Security in American
Schools: Are Schools
Safer?
Timothy J. Servoss, Ph.D.
Canisius College
servosst@canisius.edu
Jeremy D. Finn, Ph.D.
University at Buffalo
finn@buffalo.edu
Presentation to Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention Colloquium Series 11/18/15
1
Guiding Questions
• What do people expect security measures in schools to
accomplish?
•
•
•
•
Reduction in student misbehavior and crime
Students and staff feel safer
Frees teachers and students to focus on teaching and learning
Gives administrators feeling that the school is secure and under
control
• Are there downsides to security?
2
Our work
• Premise
• Some degree of security is necessary to ensure student safety.
• Reasonable common safeguards (e.g., visitor sign in, locked doors)
• Preparation for emergency situations
• Approach
• Although there is a strong focus on security to prevent or deal
with school emergencies, our work focuses on security and the
everyday behavior of students.
• Our work uses national data to identify national trends in the
relationship between security measures and student and school
outcomes; our findings do not discount particular experiences
that occur in individual schools or with individual students.
3
Presentation Outline
• National and statewide use of security measures
1. What kinds of schools have high levels of security?
• Differences based on student race/ethnicity?
2. How does security relate to student safety?
• Student perceptions of safety
• Administrator reports of school bullying and crime
3. Downsides to security?
• Suspensions
• Arrests
4
Data Sources
• U.S. Department of Education:
• School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2009-2010
• School-level security measures and personnel, misconduct and crime
at the school, school characteristics (e.g., urbanicity, neighborhood
crime, enrollment, SES).
• 2600 public schools
• Education Longitudinal Study (ELS) 2002
• School-level security policies and demographics; student-level
demographics, perceptions of safety, suspensions, victimization
experiences.
• 500 public schools, 10,000 students
• Office for Civil Rights: Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC)
2009-2010
• School racial/ethnic composition, suspensions, expulsions, arrests
available by race/ethnicity.
• All schools in 7,000 districts
5
Security Measures in U.S. Schools
Measure
US
NY
Visitor Sign-in
99.2
100
Locked/Monitored Doors
91.3
99.8
Closed Campus for Lunch
67.2
62.4
Faculty/Staff ID Badge
63.3
55.2
Security Cameras
61.1
61.0
Strict Dress Code
57.8
41.2
Locked/Monitored Gates
45.8
49.6
Random Dog Sniffs for Drugs
23.7
8.0
Student Uniforms
18.7
21.3
Random Sweeps for Contraband
12.4
6.1
Student ID Badge
7.1
3.4
Clear/Banned Bookbags
5.8
1.2
Random Metal Detector Checks
5.2
5.4
Required Drug Testing of Students
3.2
0.3
Pass Through Metal Detector Daily
1.3
3.1
6
Security Personnel
Measure
US
NY
Security personnel
41.5
64.2
Security Guard
20.2
47.6
SRO
31.2
29.4
Non-SRO Police
8.3
7.8
Carries a Stun Gun
41.5
6.8
Carries Chemical Aerosol Spray
54.4
17.0
Carries a Firearm
69.5
21.8
Security Enforcement and Patrol
79.8
86.2
Maintain School Discipline
69.4
70.1
Coordinate with Local Police
81.2
79.8
Train Teachers in School Safety
48.4
21.5
Mentor Students
65.4
38.8
Drug-related Education
39.9
11.5
Arms
Roles
7
What type of schools utilize
security?-School Level
Measure
Primary
Middle
Security Cameras
50.6
73.4
High
84.3
Random Dog Sniffs for Drugs
4.0
43.3
60.1
Random Sweeps for Contraband
3.6
20.1
28.7
Required Drug Testing of Students
0.5
4.2
9.4
Student ID Badge
2.4
11.9
19.0
Student Uniforms
21.5
19.3
9.7
Random Metal Detector Checks
1.9
9.4
12.0
Pass Through Metal Detector Daily
0.1
1.5
4.8
Security Guard
14.2
27.9
45.4
Police
20.4
57.2
67.8
8
Urbanicity
Measure
City
Suburb
Town
Rural
Security Cameras
59.5
62.0
64.1
60.0
Random Dog Sniffs for Drugs
12.2
16.4
31.3
34.0
Random Sweeps for Contraband
12.6
7.1
12.5
16.1
Required Drug Testing of Students
2.5
2.0
5.7
3.2
Student ID Badge
9.3
8.7
5.2
4.0
Student Uniforms
35.1
19.3
10.2
8.8
Random Metal Detector Checks
10.6
3.4
5.0
2.3
Pass Through Metal Detector Daily
3.7
0.9
0.3
0.3
Security Guard
34.6
25.3
12.2
11.7
Police
39.2
35.1
36.8
30.5
9
School Enrollment
Measure
<300
300-499
500-999
1000+
Security Cameras
48.2
61.1
63.1
81.2
Random Dog Sniffs for Drugs
22.3
16.1
21.8
46.8
Random Sweeps for Contraband
16.7
8.1
9.6
21.5
Required Drug Testing of Students
2.6
2.0
2.8
7.4
Student ID Badge
3.1
4.5
7.0
21.5
Student Uniforms
15.4
17.1
23.5
15.9
Random Metal Detector Checks
2.8
3.9
5.2
13.6
Pass Through Metal Detector Daily
0.9
1.0
1.1
4.0
Security Guard
11.1
15.5
22.2
59.6
Police
20.3
25.1
38.8
80.9
10
Question 1: What types of high
schools have the most security?
• Merged SSOCS with CRDC data (2009-2010)
• Key Findings:
• Security not based on indiscipline within the school or crime level
of school neighborhood
• Security levels similar in urban and suburban schools.
• Security levels higher in the Southern region of the U.S.
• Security levels higher in larger schools.
• Security levels not based on student SES but higher in schools
with a sizeable proportion of African-American students.
(1) Servoss & Finn (2016)
11
Question 2A: Security,
Victimization, and Feelings of
Safety
• How is security related to the degree of student
victimization at schools?
• How is security related to student perceptions of
safety at school?
• School and student data from ELS (2002)
12
(2): Servoss (2013)
13
Measures
• School Security
▫ 21 security items from ELS Administrator
questionnaire
• Victimization
▫ How often had something stolen, was offered drugs to
buy, threatened to be hurt, hit, extorted for money or
property, had property damaged purposely, bullied
• Perceptions of safety
▫ Level of agreement with “I don’t feel safe at this
school” (1 = Strongly Agree; 4 = Strongly Disagree
Findings: Security and
Victimization
• Amount of
student
victimization
the same
regardless of
security.
14
Findings: Student perceptions of
safety
• 88% of students agree that school is safe
• Given two students of the same gender, SES, victimization
history, and race/ethnicity and school size and
neighborhood crime, the student in the school with more
security reported feeling less safe.
• Females, African-American, Latino and Low SES students
feel significantly less safe.
15
Individual security measures & safety perceptions
+
-
Daily metal detector checks
Random metal detector checks
Student ID badges
Security other
Emergency call button
Security at activities
Closed campus for lunch
Security cameras
Faculty/staff ID badges
Clear/banned book bags
Security at any time during the school day
Security at arrival and departure
Security when activities not occurring
16
Question 2B: Administrator
reports
• SSOCS Data
• Research Question: How does overall security relate to school
administrator reports on the frequency of bullying and various forms
of school crime and misconduct?
• Key findings: All relationships are very small in magnitude and
none are negative. There are some small positive correlations
suggesting with more security there is more misbehavior
17
(continued . . . )
Question 2B: Administrator Reports
Type of Misbehavior
r
Misconduct
Bullying
Security
Characteristic
r
.12**
% Free lunch
.05
.00
Enrollment
.16**
% Black enrollment
-.01
-.54**
Cyberbullying
.02
Verbal abuse of teachers
.14**
% Latino enrollment
.10*
Disrespect of teachers
.09*
% College bound
.01
Widespread disorder
.22**
City-Suburb
-.05
Racial tensions
.05
City-Town
-.01
.19**
City-Rural
.12**
Crime
Robbery
.18**
Assault
.14**
Theft
-.03
Knife
.12**
Vandalism
.11**
Drugs
.12**
18
Question 3: Unintended Consequences
• Merged SSOCS with CRDC Data (2009-2010)
• Questions:
• How is overall security related to school suspension rates,
controlling for school indiscipline and other characteristics?
• How are individual security measures school suspension rates,
controlling for school indiscipline and other characteristics?
• Key Results:
• Suspension rates are higher in schools with more overall
security.
• Individual security measures:
• Suspension rates higher in schools with security cameras and police.
• Suspension rates lower in schools with uniforms.
(3) Finn & Servoss (2016)
19
Q3 in more detail: Racial/ethnic
disparities
• Research Questions:
• Are students from minority backgrounds suspended at higher
rates than their White peers?
• Are these differences due to differences in misbehavior?
• Are these differences exacerbated by high security
environments?
• Used merged ELS and CRDC datasets (2002).
20
(4) Finn & Servoss (2014)
Results: Racial disparities in Suspensions

Suspensions
 31.6%
African-Americans vs. 13.0% White
 Estimated
 21.5%
odds 2.2 times higher for African-Americans
Latino vs. White 13.0%
 Estimated
odds 1.9 times higher for Latinos
21
Results: Disparities attributable to
misbehavior?

If two students have similar degrees of misbehavior
but one is White and the other is African-American
or Latino, which student is more likely to be
suspended?
 Estimated
odds 1.6 times higher for Latino students
 Estimated odds 1.8 times higher for Black students
 Conclusion:
Decisions to remove students from class are
related to race above and beyond misbehavior
22
Results: Security
 High
security schools have significantly greater
black/white disproportions in total suspensions
 Predicted


probability of suspension*:
Low Security: 12.8% for White, 16.3% for Black
High Security: 11.8% for White, 20.2% for Black
* Same significant pattern found when controlling for student misbehavior.
23
Question 3: School-toprison pipeline
Combined SSOCS and CRDC data
Questions:
Do schools that employ police officers arrest more
students? If so, is this relationship accounted for by
school misconduct and crime?
Are there racial/ethnic disparities in school arrests? If
so, does having a school police officer relate to these
disparities?
24
Police and Overall School
Arrests
• Over 95% of student arrests occurred at schools that employ
Police officers.
• About 75% of schools employ Police.
• 61.1% of schools that employ Police had 0 arrests vs. 76.0% of
schools without Police.
• Overall arrests not related to school academic achievement,
racial/ethnic composition, urbanicity, or misconduct
• More arrests in schools with higher crime
• More arrests in schools with police, controlling for all of the
aforementioned school characteristics including misconduct
and crime
(3) Finn & Servoss (2016)
25
The average number of arrests and the Black/White disparity
are both greater when there is a police presence.
Schools with police
No police
Avg. # of arrests
4.0
0.7
Black/White odds of arrest
1.9
1.2
Avg. # of arrests
11.4
3.1
Black/White odds of arrest
2.1
0.6
Avg. # of arrests
8.4
1.3
Black/White odds of arrest
2.0
0.9
Low crime schools
High crime schools
All schools
26
(1) Servoss & Finn, 2016
Summary of findings
• With more security
• There is no less student misbehavior, crime,
victimization and bullying.
•
•
•
•
Lower feelings of safety among students
Higher Suspension Rates
More Arrests
Greater Black/White disparities in suspensions and
arrests (when Police are present
27
Study References
1.
2.
3.
4.
Servoss, T.J. & Finn, J.D. (2016, April). Racial/ethnic disparities in
school exclusions: The role of school security. Paper to be
presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Washington, DC.
Servoss, T.J. (2013, November). School security, student
victimization, and perceptions of safety: A multi-level
examination. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the
Mid-South Educational Research Association, Pensacola Beach,
Florida.
Finn, J.D. & Servoss, T.J. (2016, April). Student suspensions and
arrests: The role of school security. Paper to be presented to the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Washington, DC.
Finn, J.D. & Servoss, T.J. (2014). Misbehavior, suspensions, and
security measures in high school: Racial/ethnic and gender
differences. Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing
Policy for Children at Risk, 5(2), Article 11. Available at:
http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol5/iss2/11
28