devastating after effects anti-knife crime sessions · the devastating after effects anti-knife...

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




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.



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.




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).



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.




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.




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.



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).




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.




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

https://www.tnlcommunityfund.org.uk/media/documents/BLF_KL18-12-Serious-Violence.pdf?mtime=20181017132115

https://www.tnlcommunityfund.org.uk/media/documents/BLF_KL18-12-Serious-Violence.pdf?mtime=20181017132115

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-recorded-crime-open-data-tables

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-recorded-crime-open-data-tables

https://www.plumplot.co.uk/Luton-possession-of-weapons-crime-statistics.html

devastating after effects anti-knife crime sessions · the devastating after effects anti-knife...

Documents