A system that fails to measure peer violence cannot prevent it. Without systematic monitoring, schools and competent institutions lack a realistic understanding of the problem, reducing prevention to a mere formality while institutional responses come only after the damage has already been done. This is one of the key findings of the publication “When the Response Comes Too Late – Peer Violence and Juvenile Delinquency Between Perception and Institutional Response“ by Miloš Knežević, published by the Centre for Civic Education (CCE). The publication brings together findings from public opinion surveys conducted among secondary school students and the general public, insights from representatives of the judiciary, prosecution service, police, social welfare centres, and school support services, as well as the findings of the State Audit Institution (SAI), demonstrating that the institutional response is delayed because it is based on an incomplete understanding of the problem.
The extent of that gap is best illustrated by schools’ approach to measuring the prevalence of violence. The Institute for Education provided schools with the standardised Olweus Questionnaire, the only reliable instrument for determining the actual prevalence of peer violence, yet not a single school implemented it. Only 11.5% of schools (16 out of 138) conduct any form of survey on violence, and even then without a more in-depth analysis of risk factors. At the same time, 29.4% of teachers do not recognise certain behaviours, such as hair-pulling or pinching, as forms of violence, despite all respondents claiming that they know, in theory, how to identify violence.
The consequence is a system that knows far less about violence than it should. According to research conducted by the Institute for Education, 43% of children had witnessed violence and 17% had experienced it as victims, while the education information system recorded only 605 cases over the course of four school years. This does not mean that violence does not exist; rather, it remains invisible. What is not recorded cannot be analysed or prevented. Moreover, schools that fail to record incidents of violence are also the least likely to implement preventive activities.
The absence of systematic monitoring is also reflected in the way young people perceive violence. For more than half of all secondary school students, violence is a regular part of everyday school life, while both young people and adults, according to the CCE’s research, most commonly describe violence as occurring only “occasionally.” This serves as a warning that violence has become normalised and accepted as an expected part of growing up. Without systematic monitoring, the threshold of tolerance rises, less severe forms of violence are no longer recognised, and intervention occurs only once the problem has escalated.
The most widespread forms of violence are precisely those that are least visible. Psychological violence is identified as the most common form by 30.9% of young people and 27.8% of adults, while the experiences of victims show that physical violence ranks behind psychological, social, and digital violence. During adolescence, when identity is shaped through belonging to a peer group, words and social exclusion often leave deeper scars than physical attacks. These are also the forms of violence that are the most difficult to detect without systematic monitoring.
When institutions fail to measure, record, and respond to violence, young people stop reporting it. More than one-third of victims (35.8%) have never reported the violence they experienced. Among witnesses who chose to remain silent, 38.7% believe that reporting would not change anything, while 32.4% consider it to be “none of their business.” At the same time, 80.6% of students state that they would report violence if they themselves were victims, demonstrating that the problem lies not in young people’s willingness to report violence, but in the trust that the system has failed to build.
The consequences are not borne by victims alone. Exposure to violence is associated with lower self-esteem, anxiety, and depression, while perpetrators face an increased risk of antisocial behaviour and subsequent delinquency. Early intervention is therefore not only about protecting victims but also about preventing future offending.
That the problem lies not in the lack of legislation but in its implementation is further confirmed by the State Audit Institution (SAI), which found that 34.28% of the activities planned for the first year of implementation of the Strategy for the Prevention and Protection of Children from Violence were not carried out, while a further 48.57% were only partially implemented. At the same time, the Ministry of Social Welfare, Family Care and Demography stated that it was “not in a position” to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legislative framework. In such circumstances, the fact that 77.1% of citizens support stricter penalties reflects a lack of confidence in the system rather than a genuine solution to the problem.
The CCE recommends introducing continuous preventive programmes starting from the preschool level, strengthening the staffing capacities of schools and social welfare centres, establishing specialised institutions for juveniles, standardising interinstitutional cooperation, developing capacities to respond to digital violence, and ensuring systematic funding for the role of civil society. Investing in preventive and rehabilitative responses is not a cost but a minimum standard that Montenegro owes to the children and young people growing up in the country.
Milica Borozan, Project Assistant