Violence Prevention in Austrian Schools: Implementation and Evaluation of a National Strategy

A qualitative study of Austria’s national strategy against violence in the public school system introduced in 2008. The national strategy developed by researchers consists of six activity domains with specific goals and projects defined for each. The evaluation (1) analyzes how the realized projects contributed to the six activity domains, (2) evaluates the national strategy at a general level, and (3) provides future recommendations. Eight members of the steering committee were interviewed at two points in the implementation process. The systematic interviews were coded according to the goals of the activity domains. According to the interviewees most of the projects have been satisfactorily implemented. Networking and cooperation with the different actors in the field of violence prevention and cooperation among steering committee members have been improved. However, the national strategy has not achieved the intended public recognition. The lessons learned from the evaluation and its results are discussed.

[1]  Jochen Gläser,et al.  Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. , 2010 .

[2]  A. Macaulay,et al.  Understanding the social context of school health promotion program implementation , 2006 .

[3]  D. Olweus,et al.  The Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme: design and implementation issues and a new national initiative in Norway. , 2004 .

[4]  Sam Stringfield,et al.  Working Together for Reliable School Reform , 2000 .

[5]  H. A. Lingstone,et al.  The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications , 1976 .

[6]  A. Mauricio,et al.  Putting the Pieces Together: An Integrated Model of Program Implementation , 2011, Prevention Science.

[7]  C. Spiel,et al.  National strategy for violence prevention in the Austrian public school system: Development and implementation , 2011 .

[8]  E. Roland,et al.  The broken curve: Effects of the Norwegian manifesto against bullying , 2011 .

[9]  D. Pepler,et al.  Promoting relationships and eliminating violence in Canada , 2011 .

[10]  C. Currie,et al.  Social determinants of health and well-being among young people: Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study: international report from the 2009/2010 survey. , 2012 .

[11]  Maurice J. Elias,et al.  Implementation, Sustainability, and Scaling Up of Social-Emotional and Academic Innovations in Public Schools , 2003 .

[12]  J. Durlak,et al.  Implementation Matters: A Review of Research on the Influence of Implementation on Program Outcomes and the Factors Affecting Implementation , 2008, American journal of community psychology.

[13]  Mathea Falco,et al.  A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. , 2003, Health education research.

[14]  J. Shonkoff,et al.  Science does not speak for itself: translating child development research for the public and its policymakers. , 2011, Child development.

[15]  C. Salmivalli,et al.  Counteracting bullying in Finland: The KiVa program and its effects on different forms of being bullied , 2011 .

[16]  J. Shonkoff.  Science, policy, and practice: three cultures in search of a shared mission. , 2000, Child development.

[17]  M. Greenberg,et al.  The Effect of the PROSPER Partnership Model on Cultivating Local Stakeholder Knowledge of Evidence-Based Programs: A Five-Year Longitudinal Study of 28 Communities , 2012, Prevention Science.

[18]  Erling Roland,et al.  Bullying in school: Three national innovations in Norwegian schools in 15 years , 2000 .

[19]  T. Steger,et al.  Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung , 2003 .

[20]  C. Ferguson,et al.  The Effectiveness of School-Based Anti-Bullying Programs , 2007 .

[21]  C. Currie,et al.  Social determinants of health and well-being among young people , 2012 .

[22]  D. Farrington,et al.  What works in preventing bullying: effective elements of anti‐bullying programmes , 2009 .

[23]  C. Spiel,et al.  Evidence-based practice and policy: When researchers, policy makers, and practitioners learn how to work together , 2012 .

[24]  P. Slee,et al.  National Safe Schools Framework: Policy and practice to reduce bullying in Australian schools , 2011 .

[25]  H. Mayer.  Interview und schriftliche Befragung , 2013 .

[26]  Peter K. Smith,et al.  Translational research: National strategies for violence prevention in school , 2011 .

[27]  M. Greenberg,et al.  Impact Challenges in Community Science-with-Practice: Lessons from PROSPER on Transformative Practitioner-Scientist Partnerships and Prevention Infrastructure Development , 2011, American journal of community psychology.

[28]  Christiane Spiel,et al.  ViSC Social Competence Program. , 2012, New directions for youth development.

[29]  Dean L. Fixsen,et al.  Core Implementation Components , 2009 .

[30]  Amanda Datnow.  Can We Transplant Educational Reform, and Does It Last? , 2002 .

[31]  Alan C. Acock,et al.  School Climate and Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes Associated with Implementation of the Positive Action Program: A Diffusion of Innovations Model , 2008, Prevention Science.

[32]  J. Kalafat,et al.  The relationship between implementation fidelity and educational outcomes in a school-based family support program: development of a model for evaluating multidimensional full-service programs. , 2007, Evaluation and program planning.

[33]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Implementation Science BioMed Central Debate A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity , 2007 .

[34]  Amanda Datnow,et al.  The Sustainability of Comprehensive School Reform Models in Changing District and State Contexts , 2005 .

[35]  R. Treptow.  Kunst und Kultur , 2020, Handbuch Ganztagsbildung.

[36]  Dean L. Fixsen,et al.  Implementation: The Missing Link between Research and Practice. Implementation Brief. Number 1. , 2007 .