Security measures on school crime in Texas middle and high schools

Abstract

This statewide study surveyed 215 principals of middle schools and high schools in Texas, USA. It examined the effectiveness of activities on school crime by three main methods:(1) what activities the school was doing to combat crime (e.g. police/guards, school uniforms, metal detectors, drug education programmes, character education programmes, closed campus, surveillance, student court activity, rewards for attendance, etc.); (2) cooperation with outside sources (i.e. police, parents, school district, judicial branch); and (3) principals' comments on what helps and hurts school efforts to alleviate school crimes. Data from these principals regarding drug crime and interpersonal crime in schools were correlated with the data on school activities and outside cooperation. The study also used nine critical elements of promising violence prevention programmes introduced by Dusenbury et al., as a framework to evaluate Texas school measures to combat school crimes. The study's findings and policy implications were discussed.

School Violence: The Role of Parental and Community Involvement

“…Studies incorporating multiple crime prevention techniques have also identified several variables as predictors of reduction in school violence including limited class changes (O'Neill & McGloin, 2007), closed campuses (O'Neill & McGloin, 2007), dress codes (Phillips, Turner, & Holt, 2014), identification cards (Phillips et al, 2014), security cameras (GranbergRademacker, Bumgarner, & Johnson, 2007), and uniform policies (Granberg-Rademacker et al, 2007). However, most studies focusing on the effectiveness of school situational crime prevention methods have found few statistically significant effects on violence occurring within the school (Chen, 2008;Cheurprakobkit & Bartsch, 2005;Schreck, Miller, & Gibson, 2003;Tillyer et al, 2011). These conflicted findings are mirrored by the divided viewpoints of administrators (Garcia, 2003) and students (Brown, 2005) about the effectiveness and appropriateness of crime prevention methods employed in the school setting.…”

Considering the efficacy of situational crime prevention in schools

“…With that in mind, it is important to mention that the findings for this investigation coincided with the few empirical studies that used data from multiple schools to evaluate numerous policies through aggregate analyses. Despite variant methodological specifications, the pattern of insignificance of these tactics was widespread (Cheurprakobkit & Bartsch, 2005;Schreck et al, 2003).…”

“…As such, it further underscored the most widespread sentiment among this existing literature-more rigorous research is required in order to assess the utility of these security tactics and justify their expense (Barrios, 2000;Cheurprakobkit & Bartsch, 2005;Juvonen, 2001;Schreck et al, 2003;Skiba, 2000). Only after such evaluations can school officials make informed decisions about the most effective approaches to address their crime problems.…”

“…The dependent variables of interest were drug crime and interpersonal violence. They found a positive relationship between school uniforms and drug crime and between closed campus and interpersonal crime (Cheurprakobkit & Bartsch, 2005). The only SCP tactic that was associated with lower crime rates and reached significance was metal detectors.…”

“…The forthcoming paragraphs describe two of the relatively more rigorous evaluations conducted after the emergence of Skiba's conclusions. Cheurprakobkit and Bartsch (2005) investigated an array of school crime prevention tactics across middle, junior high, and high schools in Texas. This evaluation included such variables as metal detectors, school uniforms, and closing campus for lunch, as well as items such as mentoring, formal program training for staff, family management strategy, community service, and others.…”