devastating after effects anti-knife crime sessions · the devastating after effects anti-knife...
TRANSCRIPT
IMPACT EVALUATION
The Flavasum Trust
Dr Emily Gilbert, Peter Sinclair
October 2019
Devastating After Effects
anti-knife crime sessions
2
1.1 Background
The Devastating After Effects anti-knife crime sessions are delivered to year group
assemblies of 13 to 15 year olds in secondary schools by an experienced facilitator.
He uses a short fictional film about a family devastated by violence followed by
workshop/discussions to focus attention and engage the pupils. The schools targeted
are located in those boroughs where the number of knife offences is above the
London average. The sessions were delivered in two phases: (1) 4092 young people
in 20 secondary schools and alternative learning providers in London from June 2016
to July 2017, and 3434 young people in 8 schools and providers in Luton during June
and July 2017; (2) 6157 young people in 29 secondary schools in London from
October 2018 to March 2019.
1.2 Aim and Methodology
The aim of the research is to find out whether anti-knife crime sessions delivered to
school assembly groups can change the attitudes of young people towards carrying
knives. Specifically, the research was undertaken to discover if the interventions
raised awareness of the dangers of carrying a knife, reduced the probability of
carrying, and increased the likelihood of a young person taking action if s/he realises
someone is carrying a knife. The pupils were asked to complete a questionnaire
before the session and one after and the answers compared to measure any changes.
1.3 Sample
A total of 9875 questionnaires were completed across both phases of delivery: 5295
before the sessions and 4580 afterwards. The difference is a result of having to let
schools complete the post-session questionnaires later when there was too little
time to complete them immediately after the sessions. The gender breakdown was
fairly evenly split: 5008 boys, and 4867 girls.
1.4 Findings
A number of significant attitudinal changes were observed across a series of key
questions related to the aims of the research. The anti-knife crime sessions
reduced the number of young people who would consider carrying a knife,
reduced the number who thought carrying a knife was a way to keep safe,
reduced the number who thought using a knife only affected the person
carrying it, and
increased the number who would do something if they knew someone was
carrying a knife.
Executive Summary
3
The results are summarised in the following table of pre- and post-session attitudinal
changes (see Section 4.1, page 13):
Questions Pre-session (% yes)
Post-session (% yes)
Change Statistical significance of change at p<0.05
Would you consider carrying a knife?
14 9 -5% Yes
Does carrying a knife keep you safe?
26 20 -6% Yes
Does using a knife only affect the one carrying it?
19 12 -7% Yes
Would you stop a friend carrying a knife?
76 87 +11% Yes
Would you do something if a stranger was carrying?
38 49 +11% Yes
The research also provided an opportunity for a deeper look at some differences in
attitudes. Although the majority of young people had never considered carrying a
knife, a minority still reported that they would consider carrying one. Of this minority
almost three-quarters (71%: 501 out of 709) thought it would keep them safe,
compared to 19% of those who hadn’t considered carrying (869 out of 4521). This
suggests that fear may be the principal reason why they feel the need to carry a
knife. Clearly not all of the 14% who had thought about carrying would do so, but
London statistics show that about a quarter actually do: 3% (218 out of 7033) claimed
to have carried a knife (London Youth Voice Survey, MOPAC, 2018, p. 17).
Significantly, after the sessions, more young people reported they would try to stop a
friend from carrying a knife, increasing from 76% (3948 out of 5221) to 87% (3984
out of 4557), although they would remain cautious if they met a stranger who they
knew was carrying. In that case 38% (1997 out of 5226) reported they would do
something before the sessions, rising to 49% (2208 out of 4503) after.
It should be noted that this research is based on a before-and-after evaluation
design. Whilst it is a more effective method for evaluating change than many other
non-experimental designs, there may be some limitations due to threats to the
internal validity of the design. However, it is still a useful method for providing
insight, and the evidence provided as part of the research can be built upon by using
different methods in the future.
1.5 Conclusions
Based on the evidence summarised above, the attitudes of the young people who
attended these sessions changed significantly, particularly when they considered
their future actions.
4
This specific change of attitude is an important outcome because it shows that in
addition to raising awareness of the dangers of carrying knives, the sessions
increased the confidence of young people to negotiate safer paths for themselves
and their peers, which could lead to safer families and local communities. This is in
line with other recent research where the need to build ‘young people’s skills and
confidence to manage conflict, cope with peer pressure and make the right choices’
has been recognised (Early intervention – what works? Preventing Youth Violence,
Big Lottery Fund, 2018, p. 3).
This research has shown that a single anti-knife crime session using film
dramatisation followed by workshop/discussions changes pupil attitudes towards
carrying knives or other weapons. To understand more clearly what produces these
changes, it is recommended that further research is undertaken where the
methodology is redesigned to ask a different set of questions and obtain more
detailed and nuanced answers, as well as collecting data from schools in the same
boroughs where the sessions are not held for use as a control. In addition, more
research would be useful to understand whether attitude changes are sustained.
2. Background
2.1 Context
Violent crime, including knife crime and homicide, has been on the rise across
England and Wales. In the year ending March 2014 there were 23,945 knife crime
offences recorded by the police (excluding Greater Manchester due to data recording
issues). Five years later, in the year ending March 2019, this figure had risen by over
80% to 43,516. London bore the brunt of this problem: in 2019 there were 169 knife
offences per 100,000 population, in stark contrast to the next highest figure of 93
offences per 100,000 in North West England. In the same year there were 4,306
recorded knife possession offences committed by 10-17 year olds in England and
Wales (Home Office, 2019). In the year from September 2018 to August 2019,
possession of weapons in Luton increased by 57.8% and was the sixth highest rate
out of 104 postcode areas in England and Wales (plumplot.co.uk, based on UK police
data).
2.2 Aims of the project
The Flavasum Trust uses the arts to reach and engage young people who are at risk
of carrying knives or other weapons. It does this by offering schools anti-knife crime
sessions using film and theatre to dramatise the dangers of carrying weapons. The
Trust needs to know whether these interventions are effective and worth the
investment of donations and public funds.
2.3 Intended outcomes
The project aims to assess whether young people in education attending anti-knife
crime sessions delivered by a facilitator who uses a fictional film showing the damage
violence does to a family changes attitudes.
2.4 Outline of the project
The anti-knife crime sessions were delivered to year-group assemblies of Years 8, 9
and 10 (13 to 15 year olds) in secondary schools. The facilitator had previously lost
his brother to knife crime in Hackney and drew on his personal experience to connect
with his audience. Before the start of each assembly the pupils are asked to complete
a short anonymous questionnaire to assess their baseline attitudes towards knife
crime. After the session they completed a second questionnaire asking the same
questions but differently worded and ordered to avoid unintentional bias.
Differences between the answers given in the two questionnaires can be analysed to
measure shifts in attitudes.
2.5 Timeline for development of the project
The anti-knife crime sessions were delivered in two phases. The first took place from
2016-17 in both London and Luton, funded by the Flavasum Trust, and the second
took place in 2018-19 in London, funded by the MOPAC Community Seed Fund (Knife
6
Crime). The continuation of these sessions has been taking place in Luton in 2019,
funded by the Luton Youth Offending Service.
2.6 Theory of Change description and diagram
The ultimate aim of the project is to effect attitude change among young people in
secondary schools towards carrying knives or other weapons, leading to changes in
behaviour, i.e. a reduction in the number of young people carrying knives or other
weapons.
Mid-Term Outcomes
Short-Term Outcomes
Inputs Outputs Activities Objectives
What are the main things the project will do/provide?
How many and what sort of observable/ tangible results will be achieved?
What will occur as a direct result of the activities and outputs?
What results should follow from the initial outcomes?
Attendance of pupils at anti-knife crime sessions in secondary schools in priority boroughs in London and in Luton.
Goal: Reduction in the numbers of young people carrying knives or other weapons, reducing subsequent knife crimes
What results should follow from the initial outcomes?
Changes in attitude of young people to carrying a knife or other weapon.
Anti-knife crime sessions delivered to assemblies in secondary schools.
Flavasum Trust funding and support
Reduction in the number of young people carrying a knife or other weapon.
Change in attitudes of young people towards carrying a knife or other weapon, leading to behaviour changes.
MOPAC Community Seed Fund
Facilitator delivering in schools
Responses to anonymous questionnaires before and after the sessions to assess attitudes.
Survey methodologist and analyst
Short questionnaires to assess attitudes of those who attended the sessions.
Theory of Change Diagram
Support of secondary schools
Increased awareness of the dangers of carrying a knife or other weapon.
Increased knowledge of actions that can be taken if someone is carrying a knife or other weapon.
Increased confidence of young people in taking action if they know someone is carrying a knife or other weapon.
3. Methodology
3.1 Research questions
The primary research question this study intends to answer is:
Can anti-knife crime sessions delivered to year-group assemblies of secondary school
pupils change their attitudes towards carrying a knife?
3.2 Study design
A quantitative approach was chosen as we wished to assess the attitudinal change of
large numbers of young people. Two short anonymous self-completion paper
questionnaires were designed to capture their attitudes, one to be used prior to the
session and one after. Self-completion questionnaires were deemed the most
appropriate method to use to avoid social-desirability bias. Social-desirability bias
occurs when respondents are inclined to give more socially desirable answers when
responding to an interviewer, and is less likely to occur if they respond privately, so
nobody can see their responses (Tourangeau et al. 2000; de Leeuw 2005; Holbrook
and Krosnick 2010). As the topic under study in this project could be considered
sensitive and some of the potential responses socially undesirable, it was considered
appropriate to use self-completion questionnaires to obtain more accurate and
honest responses. Additionally, a face-to-face methodology would have been
prohibitively expensive given the size of the samples.
The questionnaires contained no personally identifying information, asking only for
the respondent to self-report their gender and answer five attitudinal questions.
3.3 Sample
The anti-knife crime sessions were delivered in two phases, the first funded by The
Flavasum Trust in London (June 2016 to July 2017) and Luton (June and July 2017),
and the second funded by the MOPAC Community Seed Fund (Knife Crime) in London
(October 2018 to March 2019). In phase one the free sessions were promoted by
email to all secondary schools in 20 London boroughs and in phase two only to those
14 boroughs where knife crime offences were higher than the London average. Take-
up by schools was on a first come first served basis until the funding had been spent.
The sample of respondents consisted of all pupils in a year group in the schools that
booked a session, principally Years 8, 9 and 10. Every pupil was asked to complete
the two questionnaires. No identifying information was included, so it was not
possible to link pre- and post-questionnaires and measure individual changes of
attitude. Demographic information collected from respondents was limited to
gender.
Although all young people who attended the sessions were provided with both
questionnaires, not all were completed. The total number who attended (according
to school estimates) was 13,683 pupils. The number of pre-session questionnaires
9
returned was 5295 (37%) and the number of post-session questionnaires returned
was 4580 (33%). The lower number of post-session questionnaires returned was
largely the result of schools failing to have them completed in class time after the
session or losing the questionnaires.
The larger disparity between the number of pupils attending and the number of
questionnaires completed is mostly due to the difference between the school
estimate of year group size and the actual number of pupils attending on the day,
and only partly due to pupils not wanting to complete them. Given the nature of the
sessions and the limited resources available for research, it was not possible to
record actual attendance or, in some cases, to ensure that questionnaires were
distributed to pupils.
Tables 1 and 2 show the aggregated sample composition by gender and geographical
area.
Table 1: Aggregated sample composition, split by gender.
Gender Pre-session
questionnaire
Post-session
questionnaire
Total
Male 2689 2319 5008
Female 2606 2261 4867
Total 5295 4580 9875
Table 2: Aggregated sample composition, split by geographical area.
Pre-session questionnaire
Post-session questionnaire
Total
London (Phase 1 and 2) 3407 3174 6581
Luton (Phase 1 only) 1902 1411 3313
Total 5309 4585 9894
The totals in Table 2 are slightly larger than the totals in Table 1 because some young
people did not provide their gender. The smaller number of post-session
questionnaires received in Luton was principally the result of sessions taking place at
the end of the academic year. Obtaining completed post-session questionnaires in
the new academic year proved difficult for some schools.
3.4 Confidentiality, ethics and consent
Prior to delivery, the facilitator determines from lead school staff the current needs
and issues arising from violent crime locally and the risk of offending affecting the
pupils in their school.
At the beginning of the session, and completion of the first questionnaire, the
facilitator provides the young people with information about the loss of his brother
and the Flavasum Trust’s Tom-Louis Easton, who died after being stabbed in Islington
10
in 2006. They are given an overview of what the session is about and told they would
be asked to fill in two questionnaires. They are also told that participation is
voluntary; if they did not want to take part, they did not have to.
Following this introduction, the film ‘Devastating After Effects’, dramatising the
impact of violent crime on a mother and her family, is screened as a critical path for
discussion. The remainder of the session and discussion with the pupils delivers a
powerful message that is not only about carrying a knife, but is also about an
individual’s self-worth and their values, with the aim of
stimulating debate around knife crime, including attitudes, behaviour and the law
developing the young person’s understanding about the destructive after effects of violent crime and murder
exploring the changes experienced by family, friends and the local community caused by violent crime, and
explaining the principles of ‘Responsibility, Choice and Respect’.
Participants are reminded not to write their name or other identifying information on
the questionnaires. As the questionnaires are paper-based, young people could
choose not to answer some of the questions.
Although no post-session support was funded, there were instances of pupils
referring themselves to the facilitator for advice. In some cases the schools reported
that pupils had come forward to report carrying by other pupils. These cases were
not logged by the project.
3.5 Evaluation tools
The questionnaires used were developed in line with best-practice principles of
surveying young people. They were intentionally kept short and simple in order to
facilitate high levels of completion and accuracy. To each question asked (see Section
4.1), simple tick-box answers of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ were requested.
Have you ever thought about carrying a knife or weapon yourself?
Do you think carrying a knife or weapon is a way to keep you safe?
Do you think the use of a knife or other weapon only affects the people
carrying them?
If you knew a friend was carrying a knife or other weapon would you try and
stop them?
If you met someone you didn’t know who was carrying a knife or other
weapon, would you do something?
The first questionnaire was distributed immediately prior to the session to the entire
group of young people who were attending, and the second immediately after the
session. The young people were asked to fill in the questionnaires on their own, in
the group setting, and return them to school staff immediately after completion. In
11
some cases the second questionnaires were completed during class time a few days
later without further input from school staff.
No qualitative evaluation of the sessions were requested from either the pupils or
teachers, although positive informal feedback has been received and recorded.
3.6 Methodological limitations
This research is based on a before-and-after evaluation design. While it is a more
effective method for evaluating change than many other non-experimental designs,
there may be some limitations due to threats to the internal validity of the design
and the lack of a control group. However, it is still a useful method for providing
insight, and the evidence provided as part of this research can be built upon using
different methods in the future.
Given the anonymous nature of the research, we cannot establish in-depth reasons
for the attitudes held. We do not have access to any background information on
respondents, aside from their gender, so cannot establish causal or correlational
reasons for their attitudes.
Most of the participating schools are located in the 14 London boroughs where knife
offences are higher than the London average, listed below in Table 3 in order of total
number of offences (The Flavasum Trust and https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-
do/mayors-office-policing-and-crime-mopac/data-and-statistics/weapon-enabled-
crime-dashboard, accessed 31 May 2019):
Table 3: London boroughs where knife offences are higher than the London average.
London boroughs Number of knife offences
(May 2018-April 2019)
London average 171
% of total number of knife
offences
London average 3.1%
Westminster 333 6.1
Lambeth 332 6.1
Southwark 323 5.9
Newham 286 5.2
Croydon 269 4.9
Tower Hamlets 259 4.7
Hackney 248 4.5
Haringey 224 4.1
Lewisham 218 4.0
Islington 201 3.7
Brent 200 3.6
Waltham Forest 198 3.6
Hounslow 191 3.5
Enfield 184 3.4
In the first phase (2016-17), 70% of the participating schools were located in these
boroughs, and in the second phase (2018-19), 100% were drawn from these
12
boroughs. In the case of Luton (2017), a single borough, out of a total of 13 secondary
schools, 6 (or 46%) participated.
All the schools that took part were self-selecting, which may mean they serve
catchment areas where anti-social behaviour has already had a greater impact on
them than on those schools which chose not to participate. The targeting of
boroughs and self-selection by schools introduces a bias in the results that cannot be
factored out. In future iterations it should be possible to include more detail about
the schools themselves and the catchment areas they serve.
The expediency of asking only five questions with simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers can
only provide global measures of attitude changes. They do not measure the effect of
using/not using film from the inspirational qualities of this specific facilitator.
An additional limitation is that the wording of the questions differed slightly between
the two questionnaires. Whilst it is not anticipated that those changes altered the
meaning or understanding of the questions, future iterations will need to look more
closely at the design of the questions and what is being asked.
13
4. Quantitative Results
4.1 Outcomes
Five behavioural and attitudinal questions were included in the questionnaires.
Across these questions a number of significant attitudinal changes were observed,
summarised in Table 4 below. The anti-knife crime sessions
reduced the number of young people who would consider carrying a knife,
reduced the number who thought carrying a knife was a way to keep safe,
reduced the number who thought using a knife only affected the person
carrying it, and
increased the number who would do something if they knew someone was
carrying a knife.
Table 4: Principal pre- and post-session attitudinal changes.
Questions Pre-session (% yes)
Post-session (% yes)
Change Statistical significance of change at p<0.05
Would you consider carrying a knife?
14 9 -5% Yes
Does carrying a knife keep you safe?
26 20 -6% Yes
Does using a knife only affect the one carrying it?
19 12 -7% Yes
Would you stop a friend carrying a knife?
76 87 +11% Yes
Would you do something if a stranger was carrying?
38 49 +11% Yes
The responses to each question are discussed in the following sections. Comparisons
are made between pre- and post-session attitudes to assess the impact of the session
on attitudes. The results are also separated by gender and by area (London/Luton). In
addition, we have looked at differences in baseline attitudes reported by those who
have considered carrying a knife or other weapon and those who have not.
Independent samples t-tests were used to assess differences in pre- and post-session
attitudes. Significance is established at the p<0.05 level.
(i) Attitudes towards carrying a knife
Pre-session question: Have you ever thought about carrying a knife or weapon
yourself?
Overall, 14% of respondents said they had thought about carrying a knife or weapon.
This splits into 16% of boys and 11% of girls. The difference is statistically significant.
14
When we look at the difference between responses by young people in London and
those in Luton, we see no significant differences (14% London, 13% Luton).
Post-session question: Would you consider carrying a knife or weapon yourself?
Overall, 9% of respondents now said they would consider carrying a knife or weapon.
This splits into 10% of boys and 7% of girls. The difference is statistically significant.
When we look at the difference between responses by young people in London and
those in Luton, we see 7% of those in London say they would consider carrying a
knife, and 11% in Luton say the same. This is a significant difference.
Post-session, 9% of respondents said they would consider carrying a knife or weapon
compared to 14% pre-session. This is a statistically significant decrease.
Table 5: Attitudinal changes, split by gender and geographical area.
Demographics Pre-session ‘yes’ response % (n)
Post-session ‘yes’ response % (n)
Boys 16 (441) 10 (235)
Girls 11 (276) 7 (155)
London 14 (477) 7 (233)
Luton 13 (244) 11 (158)
(ii) Attitudes on whether carrying a knife keeps an individual safe
Pre-session question: Do you think carrying a knife or weapon is a way to keep you
safe?
Overall, 26% of respondents said ‘yes’, split into 28% of boys and 24% of girls. The
difference is statistically significant. When we look at the difference between
responses by young people in London and those in Luton, we see no significant
differences (26% London, 27% Luton).
If we look at whether there are differences in this attitude between those who have
considered carrying a knife or other weapon and those who have not, we see 71%
who have considered carrying a knife thought it was a way to keep them safe, versus
19% for those who have not considered carrying a knife. This is a statistically
significant difference.
Post-session question: Would you feel safer if you carried a knife or other weapon?
Overall, 20% of respondents said ‘yes’. This splits into 23% of boys and 16% of girls.
The difference is statistically significant. When we look at the difference between
responses by young people in London and those in Luton, we see 17% of those in
London now say they would feel safer carrying a knife, and 25% in Luton say the
same. This is a significant difference.
Post-session, 20% said ‘yes’ compared to 26% pre-session. This is a statistically
significant drop.
15
Table 6: Attitudinal changes, split by gender and geographical area.
Demographics Pre-session ‘yes’ response % (n)
Post-session ‘yes’ response % (n)
Boys 16 (441) 10 (235)
Girls 11 (276) 7 (155)
London 14 (477) 7 (233)
Luton 13 (244) 11 (158)
(iii) Attitudes towards who is affected if a knife is used
Pre-session question: Do you think the use of a knife or other weapon only affects the
people carrying them?
Overall, 81% thought the use of a knife or other weapon affected more people than
just those carrying them. This is split into 77% of boys and 85% of girls. The difference
is statistically significant. When we look at the difference between responses by
young people in London and those in Luton, we see 80% of those in London say they
think the use of a knife or other weapon affects more people than just those carrying
them, and 82% in Luton say the same. This is a significant difference.
If we look at whether there are differences in this attitude between those who have
considered carrying a knife or other weapon and those who have not, we see 75%
who have considered carrying a knife thought the use of a knife or other weapon
affected more people than just those carrying, versus 82% for those who have not
considered carrying a knife. This is a statistically significant difference.
Post-session question: If someone uses a knife or other weapon do you think it affects
more people than those directly involved?
Overall, 88% said yes. This splits to 85% of boys and 90% of girls. The difference is
statistically significant. When we look at the difference between responses by young
people in London and those in Luton, we see 89% of those in London now say they
think the use of a knife or other weapon affects more people than just those carrying
them, and 86% in Luton say the same. This is a significant difference.
Post-session, 88% said ‘yes’ compared to 81% in the pre-session. This is a statistically
significant increase.
Table 7: Attitudinal changes, split by gender and geographical area.
Demographics Pre-session ‘yes’ response % (n)
Post-session ‘yes’ response % (n)
Boys 16 (441) 10 (235)
Girls 11 (276) 7 (155)
London 14 (477) 7 (233)
Luton 13 (244) 11 (158)
16
(iv) Attitudes towards a friend carrying a knife
Pre-session question: If you knew a friend was carrying a knife or other weapon
would you try and stop them?
Overall, 76% said yes; 70% of boys and 82% of girls. The difference is statistically
significant. When we look at the difference between responses by young people in
London and those in Luton, we see no significant differences (76% London, 75%
Luton).
If we look at whether there are differences in this attitude between those who have
considered carrying a knife or other weapon and those who have not, we see 49%
who have considered carrying a knife would try to stop a friend carrying versus 80%
for those who have not considered carrying a knife. This is a statistically significant
difference.
Post-session question: Would you try and change a friend’s mind if you knew he or
she was carrying a knife or other weapon?
Overall, 87% said yes; 84% of boys and 91% of girls. The difference is statistically
significant. When we look at the difference between responses by young people in
London and those in Luton, we see 89% of those in London now say they would try to
change a friend’s mind if they knew they were carrying a knife or other weapon, and
84% in Luton say the same. This is a significant difference.
Post-session, 87% said ‘yes’ compared to 76% pre-session. This is a statistically
significant increase.
If we look at whether there are differences in this attitude between those who have
considered carrying a knife or other weapon and those who have not after the
session has taken place, we see 60% who said they would consider carrying a knife
would try to stop a friend carrying a knife or other weapon, compared with 90% for
those who would not consider carrying a knife. This is a statistically significant
difference.
Table 8: Attitudinal changes, split by gender and geographical area.
Demographics Pre-session ‘yes’ response % (n)
Post-session ‘yes’ response % (n)
Boys 16 (441) 10 (235)
Girls 11 (276) 7 (155)
London 14 (477) 7 (233)
Luton 13 (244) 11 (158)
(v) Attitudes towards meeting a stranger carrying a knife
Pre-session question: If you met someone you didn’t know who was carrying a knife
or other weapon, would you do something?
17
Overall, 38% said yes, which was the same for both boys and girls. When we look at
the difference between responses by young people in London and those in Luton, we
see 36% of those in London say they would do something if they met someone they
didn’t know who was carrying a knife or other weapon, and 42% in Luton say the
same. This is a significant difference.
If we look at whether there are differences in this attitude between those who have
considered carrying a knife or other weapon and those who have not, we see 32%
who have considered carrying a knife would do something if they met someone they
didn’t know who was carrying, compared with 39% for those who have not
considered carrying a knife. This is a statistically significant difference.
We also find that if they said that they would try to stop a friend who was carrying a
knife they are more likely to do something if they met someone they didn’t know
who was carrying: 44% would do something, compared with 20% of those who would
not try to stop a friend carrying a knife – a statistically significant difference.
Post-session question: Would you do anything if you met someone you didn’t know
who was carrying a knife or other weapon?
Overall, 49% said yes, which again was the same for both boys and girls. When we
look at the difference between responses by young people in London and those in
Luton, we see no significant differences (48% London, 50% Luton).
Post-session, 49% said ‘yes’ compared to 38% pre-session. This is a statistically
significant increase.
If we look at whether there are differences in this attitude between those who have
considered carrying a knife or other weapon and those who have not after the
session has taken place, we see 40% who said they would consider carrying a knife
would do something if they met someone they didn’t know who was carrying,
compared with 50% for those who would not consider carrying a knife. This is a
statistically significant difference.
We also find that if after the session they said that they would try to stop a friend
who was carrying a knife or other weapon they are more likely to do something if
they met someone they didn’t know who was carrying: 53% would do something,
compared with 23% of those who would not try to stop a friend carrying a knife – a
statistically significant difference.
Table 9: Attitudinal changes, split by gender and geographical area.
Demographics Pre-session ‘yes’ response % (n)
Post-session ‘yes’ response % (n)
Boys 16 (441) 10 (235)
Girls 11 (276) 7 (155)
London 14 (477) 7 (233)
Luton 13 (244) 11 (158)
18
4.2 Baseline attitudes to knife crime
Baseline attitudes, measured using the questionnaires immediately prior to the
sessions, show 14% of young people attending the sessions would consider carrying a
knife or other weapon. However, one in four believed carrying a knife or other
weapon is a way to keep safe. One in five believed that the use of a knife or other
weapon only affected those who used it. When asked whether they would try to stop
a friend if they knew they were carrying a knife or other weapon, just over three-
quarters would. This figure was much lower, at 38%, when young people were asked
whether they’d do something if they met a stranger carrying a knife or other weapon.
19
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 The research question
Over the last five years, violent crime offences have risen by over 80% and London
experiences the highest number of knife offences per 100,000 population. In 14
London boroughs, knife possession offences are above the London average.
The Devastating After Effects anti-knife crime sessions use a short fictional film about
a family devastated by violence followed by workshop/discussions to focus attention
on the impact of knife crime and engage young people to reflect on the dangers of
carrying a knife, for themselves, their family and friends, and the wider community.
Between June 2016 and March 2019, over 13,000 young people in secondary
education in those London boroughs most affected by knife crime and in Luton have
benefited from the delivery of these free anti-knife crime sessions.
The aim of the research is to find out whether attendance at these sessions can
change the attitudes of young people towards carrying knives.
5.2 Findings
Based on the evidence summarised in Table 4, the attitudes of the young people who
attended these sessions changed significantly. Although the majority understood the
dangers associated with carrying a knife, a minority (reduced from 14% pre-session to
9% post-session) still considered carrying one.
Of this minority almost three-quarters (71%) thought it would keep them safe,
compared to 19% of those who hadn’t considered carrying. This suggests that fear
may be the principal reason why they feel the need to carry a knife. Clearly not all of
the 14% who had thought about carrying would do so, but London statistics show
that about a quarter actually do: 3% (218 out of 7033) claim to have carried a knife
(London Youth Voice Survey, MOPAC, 2018, p. 17).
According to our findings, 25% of those who had considered carrying thought that
the use of a knife only affected those using it, compared to 18% who hadn’t. This lack
of awareness of the damage a knife can cause to families, friends and the wider
community is another reason why a small minority continue to carry.
Attitudes diverge sharply when asked if they would try to stop a friend from carrying:
80% of those who hadn’t considered carrying would try to stop a friend, whereas only
49% of those who had considered would try. This might be explained by a shared
belief that if they carried, their friend would also be safer if they carried. However,
the sessions had a marked influence overall: 76% of young people who attended the
sessions would try to stop a friend from carrying before the sessions, rising to 87%
after. This is an important outcome because it shows that the sessions empowered
more young people to intervene directly with their peers.
20
When asked if they would do something if they met a stranger who was carrying, the
percentages were much lower and quite similar: 39% of those who hadn’t considered
carrying and 32% of those who had. In both cases far fewer pupils reported they
would do something. Although the question was not explicit as to what that
‘something’ could be, all possibilities were explored during the sessions. Post-session
this changed to 50% of those who hadn’t considered carrying and 40% of those who
had.
In the London Youth Voice Survey 2018, 56% of young people felt confident enough
to speak to their Safer Schools Officer if they were worried about something (p. 15).
In those boroughs where knife offences are higher than the London average, 38% of
the young people sampled before the sessions reported they would do something.
This rose to 49% after the sessions. This suggests that young people may feel more
intimidated and less confident to act where personal risk is perceived to be higher,
but as a result of the sessions there is a significant improvement in their willingness
to do something.
Differences were found between boys and girls, and also between young people at
schools in London and schools in Luton. More boys (16%) than girls (11%) had
thought about carrying a knife, and more boys believed it was a way to keep
themselves safe. Girls were more likely to think the use of a knife or other weapon
affected more people than just those using it, and were more likely to try to stop a
friend carrying one.
In terms of area differences, slightly more young people in Luton than London
thought the use of a knife or other weapon affected more people than just those
using it, and more young people in Luton would do something if they met someone
they didn’t know who was carrying one. Interestingly, the sessions had a bigger
impact on attitude change across four of the five domains on pupils in London than it
did on pupils in Luton.
5.3 Impact
The principal result of this research shows that anti-knife crime sessions in secondary
schools raises pupils’ awareness of the dangers of carrying a knife or other weapon
and in addition increases their confidence to negotiate safer paths for themselves
and their peers, which could lead to safer families and local communities. This is in
line with other recent research where the need to build ‘young people’s skills and
confidence to manage conflict, cope with peer pressure and make the right choices’
has been recognised (Early intervention – what works? Preventing Youth Violence,
Big Lottery Fund, 2018, p. 3).
An important caveat needs to be raised, though. This research does not take into
account the role of the facilitator, which can be pivotal. These positive results were
achieved by an inspiring facilitator whose personal experience of knife crime touched
his audiences. Responses from teachers at the schools he visited attest to this:
21
… he is without question the most inspirational speaker I have worked with in schools. The students and staff were captivated by his story but most importantly the positive message that he is able to bring from such a devastating event. The issues raised are particularly relevant to the students at our school at this time. Many of them have been able to reflect on the effects of knife crime on a community and hopefully bring about positive change in ours.
The aim of this project was to measure pupils’ attitudinal change resulting from a
specific intervention in schools, not to measure the effectiveness of the facilitator
delivering the sessions.
5.4 Recommendations
This research has shown that a single anti-knife crime session using film
dramatisation changes pupil attitudes towards carrying knives or other weapons. To
understand more clearly what produces these changes, it is recommended that
further research is undertaken where the methodology is redesigned to ask a
different set of questions and answers framed to obtain more detailed and nuanced
responses.
It is also recommended that data should be collected in the same boroughs from
schools where the sessions are not held for use as controls, so that changes in
attitude can be attributed to the sessions. Alternatively, the next iteration could be
designed as a Randomised Control Trial, if practical and appropriate.
In addition, more research would be useful to understand whether the reported
attitude changes can be sustained over time, say one or two years.
22
6. References
de Leeuw, E. (2005). To mix or not to mix data collection modes in surveys. Journal of
Official Statistics, 21 (2): 233-255.
Early intervention – what works? (2018). Big Lottery Fund report. Available at:
https://www.tnlcommunityfund.org.uk/media/documents/BLF_KL18-12-Serious-
Violence.pdf?mtime=20181017132115
Holbrook, A. and Krosnick, J.A. (2010). Social Desirability Bias in Voter Turnout
Reports: Tests using the Item Count Technique. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74: 37-67.
Home Office (2019). Police recorded crime and outcomes open data tables. Available
at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-recorded-crime-open-data-
tables
https://www.plumplot.co.uk/Luton-possession-of-weapons-crime-statistics.html,
accessed 11 October 2019.
Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. A. (2000). The psychology of survey
response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The collection of data in the first phase of this research was funded by The Flavasum Trust from donations by the public and support from volunteers. The second phase and this subsequent evaluation was funded by the Mayor of London’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) through its Community Seed Fund (Knife Crime) administered by The London Community Foundation 2018/19. The authors are Dr Emily Gilbert, Centre for Longitudinal Studies, University College London, and Peter Sinclair, Chair of Trustees, The Flavasum Trust The Flavasum Trust, 41 High Street, Barkway, Herts, SG8 8EA 01763 848001 / [email protected] / www.theflavasumtrust.org