Rural youth and violence: a gender perspective

Introduction: The public health system must consider violence as an all too common reality in modern life. Violence can contribute to long-lasting negative consequences for individuals and communities. Research on violence has primarily focused on urban environments. Research examining youth violence within rural communities is limited. This is particularly the case for the links between gender and violence in small rural settings. The purpose of this study was to examine rural violence from a gender perspective by examining four variables: meaning, causes, consequences and solutions. Methods: A survey was completed in Central Alberta, Canada with 178 students from grades 6 to 12. The schools’ geographic locations represented two distinct economic settings: one natural resources and the other agriculture. The mean age of the participants was 16 years with 60% of the youth female and 40% male. The survey instrument was composed of demographic questions and 70 questions that focused on violence. Results: Violence was a concern for all youth, but there were gender differences. Females viewed the meaning of violence as having the intent to harm others and causes contributing to violence included television, movies, video games and the internet. Females were more concerned than males about the emotional consequences of violence. For solutions, females were more accepting of intrusive means to control violence such as increased security and stricter school rules, and involving non-peer helpers such as teachers and community based agencies as a means to help combat violence. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that violence exists among rural youth and causes a great deal of concern. In particular, the study underscores the fact that there are potential gender differences in relation to causes, meaning, impact and solutions to violence. All the youth believed that violence in their lives needs to be addressed and want to develop anti-violence strategies. Females in particular see the development of such programs including youth themselves and community partners.


Introduction
Violence should not be ignored within the public health domain in Canada because the results of violence impact inter-related systems in all community settings [1][2][3] . In addition, violence can have long-term effects, and strategies are needed to limit its impact on people and their environments [4][5][6][7][8] . Violence is a common problem, but incidence can vary among different individuals and populations. Many people have preconceived ideas shaped by a mix of personal experience as well as media and other influences. A commonly held belief is that youth violence occurs principally in large urban centers, as opposed to rural and small towns (ie populations < 10 000 9 ). A few studies set in the USA have examined violence within rural communities [10][11][12] . In these studies, the definitions of violence ranged from psychological non-physical behaviors, including taunting and teasing, to physical actions involving use of fists and weapons.
Other studies have focused on the predictors of violent behaviors for youth which include: familial violence, lack of parental warmth, lack of supervision and corporal punishment [13][14][15][16] ; youth with a history of carrying weapons 17 ; youth with poor interpersonal skills 18 ; drug and alcohol use by students in elementary school 19,20 ; and, a time of change in identity 21 .
The literature identifies youth violence as a significant problem and also the need to have a better understanding of youth violence in order to develop more effective antiviolence programs 22 . In a 2010 Statistics Canada report, reference is made to the increasing rate of violence for children and youth 23 . However, there is a lack of details that describe violence in rural Canadian communities, especially from the perspective of gender 24-26 . The current article is based on a multi-methods study that adds to the knowledge of violence by identifying possible gender differences among rural youth 24-27 .

Methods
This two-phase, mixed-method study generated information about the meaning of violence, its causes, consequences and possible solutions. The first phase, as reported elsewhere, included 52 qualitative interviews with youth in two different resource-based rural communities regarding their perspectives on violence 25,27  The development of the Phase 2 survey data collection instrument was guided by the thematic findings from the qualitative interviews. The use of the language of the youth from Phase 1 contributed to ensuring the questions for the survey were meaningful to the youth completing the survey questionnaire in Phase 2 28 . The survey data, although not as in-depth as in the Phase 1 qualitative interviews, allowed for a larger sample of youth. The survey was pilot tested in one rural school in Southern Alberta, Canada, and refinements were made as necessary. The research team did not do psychometric testing on the instrument but future research should include this type of analysis.
The rural youth violence survey instrument was composed of demographic questions and 70 questions that specifically focused on violence. Using the qualitative findings, the survey questions were developed with anchoring from fourpoint Likert scales. Male and female youth answered questions on: • the meaning of violence • the causes of violence • the consequences of violence • solutions to violence within their respective rural communities.
The research received ethics approval for studies involving human subjects from the first author's university.
The youth chosen to participate were in grades 6 to 12, a group that previous research identified as having a rising incidence of violence on school grounds 29 . The researchers identified a number of rural middle and high schools and randomly chose three names.
Local school superintendents gave permission for the staff to be contacted by the researchers. In order to enlist the involvement of the schools, the research team gave a presentation at each site, detailing the goals, data collection methods and the process of obtaining consent. Information packages were then sent to the principals and consent forms were distributed to be signed by parents or guardians. In each of the schools the principal volunteered to be the site coordinator. This role involved the distribution and collection of consent forms and arranging for the inclassroom completion and collection of forms as well as liaising with the researchers. Students made the choice of whether or not to take the consent forms home for signature, allowing them to complete the survey questionnaire during regular class time. The signed consent forms were returned to the research site coordinator in the school and were kept in a secure and confidential location. Often, it took weeks for the forms to be returned to the school.
An ethical issue arose wherein it was important for students in the class to not be aware of who was participating in the survey. In the classroom, those students not participating in the research were given a handout on bullying with questions to complete by pencil at the same time other students were completing the survey. This potentially helped to ensure that students were not aware of who was participating. The

Demographics
The entire demographic data profile showed that the total grades 6-12 population at the two schools was 259 students from which 178 students completed the survey, representing a response rate of 69%. Participants ranged in age from 12 to 20 years, with a mean of 16 years; 40% (n = 71) of the youth was male and 60% (n = 107) was female. Seventy-three percent (n = 129) of the respondent population lived with two parents; the highest percentage of respondents had one sibling (38%, n = 68). Sixty-four percent (n = 113) of the respondents had lived in the rural community from 11 to 20 years.

Consequences of violence
The The results demonstrated that female youth were more aware than male youth of how victims of violence were personally and emotionally impacted by violence. In this study, females were more likely than males to agree that the victim experiences emotional reactions such as: fear, being upset, losing self-confidence, self-esteem and thoughts of suicide (Table 1). However, the males viewed violence as providing respect from their peers. Similar to the findings on the meaning of violence, the youth viewed violent acts as not being motivated by the need to have and/or demonstrate power.

Solutions to violence
Youth were asked to rate 11 ideas for reducing violence on a four-point scale ranging from 'not at all useful' to 'very useful'. The ideas presented were: 'education for victims'; 'education for violent youth'; 'education for parents'; 'education for families'; 'education for school staff'; 'school rules against violence'; 'cameras inside schools'; 'supervision on school grounds'; 'security officers in schools'; 'sniffer dogs in schools'; and 'metal detectors in schools'. Group differences were found in 6 of the possible 11 ideas for reducing violence ( Table 2). Females were more likely than males to believe that parents and families need to receive education in order to reduce youth violence. Females were also more likely than males to accept more intrusive means to curb violence, including school initiatives such as zero tolerance against violence; supervision, both in schools and on school grounds; cameras or security officers in schools; sniffer dogs to find drugs; and, metal detectors for weapon identification. Males were not of the opinion that the solutions presented would be beneficial in preventing violence.

Program partners
The final section asked the youth about the people they thought should be involved in the development of anti-violence programs.
They ranked the 6 possible choices (youth, adults, families, teachers, community workers, and members of town council) on a scale of 'not at important', 'somewhat important', 'considerably important' or 'very important'. Once again, females were more likely than males to believe that youth themselves, adults, families, teachers and community helpers could make a difference in dealing with youth violence (Table 3).

Limitations
This research is limited by collecting data from only two rural schools. The third school had originally agreed to participate but when the data collection phase commenced, there was no assistance from this school. After two attempts to rectify the situation, data collection was abandoned at this site. It was not possible to recruit another school so late in the data collection phase. It is hoped that the survey will be replicated in a variety of schools. Increasing the number of school settings would allow for greater randomization and limit the impact of students to self-select, as was the case with the current study. A much larger sample would strengthen the generalizability of the findings. Another limitation is that the research did not examine how the growth and developmental stages of the youth could influence the data. Future research could examine how the differences in male and female maturational stages would impact on their perspectives of violence.

Discussion of results
The results of this study indicate that violence exists among rural youth and causes them a great deal of concern. The study underscores the potential for distinct gender differences in relation to the meaning of violence, causes, consequences of violence for others and solutions. There is a need to incorporate the opinions of youth, especially females, in policy development and program planning.
Both genders indicated that violence in their lives was a normal occurrence. However, female respondents viewed the meaning of violence as the intent to harm but the carrying of weapons was believed to be for a show of bravado, as opposed to inflicting injuries on other youth. The notion that movies, television, internet and video games were triggers for violence was upheld more so by females than males. Policy-makers and clinicians need to be mindful that violence is a public health concern and assist in developing community-based solutions. Hence, from a public health planning perspective, youth who are concerned about violence provide healthcare professionals with a window of opportunity to dialogue with rural youth and mutually identify relevant anti-violence strategies. A top-down approach that imposes solutions can be viewed as an oppressive strategy that does little to empower youth as partners. This is especially important given the differing views on violence from the gender perspective. Mutual respect and understanding can lead to productive exchanges that result in meaningful anti-violence programs.