Commentary

A systemic response to school-based violence from aUK perspective

Neil Dawsona and Brenda McHugha

The authors describe an imaginative set of multi-levelled interven-tions targeting adolescents who have used violence in a particularAmerican high school. They conceptualize their approach as being anapplication of systems theory in two key contexts, the school andfamily, believing that intervening in both will enable the programmeto have greater impact than will single interventions in either. Theyreport that exclusions from the school decreased sevenfold for allexclusions and fourfold for exclusions for physical violence over thefour-year period of the programme.

The original negotiations with the school management seem to havebeen tense and tortuous, with compromises wrung out of an organizationseemingly reluctant to change, possibly characterized by the attitude ‘ifyou think that you can do better, go on then, but we are highly scepticaland not going to offer more than minimal help’. The school’s decision toinsist that the programme be delivered away from the premises reflectedthis apparent ambivalence about the whole intervention.

The American context presents certain difficulties when drawingcomparisons with any similar work going on in UK schools. Theselection of the target population raises questions concerning thoseadolescents who were able to participate in the programme and thosewho were excluded. The authors make a distinction between whatthey call ‘early onset’ and ‘late onset’ violence perpetrated by adoles-cents. For the programme they excluded adolescents who weredefined as early onset by dint of their having shown violent behaviourbefore the age of 11. This population was classified as too extreme forthis kind of intervention. They focused their attention on late onsetviolent adolescents who were said to make up 40 per cent of violent

r The Association for Family Therapy 2006. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 GarsingtonRoad, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.Journal of Family Therapy (2006) 28: 267–2710163-4445 (print); 1467-6427 (online)

a Senior Specialist Psychotherapists and Joint Heads, Marlborough Family EducationCentre, 38 Marlborough Place, London NW8 OPJ, UK. E-mail: brenda.mchugh@nhs.net

r 2006 The Author. Journal compilation r 2006 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

youth. This then begs the question: Who or where are the other 50 orso per cent not targeted, given that the early onset group only makeup a ‘small percentage’? In a similar vein, the issue of payment byfamilies for participation in the programme presents a difficulty ifcomparison with publicly funded UK initiatives is going to have anyreliable validity.

So, having got those familiar gripes out of the way, there is stillmuch to commend in the paper. The psychoeducational content of theprogramme delivered to the students and their families in four two-hour sessions shows an interesting blend of theoretical and practicalelements designed to help the adolescents learn to deal with conflictbefore resorting to violence. The clear targeting of ‘the meanings,actions and emotions that keep a student from adopting a non-violentapproach to conflict’ through the skills-based programme is wellthought through and underpinned by bringing together a compellingcombination of theoretical perspectives from the different fields ofmediation, physiology and social learning theory. Although notdescribed in detail, the manualized content of the sessions sounds asif it is practical, relevant and above all accessible both for theadolescents and their parents. Again, however, another hint of scepti-cism enters at this stage; the way the delivery of the material isdescribed in the paper gives an impression of a degree of complianceon the part of the adolescents and their parents that would beunfamiliar to many UK-based professionals working with similarclient groups, particularly in a large number of inner-city secondaryschools. Despite this, the relatively brief involvement with the adoles-cents and their families appears to have had a significant effect inbringing about observable changes in behaviour. This is certainlymatched by our own experience of delivering family-based interven-tions in schools in the UK, Denmark, Norway and Sweden.

In the UK, behaviour that can cause physical or psychological harmis more often discussed and tackled under the heading of ‘bullying’than that of ‘violence’. Victims and perpetrators are seen as havingemotional and behavioural needs which require support.

However, as a report by the Gulbenkian Foundation (1995) stated:‘Schools can either be a force for violence prevention, or can providean experience which reinforces violent attitudes or adds to the child’sexperience of violence.’ This led the government to fund researchinto anti-bullying interventions that could be delivered in schools.

Several government initiatives have been implemented inrecent years to tackle issues of underachievement, disaffection, social

268 Neil Dawson and Brenda McHugh

r 2006 The Author. Journal compilation r 2006 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

exclusion and truancy. None has been specifically aimed at tacklingviolence. These initiatives include managed school exclusions with ad3000 incentive to relocate a violent pupil, the creation of newlearning mentor jobs, development of learning support units, estab-lishment of behaviour improvement programmes, implementationof peer support combined with mediation, and anti-bullying pro-grammes.

Many excellent programmes have been established in schools byteachers and voluntary or community services. For example, the LeapConfronting Conflict programme, established in the London Bor-ough of Tower Hamlets in 1999, involved the setting up of workshopsfor pupils where violence in the local community was seen to bespilling over into schools.

The concept of restorative justice has been promoted in schools,supported by a wide range of charities and other public bodies. Thisinvolves work with young people, families, victims and neighbour-hoods. Following enquiry and discussion, mediation between pupilsor a restorative conference can take place which will include not onlythose involved in the violence but also their supporters. Family groupconferences are convened in order to construct a plan for the youngperson.

Most of the above approaches involve intervention at one or moreof the following levels:

1 Prevention: tackling school discipline and climate to create a safeenvironment for learning.

2 Early intervention: using cognitive/behavioural techniques,including anger management, social skills training and mediationbetween peers.

3 Therapy: specific intervention in persistent cases with the child orwith the family.

The Marlborough Family Education Centre (Asen et al., 2001) hasbeen working at the interface between schools and mental healthservices for over twenty-five years delivering therapeutic programmesboth at the Marlborough and on school premises. The Marlborough-based intervention provides an intensive, four-mornings-a-weekmulti-family programme for children who are at risk of exclusionfrom school. Children are referred directly through our involvementwith the local schools in Westminster and attend each day with asignificant adult from their family. The children are from the wholeschool age range, and violence is the most common lead concern. The

Commentary 269

r 2006 The Author. Journal compilation r 2006 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

majority of the population would fit into the ‘most difficult’ categoryof children and adolescents who have ‘evidenced violence before theage of 11’. The Education Centre uses a mixof therapeutic models, blending multi-family, family systems, CBT,psychoeducational and psychodynamic elements within a dailyeducation programme. As well as attending the Family EducationCentre, the children return to their own schools in the afternoonsand are closely monitored by their teachers via individuallydesigned behaviour targets. The overall aim is to create a ‘therapeutichothouse’ in the Education Centre where old behaviours can beblocked and new ones experimented with. The afternoon sessionsoffer regular opportunities for children or adolescents to try outnew ways of behaving in the ‘normal’ and crucial environment oftheir own school. In this way close links are established anddeveloped between the child, family members and the teachingstaff.

For the past five years there has been a rapid and large expansionof the scope of the Family Education Centre’s delivery to schools viathe creation of multi-family groups that run on the schools’ own sites.These operate once a week, with each meeting lasting for two hoursduring the school’s normal working day. The groups are based on theEducation Centre’s predominant multi-family and family systemsapproach and are targeted at children in school who are presentingwith significant behavioural difficulties that the teachers describe asputting them at risk of exclusion from the school. The groups are runon the basis of a partnership between a member of the FamilyEducation Centre’s team and a teacher from the school staff. Inaddition, several ‘graduate parents’, who have experienced theprogramme for themselves with their own children, are employedto co-run the multi-family groups with the Marlborough and schoolprofessionals.

Working inside the school has distinct advantages particularly interms of enabling delivery of mental health services to be accessible toa wider range of people than is frequently possible for more tradi-tional clinic-based services. This is consistent with the HealthService’s National Service Framework (DoH and DES, 2004) whichhighlights accessibility and imaginative methods of service deliveryas key aims. The graduate parent partners are invaluable in thisbecause they can often engage other nervous, sceptical or anxiousparents who would not readily respond positively to an approachfrom the professionals. They use their own experiences of difficulties

270 Neil Dawson and Brenda McHugh

r 2006 The Author. Journal compilation r 2006 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice

and accounts of how they changed as compelling evidence of theeffectiveness of the multi-family approach.

This model, which was mentioned as an example of good practicein the government Green Paper Every Child Matters (DoH, 2004), isnow operating in fifteen schools in Westminster and in several centresin different areas of the UK. To date, the most dramatic take-up of themulti-family approach has been in Scandinavia, particularly in Den-mark, Norway and Sweden. Recently a two-year research study hasbeen put in place to measure the long- and short-term impact onchildren, their families and their schools.

The American and the Marlborough interventions are both createdby, and in response to, their own particular contexts. However, we willcertainly be contacting the authors to further explore the detail of thepsychoeducational material that they use with their adolescents.

References

Asen, E., Dawson, N. and McHugh, B. (2001) Multiple Family Therapy: TheMarlborough Model and its Wider Applications. London: Karnac Books.

Department of Health and Department of Education and Skills (DoH and DES)(2004) National Service Framework for Children, Young People and MaternityServices. London: Department of Health Publications.

Department of Health (DOH) (2004) Every Child Matters: Change for Children inHealth Services. London: Department of Health Publications.

Gulbenkian Foundation Commission (1995) Children and violence. Report of theCommission on Children and Violence Convened by the Gulbenkian Foundation.London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Commentary 271

r 2006 The Author. Journal compilation r 2006 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice