Presenters: Timothy Servoss, Ph.D. & Jeremy Finn, Ph.D. From: UB Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention, Colloquium Series (November 18, 2015) More: gse.buffalo.edu/alberticenter ........ Security measures are often implemented in schools as a knee-jerk reaction to distant, high-profile instances of violence rather than misbehavior and crime in local settings. But the data show that high levels of security, and some particular security measures, do not always have positive consequences for students. This presentation is based on an analysis of statewide and national data regarding security measures in American public schools. The presenters will pose and answer four questions from their research: 1. What is the prevalence of specific security measures in American schools? 2. What kinds of schools have the highest security levels in total, and what schools implement particular security measures (e.g., security cameras, drug surveillance, metal detectors)? 3. Is the overall security level of a school related to feelings of safety in school, the extent of bullying in school, to student victimization, and to the degree of misbehavior and crime in the school? 4. Are there unintended consequences of school security, in particular increased student suspensions and arrests?

1. 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 1
Presentation to Alberti Center for Bullying Abuse Prevention Colloquium Series 11/18/15

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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
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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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. • 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
Measures
13

14. Findings: Security and
Victimization
•Amount of
student
victimization
the same
regardless of
security.
14

15. 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

16. Individualsecuritymeasures&safetyperceptions
16
Emergency call button
+ -
Daily metal detector checks
Random metal detector checks
Student ID badges
Security other
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

17. 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 . . . )

18. 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**

19. 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)

20. 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)

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Question 3: School-to-prison
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

25. 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)

26. 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
TheaveragenumberofarrestsandtheBlack/Whitedisparity
arebothgreaterwhenthereisapolicepresence.
(1) Servoss & Finn, 2016

27. 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

28. 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