ArticlePDF Available

Surveillance or Safekeeping? How School Security Officer and Camera Presence Influence Students’ Perceptions of Safety, Equity, and Support

Authors:
  • The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and The University of Pennsylvania
Article

Surveillance or Safekeeping? How School Security Officer and Camera Presence Influence Students’ Perceptions of Safety, Equity, and Support

Abstract and Figures

Purpose: Target hardening, or increasing the use of security measures, is a frequently used response to perceived safety concerns in schools. Studies are mixed as to their effectiveness on students' perceptions of safety and little is known about their influence on other aspects of school climate, particularly for minority students. This study will examine the association between observed security measures in secondary schools and students' perceptions of safety, equity, and support. Methods: School climate surveys were completed by 54,350 students from 98 middle and high schools across the state of Maryland beginning in Spring 2014. Concurrent observations of the school physical environment, including security measures (i.e., officers and cameras), were conducted by trained outside assessors. Multilevel regression analyses examined the association between school security officers and cameras and students' perceptions of safety, equity, and support, while controlling for school and neighborhood characteristics. Cross-level interactions explored differential effects of security measures for Black students. Results: Greater use of security cameras inside the school was related to lower perceptions of safety, equity, and support. A moderate level of security camera use outside the school was related to higher student perceptions of support. Security officer presence was associated with higher perceptions of safety. For black students, cameras were associated with elevated perceptions of safety and support relative to white students. Conclusions: Our findings may suggest that outside cameras and security may be perceived by students as safekeeping, whereas inside cameras may evoke feelings of being viewed as potential perpetrators who need surveillance.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Original article
Surveillance or Safekeeping? How School Security Ofcer and Camera
Presence Inuence StudentsPerceptions of Safety, Equity, and
SupportI
D1X XSarah Lindstrom Johnson, D2X XPh.D.
a,
*,D3X XJessika Bottiani, D4X XPh.D.
b
,D5X XTracy E. Waasdorp, D6X XPh.D.
c
, and
D7X XCatherine P. Bradshaw, D8X XPh.D.
b
a
School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona
b
School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
c
School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
Article History: Received December 12, 2017; Accepted June 16, 2018
Keywords: School security; School surveillance; Violence prevention; School safety
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Target hardening, or increasing the use of security measures, is a frequently used response to
perceived safety concerns in schools. Studies are mixed as to their effectiveness on studentsperceptions
of safety and little is known about their inuence on other aspects of school climate, particularly for
minority students. This study will examine the association between observed security measures in sec-
ondary schools and studentsperceptions of safety, equity, and support.
Methods: School climate surveys were completed by 54,350 students from 98 middle and high schools
across the state of Maryland beginning in Spring 2014. Concurrent observations of the school physical
environment, including security measures (i.e., ofcers and cameras), were conducted by trained outside
assessors. Multilevel regression analyses examined the association between school security ofcers and
cameras and studentsperceptions of safety, equity, and support, while controlling for school and neigh-
borhood characteristics. Cross-level interactions explored differential effects of security measures for
Black students.
Results: Greater use of security cameras inside the school was related to lower perceptions of safety,
equity, and support. A moderate level of security camera use outside the school was related to higher
student perceptions of support. Security ofcer presence was associated with higher perceptions of
safety. For black students, cameras were associated with elevated perceptions of safety and support rela-
tive to white students.
Conclusions: Our ndings may suggest that outside cameras and security may be perceived by students
as safekeeping, whereas inside cameras may evoke feelings of being viewed as potential perpetrators
who need surveillance.
© 2018 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.
IMPLICATIONS AND
CONTRIBUTIONS
The presence of security
measures in schools has
increased in the past
decade, partly as a
response to high-prole
incidents of school vio-
lence. This research sug-
gests that schools should
be thoughtful about the
type, quantity, and location
of security measures as
they can negatively impact
studentsperceptions of
the school.
As public concern has heightened following mass shootings and
other violent incidents on school grounds, the approach of target
hardening, or strengthening school security measures has become
increasingly favored in U.S. schools [1]. According to the U.S.
Department of Education, the use of these measures has increased
substantially since the early 2000s, with the vast majority of sec-
ondary schools currently reporting using security cameras to
IThis work was presented at the 2015 Society for Prevention Research Annual
Conference.
*Address correspondence to: Sarah Lindstrom Johnson, Ph.D.,Q3 X XSchool of Social and
Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, PO Box 873701, Tempe, AZ 85287.
E-mail address: sarahlj@asu.edu (S. Lindstrom Johnson),
Jessika.bottiani@virginia.edu (J. Bottiani), Twaasdo1@jhu.edu (T.E. Waasdorp),
Catherine.Bradshaw@virginia.edu (C.P. Bradshaw).
1054-139X/© 2018 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.008
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Adolescent Health 000 (2018) 17
www.jahonline.org
monitor school grounds and deploying security staff at least once
per week [2]. Despite the prevalence of use, research drawing
upon large, nationally represented samples suggests null and even
iatrogenic effects of these types of security measures on rates of
school violence and victimization [36]. These ndings may be
attributable to concomitant negative effects of security measures
on school climate, which can, when assessed as positive and sup-
portive, protect against school violence and victimization [7]. This
study will examine the association between observed security
measures in secondary schools and studentsperceptions of school
climate.
Approaches to school violence prevention
Target hardening is a form of situational crime prevention,
which attempts to reduce opportunities for crime. It is based on
the broader criminological theory, Routine Activities Theory [8],
which focuses crime prevention efforts on the situation rather
than on the individual perpetrating the crime. Studies have found
aspects of the school physical environment, such as lighting and
disorder, to be related to studentsand teachersreports of crime
and violence [9]. Studies more specically examining the impact of
security measures have found mixed results. Some longitudinal
studies have found no relationship between the presence of secu-
rity ofcers or cameras and student report of peer victimization
[4], larceny, or assault [5] and other studies have found that
increasing security guards was associated with an increase in
administrator report of nonserious violence [3]. Taken together,
more research is needed to understand how target hardening, spe-
cically the use of security measures, relates to violent and other
delinquent behaviors.
Improving school climate has also been suggested as a mecha-
nism to reduce school violence. In its most fundamental conceptu-
alization, school climate refers to the shared beliefs, values, and
attitudes that shape interactions between students, teachers, and
administrators and set the parameter of acceptable behavior and
norms for the school [10]. A favorable school climate has been
associated with both improved behavioral and academic outcomes
for students [7]. Some denitions of school climate, including the
U.S. Department of Educations, expand the construct to include
safety and the environment, while others see it as a factor that
inuences school climate [10,11]. Regardless, as safety and the
physical environment are intentionally impacted by target harden-
ing initiatives, the inuence of security measures on studentsper-
ceptions of these domains is important to understand. For
example, such security measures could promote studentssense
that they are protected and that their safety is important to the
school [9]. In contrast, the presence of security measures may sig-
nal to students that they are not safe at their school [12]. More-
over, students may perceive security measures as an indicator of
the disciplinary environment of the school, where adults at school
view them as potential perpetrators who require surveillance [13].
Finally, as security measures are disproportionately present in
poor, predominantly black schools [14,15] they may result in per-
ceptions of inequitable treatment.
Effects of security measures on perceptions of school climate
An often-studied effect of security measures is on studentsper-
ceptions of safety. In one multilevel analysis, such practices did not
signicantly reduce perceptions of risk or fear of crime [16]; other
studies employing longitudinal national survey data found that
school security efforts were associated with decreases in percep-
tions of safety [12,17]. Conversely, research suggests students and
faculty see physical characteristics, in particular school security
ofcers and cameras, as important contributors to a safe school
[18,19], especially when students feel unsafe [20]. It may be that
regardless of the actual effectiveness of security measures, stu-
dents perceive them as safekeeping measures. Given the apparent
contradiction between student and staff preferences for security
and research suggesting possible iatrogenic effects of security on
perceptions of safety, it is important to examine related aspects of
safety (i.e., perceptions of support).
Increased security measures may unfairly contribute to the
criminalization of black studentsbehavior (e.g., the school to
prison pipeline)[21]. The differential implementation of security
measures may also promote feelings of inequitable treatment,
which can impact studentssense of connectedness to their school
[11]. Indeed, a growing literature highlights racial gaps in students
perceptions of school climate [22,23]. Interestingly, one study
examined differences by race and found security ofcers increased
fear for white students but not for black students [24]; yet research
examining the role of security measures in explaining racial dis-
parities in school climate is limited.
Overview of the current study
Although public debate on use of security measures often spikes
following traumatic events like the shootings at Marjory Stoneman
Douglas High and Sandy Hook Elementary schools, more work is
needed to understand whether such security measures signal safety or
greater concern for students [25]. The overarching goal of this paper
was to explore how independently assessed school security practices
relate to student perceptions of safety, support, and equity. A novel
contribution of this study is its use of an observational measure of the
school physical environment; this methodological approach has many
advantages over the prior work, which has largely relied on student
and principal report of security measures [3,4]. Based on the existing
literature we hypothesized that the presence of security measures
wouldbeassociatedwithlowerperceivedsafety[9,12], but higher per-
ceived support [1820]. We also aimed to broaden our understanding
of these associations by exploring differential perceptions by student
ethnicity, given the increased use of such security measures in more
disadvantaged schools [15].Specically, we considered potential dif-
ferences in effects for black students, while adjusting for school contex-
tual features like neighborhood disadvantage. Based on prior work
[11], we expected the presence of security measures to be associated
with decreases in equity for black students. These ndings have the
potential to inform policies and practices related to school safety, par-
ticularly in light of growing disparities between black and white stu-
dents on a range of academic and behavioral outcomes [7,26].
Specically, the use of security measures may negatively inuence per-
ceptions of school climate, which may in turn negatively inuence stu-
dent health and well-being [7] and exacerbate health and educational
disparities.
Methods
Participants
Data come from a statewide project focused on measuring and
improving school climate called the Maryland Safe and Supportive
Schools Initiative [27]. Data were collected from 54,350 students
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2S. Lindstrom Johnson et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 00 (2018) 17
in 98 middle and high schools across 13 school districts within the
state of Maryland (see Table 1).
Procedure
The Maryland State Department of Education conducted dis-
trict-wide meetings with principals to recruit schools to voluntar-
ily participate in the project. An anonymous web-based survey
was administered during the spring semester of 2014 (high
schools) and 2016 (middle schools) to students in grades 6-12
using passive parent consent and youth assent. School staff admin-
istered the voluntary and anonymous survey to students in lan-
guage arts classrooms following a written script; 25 classrooms
were sampled from the high schools and 18 classrooms sampled
from the middle schools. Data collectors hired and trained by the
research team conducted systematic observations of the school
physical environment during the same spring semester when the
student data were collected. All data were entered in real-time on
a handheld tablet using the Pendragon mobile data collection soft-
ware. Observers were trained and reliability and recalibration pro-
cedures were conducted to ensure consistency of collection [28].
De-identied data were used for these analyses. The Institutional
Review Boards at Johns Hopkins University and the University of
Virginia approved this project.
Measures
Outcomes. Student self-report data come from the Maryland Safe
and Supportive Schools Initiative School Climate Survey that was
developed around the U.S. Department of Educations model of
school climate [29] and includes items regarding safety, engage-
ment, and environment [27]. Specically, student perceptions of
school safety were measured by 4 items assessing their sense of
physical safety at school (e.g., I feel safe at this school;a= .60).
Perceived school equity was measured by four items assessing stu-
dentsperceptions of fair treatment and cultural inclusion at school
by race and ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, and cultural
background (e.g., At this school, students of all races are treated
the same;a=.82). Student perceptions of school support were
measured by three items assessing perceptions of the availability
of help for personal problems (e.g., "Students who need help for
their problems are able to get it through school;a= .77). For all
three outcomes, item response options were on a 4-point Likert
scale from disagree strongly (1) to agree strongly (4), with higher
scores indicating higher levels of the construct.
Predictors. The School Assessment for Environmental Typology is
an observational tool which draws on several previously validated
measures and assesses three broad dimensions of the school envi-
ronment, including surveillance [28]. Specically, ofcer presence
was measured as a count of the instances of whether in a security
capacity was present at each of two locations, entrance to the
school grounds and the school entrance. Inside cameras were
counted using the aggregate of six observed interior locations
within the school building, including two hallways, two stairwells,
the school entrance, and the cafeteria. Outside cameras were
counted using the aggregate of ve observed exterior locations on
school grounds, including entrance to the school grounds, the
physical layout (e.g., perimeter of the school), playing elds, and
parking lots. Due to the skewed distribution, for each variable (out-
side and inside), the count was binned into tertiles, and dummy
variables were created to allow comparisons to the lowest tertile
bin as the reference group.
Covariates. Students were asked to self-identify their grade, gen-
der and their race (i.e., white, black, Hispanic, Asian, other). The
Maryland State Department of Education provided information
about the number of enrolled students and the percent minority
rate in each school. We also used the community disadvantage
index from the 20082013 American Community Survey to assess
the larger community context [30,31]. The community disadvan-
tage index is calculated using Census-tract level items. The items
used to create the index include the percentages of: (a) adults >24
years with a college degree, (b) owner-occupied housing, (c)
households with incomes below the federal poverty threshold,
and (d) female-headed households with children. Each school was
assigned a Census tract using ArcMap.
Data analysis
To account for the multilevel structure of the data, represented
by students within classrooms within schools, three-level hierar-
chical linear models were conducted in the HLM software [32].At
the individual level, we included gender (female), grade, and race/
ethnicity (dummy coded with white as the reference group). Given
students took the survey within classrooms, this cluster was
accounted for the modeling (i.e., level 2); however, no other varia-
bles were assessed at this level. At the school level, we included
school security measures of ofcer presence and security cameras,
the latter of which were assessed separately as inside cameras or
outside cameras (broken into tertiles with the lowest tertile as the
reference group). We adjusted for the disadvantage index score,
enrollment, and percentage of non-white students (% minority). For
main effect models, student-level and school-level variables were
grand-mean centered. Due to our hypotheses that camera and
security ofcer presence would differentially relate to student-
reported safety, equity, and support among black relative to white
students, cross-level effects between black race and the school
security features were tested for each outcome. For these cross-
level interactions, the student-level variable (race/ethnicity) in the
tested interactions was group-mean centered. Each student-level
variable was individually tested for randomly varying slopes.
Table 1
Student and school demographic characteristics for full sample
Student characteristics (N = 54,350) N (%)
Gender
Male 27,040 (49.8)
Female 27,310 (50.2)
Race/Ethnicity
Black 15,904 (29.3)
White 23,195 (42.7)
Hispanic 6,031 (11.1)
Asian 3,209 (5.9)
Other/Combined 6,011 (11.1)
Grade
Lower 24,017 (44.2)
Upper 30,333 (55.8)
School characteristics (N = 98 schools) M(SD)
Community disadvantage index ¡1.99 (1.08)
Total enrollment 1,136.51 (443.74)
% Minority 55.82 (24.65)
% Locations with 1+ Ofcers present 37.8%
Count of inside cameras 15.6 (7.5)
Count of outside cameras 19.5 (14.3)
SD = standard deviation.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lindstrom Johnson et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 00 (2018) 173
Model t indices (Akaike information criteria (AIC) and Bayesian
information criterion (BIC)) for the unconditional and conditional
models are reported on the tables; smaller values indicate better
t[33].
Sample weighting
When computing the multilevel analyses, we weighted the stu-
dent self-reported school climate data to reect the entire student
population in the 98 participating schools. Specically, sampling
weights were created using the raking method [34], an iterative
procedure that produces weights based on marginal results from
multiple variables (i.e., grade level, sex, and race/ethnicity).
Results
Descriptive analyses
Across all 98 schools in the sample, the range of indoor cameras
observed was 524 (M= 15.6, standard deviation = 7.5) cameras. The
range of outdoor cameras was larger, 069 (M= 19.5.5, standard
deviation = 14.3) cameras. For ofcer presence at the time of obser-
vation, 37.8% of the school sample had one or more ofcers present
at the entrances inside and outside of the school building.
Multilevel analyses
Safety. In schools with the greatest number of cameras inside the
building, students had lower perceptions of safety (b = ¡.07) rela-
tive to schools with the fewest number of cameras inside the
building. There was no signicant association overall for outside
cameras. However, cross-level interactions examining whether the
number of cameras present outside the school moderated differen-
ces in perceived safety for black students were found to be signi-
cant (b = .07). Specically, the positive association between high
count of outside cameras and perceived safety for black students
was signicantly greater than it was for white students (see Figure
1A). Conversely, the negative association between high count of
indoor cameras and perceived safety for black students was signi-
cantly less than it was for white students (see Figure 1B). In our
analysis of school security ofcer presence, we found that in
schools with a greater number of locations with an ofcer present,
students had signicantly higher perceptions of safety (b = .05).
Females and younger students perceived school to be less safe rel-
ative to males and older students; Latino and Other race/ethnici-
ties perceived school to be less safe as compared to white
students. Regarding the school-level variables, higher community
disadvantage index, higher enrollment, and higher percentage of
minority students in a school were signicantly associated with
lower perceived school safety.
Equity. In schools with the greatest number of cameras inside the
building, students had lower perceptions of equity (b = ¡.08). No
associations between number of outdoor cameras or security of-
cer presence and student perceptions of equity were found. None
of the cross-level interactions were signicant. Females, younger
students, and all racial/ethnic groups perceived school as less equi-
table. Regarding the school-level control variables, higher commu-
nity disadvantage index was signicantly associated with lower
perceived school equity.
Support. In schools with the greatest number of cameras inside the
building, students had lower perceptions of support (b = ¡.10).
Conversely, in schools in the middle tertile of number of outside
cameras present, students had higher perceptions of support
(b = .08). No associations between security ofcer presence and
student perceptions of support were found. Cross-level interac-
tions between black and number of cameras present in the school
were found to be signicant. Specically, an inverse pattern of
association was found for black and white students (b = .06). For
black students, perceived support was higher for students in
schools within the mid tertile of inside cameras, whereas for white
students, perceived support was lower for students in schools
within the mid tertile of inside cameras (see Figure 1C). At the stu-
dent-level, females and younger students perceived school to be
less supportive. Black and Other race/ethnicities perceived school
to be less supportive compared to white students. Regarding the
school-level covariates, the higher the community disadvantage
index and the percentage of minority students in the school were
associated with lower perceived school support (see Table 2).
Discussion
Given the wide use of security ofcers and cameras, and their
potential to inuence studentsschool experiences, this paper
examined associations of observed security measures on students
perceptions of school safety, equity, and support using a multilevel
framework. Our ndings suggested that the associations with cli-
mate perceptions varied as a function of the locations, extent, and
type of security measures utilized. Specically, a higher number of
security cameras inside the school building was negatively associ-
ated with studentsperceptions of safety, equity, and support; this
suggests potential iatrogenic effects of cameras within the school.
In contrast, outside cameras produced mixed ndings, including
null effects for safety and equity and positive associations with
perceptions of support at moderate levels. Interestingly, in schools
with higher levels inside and outside cameras, black students
tended to have signicantly more favorable views of school safety
and support, but not equity, relative to white students.
One possible interpretation of our ndings is that students may
perceive a difference in the use of security cameraseither as pro-
tecting them from harm coming from outside the school (e.g., safe-
keeping, as with outside cameras) or monitoring them (e.g.,
surveillance, as with inside cameras). Specically, the highest level
of inside camera use was associated with lower perceptions of
safety, equity, and support. Qualitative studies provide insight into
this nding as students perceive certain security measures (like
metal detectors) as unnecessary inconveniences and feel misbe-
having students are not deterred by this security presence [9,35].
It is interesting that there appeared to be a threshold above which
a certain number of inside cameras were negatively associated
with school climate. In contrast, outside cameras were associated
with higher perceived school support. Studies have found that stu-
dents who feel unsafe tend to rate security measures (e.g., surveil-
lance) as more important [20], with students recognizing the role
of neighborhood violence in school safety [18]. This critical nding
of differential effect by camera location suggests the importance of
context (here captured by inside and outside), and may help us
better understand prior mixed ndings on the effects of cameras.
Other aspects of context, such as the discernibility of cameras, rep-
resent important future research questions.
With regard to the second form of security measures examined,
we found that security ofcer presence was positively associated
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4S. Lindstrom Johnson et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 00 (2018) 17
2.92
2.94
2.96
2.98
3
3.02
3.04
3.06
3.08
3.1
White Black
ytefaSloohcSfosnoitpecreP
Low-Tertile Outside Camera High-Tertile Outside Camera
2.92
2.94
2.96
2.98
3
3.02
3.04
3.06
3.08
3.1
White Black
ytefaSloohcSfosnoitpecreP
Low-Tertile Inside Camera High-Tertile Inside Camera
2.66
2.67
2.68
2.69
2.7
2.71
2.72
2.73
2.74
2.75
2.76
White Black
troppuSloohcSf
osnoitpecreP
Low-Tertile Inside Camera Mid-Tertile Inside Camera
A
B
C
Figure 1. (A) Outside cameras and perceptions of school safety. (B) Inside cameras and perceptions of school safety. (C) Inside cameras and perceptions of school support.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lindstrom Johnson et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 00 (2018) 175
with student perceptions of safety, but was not associated with
perceptions of equity or support. These ndings are in contrast to
previous work which has found no association between school
security ofcers and studentsperceptions of safety [12,16,17];
however, the prior studies have relied on administrator or parent
report of security measures, whereas our observational measure
may have better captured student exposure to security ofcers.
Other studies exploring the association between school security
and victimization have found this relationship to vary by type of
security personal and use of force capabilities [36]. Additional
research is needed to explore in greater depth the characteristics
of ofcers (e.g., values, beliefs, skills, and race), and their relation-
ships with students, which may help clarify our ndings.
Our ndings also suggested that associations with security cam-
eras may differ based on studentsrace, with the conceptualization
of race in the present research as a social position variable and a
construct signifying the potential for exposure to racial bias. Given
this view of race we did not anticipate our nding that the negative
association of inside cameras on perceptions of safety was less for
black students or that the positive association of outside cameras on
support was greater than it was for white students. Although these
ndings are surprising they are consistent with some prior studies
[33,34]. Notably, we found no signicant moderating effect of secu-
rity measures on perceptions of equity among black relative to white
students, suggesting that disparities in perceived school equitable
treatment were not sensitive to differences in quantity of security
cameras or presence of ofcers. Given black studentsexposure to
harmful bias and discrimination in schools settings [33,35,36],and
the history of negative interactions with police in black communities
[34,37], further research focused on black studentsexperiences
involving school security ofcers and cameras is critical.
Limitations and Strengths
The cross-sectional nature of our data limits any causal inferences
about the associations observed. It is possible that the associations
may reect that high levels of disorder may cause school administra-
tors to install more security cameras and deploy security personnel
while also causing students to have more negative views of school
climate [5]; however, we did control for a place-based measure of
community disadvantage to address this potential confounding.
Moreover, the use of data from multiple informants (student self-
report, independent observer report, and census tract data) is a
strength of this study. Nonetheless, in designing the observation,
choices were made as to the locations to assess security measures.
For example, school security ofcers were only recorded at their
most visible locations (i.e., entrance to the school grounds and the
entrance to the school building). Like our nding with cameras it
may be that security ofcers in different locations of the school could
be associated with differential ndings [35]. As previously noted, the
observational measure did not account for the characteristics of
security ofcers or the nature of their relationships with students.
Table 2
Associations between observations of security measures and student perceptions of safety, equity, and support
Safety Equity Support
b Standard
error
pb Standard
error
pb Standard
error
p
Student-level variables
Female (vs. male) ¡.04 .01 .001 ¡.05 .01 <.001 ¡.02 .01 .022
Grade (6th through 12th) ¡.02 .01 .007 ¡.04 .01 <.001 ¡.04 .01 <.001
Black
a
.00 .02 .971 ¡.06 .02 .006 ¡.03 .01 .019
Latino ¡.03 .01 .008 ¡.08 .02 <.001 ¡.03 .02 .092
Asian/Pacic Islander ¡.04 .02 .051 ¡.06 .02 .009 .04 .02 .065
Other
b
¡.09 .02 <.001 ¡.15 .02 <.001 ¡.11 .01 <.001
School-level variables
Mid inside cameras (vs. low tertiles) ¡.01 .03 .707 .04 .04 .263 ¡.02 .03 .515
High inside cameras (vs. low tertiles) ¡.07 .03 .044 ¡.08 .04 .046 ¡.10 .03 .003
Mid outside cameras (vs. low tertiles) .05 .03 .183 .07 .04 .062 .08 .03 .008
High outside cameras (vs. low tertiles) .03 .04 .502 .09 .04 .052 .05 .04 .139
Ofcer presence .05 .02 .010 .02 .02 .260 .01 .02 .620
% Minority ¡.002 .00 <.001 .00 .001 .457 ¡.00 .001 .017
Enrollment .00 .00 .024 .00 .00 .396 .00 .00 .299
Community disadvantage index ¡.06 .01 <.001 ¡.04 .01 .002 ¡.03 .01 .015
Cross-level interactions
Mid inside cameras £black .04 .03 .189 .00 .04 .936 .06 .03 .034
High inside cameras £black .06 .03 .042 .00 .04 .994 .04 .03 .190
Mid outside cameras £black ¡.01 .03 .693 .02 .04 .679 .00 .03 .997
High outside cameras £black .07 .03 .030 .01 .04 .884 .03 .03 .416
Ofcer presence £black ¡.03 .02 .067 ¡.02 .02 .498 .00 .02 .830
AIC unconditional 86,537.94 108,756.8 106,784
AIC nal 85,373.46 107,979.9 106,237.4
BIC unconditional 86,534.52 108,753.4 106,780.5
BIC nal 107,838.5 85,232.04 106,131.9
ICC .030 .048 .016
Low tertile of inside cameras = 511; Mid tertile of inside cameras = 1216; High tertile of inside cameras = 1742. Low tertile of outside cameras = 010; Mid tertile of out-
side cameras =1124; High tertile of outside cameras = 2569.
All analyses controlled for intervention status. AIC = Akaike information critieria; BIC = Bayesian information criteria.
yp<.10, *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001.
a
White is the reference group.
b
Other represents American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and Other.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6S. Lindstrom Johnson et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 00 (2018) 17
Implications
Concerns remain about the overall effectiveness of security of-
cers and cameras, which represent a potentially signicant nan-
cial investment for schools and districts [25]. One understudied
potentially harmful effect of security measures on health and men-
tal health is their inuence on school climate, particularly for black
students. These ndings suggest important differences in the inu-
ence of security measures on studentsperceptions of the school by
type, location, and extent of their use. Taken together, our ndings
may suggest that outside cameras and security may be perceived
by students as safekeeping, whereas inside cameras may evoke
feelings of being regarded as potential perpetrators who need sur-
veillance. School administrators and district leaders should care-
fully weigh the research evidence supporting the use of various
security measures, including consideration of the location and
extent of their use, and how those decisions may vary as a function
of student and school contextual factors.
Funding Sources
This work was funded in part by grants from the U.S. Depart-
ment of Education to the Maryland State Department of Education
and the National Institute of Justice (2014-CK-BX-0005) to Cather-
ine Bradshaw.
References
[1] Addington LA. Cops and cameras public school security as a policy response to
columbine. Am Behav Sci 2009;52:142646. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0002764209332556.
[2] Musu-Gillette L, Zhang A, Wang K, et al. In: Indicators of School Crime and
Safety: 2016; 2017 http://nces.ed.gov.
[3] Na C, Gottfredson DC. Police ofcers in schools: effects on school crime and
the processing of offending behaviors. Justice Q 2013;30:61950. https://doi.
org/10.1080/07418825.2011.615754.
[4] Blosnich J, Bossarte R. Is there an associated between school safety measures and
peer victimization. J Sch Health 2011;81:10713. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-
1561.2010.00567.x.
[5] Burrow JD, Apel R. Youth behavior, school structure, and student risk of victimi-
zation. Justice Q 2008;25:34980. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820802025181.
[6] Crawford C, Burns R. Preventing school violence: assessing armed guardians,
school policy, and context. Polic Int J Police Strateg Manag 2015;38:63147.
https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-01-2015-0002.
[7]ThapaA,CohenJ,GuffeyS,Higgins-DAlessandro A. A review of school
climate research. Rev Educ Res 2013;83:35785. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654313483907.
[8] Cohen LE, Felson M. Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activities
approach. Am Sociol Rev 1979;44:588608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589.
[9] Lindstrom Johnson S, Waasdorp TE, Cash AH, et al. Assessing the association
between observed school disorganization and school violence: implications
for school climate interventions. Psychol Violence 2017;7:18191. https://doi.
org/10.1037/vio0000045.
[10] Payne A. Creating and sustaining a positive and communal school climate:
contemporary research, present obstacles, and future directions. Washington,
DC: National Institutes of Justice. p. .130. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdfles1/
nij/250209.pdf.
[11] Debnam KJ, Lindstrom Johnson S, Waasdorp TE, Bradshaw CP. Equity, connec-
tion, and engagement in the school context to promote positive youth devel-
opment. J Res Adolesc 2014;24:44759. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12083.
[12] Schreck CJ, Miller JM. Trouble in the school yard: a study of the risk factors of
victimization at school. J Sch Violence 2003;2:5779. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J202v02n04_04.
[13] Spencer MB, Fegley S, Harpalani V. A theoretical and empirical examination of
identity as coping: linking coping resources to the self processes of African
American youth. J Appl Dev Sci 2003;7:1818. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S1532480XADS0703_9.
[14] Kupchik A, Ward G. Race, poverty, and exclusionary school security: an empir-
ical analysis of US elementary, middle, and high schools. Youth Violence Juv
Justice 2013;12:33254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204013503890.
[15] Mowen TJ, Parker KF. Minority threat and school security: assessing the
impact of Black and Hispanic student representation on school security meas-
ures. Secur J 2017;30:50422. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2014.42.
[16] Tillyer MS, Fisher BS, Wilcox P. The effects of school crime prevention on stu-
dentsviolent victimization, risk perception, and fear of crime: a multilevel
opportunity perspective. Justice Q 2011;28:24977. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07418825.2010.493526.
[17] Perumean-Chaney SE, Sutton LM. Students and perceived school safety: the
impact of school security measures. Am J Crim Justice 2013;38:57088.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9182-2.
[18] Bosworth K, Ford L, Hernandez D. School climate factors contributing to stu-
dent and faculty perceptions of safety in select Arizona schools. J Sch Health
2011;81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00579.x, 2011.
[19] Brown B. Controlling crime and delinquency in the schools: an exploratory
study of student perceptions of school security measures. J Sch Violence
2006;4:10525. https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v04n04_07.
[20] Booren LM, Handy DJ, Power TG. Examining perceptions of school safety strat-
egies, school climate, and violence. Youth Violence Juv Justice 2011;9:17187.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204010374297.
[21] Theriot MT. School resource ofcers and the criminalization of student behavior. J
Crim Justice 2009;37:2807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.04.008.
[22] Bottiani JH, Bradshaw CP, Mendelson T. Inequality in black and white high
school studentsperceptions of school support: an examination of race in con-
text. J Youth Adolesc 2016;45:117691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-
0411-0.
[23] Voight A, Hanson T, OMalley M, Adekanye L. The racial school climate gap:
within-school disparities in studentsexperiences of safety, support, and con-
nectedness. Am J Community Psychol 2015;56:25267. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10464-015-9751-x.
[24] Bachman R, Randolph A, Brown BL. Predicting perceptions of fear at school
and going to and from school for African American and white students: the
effects of school security measures. Youth Soc 2011;43:70526. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0044118X10366674.
[25] Cornell D. Our schools are safe: challenging the misperception that schools are
dangerous places. Am J Orthopsychiatry 2015;85:21720. https://doi.org/
10.1037/ort0000064.
[26] Dankwa-Mullan I, Rhee KB, Williams K, et al. The science of eliminating health
disparities: summary and analysis of the NIH summit recommendations. Am J
Public Health 2010;100:128. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2010.191619.
[27] Bradshaw CP, Waasdorp TE, Debnam KJ, Lindstrom Johnson S. Measuring
school climate in high schools: a focus on safety, engagement, and the envi-
ronment. J Sch Health 2014;84:593604. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12186.
[28] Bradshaw CP, Milam AJ, Furr-Holden CDM, Lindstrom Johnson S. The school
assessment for environmental typology (SAfETy): an observational measure
of the school environment. Am J Commun Psychol 2015;56:28092. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10464-015-9743-x.
[29] U.S. Department of Education. Safe and supportive schools model. https://
safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/
[30] Ross CE, Mirowsky J. Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and health. J
Health Soc Behav 2001;42:25876.
[31] United States Census Bureau. American community survey 5-year estimates:
2005-2009. https://factnder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/pro-
ductview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
[32] Raudenbush SW, Bryk AS, Congdon R. HLM 5 for Windows. Scientic Software
International, Inc.
[33] Raudenbush SW, Spybrook J, Congdon R, et al. Optimal design software for
multi-level and longitudinal research; 2011. www.wtgrantfoundation.org.
[34] Battaglia MP, Izrael D, Hoaglin DC, Frankel MR. Tips and tricks for raking sur-
vey data (a.k.a. Sample Balancing). 2004 https://www.researchgate.net/pro-
le/Michael_Battaglia/publication/228976550_Tips_and_Tricks_for_Raking_-
Survey_Data_aka_Sample_Balancing/links/09e4150b740d7d9ece000000/
Tips-and-Tricks-for-Raking-Survey-Data-aka-Sample-Balancing.pdf.
[35] Bracy NL. Circumventing the law: students rights in schools with police. J Con-
temp Crim Justice 2010;26:294315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986210368645.
[36] Maskaly J, Donner CM, Lanterman J, Jenn ings WG. On the associa tion
between SROs, private security guards, use-of-force capabilities, and vio-
lent crime in schools. J Police Crisis Negot 2011;11:15976. https://doi.
org/10.1080/15332586.2011.587381.
[37] Ruck MD, Wortley S. Racial and ethnic minority high school studentspercep-
tions of school disciplinary practices: a look at some canadian ndings. J Youth
Adolesc 2002;31:18595. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015081102189.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Lindstrom Johnson et al. / Journal of Adolescent Health 00 (2018) 177
... Methods that focus on making a building more secure and less likely to become a target for a school shooter have become highly prevalent in school and are often referred to as "target hardening" (Fox & DeLateur, 2014;Warnick & Kapa, 2019). These types of security measures to prevent school shootings are described in the literature as increasing in prevalence and frequently include procedures such as limiting the locations where people may enter the building, metal detectors, installing security cameras, and increasing the number of School Resource Officers (SROs) on a school campus (Johnson et al., 2018). Research on these types of security measures in schools include several studies which report no change or a reduction in feelings of safety when security measures are prevalent (Perumean-Chaney & Sutton, 2013;Tillyer et al., 2011). ...
... However other research studies have shown increased feelings of safety when security measures were prevalent in schools (Booren et al., 2011;Bosworth et al., 2011;Brown, 2006;). Johnson et al. (2018) reported on a large-scale survey that included some specific details of the security measures in place where the presence of security cameras outside the school made students feel safer, while the presence of security cameras inside the school made students feel less safe. ...
... Despite the mixed feelings of safety that may be associated with the presence of security measures in schools (Kutsyuruba et al., 2015), the benefits of such procedures to prevent school shootings are questionable (Johnson et al. (2018). Based on a review of public records by Peterson et al. (2021), armed officers did not deter violence in their examination of 133 intentional school shootings and an armed officer on the scene was associated with increased casualties. ...
Article
Full-text available
While gun violence has been declared a public health crisis, there is limited information concerning stakeholders such as parents’ perceptions of acceptable procedures to prevent this violence in schools. This study explored 114 parents’ degree of acceptance for an assortment of school shooting prevention interventions. Specifically, this study compared security measures, threat assessment, zero tolerance, and an exploratory procedure. While all procedures were deemed acceptable, parents rated the threat assessment as most acceptable, followed closely by security measures, which were significantly more acceptable than the exploratory procedure, and finally the zero tolerance procedures. Discussion is provided on possible factors influencing the acceptance of these procedures.
... They were also involved in writing and poetry clubs as spaces for resisting surveillance and disciplinary injustices in schools. Johnson, Bottiani, Waasdorp, and Bradshaw (2018) investigated that White students tended to associate the use of inside surveillance cameras with a less safe, equitable, and supportive school climate, yet outside cameras were positively viewed. However, they reported that although Black students had feelings of more safety and support, they had fewer feelings of equity about both inside and outside cameras. ...
... Consistent with the findings of prior studies (Hope, 2010(Hope, , 2015a(Hope, , 2015bJohnson et al., 2018;Manahan & Torres, 2009), the discourse of surveillance in these schools framed students as potential criminals who could always pose threats to the institution, administrators, teachers, and fellow students. Similarly, the teacher participants involved in this study neither completely rejected the possibility of being surveillance subjects as in Taylor (2011), nor perceived themselves as the predominant targets of surveillance as Perry-Hazan and Birnhack (2019) reported. ...
Article
Concerns for security and academic performance have led to the increasing use of various surveillance technologies in educational institutions. This article reports an examination of the lived experiences and subjective insights of Nepali school administrators, teachers and students into the practice of closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance cameras. This highlights the challenges of maintaining a surveillance system to minimize risk factors and to create an educational environment in schools. This article based on a qualitative study utilized semi-structured interviews with administrators, teachers and students at three urban schools to explore their perceived value of CCTV surveillance cameras in schools, and non-participant observation to strengthen the data gathered through interviews. Findings indicate that CCTV surveillance cameras in these schools were predominantly aimed at controlling students' and teachers' non-compliant behaviors to promote academic performance. While the study explored how these schools utilized surveillance technology to their advantages, findings contribute to the practical understandings that the technology is equally subject to misuse and can victimize children, given the lack of legal regulations in place.
... Regardless of the benefits, the implementation of CCTV creates a trade-off between security and privacy (Birnhack & Perry-Hazan, 2020). For instance, some scholars regard CCTV as a reason for the decrease in the perception of safety, equity, support, and a sense of belonging within the school (Lindstrom Johnson et al., 2018). Moreover, many students are concerned that CCTV would intrude on their privacy, which is an individual's basic right, and be reviewed as an expression of mistrust or a driver of resistance (Horton, 2012;Taylor, 2010). ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose While schools worldwide have employed closed-circuit television (CCTV) to discourage school violence, the literature shows that stakeholder attitudes toward adopting this technology are inconsistent across cultures. Generally, they are concerned with effectiveness, necessity, privacy, and operational transparency. Based on the Technology Acceptance Model for Video Surveillance (TAM-VS) theory, this study examined the attitudes of educational stakeholders, namely educators and students, toward adopting CCTV in Vietnam. This study aims to investigate which criteria Vietnamese stakeholders use to evaluate the necessity of CCTV and whether the concerns of Vietnam, a developing country, are similar to those of developed countries. Methods This study addressed these research questions by purposely sampling and interviewing 49 Vietnamese high school students, recent high school graduate students, teachers, and administrators. It employed semi-structured and in-depth interviews to gather content-rich data and applied thematic analysis to discover new insights from stakeholders under the modified TAM-VS framework. The study also followed the COREQ guidelines to improve the transparency and rigor of the data collection and analysis. Findings On an exploratory basis, most Vietnamese stakeholders believed that while CCTV cannot comprehensively prevent school violence, its effectiveness overshadows privacy concerns. Regarding operational transparency concerns, participants suggested that better communication, consent collection, and the right to amend school policies related to CCTV are important. From the participants’ perspective, the three criteria for evaluating the necessity of CCTV were (1) its effectiveness in controlling school violence, (2) serving other purposes to enhance overall schooling performance, and (3) insufficient existing methods. Conclusions This study provides context-rich insights into the perceptions of the necessity, effectiveness, privacy, and operational transparency concerns of CCTV across different stakeholders in the education and developing country context. On the practical contribution, the research identifies strategies that school administrators can employ to promote CCTV acceptance in Vietnamese high schools.
... The Security Personnel procedure was based on descriptions used by the National Association of School Resource Officers (2018) and Johnson et al., (2018) and included strict adherence to rules and regulations such as suspension or expulsion for violent behaviors or potential violence. ...
Article
Full-text available
Colleges and universities are challenged with making their campuses safe from many threats of violence such as active shooters by using strategies that are effective and acceptable to their campus communities. Implementing strategies that are ineffective can waste resources and implementing strategies that are unacceptable may result in students, faculty, and staff that protest or leave the campus. The current study evaluated the acceptability of 11 different strategies to prevent active shooters on college/university campuses. Self-efficacy of the participants was measured to determine influences on acceptability ratings along with other demographic variables such as gender, race, and education levels. Results revealed differences in acceptability of active shooter prevention procedures and demographic variable influences. Implications for designing prevention measures on college and university campuses are discussed.
... We did not find any significant differences between the age groups, in contrast to previous studies that found differences in perceived school safety between younger and older students (11,37). This may be explained by the limited age range of 13-15 years in our study, compared to wider age ranges in other studies. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Research on perceived school safety has been largely limited to studies conducted in Western countries and there has been a lack of large-scale cross-national studies on the topic. Methods: The present study examined the occurrence of adolescents who felt unsafe at school and the associated factors of perceived school safety in 13 Asian and European countries. The data were based on 21,688 adolescents aged 13-15 (11,028 girls, 10,660 boys) who completed self-administered surveys between 2011 and 2017. Logistic regression analyses were used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Findings: The number of adolescents who felt unsafe at school varied widely across countries, with a mean occurrence of 31.4% for the total sample: 31.3% for girls, and 31.1% for boys. The findings revealed strong independent associations between feeling unsafe and individual and school-related factors, such as being bullied, emotional and behavioral problems and feeling that teachers did not care. The study also found large variations in perceived school safety between schools in many countries. Conclusion: The findings emphasize the need to create safe educational environments for all students, based on positive relationships with teachers and peers. School-based interventions to prevent bullying and promote mental health should be a natural part of school safety promotion.
... Those who trusted their SROs more felt safer at school and were less afraid of an attack. In contrast, Lindstrom Johnson et al. (2018) found that students in schools with more security officers felt safer in school, but did not perceive their schools to be more equitable or supportive than students in schools with fewer officers. ...
Article
Following increased attention to racial disparities in police use of force, national conversations have focused on the role of law enforcement, including in public schools. This study examines transparency with regard to the presence of law enforcement in schools. Leveraging novel school-level and district-level data from the state of Florida, this research shows that the majority of schools and about a third of school districts do not make information on law enforcement presence in schools publicly available. Furthermore, the study finds that schools and districts serving more White student bodies have higher levels of transparency around law enforcement than those serving less-White demographics, an important finding given the racialized context of current policy discussions around policing in US schools and society more broadly. These findings inform ongoing debates about law enforcement in schools while also raising implications for policy and practice around the racialized nature of government transparency.
Article
The current study explored the experiences and activities of school resource officers (SROs) in an urban school district. Twenty-eight SROs completed a survey assessing their roles in schools and a focus group explored how the SROs build relationships with students and the types of student concerns they help resolve. Themes from the focus group included the SROs’ attempts to navigate change in policies and procedures in the school system; the community contexts of the school system and its impact on SRO duties; and role ambiguity, including differences in how SROs perceived their roles within schools compared to how others saw them. Study findings call attention to underlying tensions between SROs and positive youth development in an era where SRO presence in schools is highly debated.
Article
This study aimed to identify potential gaps related to crisis preparedness at 98 public secondary schools. We focused on crises that may occur following a substantiated eminent threat of school violence. Crisis preparedness data collected by trained external assessors captured knowledge of the procedure for responding in a safety-related crisis and process for notifying school staff, as well as the posting of the crisis plan in school locations. Data were analyzed in conjunction with data on student- and staff-reported school climate, school demographics, and external observations of the school. Analyses indicated that the staff were least aware of the process for notifying staff that a crisis was occurring. Middle schools, schools with higher levels of school disorder, and those with poorer reading and math scores were less likely to know the procedure, know the notification process, and have the plans posted in all locations. Schools also need to improve posting of school crisis procedures in shared and open spaces, such as the cafeteria and gymnasium; this is especially critical given that many school shootings occur in these large open spaces. Multilevel analyses indicated that staff perceptions of safety were significantly higher in schools in which the procedure was posted in all locations. Together, these findings provide evidence of a link among crisis planning, school context, and school climate, and complement the need for additional training on what to do following the substantiation of a credible and eminent threat.
Article
Full-text available
Supportive relationships with adults at school are critical to student engagement in adolescence. Additional research is needed to understand how students' racial backgrounds interact with the school context to shape their perceptions of school support. This study employed multilevel, latent variable methods with a sample of Black and White students (N = 19,726, 35.8 % Black, 49.9 % male, mean age = 15.9) in 58 high schools to explore variation in perceived caring, equity, and high expectations by student race, school diversity, and socioeconomic context. The results indicated that Black students perceived less caring and equity relative to White students overall, and that equity and high expectations were lower in diverse schools for both Black and White students. Nonetheless, racial disparities were attenuated in more diverse schools. The findings point to the need for intervention to improve perceptions of school support for Black youth and for all students in lower income and more diverse schools.
Article
Full-text available
The use of security measures has drastically increased in the hallways of US schools over the past three decades. Although previous studies have assessed the impact of school security measures on student outcomes, little attention has been given to understanding what factors lead schools to adopt such measures. Using the Educational Longitudinal Study data and guided by minority threat hypotheses, the current research assesses the impact of school racial composition on the use of security measures. Findings indicate the size of the Black student population is related to schools utilizing metal detectors, security guards, surveillance cameras, required 'check-in' areas and fencing around the entire school, while a null effect was found between Hispanic student representation and the majority of security measures. On the other hand, both Black and Hispanic student representation significantly related to the overall number of security measures utilized within schools. The differential impact of race and ethnicity is addressed.
Article
Full-text available
Purpose – Recent highly publicized acts of violence and shootings on campus have prompted numerous crime prevention suggestions including having an armed presence in the schools. The purpose of this paper is to assess the impact of protective measures, policies, and school/neighborhood characteristics on school violence. Design/methodology/approach – The data used in this study were part of the School Survey on Crime and Safety collected in 2006. The dependent measures of school violence include reports of violence, threatened attack with a weapon, attack with weapon, and gun possession. The sample was divided into high schools and all other grades to consider differences in levels of school violence among grade levels in relation to various law enforcement security measures, school security measures, and school characteristics. Findings – Findings revealed mixed and often counterproductive results for law enforcement and school security efforts to control school violence. School characteristics, such as reports of bullying, location, and gang activity yielded numerous statistically significant findings. Policy recommendations and suggestions for future research are provided. Originality/value – This study differs from much of the previous literature, which typically examines student and administrator attitudes about victimization and crime prevention. The current study examines detailed information on the actual effects of school violence prevention efforts. Furthermore, this study moves beyond most other works (that typically focus on high schools) as it considers school safety approaches by different grade levels.
Article
Full-text available
This study used student and teacher survey data from over 400 middle schools in California to examine within-school racial disparities in students' experiences of school climate. It further examined the relationship between a school's racial climate gaps and achievement gaps and other school structures and norms that may help explain why some schools have larger or smaller racial disparities in student reports of climate than others. Multilevel regression results problematized the concept of a "school climate" by showing that, in an average middle school, Black and Hispanic students have less favorable experiences of safety, connectedness, relationships with adults, and opportunities for participation compared to White students. The results also show that certain racial school climate gaps vary in magnitude across middle schools, and in middle schools where these gaps are larger, the racial achievement gap is also larger. Finally, the socioeconomic status of students, student-teacher ratio, and geographic location help explain some cross-school variation in racial climate gaps. These findings have implications for how school climate in conceptualized, measured, and improved.
Article
Full-text available
Connection to school and school engagement are important in promoting positive youth development, but little is known about their relationship to school characteristics, particularly school equity. School equity, the extent to which there is fair treatment for all students, is critical for ensuring the success for all students. Hierarchical linear models conducted on data from 19,833 adolescents at 52 high schools indicated that greater school equity was associated with improved student connection to school and school engagement. Cross-level interactions were observed between equity and the concentration of minority students in the school, as well as for equity and student mobility. Results suggest that improving school equity may be an important contextual target for promoting positive youth development in schools.
Article
Objective: This study explored how observed features of the school physical and social environment relate to students’ perceptions of school climate and how these in turn were associated with students’ involvement in violence. Method: Observational assessments were conducted of the environments (i.e., disorder, illumination, adult monitoring, proactive behavioral management, and negative student behaviors) of 58 high schools using a validated assessment (the School Assessment for Environmental Typology). Student perceptions of school climate (i.e., delinquency, rules and consequences, and physical comfort) as well as their perpetration of violence were collected from 28,592 adolescents in these same schools in the corresponding Spring. Multilevel structural equation models were used to test for indirect effects. Results: A good fit was found for all models. No direct effects of environmental observations on violence involvement were identified. However, significant indirect effects on violence were found, specifically for illumination through perceptions of disorder (estimate = −.01, p = .05), illumination through perceptions of rules and consequences (estimate = −.01, p = .03), and negative student behaviors through perceptions of rules and consequences (estimate = −.01, p = .01). Conclusion: Changes to the school environment may be associated with reduced violence involvement, but only insofar as they alter student perceptions of the environment.
Article
School safety is of great concern for prevention researchers, school officials, parents, and students, yet there are a dearth of assessments that have operationalized school safety from an organizational framework using objective tools and measures. Such a tool would be important for deriving unbiased assessments of the school environment, which in turn could be used as an evaluative tool for school violence prevention efforts. The current paper presents a framework for conceptualizing school safety consistent with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) model and social disorganization theory, both of which highlight the importance of context as a driver for adolescents' risk for involvement in substance use and violence. This paper describes the development of a novel observational measure, called the School Assessment for Environmental Typology (SAfETy), which applies CPTED and social disorganizational frameworks to schools to measure eight indicators of school physical and social environment (i.e., disorder, trash, graffiti/vandalism, appearance, illumination, surveillance, ownership, and positive behavioral expectations). Drawing upon data from 58 high schools, we provide preliminary data regarding the validity and reliability of the SAfETy and describe patterns of the school safety indicators. Findings demonstrate the reliability and validity of the SAfETy and are discussed with regard to the prevention of violence in schools.
Article
Massive public attention to school shootings has created the misperception that schools are dangerous places, even though crime statistics show that schools are one of the safest places in the United States. The fear of school shootings has caused many school systems to divert their budgets to excessive building security measures and adopt dubious crisis response plans. School disciplinary practices have shifted toward the criminalization of student misbehavior and a zero tolerance philosophy that fails to improve school safety and results in high rates of student suspensions and dropouts. The use of a threat assessment approach to evaluate individual student behavior in context and resolve conflicts and problems before they escalate into violence is one promising alternative that has been adopted statewide in Virginia public schools. School safety should focus on the everyday problems of bullying and fighting, and apply public health principles of primary and secondary prevention using well-established psychological interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
Article
As violence and crime within and around U.S. schools has drawn increased attention to school security, police, surveillance cameras, and other measures have grown commonplace at public schools. Social scientists commonly voice concern that exclusionary security measures are most common in schools attended by poor and non-White students, yet there is little empirical basis for assessing the extent of differential exposure, as we lack research on how exclusionary measures are distributed relative to school and student characteristics. To address this gap in the research, we use nationally representative school-level data from the School Survey on Crime and Safety to consider the security measures employed in elementary, middle, and high schools. Results indicate that while security measures are ubiquitous in U.S. high schools, those considered more exclusionary are concentrated in elementary, middle, and high schools attended by non-White and/or poorer students.
Article
BACKGROUND School climate has been linked to multiple student behavioral, academic, health, and social-emotional outcomes. The US Department of Education (USDOE) developed a 3-factor model of school climate comprised of safety, engagement, and environment. This article examines the factor structure and measurement invariance of the USDOE model.METHODS Drawing upon 2 consecutive waves of data from over 25,000 high school students (46% minority), a series of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses examined the fit of the Maryland Safe and Supportive Schools Climate Survey with the USDOE model.RESULTSThe results indicated adequate model fit with the theorized 3-factor model of school climate, which included 13 subdomains: safety (perceived safety, bullying and aggression, and drug use); engagement (connection to teachers, student connectedness, academic engagement, school connectedness, equity, and parent engagement); environment (rules and consequences, physical comfort, and support, disorder). We also found consistent measurement invariance with regard to student sex, grade level, and ethnicity. School-level interclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.04 to .10 for the scales.CONCLUSIONS Findings supported the USDOE 3-factor model of school climate and suggest measurement invariance and high internal consistency of the 3 scales and 13 subdomains. These results suggest the 56-item measure may be a potentially efficient, yet comprehensive measure of school climate.