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 MeasureUSNY Visitor Sign-in99.2100 Locked/Monitored Doors91.399.8 Closed Campus for Lunch67.262.4 Faculty/Staff ID Badge63.355.2 Security Cameras61.161.0 Strict Dress Code57.841.2 Locked/Monitored Gates45.849.6 Random Dog Sniffs for Drugs23.78.0 Student Uniforms18.721.3 Random Sweeps for Contraband12.46.1 Student ID Badge7.13.4 Clear/Banned Bookbags5.81.2 Random Metal Detector Checks5.25.4 Required Drug Testing of Students3.20.3 Pass Through Metal Detector Daily1.33.1 6

7. Security Personnel MeasureUSNY Security personnel41.564.2 Security Guard20.247.6 SRO31.229.4 Non-SRO Police8.37.8 Arms Carries a Stun Gun41.56.8 Carries Chemical Aerosol Spray54.417.0 Carries a Firearm69.521.8 Roles Security Enforcement and Patrol79.886.2 Maintain School Discipline69.470.1 Coordinate with Local Police81.279.8 Train Teachers in School Safety48.421.5 Mentor Students65.438.8 Drug-related Education39.911.5 7

8. What type of schools utilize security?-School Level 8 MeasurePrimaryMiddleHigh Security Cameras50.673.4 84.3 Random Dog Sniffs for Drugs4.043.3 60.1 Random Sweeps for Contraband3.620.1 28.7 Required Drug Testing of Students0.54.2 9.4 Student ID Badge2.411.9 19.0 Student Uniforms21.519.3 9.7 Random Metal Detector Checks1.99.4 12.0 Pass Through Metal Detector Daily0.11.5 4.8 Security Guard14.227.9 45.4 Police20.457.2 67.8

9. Urbanicity MeasureCitySuburbTownRural Security Cameras 59.562.064.160.0 Random Dog Sniffs for Drugs 12.216.431.334.0 Random Sweeps for Contraband 12.67.112.516.1 Required Drug Testing of Students 2.52.05.73.2 Student ID Badge 9.38.75.24.0 Student Uniforms 35.119.310.28.8 Random Metal Detector Checks 10.63.45.02.3 Pass Through Metal Detector Daily 3.70.90.3 Security Guard 34.625.312.211.7 Police 39.235.136.830.5 9

10. School Enrollment Measure<300300-499500-9991000+ Security Cameras 48.261.163.181.2 Random Dog Sniffs for Drugs 22.316.121.846.8 Random Sweeps for Contraband 16.78.19.621.5 Required Drug Testing of Students 2.62.02.87.4 Student ID Badge 3.14.57.021.5 Student Uniforms 15.417.123.515.9 Random Metal Detector Checks 2.83.95.213.6 Pass Through Metal Detector Daily 0.91.01.14.0 Security Guard 11.115.522.259.6 Police 20.325.138.880.9 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. Individual security measures & safety perceptions 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 Misbehaviorr 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 Characteristicr % 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 policeNo police Low crime schools Avg. # of arrests4.00.7 Black/White odds of arrest1.91.2 High crime schools Avg. # of arrests11.43.1 Black/White odds of arrest2.10.6 All schools Avg. # of arrests8.41.3 Black/White odds of arrest2.00.9 26 The average number of arrests and the Black/White disparity are both greater when there is a police presence. (1) Servoss & Finn, 2016

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 43 rd 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 http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/childrenatrisk/vol5/iss2/11 28