School crime policy changes: The impact of recent highly-publicized school crimes

Evaluating the Relationship Between Law Enforcement and School Security Measures and Violent Crime in Schools

“…Thirty percent of the students reported that their school conducts random checks of backpacks or lockers, 7% affirmed that their school utilized metal detectors, and 60% of the students reported that a mandated dress code was in place at their school. Similarly, according to Snell, Bailey, Carona, and Mebane (2002), 46% of school administrators surveyed indicated their school made a policy change within the past 5 years to partner with law enforcement agencies while 35% already had such a policy in place. Eight percent of school administrators surveyed stated their school made a policy change within the past 5 years to utilize metal detectors while 6% already had such a policy in place.…”

Considering the efficacy of situational crime prevention in schools

“…The basic tenet of SCP is that altering opportunity structures impacts the risks, benefits, and effort associated with specific crimes in particular settings. Research by Snell et al (2002), however, illustrated that schools implemented security measures more often as a response to media reports and current events rather than to incidents within their individual schools. Though one cannot know for certain, it may therefore be the case that schools were simply failing to implement the appropriate tactics for their particular problems.…”

“…Indeed, compared to the literature on school-based programs that aim to impact the delinquent behavior of students, this sphere of research demonstrated a considerable lack of depth and breadth. Even so, schools continued to implement these strategies, often times in response to media portrayals of school crime (Snell et al, 2002). The research presented here was a "first step" towards addressing this void.…”

“…A search of four major research abstract data bases (ERIC, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts, and Criminal Justice Abstracts) across ten years of implementation yielded only six empirical evaluations using the key words: metal detector, locker search, surveillance or video camera, school uniforms, zero tolerance, and school security. Furthermore, many of these evaluations failed to use sophisticated analyses and had serious methodological problems, collectively producing no consensus regarding the effectiveness of school security measures (Skiba, 2000;Snell et al, 2002). The forthcoming paragraphs describe two of the relatively more rigorous evaluations conducted after the emergence of Skiba's conclusions.…”

“…First, one category of research evaluated reactions (e.g., suspensions and expulsions) to criminal activities, especially through zero-tolerance programs (see Skiba, 2000;Skiba et al, 2000;Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997;Snell, Bailey, Carona, & Mebane, 2002). This body of research revealed three primary findings: (1) there were unintended consequences from these tactics, namely the removal of students from the school through suspension and expulsion, which negatively impacted social bonds and often led to an increase in the dropout rate (Skiba, 2000), (2) there was little evidence that these programs had an impact on overall school safety (Skiba, 2000;Skiba et al, 2000;Skiba et al, 1997), and (3) there was evidence that suspensions and expulsions were not administered consistently across race, SES, and gender (Skiba, 2000;Skiba et al, 1997).…”