Search

According to a national [2017-18] survey conducted by National Association for College Admission Counseling (NACAC), school counselors overwhelmingly oppose efforts to arm educators as a response to gun violence in schools. Nearly three-quarters of 2,251 counselors who responded were either "somewhat opposed" or "strongly opposed" to policies that seek to arm teachers and other school staff. Findings include: (1) Seventy-four percent of school counselors viewed current federal, state, and local gun control measures as "too weak;" (2) Forty-seven percent of school counselors reported that their responsibilities for communicating with parents about school violence had either increased or greatly increased over the past three years; (3) Fifty-one percent of school counselors reported that their responsibilities related to assessing potential school violence threats had increased or greatly increased over the past three years; (4) Seventy-three percent of school counselors reported that their responsibilities for mental health and/or social/emotional counseling had increased or greatly increased over the past three years; and (5) Twenty-one percent of school counselors reported that their schools had hired additional staff in the past three years in response to gun violence or other school safety issues.

In response to the February 14, 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, President Donald Trump established the Federal Commission on School Safety to review safety practices and make meaningful and actionable recommendations of best practices to keep students safe. The Commission conducted field visits, listening sessions, and meetings with hundreds of Americans all across the country. The input of these individuals--state and local policymakers, administrators, principals and teachers, law enforcement and healthcare professionals, students and their families--was critical in identifying best practices and the recommendations contained in this Report. The recommendations are predicated on the policies already working in state and local communities. They outline steps families, communities, schools, houses of worship, law enforcement, medical professionals, government, and others can take to prevent school violence and improve recovery efforts following an incident. The recommendations are organized under three broad categories that represent the Commission's work: (1) Prevent--preventing school violence; (2) Protect and Mitigate--protecting students and teachers and mitigating the effects of violence; and (3) Respond and Recover--responding to and recovering from attacks. An extensive list of federal resources for school safety is also included.

School safety policies are constantly evolving, often in response to fatal events. After several high-profile and tragic shootings over the past 15 years, school safety has become a major focus for parents, school officials, policymakers and the public nationwide. ECS [Education Commission of the States] conducted a scan of school safety-related laws passed in 2013 legislative sessions to better understand trends in policy. This report highlights the ongoing efforts of lawmakers to provide students with safe places to learn.

In a period such as this, marked by extreme political partisanship and apparent gridlock at the federal level, it would be tempting to throw up one's hands in frustration. But this is just the time that a foundation like Joyce can add the most value--because the Joyce team members are non-partisan, not subject to the pressures of political and business cycles, and have the freedom to explore new ideas and support projects that others cannot or will not take on. So, the team is optimistic that it can make a difference, though they do know it is important to pick their battles wisely. This year, they think it paid off to focus their attention on policy at the state and local levels, where they saw some really important progress and where they saw tangible improvements in the quality of life for people in the Great Lakes region. Each of their other programs has seen similar opportunity at the state level. Their efforts to promote a more healthy democracy through campaign finance and redistricting reform, their work with law enforcement and policy makers to reduce gun violence, and their strong support of diversity in the arts, are all well-received at the community level, where individuals are most affected. Thoughtful implementation, careful evaluation, and a sustained effort to promote what is successful, will be the focus of their efforts going forward. Without putting their shoulders to the wheel, they and their grantees cannot expect to see impact--the kind of impact that turns good policy into real practice people can see and experience every day. This paper presents the Foundation's annual report for 2011.

This report is the result of a nationwide survey conducted in March 2008 of student life officers and campus safety directors to assess the impact of the April 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech on campus safety and security policy and practice. Discussion areas include: (1) Student Privacy vs. Need-to-Know; (2) Prevention, Mitigation and Recovery; (3) Notification Systems; (4) Security Monitoring and Enhancement; (5) Recognition and Response to Student Behavior; and (6) Budgetary Impacts. The survey asked respondents to comment on the nature of their relationship with municipal law enforcement, local and regional media, and state-level agencies both before and after the events at Virginia Tech. Without exception respondents indicated that the relationship of their institution with municipal law enforcement and with state-level agencies had remained about the same or improved since the events at Virginia Tech; a similar pattern of responses was seen in describing the relationship with local and regional media outlets. The tragedy at Virginia Tech also raised many questions and renewed debates about gun violence and weapons regulation. The events brought increased exposure to groups such as Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, which argue that the impact of such incidents could be prevented or minimized if students and faculty were allowed to carry guns on campus. In contrast, the Virginia Tech tragedy has emboldened groups and individuals who oppose extending concealed carry rights to college campuses. The focus of others has been on improving efforts to track and screen potential weapons buyers to prevent individuals with mental illness or a history of violent or threatening behavior from accessing guns. Additional resources are listed. (Contains 12 figures and 1 table.) [This initiative was supported by AIG Higher Education Risk Solutions and Lexington Insurance Company.]

The Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) requires that each state or outlying area receiving federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) have a law that requires all local educational agencies (LEAs) in the state or outlying area to expel from school for at least one year any student found bringing a firearm to school. Their laws must also authorize the LEA chief administering officer to modify any such expulsion on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the GFSA states that it must be construed so as to be consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Following information on data interpretation and quality, this report is divided into three sections and summarizes the 2001-2002 data submitted by the states and outlying areas. The first section is a brief summary of the overall findings. The second section presents a summary of the 2001-2002 data in bulleted, graphic, and tabular form as well as a comparison between the 2001-2002 data and data submitted in previous years. The third section presents a pair of pages for each state and outlying area. Each of these pages contains the data submitted by the state and outlying area, as well as any caveats or notes accompanying the data. Finally, there are two appendices to the report: Appendix A contains a copy of the Gun-Free Schools Act and Appendix B contains a copy of the 2001-2002 GFSA states and outlying areas data collection instrument. (Contains 9 figures.)

Noting that in Wisconsin, 146 children have died as a result of gunfire in the preceding 5 years [1996-2000], this report provides a detailed look at the issue of handgun safety from the perspective of citizens living in Wisconsin. Participating in the state-wide telephone interviews were 600 adult residents representative of the adult state population with respect to race, gender, education, income, and geography. Survey findings revealed that the majority of Wisconsin citizens are in favor of gun control but are also opposed to measures that would ban handguns entirely or make them easier to obtain. Seventy percent support handgun safety legislative action and most believe there should be laws requiring handguns to have safety features. Most residents do not believe that handguns in homes or in the hands of women deter violence. The most often cited causes of handgun violence were gangs and drugs. Other factors related to handgun violence included improper handgun storage, lack of training in the proper use of handguns, the media, and domestic violence. Most respondents do not believe that gun violence is getting worse in their communities or that handguns can be easily obtained. Gun ownership has increased among Wisconsin residents significantly, with 50 percent of households owning a shotgun, up from 38 percent in the late 1990s. Twenty-six percent of households have handguns, up from 8 percent in 1997. In addition to survey findings, the report includes an essay discussing the effects that violence has on children and focusing on the cognitive, emotional, and developmental harm done by witnessing or being a victim of violence. A description of the survey methodology is appended. (KB)

The Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) requires that each state or territory receiving federal funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) have a state law that requires all local educational agencies (LEAs) in the state or territory to expel from school for at least one year any student found bringing a firearm to school. (See Appendix A for a copy of the GFSA.) State laws must also authorize the LEA chief administering officer to modify any such expulsion on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the GFSA states that it must be construed so as to be consistent with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The GFSA requires states/territories to report information about the implementation of the GFSA annually to the Secretary of Education. In order to meet this requirement and to monitor compliance with the GFSA, the Department of Education (the Department) requires each state or territory to submit an annual report that provides: (1) The number of students expelled (by type of firearm and school level); (2) The number of expulsions that were modified on a case-by-case basis; (3) The number of modified cases that were not for students with disabilities; and (4) The number of expelled students who were referred to an alternative school or program. Starting with the 1999-00 school year, the reporting form used for this data collection was revised to collect more information regarding LEA compliance and state climate. The new data items can be found in questions 7 through 10 on the data collection form. A copy of this form can be found in Appendix B of this report. (Author)

The U.S. Congress bolstered the increase in expulsions by passing into law the federal Gun Free School Act of 1994. All states receiving federal funds were to pass laws requiring schools to expel students who brought firearms to school or to school activities. There is evidence that schools are safer, but expulsion rates continue to climb. With this publication, Wisconsin joins the national challenge to reverse the upward trend in school expulsions by encouraging all Wisconsin schools and communities to provide educational services for expelled students. The report identifies key issues in balancing school safety and educational opportunities, reports on a sample of national, state, and local strategies to address the challenge, and acknowledges selected Wisconsin school districts, cooperative educational service agencies, and community based organizations for doing more than current state law requires. Possible next steps are described. Vignettes of several districts' policies and practices for post-expulsion services are detailed. (Contains 32 endnotes, 23 Web resources, and 5 figures.) (JDM)

This report focuses on the causative factors of violence in school children. It summarizes information about the demographic and mental health characteristics of students who carry weapons to school and includes comments from students on the reasons why they carry them, as well as what the research says. Results of the 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, administered to 109 high schools in the state of Oregon who voluntarily participated, are highlighted throughout the report. The influence of television on risky behaviors among youth is considered. Prevention programs are discussed, including family education about gun safety, gun availability, and national legislation to help keep guns away from students. The report includes Table One, "Percentage of Students Who Carried Weapons during the Previous 30 Days, by Demographic and Behavioral Characteristics," and Table Two, "Selected Demographic and Behavioral Characteristics by Hours of Television Watching." (Contains 11 endnotes and 8 figures.) (JDM)

An April 2000 telephone survey queried a nationwide sample of 1,000 adults, including 283 parents of children ages 5 to 17 years, concerning school violence and other issues in the news. The vast majority of those surveyed said they believe it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that school shootings, such as occurred at Columbine High School, are not repeated. Approximately 70 percent of parents said that the Columbine violence has had some impact on their feelings about the safety of their children at school. Eighty-five percent of adults placed the responsibility for preventing future school violence incidents in the hands of parents. Attitudes on gun control remained unchanged from a year earlier, with 66 percent saying that controlling gun ownership was more important than protecting Americans' rights to own guns. Gender and political party differences remain. The majority indicated that more jobs and community programs for young people would reduce violent crime and that it is more important to enforce existing gun laws than to enact new statutes. Sixty percent said they believe that paying more attention to children with antisocial attitudes would be more effective than increasing school security, passing stricter gun control laws, or reducing violence in popular entertainment. Parents are split on what they think is the main reason youth commit violent acts, with about one-third each stating that parental upbringing or media violence is at fault. (A tabulation of survey responses for each question is attached.) (KB)

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has developed its Eddie Eagle program as a school-based curriculum that claims to teach gun safety to children in preschool through grade six. The program uses a four-part message for children to follow when they see a gun, admonishing them to stop, not touch it, leave the area, and tell an adult. The NRA has credited the program with playing a major role in decreasing the unintentional death toll among children, but it has not conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of the program. The primary goal of the Eddie Eagle program, this report argues, is to increase the acceptance of guns by children and youth and the development of new customers for the firearms industry and the NRA itself. The NRA funds Eddie Eagle through its NRA Foundation. Research by the Violence Policy Center shows that members of the firearms industry and the tobacco industry have made substantial contributions to the NRA Foundation. Many of the marketing problems the firearms industry faces are similar to those faced by the cigarette and smokeless tobacco industries, and the industry is using similar marketing strategies. The NRA also uses Eddie Eagle as a lobbying tool in its efforts to derail the passage of child access prevention and mandatory trigger lock laws at both state and federal levels. As a thinly disguised marketing tool to "soften up guns," Eddie Eagle is a sort of Joe Camel with feathers. Instead of acknowledging the inherent danger firearms in the home pose to children and the often irresponsible firearms storage behavior of adults, the Eddie Eagle program places the onus of safety and responsibility on the children themselves. Public health researchers have not found programs like Eddie Eagle to be effective in reducing unintentional death and injury from firearms. Six appendixes present additional information about the Eddie Eagle program, including copies of commendations and letters refusing endorsement. (SLD)

In an effort to reduce the current epidemic of gun violence among children and adolescents in the United States, this fact sheet presents various approaches to reducing access to and interest in carrying firearms. Suggested approaches to reducing access include: (1) urging parents to turn in their guns to police; (2) repealing anti-gun control legislation; (3) making illegal gun trafficking a priority for local law enforcement; (4) increasing fees for gun licenses; and (5) establishing confidential hotlines to report students carrying guns at school. Methods offered for reducing young peoples' desire to carry and use firearms include: (1) teaching parents and children to channel anger without resorting to violence; (2) teaching at-risk youth effective conflict resolution methods; (3) increasing availability of mental health services; (4) providing safe places for youth to congregate; and (5) reducing the glorification of violence in the media. Includes ways of assessing the true cost of gun violence. (RB)

Weapons violence is a major public health problem that especially impacts minority youth. Interventions designed to reduce weapon use by youth are categorized as educational/behavioral change, legal, and technological/environmental. Few educational programs currently exist, but those that do largely concern firearm safety courses, public information campaigns, counseling, classroom education, peer education and mentoring, and crisis intervention. Given that legal and technological countermeasures have difficulty in controlling weapons violence, education seems a critical first step toward a comprehensive approach to preventing weapons-related violence. Potential educational interventions include educating students and their communities about the dangers inherent in carrying or possessing firearms. Potential legal interventions include firearm legislation assessment, taxation, stricter licensing and registration policies, and bans on selected types of firearms. Potential technological/environment interventions include designing safer weapons, eliminating ammunition types, and modifying the adverse environment in which weapons are used or carried. A combination of strategies should be used, but before interventions are discussed, professionals must address the inadequacy of current information on which to base firearm policy, ethical and philosophical issues involving metal detector use, and the community's role. The appendix contains a list of 16 associations to contact for additional information. (GLR)

"Guns on Campus: The Architecture and Momentum of State Policy Action" offers a detailed summary of state legislative action and higher education system policy decisions that have occurred in two specific categories: (1) States that have permitted or are seeking to permit guns on campus; and (2) States that have prohibited or are seeking to prohibit guns on campus. Report sections highlight general themes for enacted bills and provides detailed examples of state legislative activity. The theme analysis of the policy areas concludes with considerations designed to inform policymakers and campus leaders as they consider policy action and move toward the implementation of laws, rules, and regulations governing firearms on postsecondary campuses. The following are appended: (1) Guns on Campus Policies: State Legislation; (2) Guns on Campus Policies: System Policies; (3) Guns on Campus Policies: Court Cases; and (4) Guns on Campus Policies: Legislation Introduced in 2015.

Whether or not a suicide attempt results in death depends in large part on the method chosen. If a teenager attempts suicide with a gun, his or her death is nearly guaranteed. This brief fact sheet presents data on firearms and suicide, the third leading cause of death for adolescents and young adults in the United States. Any number of societal or personal factors could be causing more American youths to attempt suicide, but the use of guns makes these attempts successful. Statistics are given for the lethality of different suicide methods, and a comparison of the youth firearm suicide rate in an American city and a Canadian city with strict gun control laws. Finally, the impact of drinking on suicides among teenagers with access to firearms is touched on. (RB)

Children are at risk of being killed or injured by a gun if their parents own a gun because many guns obtained for self-defense are kept loaded and within reach of children. This brief fact sheet presents statistical information relating to accidental deaths involving young people and firearms. Safety measures are suggested for preventing accidental shootings, such as keeping guns locked up and requiring trigger locks or loading indicators. Support is given for stricter gun control legislation affecting gun manufacturers. Includes one graph on unintentional firearm mortality rates by gender and age group. (RB)

Minimal federal regulations on firearm sales have facilitated the proliferation of guns, gun owners, and gun dealers in the United States. This fact sheet offers data on the growing number of firearm dealers, the relative ease of obtaining and keeping a license to sell guns from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the lack of safety standards and effective gun control legislation, and the number of new guns being produced. Also provided is a brief description of the Brady law and its immediate effectiveness. (RB)