Measuring School “Security”

Introduction: In the wake of tragedies such as Sandy Hook or as a response to persistent violence within the school community, schools often respond by increasing the amount of security in their schools.  Unfortunately, there is little research on whether these “hard” violence prevention strategies are effective with some research suggesting that these interventions may increase students’ fear of attending schools.  Additionally, what research exists has relied on student or administrator self-report of the presence of security measures such as security personnel or surveillance cameras. Using a novel observational measure, the School Assessment for Environmental Typology (SAfETy), this study examines security practices in high schools, correlates of these practices, and their association with student victimization and fear.

Methods: Data come from the Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools (MDS3) project, which seeks to develop a sustainable system for measuring school climate. The SAfETy draws on previously validated measures and was constructed to provide an observational tool that delineates and measures school physical environment indicators theorized to be linked with behavioral and academic outcomes (Bradshaw et al., under review). Observations were conducted in 58 schools in 12 different districts across the state in Spring of 2013 and included an interview of security personnel. Students in the same schools (n=28,582) completed an online, anonymous school climate survey during the same timeframe. Regression analyses were used to examine school-level correlates of security practices. Multi-level modeling will be used to explore the association between these practices and student victimization and fear. 

Results: Security personnel were observed in almost 2/3rds of schools (72.4%). When interviewed almost all security personnel reported being full-time at the school, having a background in law enforcement, having the ability to arrest students, and carrying a gun. In locations across the school, an average of 3.71 (SD 2.0) surveillance cameras were observed. In no schools were metal detectors observed, and there was little evidence of bars on doors (n=2) or windows (n=6). The presence of school security was not significantly associated with school demographics but was significantly associated with observations of disorder, such as graffiti and vandalism (OR=4.77, p<.05) as well as an orderly appearance (OR=.17, p<.05). In contrast, the only correlate of surveillance cameras was student enrollment (β=.002, p<.01).

Discussion: Observations of the school environment found fairly ubiquitous use of school security measures in high schools. It is therefore critically important to understand the effects of these interventions on safety and any possible unintended consequences.