. One of the things that we really pride ourselves on is the co-creation of all of this work. So, we might have some ideas based on our knowledge and experience with regards to violence prevention and intervention strategies and programming, but we want to make sure that we’re doing this together, so that folks can really see the value of what we bring to the table in terms of technical assistance.

How does technical assistance help community organizations maximize their impact in reducing gun violence?

Lori Toscano: 

I think there are many ways technical assistance supports violence reduction and community organizations. In my experience, we’re often so hyper-focused on daily tasks—especially when violence is actively occurring—that it can be hard to step back. We’re responding to incidents, supporting those most impacted, and constantly in motion. Having someone slightly removed from the day-to-day can help provide a clearer perspective and highlight strategies that might otherwise go unnoticed. 

And It’s not just about thought partnership—it’s also about access to resources. When you’re immersed in the work, there’s often little time to seek out research, schedule peer learning, or build relationships with organizations beyond your immediate area. That’s where we come in—we offer support and tools that many don’t have the space to pursue on their own. 

I am about 30-ish years into my career, and this (PA Peace Alliance) is my favorite project to date. I think it’s very exciting to be able to work with agencies and organizations at different points within the continuum of care, whether they’re prevention or intervention or reentry or transformation and healing. I think it’s given me a more comprehensive understanding of that continuum and ways to maximize partnership, ways to maximize funding opportunities, and ways to innovate the work. 

What are some of the topics you cover with organizations that have proven most effective in helping those organizations implement violence intervention programming and strategies? 

Lori Toscano: 

There are folks that are doing prevention work, intervention work, reentry work, transformation and healing work, and so what their needs are might vary. But one of the overarching topics that we keep seeing folks being interested in, and wanting to really dig deeper in, is around data collection. 

Like, how are you collecting data that is not only useful in operationalizing day-to-day activities? Are you looking at incident-level crime data and saying, “Okay, violence is clustering in this particular area at this particular time”? If I’m doing violence interruption, then I would want to deploy staff using that data. So, I’d want to use that data to operationalize my day-to-day activities. 

In addition to that, it’s also about using data to tell the story of your work and what impact you’re having. And that might look a variety of different ways. It might be reductions in shootings and killings. It might be the story of a participant and the success that they’re seeing having gone through the program or working with the organization. It might look like the types of forms you’re using, the databases you’re creating. 

But, ultimately, were seeing folks interested in better ways to use data so that we’re able to not only think about sustaining this work, expanding this work, innovating this work but also as an opportunity for folks to really drill down into what their actual impact is in terms of violence reduction or prevention. 

From the JPRC Director’s Desk: Tribute to David P. Farrington (1944-2024)

by

I was saddened to learn of the death of Professor David Farrington of Cambridge University on November 5, 2024. David was a pioneering figure in the field of criminology, whose work and influence spanned decades and left an indelible mark on both academic and practical approaches to crime and justice. He has long been considered one of the most influential criminologists in history. ScholarGPS ranks David at the top of its list of criminology scholars for impact, productivity, and quality.[1]  Some of us used to joke that we needed a forklift to move David’s printed vita, which was well over 100 pages. There are many wonderful tributes to David and his professional accomplishments, so my comments will focus more on our personal connections.[2]

One of my first interactions with David came when I was doing my dissertation in the mid-1990s. I reached out to him, as he was one of the leading proponents of using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to test criminological interventions,[3] and he was excited to hear that my research focused on individual-level RCTs that tested a strategy to reduce criminal offending.[4] He sent me relevant articles and reports and periodically would send encouraging notes pushing me to finish the dissertation. Later, after I got the doctorate, I put in a proposal to Oxford University Press for a book based on my dissertation research. I later learned that David was a peer reviewer and the strongest advocate for Oxford to contract with me to write it. Unfortunately my progress stalled on this book idea when other work commitments got in the way. David pushed me to finish, saying “it was the thing that would last,” and I wish I had listened to him, as I remain “bookless” as an author, all these years later.

We finally crossed paths in person in 1998 when I got involved in preliminary efforts to launch the Campbell Collaboration.[5] Building on the success of its older sibling, the Cochrane Collaboration in health care, the Campbell Collaboration would prepare, update, and disseminate high-quality reviews of research on the effects of social and educational interventions. Sir Iain Chalmers had been instrumental in launching the Cochrane Collaboration and was working with Professor Robert Boruch of the University of Pennsylvania to lay the groundwork for Campbell. That groundwork included forming coordinating groups and choosing who to lead these groups to oversee systematic reviews in particular policy areas. For such a nascent effort, leaders with great legitimacy in the field and a big network were needed. One of our easiest decisions was that the Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Coordinating Group should be led by David Farrington.

Iain and I traveled to Cambridge where we met David, along with Sharon Cure, who was working on a study of RCTs relevant to aggressive and violent behavior.[6] David could not have been more generous, not only enthusiastically agreeing to lead the Crime and Justice Group but also inviting me to give a presentation to a plenary session of the 1999 American Society of Criminology (ASC) meeting. This was a big deal. As ASC President at that time, he could form several Presidential plenary sessions of his choosing. These are usually among the best attended sessions at the conference, and it was his way of giving the Campbell Collaboration—and me—broad exposure. My knees were knocking to be on a panel chaired by David and including eminent scholars like James Short and David Weisburd, but I got through the presentation. And it had an immediate impact. The wonderful, late Temple University professor, Joan McCord, was among those in the large audience. She heard my presentation and immediately went to meet with Robert Boruch at the University of Pennsylvania to get involved with the Campbell effort, which she vigorously assisted for many years until her death.

David was exactly the leader the Campbell Crime and Justice group needed. Right away he secured funds to support the group’s early activities, including support for me to serve as Coordinator. I worked closely in that role with David until I stepped down in 2004. What an honor for a Jersey boy like me to serve with David on that first Steering Committee which included criminologists from around the globe: Catherine Blaya (France), Ulla Bondeson (Denmark), Vincente Garrido (Spain), Peter Grabosky (Australia), Mark Lipsey (USA), Friedrich Losel (Germany), Joan McCord (USA), Lawrence Sherman (USA), Chuen-Jim Sheu (China), Richard Tremblay (Canada), Hiroshi Tsutomi (Japan), Brandon Welsh (USA), David Weisburd (Israel), and David Wilson (USA).

As expected, David’s reputation helped the group secure funding and commitments from busy researchers to lead the reviews. I was also impressed with how organized he was as a Chair, and how good at facilitating meetings of a lot of smart and talkative folks—no easy task. In fact, at the official launch of the Campbell Collaboration in Philadelphia, the legendary Harvard University statistician, Frederick Mosteller, attended our Crime and Justice Group breakout session. After watching David lead the meeting, Fred, considered a very good chair of meetings himself, remarked, “Now that is the way to run a meeting.”

David was also an engine of scholarly production. We used to kid that he published 7 articles before we were done brushing our teeth in the morning. The tributes after his death have credited him with over 800 publications. I once asked him his secret. One, he said, was to have great collaborators as coauthors. Second, he generally wrote for 2 hours in the morning before getting involved in the other busyness of the day, especially looking at emails. It was a good rule, unfortunately not one I have followed.

As he published, he looked for ways to lift up his junior colleagues and include them as coauthors. Reviewing my own vita, I count 11 academic publications that I was blessed to have coauthored with David.[7] Anyone who wrote with David would not consider it to be “easy,” however. He was a quick writer and a vociferous editor, and we spent a whole lot of time doing revisions even before submitting to a journal. And he never forgot about me, even after I moved from academic leanings into the research contract world. Every few years, even after I stepped down from the Campbell effort, I would get an invitation from David to contribute to some new collection of articles he was putting together.

Finally, when we launched the new Justice and Prevention Research Center at WestEd in 2014, we determined to identify key advisors to guide us. The short list included David. Again, he was only too eager to help, and he served in this role until his death. David would periodically email me suggestions on obtaining funding, contribute as an expert advisor on our research grants, and otherwise promote our Center in any way he could.

Graham Nash (of the famous rock band, Crosby, Stills, and Nash) once said getting older is not for the faint-hearted. He was referring to how you face your own health issues and mortality. But I think one of the most painful things about getting older is losing those wonderful mentors, sages, and guides who have enriched your life, those who helped prepare you, lifted you up, and made your life a little bit better. I’m sad that we lost David. But I’m grateful that there are generations of researchers—including me–celebrating him for all he has done for the field and our careers.

by Anthony Petrosino, Director, WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Center

 

Endnotes

[1] See https://scholargps.com/scholars/20828811083920/david-p-farrington.

[2] For example, see J.W. Thulborn’s tribute, “David P. Farrington, O.B.E., Distinguished Criminologist and Scholar 1944 – 2024” at https://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/news/david-p-farrington-obe-distinguished-criminologist-and-scholar-1944-2024. Those who want to better understand David’s career pathway, at least through 1997, may appreciate this interview of him by Rolf Leiber for the American Society of Criminology Oral History of Criminology Project at: https://asc41.org/oral-history/david-farrington-interviewed-by-rolf-loeber-november-20-1997/.

[3] Farrington, D. P. 1983. Randomized experiments on crime and justice. In Crime & Justice: An annual review of research, vol. 4, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris, 257-308. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[4] See Petrosino, Anthony (1997). “What works?” revisited again: A meta-analysis of randomized experiments in rehabilitation, deterrence and delinquency prevention. Dissertation, Rutgers University, Ann Arbor, MI.

[5] Petrosino, A. (2013). Reflections on the genesis of the Campbell Collaboration. The Experimental Criminologist, 8(2), 9-12.

[6] Cure S, Chua WL, Duggan L, Adams C. Randomised controlled trials relevant to aggressive and violent people, 1955-2000: a survey. Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Mar;186:185-9. doi: 10.1192/bjp.186.3.185. PMID: 15738497.

[7] The first was Farrington, David P. and Anthony Petrosino. 2000. Systematic Reviews of Criminological Interventions: The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. International Annals of Criminology 38:49-66. The last was Morgan, C., Petrosino, A., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). Methodological Quality and Validity Issues in the Crime Prevention Literature. Justice Evaluation Journal, 5(1), 120–143.

Preventing cyberbullying: Q&A with Sameer Hinduja

by

November 4, 2024

Recent survey data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control indicate that approximately 22 percent of students in grades 6–12 reported they were the victims of repeated harassment online, or cyberbullying. The prevalence and popularity of smartphones, computer access, and popular social media sites for children (e.g., TikTok and Instagram) means that school bullying doesn’t end when the school day ends. Victimization can now extend to nights and weekends. Research has indicated an association between cyberbullying and self-harm, and, indeed, there have been well-publicized cases of suicide by children who were victimized by texts, emails, and social media posts. What can educators and parents do to reduce cyberbullying? What policies are needed?

To answer these and other questions, we asked Dr. Sameer Hinduja, Professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University and Co-Director of the Cyberbullying Research Center. Dr. Hinduja is also Co-Founder and Co-Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Bullying Prevention. He also presented at a Congressional Briefing on school safety jointly hosted by the JPRC with George Mason University’s Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy.

What is cyberbullying?

With my long-time colleague Dr. Justin W. Patchin, we have historically defined cyberbullying as willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices. In this definition, you can see that the behavior has to be intentional and involve harm inflicted multiple times. This is similar to face-to-face bullying. What distinguishes cyberbullying from face-to-face bullying is that victimization occurs using some form of communications technology that we are familiar with—phones, tablets, desktop or laptop computers, gaming platforms, and so on.

Does cyberbullying affect victims differently than face-to-face bullying?

I would conclude “yes.” One way is that the audience of the bullying is potentially much larger, and so many others often not only see the harassing or hateful content but may also gang up and participate in harming the target. Additionally, the content posted to bully targets can remain online unless the platform on which it is posted responds promptly to any help reports that are filed and acts to remove it. The audience and the longevity of the hurtful/hateful comments could heighten the negative emotional and psychological effects that victims experience, compared to face-to-face bullying.

How is cyberbullying changing with recent advances in technology?

What is top of mind for me has to do with (1) metaverse risks and harms and (2) generative AI risks and harms.

The “Metaverse” provides a richer, deeper, and more visceral experience of heightened emotionality, and it stands to reason that youth may be increasingly susceptible to a variety of harms on these immersive platforms. In a recent paper titled, “Metaverse risks and harms among U.S. youth: Experiences, gender differences, and prevention and response measures,” we analyzed data from a nationally representative sample of 5,005 U.S. adolescents ages 13 to 17, and we found that girls are more susceptible to sexual harassment, grooming, predatory behavior, and gender-based attacks. We also found that girls tend to utilize specific online safety strategies more frequently but that in general, children infrequently use the available platform safety mechanisms.

Generative AI technologies, on the other hand, can be exploited to create deepfakes, facilitate catfishing, automate harassment, generate hate speech, and enable privacy violations through doxing and sextortion. The ease with which AI can produce and disseminate harmful content at scale poses a serious threat to online safety, particularly for youth. The ability of generative AI to analyze personal data and create highly targeted attacks further increases these risks.

In your experience, what are the most effective strategies schools and educators can implement to prevent cyberbullying and to create a safer online environment for students?

I believe we need to prioritize the building of positive school climates marked by shared feelings of connectedness, belongingness, emotional warmth, peer respect, morale, safety, and school spirit. In one of our studies, we found that in schools where students perceived a better or more positive school climate, there was significantly less cyberbullying (as well as less school bullying, violence, and other problem behaviors). This makes sense because—surprising, perhaps, to some of your readers—most cyberbullying among youth occurs between individuals who know each other at school—not between strangers who only connect online. Specific school programming toward this end can help reduce the frequency of cyberbullying, as well as contribute to increased student attendance and participation, higher student achievement, and fewer disciplinary issues.

I’m also a big fan of cultivating resilience. Resilience is the capacity to bounce back and successfully adapt in the face of adversity. Some interesting findings on this topic came out of one of our studies. Here, resilience was measured using a 10-item scale by Campbell-Sills & Stein, the items of which “reflect the ability to tolerate experiences such as change, personal problems, illness, pressure, failure, and painful feelings.” Those with the lowest resilience were more likely to say that it negatively affected their school experience. Students with high resilience who were cyberbullied were more likely to utilize prosocial responses—like reporting it to a school authority or to the site or app on which it occurred, changing their screen name, blocking the harasser, or logging out. They believed in themselves and their ability to do something about the problem. However, those with the lowest levels of resilience, when cyberbullied, did nothing. They suffered silently, because they didn’t know they had agency and autonomy to control their online experience.

Finally, educators and administrators should consider implementing more social norming initiatives in schools. Social norming involves modifying the environment or culture within a school to encourage appropriate behaviors and make them widely perceived as the norm. Schools should strive to create a setting where responsible use of social media is simply “what students do” and “how it is” among the student body. This can be achieved by strategically highlighting the majority of youth who use social media in positive, constructive ways. Rather than focusing on negative statistics, such as the percentage of students who engage in cyberbullying, schools should reframe these figures. For example, if 12 percent of students in the school cyberbully others, the emphasis should be placed on creating cool and relevant messaging strategies that highlight the vast majority (88% in this case) who use social media with integrity, discretion, and wisdom. By defining what is normal and typical among the student body, schools can help induce the remainder to conform through the power of positive peer pressure. This approach can effectively promote a culture of responsible online behavior and digital citizenship within the school community.

What role do parents play in preventing and addressing cyberbullying?

First and foremost, parents should ensure their child feels safe. The well-being of the child should always be the foremost priority, even though parents may be inclined to blame their constant use of online platforms or convey that they are indirectly responsible in some way. It is crucial that parents demonstrate unconditional support, because otherwise the child may never open up to them again in the future. In this tense moment following the cyberbullying incident, parents should talk with and listen to their child. They should take the time to learn exactly what happened, and the nuanced context in which it occurred. Parents shouldn’t freak out, but also shouldn’t minimize the situation or make excuses for the aggressor.

Next, it’s vital that parents collect as much evidence as they can. They should print out or make screenshots of conversations, messages, pictures, and any other items which can serve as clear proof that their child is being cyberbullied. Parents should keep a record of any and all incidents to assist in the investigative process. Also, they should keep notes on relevant details like location, frequency, severity of harm, third-party involvement or witnesses, and the backstory. This will help them then work with the school. All schools in the U.S. have a bullying policy, and most cover cyberbullying. Parents should seek the help of administrators if the target and aggressor go to the same school. Their child has the right to feel safe in their learning environment, and schools are responsible for ensuring this through their investigation and response.

When professionals work with youth targets of cyberbullying, they often hear that the children don’t want anyone to make a big deal of what happened, and they don’t want the “bully” to get in trouble. Instead, they just want the problem to go away. As parents, they can help make this happen. They should contact the online platform, and typically these companies will respond to the complaint in 24–48 hours. There is an ever-growing list of contact information of these businesses available at cyberbullying.org/report. Parents will want to send them as much information as possible, such as screenshots, screen recordings, user account information, and specific locations where the offending content appears.

Also, parents should remind their children that they can control their online experience by blocking, muting, and reporting other users who have harassed or annoyed them. Every major social media app and online multiplayer game has that functionality built in, and youth don’t need to subject themselves to interactions with people who are mean. Also, they should not hesitate to unfollow or unfriend anyone who compromises the quality of their online experience. It’s hard to do so sometimes—even for adults—but it’s necessary.

I also think we need more intentionality when it comes to building empathy. Our published research has highlighted that lower levels of empathy are consistently linked to various problem behaviors, including cyberbullying, while children with higher cognitive and total empathy are significantly less likely to engage in such harmful actions. To cultivate empathy, parents can encourage sensitivity to injustice, helping their children recognize and be moved by unfairness in any form. Given the increased exposure to hate speech and xenophobia in recent years, parents must actively counteract these influences to prevent the normalization of contempt toward those who are different. By reminding children that everyone fundamentally desires love and belongingness—and that their words and actions are powerful—parents can instill a deeper sense of empathy which will translate to less harmful actions toward others, both face-to-face and online.

Finally, and as alluded to earlier, parents should try to cultivate resilience in their child when they deal with relational conflict that is minor in nature. Too often, parents respond in a knee-jerk fashion to protect their child from any and all social problems. Unfortunately, this then keeps their children from learning the skills to overcome relational hardships. The reality is that everyone has to deal with people who are rude and malicious and spiteful in adulthood, and so adolescents should face and rise above some of these milder incidents with the support and guidance of loving parents. This can provide parents with the opportunity to make sure that their children’s self-worth isn’t solely rooted in peer perceptions but instead in who they are becoming as a person and what their future is going to look like. Finally, parents should help their children to understand the typical motivations behind why people are hurtful toward others (jealousy, personal stressors, insecurities, family problems, self-hatred, lack of empathy and maturity, intolerance), and help them recognize when those issues in their own life need to be addressed.

Lastly, what approaches do you believe will play a significant role in mitigating cyberbullying?

In my opinion, the future of cyberbullying prevention lies in a strengths-based approach that focuses on cultivating positive attributes in youth, such as empathy, resilience, and hope. These protective factors not only deter young people from engaging in harmful online behaviors but also help lessen the impact when they become targets themselves. Plus I believe that by leveraging the extensive reach and influence of social media platforms, we have a unique opportunity to partner with tech companies to develop really compelling, relevant educational initiatives. These programs can be designed to resonate with young users and promote better online decision-making skills while fostering an ethos of digital citizenship. I’d like to see more partnerships between platforms, academia, nonprofits, and others to create innovative, engaging content that can actually move the proverbial needle with youth. Finally, there are many critical research questions related to tech use, overuse, and misuse among youth that need to be answered, and our Cyberbullying Research Center welcomes partnerships with funders in the upcoming months as we continue to uncover knowledge that promotes youth safety, mental health, and well-being.

JPRC Team Meets With the PA Lt. Governor and Violence Prevention Leaders

by

The JPRC’s violence prevention team visited Harrisburg, PA, on March 19, 2024. The purpose of the meeting was to brief the Lt. Governor, Austin Davis, and convene leaders from five projects across Pennsylvania that have received multi-million dollar investments from the state through their “Coordinated Community Violence Intervention” (CCVI) grant.

Attending the meeting were (from left to right):

  • Alexis Pugh, Impact Services
  • Lori Toscano, JPRC (in front)
  • Father Paul Abernathy and Quinten Boose, Neighborhood Resilience Project
  • Jamie Noerpel, LogosWorks
  • Lt Governor Austin Davis
  • Cyrise Dixon, CASA Youth Advocates
  • Shaun Ali, JPRC
  • Betty Mulugeta, Philadelphia Department of Public Health
  • Kerwin Henderson, JPRC