Security in American Schools: Are Schools Safer?Timothy J. Servoss, Ph.D.Canisius Collegeservosst@canisius.edu

Jeremy D. Finn, Ph.D.University at Buffalofinn@buffalo.edu

1

Presentation to Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention Colloquium Series 11/18/15

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. SchoolsMeasure 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 PersonnelMeasure 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

Arms

Carries a Stun Gun 41.5 6.8

Carries Chemical Aerosol Spray 54.4 17.0

Carries a Firearm 69.5 21.8

Roles

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

7

What type of schools utilize security?-School Level

8

Measure Primary Middle High

Security Cameras 50.6 73.4 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

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?

11

• 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)

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)

• 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

Measures13

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

16

Emergency call button

+ -

Daily metal detector checksRandom metal detector checksStudent ID badgesSecurity otherSecurity at activitiesClosed campus for lunchSecurity camerasFaculty/staff ID badgesClear/banned book bagsSecurity at any time during the school daySecurity at arrival and departureSecurity when activities not occurring

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

18

Type of Misbehavior r

Misconduct .12**

Bullying .00

Cyberbullying .02

Verbal abuse of teachers .14**

Disrespect of teachers .09*

Widespread disorder .22**

Racial tensions .05

Crime .19**

Robbery .18**

Assault .14**

Theft -.03

Knife .12**

Vandalism .11**

Drugs .12**

Security

Characteristic r% Free lunch .05

Enrollment .16**

% Black enrollment -.01

% Latino enrollment .10*

% College bound .01

City-Suburb -.05

City-Town -.01

City-Rural .12**

-.54**

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. 19

(3) Finn & Servoss (2016)

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 odds 2.2 times higher for African-Americans

21.5% 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-to-prison pipelineCombined 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

25

(3) Finn & Servoss (2016)

Schools with police No police

Low crime schools

Avg. # of arrests 4.0 0.7

Black/White odds of arrest 1.9 1.2

High crime schools

Avg. # of arrests 11.4 3.1

Black/White odds of arrest 2.1 0.6

All schools

Avg. # of arrests 8.4 1.3

Black/White odds of arrest 2.0 0.9

26

The average number of arrests and the Black/White disparity are both greater when there is a police presence.

(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. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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