Preventing school violence: assessing armed guardians, school policy, and context

Abstract

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.

Support or Punishment Practices: What Works to Reduce School Violence

“…For instance, the environment in which schools are located has a significant impact on levels of school violence and related problems. Schools in high-crime neighborhoods or urban areas generally have higher rates of crime and victimization (e.g., Jennings et al 2011;Crawford and Burns 2015). Put simply, schools are not fully insulated from the areas in which they exist.…”

“…This particular stance involves an enforcement-oriented approach that seeks to deter individuals from violating laws and school policies, and responds punitively to those who do. Much research has focused on security and law enforcement efforts to control student behavior, for instance through the use of law enforcement and security personnel in schools (e.g., SROs) and target hardening approaches such as cameras and metal detectors (e.g., Crawford and Burns 2015;Jennings et al 2011). Results from these studies are generally inconsistent.…”

“…Context variables such the location of schools and extent to which misbehavior occurs and tensions exist also influence policy and responses to violence and crime on campus (e.g., Crawford and Burns 2015;Jennings et al 2011). Furthermore, most schools attempt to create a safe environment through the employment of security and crime-prevention practices such as the use of resource officers and metal detectors (e.g., Cornell et al 2011Cornell et al , 2012Cornell et al , 2018Nekvasil and Cornell 2015).…”

A Multiple Case Study of the Interagency Relationship Between School Administrators and Law Enforcement Personnel in the Creation, Implementation, and Sustaining of School Emergency Management Plans

“…Most school administrators believe that the best security measure in the schools is the SRO because of the training and expertise in law enforcement action and response to emergencies and illegal activities (Chruscial et al, 2015;Myrstol, 2011). However, some argue that there is no empirical evidence that the use of SROs reduces school violence and in some cases have been counterproductive, according to some students (Crawford & Burns, 2015;Madfis, 2016).…”

“…Other types of school security measures include school uniforms, peer mediation, the development of social skills, and adding safety training into the school curriculum(Cherurprakobkit & Bartsch, 2005).Most school districts have one or more physical security measures, with the most common being SROs along with a mandatory requirement that visitors check in with the office immediately upon entering the school (Perumean-Chaney & Sutton, 2012) Crawford and Burns (2015),. however, argued that the use of physical security measures, also known as target hardening, has not been proven to reduce crime in schools, and in some cases, create a sense of fear Chrusciel et al (2015).…”