Fear of Crime at School

Abstract

Research on students’ perceptions of fear in school settings has proliferated, specifically as recent school shootings and the media blitz surrounding these events contribute to student and administrator concern. Inquiries into the topic suggest that many of the security protocols utilized by schools, such as target hardening approaches, may have a negative impact on student experiences and increase fear. However, in light of the massive social change experienced by today’s students, through the form of both high-profile school shootings and increased security after 9/11, more recent data are needed to better understand what drives student perceptions. This study explores the role of individual- and school-level predictors of perceptions of student safety. Results suggest that students who are aware of more security measures report higher odds of feeling safe at school. Differences also exist by gender and age. Implications for school security protocols and future research are discussed.

Keywords

fear of crime schools school safety security protocols

In recent years, researchers have attempted to better understand the perceptions of fear among young people, especially in the school environment (May & Dunaway, 2000; Schreck & Miller, 2003; Tillyer, Fisher, & Wilcox, 2011). While student perceptions are important in and of themselves, recent changes in the media attention given to school safety issues have brought this issue to the forefront (Kupchick & Bracy, 2009; Kupchick, Brent, & Mowen, 2015), making it of great interest to researchers and school administrators alike. Of particular note is the media perception that school violence, and school shootings in particular, has been increasing in the last several years. Organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety publish public accounts of school shootings in an attempt to influence school administrators and policy makers (www.everytownresearch.org), despite the fact that general school victimization rates have been on a decline for several years (Zhang, Musu-Gillette, & Oudekerk, 2016). And while the most recently available statistics show an increase in the number of youth homicides at school, from 15 in 2011–2012 to 31 in 2012–2013, the numbers in general are low and are a fraction of the youth homicide rate (Zhang et al., 2016). The long-term negative consequences of school-based victimization are well-known (Bouffard & Koeppel, 2014; Espelage & Holt, 2013; Farrington, Loeber, Stallings, & Ttofi, 2011; Farrington & Ttofi, 2011; Piquero, Connell, Piquero, Farrington, & Jennings, 2013) and concern for the well-being of students has fueled further research in the area.

Schools have responded to these developments with a variety of safety precautions, some in the form of administrative changes and others in the form of security protocols, including things like metal detectors and closed-circuit television cameras. Such approaches have not been thoroughly evaluated (Reingle Gonzalez, Jetelina, & Jennings, 2016), with limited information as to either their efficacy in keeping children safe (in part due to the fact that many of these safety concerns are about highly rare events) or their impacts on student perceptions of safety. The research that is available suggests inconsistent effects on student outcomes; some types of approaches may increase worry among students (Schreck & Miller, 2003) or increase disorder (Mayer & Leone, 1999). Others, such as metal detectors, may decrease fear (Tillyer et al., 2011), while the presence of adults may lead to fewer incidents of low-level violence and property vandalization (Blosnich & Bossarte, 2011). Administrators and security personnel alike are still trying to determine which of these procedures could be the most meaningful for their schools and communities.

But what much of this research has yet to identify is the fact that attention must paid to those changes in another context: the cohort effects of students attending school after two major incidents: the Columbine shootings in 1999 and the terrorism events of September 11, 2001. Today’s students have a different lens through which to view fear; indeed, many adults do as well. After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City, Americans appear to have become more aware of security issues in their daily comings and goings. Public polls showed that more than half of Americans felt shaken in their sense of “safety and security” (Huddy, Feldman, Taber, & Lahav, 2005, p. 597). And the government has tried to restore security. This has been most obvious in arenas like airports and public spaces, where security protocols have become commonplace and citizens have become more likely to accept these intrusions in daily life without complaint or even notice. Students are not immune to these changes; if anything, the fact is that many of today’s students were born after 9/11, and as such, may be even less inclined to notice security precautions in schools due to the fact that they may feel commonplace in today’s society. These same students have grown up hearing about the Columbine shootings and, more recently, those in Newtown, Connecticut. These contexts may tell a different story about the role of security measures in schools, beyond the way in which researchers currently examine their impact on student perceptions.

The current study aims to bridge this gap in our knowledge of the impacts of security protocols on student fear by utilizing a more recent sample than many available studies of student perceptions, which also includes indicators of disorder and incivility at both the student level and school level. Fear of crime in school can lead to a host of negative behaviors, often in the form of avoiding school and skipping classes (Barrett, Jennings, & Lynch, 2012; Randa & Wilcox, 2012) or disrupting classroom concentration while present (Boulton, Trueman, & Murray, 2008), which in and of itself is problematic; students who do not attend class are more likely to suffer academic consequences after all. In order to better understand how safety precautions affect student beliefs, we examine the relationship between student knowledge of security protocols in their schools and their feelings of safety, controlling for relevant student- and school-level factors. We use the events of September 11, 2001, as a dividing period due to the fact that it encompasses both tragedies and effectively creates a natural dividing period for current students.

Student Perceptions of Fear: Pre-2001

Early research into the role that school environment had on student perceptions of fear often turned toward the work of Ferraro (1995), who argues that the defensive precautions against victimization may have an unintended effect on influencing, and indeed, increasing, individual fear of crime. In this context, security procedures, such as cameras and metal detectors, may serve to remind students of the risks that they face and, as such, increase their fear. Research bore out some measure of this, with several studies pointing to the role that school security measures had on student outcomes, including fear and worry about crime while at school. Five studies that are reflective of the general trends are discussed here. Here, they are discussed chronologically based on the year of data collection, not year of publication. This is done in order to highlight potential cohort-based differences in findings and set a tone for the discussion that follows.

In the first, Schreck and Miller (2003), using the nationally representative 1993 National Household Education Survey: School Safety and Discipline Component, examine a host of potential explanations for student worry at school. In an attempt to disaggregate individual-, school-, and community-level contributions, Schreck and Miller were able to include measures of school guardianship in their model, which consisted of several items pertaining to school security measures. These measures included drug prevention programs, and many of the security protocols currently discussed with regard to school safety, including locked doors, security guards, adult supervision, visitor sign in, and metal detectors. In keeping with Ferraro’s (1995) theory of incivilities, the results suggested that these forms of worry increased student fear (Schreck & Miller, 2003). One potential explanation for this was the fact that these types of target-hardening approaches were implemented as a response to crime and victimization issues within the school, although the cross-sectional nature of the data precluded analytic approaches that could examine temporal ordering.

Next, Mayer and Leone (1999) used data from the 1995 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey to examine the role of a variety of school incivilities on disorder outcomes, including rule implementation and secure building variables. Consistent with findings using earlier data, results showed that physical measures of security, in the form of things such as locked doors and metal detectors, actually increased school disorder (Mayer & Leone, 1999). One explanation for this was that such environmental security protocols created a prison-like atmosphere, interacting with those few students who are responsible for much of school disorder by encouraging social norms toward rule breaking.

In an attempt to disentangle the effects of different kinds of security measures, Perumean-Chaney and Sutton (2013) used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Waves I (1994–1995) and Waves II (1996) to better understand students’ feelings of safety. Security measures were identified as physical or nonphysical in nature. Physical security measures included the presence of police officers or security guards, the presence of a metal detector, and any other special security features as identified by school administrators. Nonphysical security consisted of things like hall passes, visitor sign-in logs, and student dress codes. Consistent with other studies using data from this period of time, results suggested that physical security measures decreased student perceptions of school safety. Nonphysical safety measures had no measurable effects on student perceptions of safety (Perumean-Chaney & Sutton, 2013).

In a similar attempt to understand the relationship between security protocols and student victimization and perceptions of risk, Tillyer, Fisher, and Wilcox (2011) examined the relationships between a variety of prevention practices and student outcomes using data collected from seventh graders in rural Kentucky during the 2000–2001 school year. Here, the authors were able to examine the relationship between prevention practices and actual victimization as well as perceptions of risk and fear of crime. As with previous findings with adult samples, previous victimization increased perceptions of risk. Contrary to earlier findings, however, Tillyer et al. (2011) found that the presence of metal detectors reduced student fear of serious violence.

Only one study during this time period directly examined the ways in which the Columbine tragedy affected student perceptions of fear. Using data collected by both the 1995 and 1999 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), Addington (2003) was able to take advantage of the natural experiment set up by the shootings and examine student fear of victimization, avoidance behavior, and perceptions of school security. The results suggested that exposure to the Columbine event had few meaningful effects on student outcomes, although students’ reports of fear at school increased after Columbine. The magnitude of the change was small, and the majority of students continued to report feeling very safe at school.

These findings, taken in their totality, point to the fact that school security measures initially may not have had the expected effects of reducing fear of crime or potentially victimization. Ferraro’s (1995) argument was largely supported, with evidence suggesting that such obvious security measures may have heightened student perception of risk. Rather than feeling safe, students felt fearful because they were constantly being reminded of their vulnerability and the need for such actions; Addington’s (2003) work points to this as a potential explanation that deserves more attention. As school safety has become a normal part of the media narrative, both with regard to school shooting events and other concerns, such as bullying, it is possible that students are becoming more sensitized to the need for safety and therefore could be more appreciative of such security measures. Indeed, Young et al. (2002), in a study of a southeast high school, found that students who had more positive views of security cameras were significantly more likely to feel safe at school. Similarly, general acceptance of more stringent security measures in public spaces may have desensitized young people to the presence of security measures, making them a nonissue with regard to their opinions about safety and victimization in a school setting. We examine this below.

Student Perceptions of Fear: Post-2001

Studies on student fear and perceptions of safety after the turn of the century are limited. Much of the research tends to focus on the presence of police officers in school, an important subject for examination but one that is outside the scope of the current study. However, one study in particular stands out. Using the 2005 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, Bachman, Randolph, and Brown (2011) were able to examine the role that physical school security measures, such as locked doors, metal detectors, security cameras, and guards had on student perceptions of safety. Here, there were mixed effects of various security measures, especially by race. The presence of metal detectors increased fear among both White and African American students. The presence of security guards, however, only increased student fear of crime for White students. No other type of security measure significantly explained fear. As expected prior victimization, especially violence victimization or victimization in the form of bullying continued to explain fear of crime at school for all groups.

Given the focus on student feelings of fear and safety in this article, we must acknowledge the dearth of studies that use security measures to predict student feelings data collected after September 11, 2001. Most of this is due to the interest in other outcomes, specifically actual student victimization. For instance, in their examination of the impact of school resource officers and security guards on student safety, Crawford and Burns (2015), using 2006 School Survey on Crime and Safety data, determined that access controlled doors and metal detectors decreased attack threats in middle and high schools, while the use of security cameras was related to an increase in such threats. Jennings, Khey, Maskaly, and Donner (2011) similarly found that weapons detection strategies, such as metal detectors, were related to lower levels of victimization.

Booren, Handy, and Power (2011) were able to examine the relationship between students’ rating of the importance of security measures at their school and their fear of school. Unlike the majority of other studies, which only measure the presence of security measures and do not include student opinions of their use,¹ these researchers were able to ask students whether they thought specific measures were important. Students who considered safety measures more important than did their peers were more likely to report increased fear at school. Additionally, students who reported less connectedness felt less safe at school, in line with other research on the importance of school climate (Skiba et al., 2004; Welsh, 2001).

Two things stand out from the current literature. First, student perceptions may be changing over the years, such that student fear of crime may not be impacted by particularly meaningful changes in security practices, unless they are obvious (i.e., metal detectors). This could be due to the fact that many security measures are part of the landscape in modern society, and students do not generally notice such things. But it is possible that those particularly obvious shows of enforcement, like metal detectors, still fall under Ferraro’s (1995) interpretations of incivilities and heighten student awareness. More research is needed to determine the effect of specific security measures on student perceptions. Secondly, the effects of such security measures most likely vary by contextual environment, something that large-scale nationally representative data collection strategies may gloss over. Racial and gender differences in the interpretation of the role of security measures are also likely related to socioeconomic differences and community-level differences, which may require a more contextualized analysis to understand.

It is in this light that we attempt to add to our knowledge about the relationship between security measures and student safety. By using a more recent sample (see below for details), we capture a post-9/11 cohort that may have different opinions about security measures than previous generations. Also, a focus on a small number of schools in one state allows for a slightly more contextualized understanding. In no way is this study meant to be generalizable; as we will discuss in the conclusions, that may no longer be an appropriate response to understanding student perceptions.

Method

Participants and Procedure

The data examined here were gathered as part of an evaluation of a high school substance use prevention program in a mid-Atlantic state. This was a multiyear project to better understand and prevent substance use among high school students, but survey measures collected at that time allow for the examination of the current research question. As part of the original project, schools were invited to participate in a baseline survey that covered a variety of behaviors and attitudes. All schools in the state were invited to participate, and in each year, a cohort of schools entered the study while another cohort would be rotated out of the study. Each school participated for 2 years. Data from schools participating in the third and fourth cohorts are reported here.² Five schools completed the baseline survey during the 2008–2009 school year and five schools completed it during the 2009–2010 school year. For both cohorts, students were surveyed during the month of November, approximately 3 months after the start of the school year. Only responses from the baseline survey are reported here in order to not contaminate results due to participation in the aforementioned prevention program.

All student responses were collected using an online instrument, with students taking the survey during a class period in the school computer lab. An active informed consent process was utilized, and all survey protocols, as well as the survey instrument, were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the sponsoring institution. All students enrolled in school in the term of survey administration were invited to participate. Rates of participation between schools varied, with a low of 10.6% and a high of 76.9%. Overall, schools had an average participation rate of 31.3%, with a total of 3,073 students completing surveys used in the current analysis. Variables are described below and in Table 1.

Table 1.
Sample Descriptives.

Variable Mean (SD)/Percentage Minimum Maximum

Individual characteristics

White 72.24%

Male 53.94%

Age 15.65 (1.21) 14 19

School attachment 2.49 (.88) 0 3

Given drugs 16.18%

Seen weapon 13.09%

School characteristics

Security perceptions 4.84 (1.38) 0 7

Class size 19.12 (2.31) 14 21

Suspension rate 5.28 (4.55) 2 19

Free/reduced lunch 9.30 (14.76) 1 63

Dependent Variable

Feelings of safety

The dependent variable in these analyses is student feelings of safety. Students were asked to rate, on a 10-point scale, how safe they felt at school. Traditionally, students tend to rate their safety in school as relatively high. These data are no exception. The average answer for students was 8.05 on a scale of 1–10 (SD = 1.75). This variable was negatively skewed; fewer than 28% of students reported feeling less safe than average. To maintain the ordered nature of the variable, but also correct for the skewness of the data, the variable was recoded into a four-level ordinal variable approximating quartiles.³ Students who responded that they felt between 1 and 6 (of 10) on the scale were put in the lowest category (14.2%), those who responded 7 and 8 (of 10) were put in the second category (38.4%), those who responded 9 (of 10) were put in the third category (28.9%), and all students who responded 10/10 on the scale were put in the highest category (18.4%).

Student-Level Characteristics

Security perceptions

During the time of data collection, several security protocols were mandated by the State Board of Education, and all schools were required to have implemented them in their respective buildings. These included staff who supervise the hallway, locked doors during the day, locker checks, badge requirements, visitor sign in, security cameras, and a student code of conduct.⁴ While these security measures were universal, students may not have been aware of them. On the survey, students were asked about whether they knew that their school was using the security protocol in question. They were able to answer “yes,” “no,” or “I don’t know.” In order to capture student perceptions of what their school was doing to keep them safe, a variable was created to measure the number of security protocols of which students were aware. On average, students were aware of between 4 and 5 security protocols (mean = 4.84 and SD = 1.38). This variable was included as a global measure in the analysis. This was done to capture a student’s awareness of the administration’s approach to security as opposed knowledge of a specific protocol.

School attachment

Based on previous findings (see, e.g., Welsh, 2001), a scale for school attachment was included. Attachment toward school was measured using an additive scale of three dichotomous measures: “I feel like I belong at this school;” “I wish I did not attend this school;” and “This school is a pretty good school to go to.” The second measure was reverse coded, so that a 1 on each measure equaled a statement indicative of positive feelings about school. The school climate scale ranged between 0 and 3, with a mean of 2.49 (SD = 0.88) and a Kuder-Richardson 20 statistic value of 0.70.⁵

School disorder experiences

In order to measure student experiences with school-level disorder, two questions are included here. Students were asked if, in the 3 months prior to the survey, someone had tried to give or sell them illegal drugs, other than alcohol (16.8%), or they had seen someone with a weapon (13.09%).

Demographic characteristics

Student demographic variables were included in order to control for individual-level characteristics. Students were between 14 and 19 years old, with a mean age of 15.65 (SD = 1.21). Sex is measured with male as the reference category. Race was measured using a dichotomous measure of White/non-White, with White serving as the reference category.

School-Level Characteristics

Class size

Previous research on school safety generally incorporates school size as a predictor, with larger schools more likely to report higher levels of victimization (Gottfredson, 2001). However, researchers point out that this could be mediated by class size. Using data reported to the State Department of Education, we find that class size ranges from 14 to 21 students, with an average of 19.12 students per class.

Suspension rate

Suspension rates for each school for the year of participation were recorded from the State Department of Education. Rates ranged from a low of 2% to a high of 19%, with an average suspension rate of 5.28% (SD = 4.55).

Free and reduced lunch

Schools in this sample were primarily municipal schools, serving students from one community. As a result, the percentage of students who received free or reduced lunch program benefits was highly correlated with the median city income. In order to control for the general wealth of the community, we include the measure of free or reduced lunch in our models. Schools ranged from 1% to 63% of students participating in such programs, with an average of 9.30% (SD = 14.76) of students receiving benefits.

Analytic Strategy

Mixed effect ordinal logistical regression models were estimated in STATA 14.0 in order to examine the research question (StataCorp, 2015). In order to account for the fact that students were nested both within schools and within grades, a three-level model was utilized. Random effects were estimated for both the school level and grade level, while a fixed-effect model was estimated for the variables of interest. Odds ratios are reported and interpreted for all variables. Only the final model comprising individual- and school-level characteristics is reported here.

Results

Table 2 reports the results of the mixed effect-ordered logistic regression analysis. The proportional odds of a male student reporting the highest level of safety are .82 lower than for females (p < .01). As students get older, the proportional odds of them reporting the highest level of safety are 1.19 times greater than their younger peers (p < .001). For each increase in a student’s level of school attachment, the proportional odds of students being in the highest safety category are 1.67 times greater than students with lower attachment (p < .001). The proportional odds of students who have seen a weapon being in the highest safety category are .64 times less than those students who have not seen a weapon (p < .001). Neither a student’s race nor having been given or sold drugs has any statistically significant impact on how safe a student feels at school.

Table 2.
Mixed Effect Ordinal Logistic Regression Model Predicting Student Perceptions of Safety.

Variable β (SE) OR (95% CI)

School .08 (.05)

Grade .07 (.04)

Individual characteristics

White .09 (.08) 1.09 [0.93, 1.27]

Male −.20 (.07) 0.82 [0.71, 0.94]

Age .18 (.04)* 1.19 [1.09, 1.30]

School attachment .51 (.04)* 1.67 [1.54, 1.82]

Given drugs −.06 (.10) 0.94 [0.78, 1.14]

Seen weapon −.44 (.11)* 0.64 [0.52, 0.79]

Security perceptions .12 (.03)*** 1.13 [1.06, 1.20]

School characteristics

Class size .06 (.06) 1.06 [0.94, 1.19]

Suspension rate −.04 (.03) 0.96 [0.91, 1.01]

Free/reduced lunch .00 (.01) 1.00 [0.99, 1.01]

Log likelihood (Wald χ²) −3,725.54 (246.84)

Note. N = 2,992. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio.

p < .01. p < .001.

Students who are aware of more safety measures are more likely to feel safe at school. For each safety measures of which students are aware, the proportional odds that a student will report being in the highest level of safety are 1.13 times greater than their peers (p < .001).⁶ None of the three school-level characteristics were significant predictors of student feelings of school safety.

Discussion

As is consistent with previous studies, student experiences with school impact perceptions of safety (Bachman, Gunter, & Bakken, 2011; Schreck & Miller, 2003; Welsh, 2001). Students who have seen a weapon at school report feeling lower levels of safety at school compared to their peers. Conversely, students who report high levels of school attachment have higher proportional odds of reporting feeling more safe. Consistent with previous literature, older students also have a higher odds of reporting that they feel more safe compared to peers (see also Varjas, Henrich, & Meyers, 2009). Males, however, had lower odds of being in the highest safety category when compared to females. Previous literature on the relationship between gender and fear of crime has pointed that there are several potential explanations why boys and girls could have different levels of fear at school, although consensus has not yet been reached. Some studies have found that girls are more likely to be afraid at school than boys (May & Dunaway, 2000; Schreck & Miller, 2003), most likely due to experiences with previous victimization or due to fear of sexual victimization. Others find no gender differences in student fear (Alvarez & Bachman, 1997). The gender differences in the current study could be explained by the fact that students are nested within both school and grade. As a result, boys have lower proportional odds of being in the highest category of feelings of safety compared to girls within* their current grade. This could be related to the fact that boys are more likely to get into physical altercations in high school than girls, so within the school context, girls feel safer at school than their male peers.

The relationship between school security measures and student fear is still relatively inconsistent, with many researchers arguing that the presence of obvious safety measures could actually increase student perceptions of risk and/or fear (Ferraro, 1995; Mayer & Leone, 1999; Schreck & Miller, 2003). This study, as with the work of Tillyer et al. (2011), seems to suggest that school security measures may not have the negative impact previously expected. At the very least, consistent with Bachman and colleagues’ research (Bachman, Randolph, & Brown, 2011), most security measures may not have any affect on student perceptions. As mentioned previously, this could be due to the fact that students may be less likely to even notice those security protocols that are not the most obvious. Metal detectors, due to their obvious nature as a school security measure, may be the exception; Tillyer et al. (2011) found that fear of serious violence was reduced in schools with metal detectors. In their systematic review of the use of metal detectors, however, Hankin, Hertz, and Simon (2011) suggest that no firm conclusions can be made about their efficacy. The current study did not collect data on metal detectors, as they were very rarely used in the state, and very few schools even had access to a metal detector, but this is far from an answered question that should be examined in more depth.

Qualitative inquiry into student perceptions offers some insight into how these safety measures are truly viewed by students and why they may, or may not, predict fear and safety. Interviewing high school students in a Texas border town during the 2000–2001 school year, Brown (2005) found that a rather high percentage of student (40% for males and 56.9% for females) thought that school police and security officers should use metal detectors. Additionally, students thought that video cameras would benefit student safety (56.9% for males and 51.3% for females). These students came from a racially homogenous background (primarily Hispanic), and one could argue that being in a high-crime border town location, they may be more conscious of personal safety issues, regardless of actual risk to safety while in school. Ethnographic interviews and observations by Bracy (2011) suggested that students had mixed support for the use of security technology in their schools, in part because they did not believe additional security was necessary. Students also pointed to the difference in the written school rules and the application of school rules, such as how identification badges are not always monitored or punishments were not consistent. Taken together, this qualitative work points to the importance of understanding school-level differences that may not be readily available in aggregate survey data.

Limitations

This study is not without its limitations. The reliance on a convenient sample of high school students brings with it a variety of challenges, especially with regard to generalizability. Variations in student participation rates from schools were most likely the result not only in student-level variation but school-level variation. Anecdotal evidence gleaned from project managers who worked on data collection suggested that schools with more active and proactive administrators were more likely to have higher rates of participation. As such, participation could be directly related to how school security measures are viewed by students. Additionally, all schools who participated were invited to be part of a larger project (this invitation was given to all high schools in the state over a 6-year time frame), so there are several layers of selection bias at play. This study cannot be generalized to the experiences of students in other schools or in other states. Furthermore, our measure of student perceptions of school safety is not as nuanced as one would prefer; such a global measure is not able to parse out the specific situations in which students may feel unsafe. Research on bullying behaviors, for instance, suggests that certain spaces, like bathrooms and school buses, may be more threatening to students than classrooms or hallways (Gutt & Randa, 2014). Also, we are limited in our ability to provide race specific analyses; while the sample consist of approximately 30% non-White respondents, there was not enough variation within minority students to allow for meaningful separation of groups in statistical analysis. And due to the quantitative nature of this inquiry, we cannot know how consistently security measures were enforced within or between schools. As both Bracy (2011) and Brown (2005) note, the existence of rules is different from the application of rules. There are no doubt unobserved differences that we are not able to model.

Notably missing in these data is the information about school resource officers or school security guards. At the time that data were collected, school resource officers were being discontinued in this mid-Atlantic state due to budgetary concerns. In recent years, often as the result of high-profile tragic events, there has been a renewed call for the presence of policy officers in schools (Kupchik et al., 2015). With that call came new research scrutiny, with many studies attempting to better understand the role that police officers can play in affecting both objective school safety and student and parent perceptions of safety (i.e., Maskaly, Donner, Green, & Peoples, 2011; Theroit, 2016). At this point, conclusions as to the efficacy of school resource officers are mixed (Reingle Gonzalez et al., 2016), and a more thorough discussion is outside the scope of this article.

Conclusions

Despite these limitations, this study offers newer insight into the role that these security measures play in shaping student perceptions of safety. Inconsistent conclusions demand further explanations in a world where school administrators are scrambling to respond to parental concerns in the wake of negative media coverage and ever-increasing liability (Time & Payne, 2008). One way to interpret these inconsistent findings is in light of generational change, where today’s cohorts of students may be very different from those prior to the turn of the century. After all, today’s school students do not have a memory of the seminal events that made such a mark on school security efforts, such as the Columbine shootings in 1999 and the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. While researchers of years past may have considered security measures to be indicative of fortress approaches to schools (Kupchik & Bracy, 2009; Tanner-Smith & Fisher, 2016), current students may view these protocols as attempts to keep them safe (Booren, Handy, & Power, 2011). The majority of Americans were affected by security changes in the public sphere post-9/11, and school students are no different. When that is considered along with the 24/7 news cycle, where rare but tantalizing events dominate, it is not such a farfetched assumption to think that today’s students prefer security measures that previous generations would have considered draconian.

While schools will no doubt continue to be one of the safest places for children (Zhang et al., 2016), reality and perceptions are not often related. School administrators have been given the task of proving to parents and to society that they are keeping children safe, and many may turn to visible security measures as a way to prove that they are taking such concerns seriously; many may believe in these approaches themselves (Chrusciel, Wolfe, Hansen, Rojek, & Kaminski, 2015; Time & Payne, 2008). The answer, however, may lie not in security cameras or metal detectors but in creating an atmosphere of community and interconnectedness, a prevention strategy that has long proven itself to be a meaningful tool for improving a variety of academic and behavioral outcomes (Gottfredson, 2001; Skiba et al., 2004). Such positive school environments can no doubt go a long way in reducing any negative impact of the use of security measures for students.

Variable	Mean (SD)/Percentage	Minimum	Maximum
Individual characteristics
White	72.24%
Male	53.94%
Age	15.65 (1.21)	14	19
School attachment	2.49 (.88)	0	3
Given drugs	16.18%
Seen weapon	13.09%
School characteristics
Security perceptions	4.84 (1.38)	0	7
Class size	19.12 (2.31)	14	21
Suspension rate	5.28 (4.55)	2	19
Free/reduced lunch	9.30 (14.76)	1	63

Variable	β (SE)	OR (95% CI)
School	.08 (.05)
Grade	.07 (.04)
Individual characteristics
White	.09 (.08)	1.09 [0.93, 1.27]
Male	−.20 (.07)**	0.82 [0.71, 0.94]
Age	.18 (.04)***	1.19 [1.09, 1.30]
School attachment	.51 (.04)***	1.67 [1.54, 1.82]
Given drugs	−.06 (.10)	0.94 [0.78, 1.14]
Seen weapon	−.44 (.11)***	0.64 [0.52, 0.79]
Security perceptions	.12 (.03)***	1.13 [1.06, 1.20]
School characteristics
Class size	.06 (.06)	1.06 [0.94, 1.19]
Suspension rate	−.04 (.03)	0.96 [0.91, 1.01]
Free/reduced lunch	.00 (.01)	1.00 [0.99, 1.01]
Log likelihood (Wald χ²)	−3,725.54 (246.84)

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funds for the collection of data association with the Social Norms project were provided in full by a grant to the New Jersey Department of Education from the U.S. Department of Education, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, under Title IV, Part A: the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.

Notes

References

Addington

L. A.

(2003). Students’ fear after Columbine: Findings from a randomized experiment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 367–387.

Alvarez

Bachman

(1997). Predicting fear of assault at school and while going to and from school in an adolescent populations. Violence and Victims, 12, 69–86.

Bachman

Gunter

W. D.

Bakken

N. W.

(2011). Predicting feelings of school safety for lower, middle, and upper school students: A gender specific analysis. Applied Psychology and Criminal Justice, 7, 59–76.

Bachman

Randolph

Brown

B. L.

(2011). Predicting perceptions of fear at school and going to and from school for Africa-American and White students: The effects of school security measures. Youth & Society, 43, 705–726. doi:10.1177/0044118X10366674

Barrett

K. L.

Jennings

W. G.

Lynch

M. J.

(2012). The relation between youth fear and avoidance of crime in school and academic experiences. Journal of School Violence, 11, 1–20. doi:10.1080/15388220.2011.630309

Blosnich

Bossarte

(2011). Low-level violence in schools: Is there an association between school safety measures and peer victimization? Journal of School Health, 81, 107–113. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00567.x

Booren

L. M.

Handy

D. J.

Power

T. G.

(2011). Examining perceptions of school safety strategies, school climate, and violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9, 171–187. doi:10.1177/1541204010374297

Bouffard

L. A.

Koeppel

M. D. H.

(2014). Understanding the potential long-term physical and mental health consequences of early experiences of victimization. Justice Quarterly, 31, 568–587. doi:10.1080/07418825.2012.734843

Boulton

Trueman

Murray

(2008). Associations between peer victimization, fear of future victimization and disrupted concentration on class work among junior high-school pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 473–489. doi:10.1348/000709908X320471

10.

Bracy

N. L.

(2011). Student perceptions of high-security school environments. Youth & Society, 43, 365–396. doi:10.1177/0044118X10365082

11.

Brown

(2005). Controlling crime and delinquency in schools: An exploratory study of student perceptions of school security measures. Journal of School Violence, 4, 105–125. doi:10.1300/J202v04n04_07

12.

Chrusciel

M. M.

Wolfe

Hansen

J. A.

Rojek

J. J.

Kaminski

(2015). Law enforcement executive and principal perspectives on school safety measures: School resource officers and armed school employees. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 38, 24–39. doi:10.1108/PIJPSM-11-2014-0115

13.

Crawford

Burns

(2015). Preventing school violence: Assessing armed guards, school policy, and context. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 38, 631–647. doi:10.1108/PIJPSM-01-2015-0002

14.

Espelage

D. L.

Holt

M. K.

(2013). Suicidal ideation and school bullying experiences after controlling for depression and delinquency. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53, 527–531. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.09.017

15.

Farrington

D. P.

Loeber

Stallings

Ttofi

M. M.

(2011). Bullying perpetration and victimization as predictors of delinquency and depression in the Pittsburgh Youth Study. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 3, 74–81. doi:10.1108/17596591111132882

16.

Farrington

D. P.

Ttofi

M. M.

(2011). Bullying as a predictor of offending violence and later life outcomes. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 21, 90–98. doi:10.1002/cbm.801

17.

Ferraro

K. F.

(1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. New York, NY: State University of New York Press.

18.

Gottfredson

D. C.

(2001). Schools and delinquency. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Gutt

T. A.

Randa

(2014). The influence of an empathetic adult on the relationships between bullying victimization and fear at school. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39, 282–302. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2014.956328

20.

Hankin

Hertz

Simon

(2011). Impacts of metal detectors use in schools: Insights from 15 years of research. Journal of School Health, 81, 100–106.

21.

Huddy

Feldman

Taber

Lahav

(2005). Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 593–608.

22.

Jennings

W. G.

Khey

D. N.

Maskaly

Donner

C. M.

(2011). Evaluating the relationship between law enforcement and school security measures and violent crime in schools. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 11, 109–124. doi:10.1080/15332586.2011.581511

23.

Kupchik

Bracy

N. L.

(2009). The news media on school crime and violence: Constructing dangerousness and fueling fear. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 136–155. doi:10.1177/1541204008328800

24.

Kupchick

Brent

J. J.

Mowen

T. J.

(2015). The aftermath of Newtown: More of the same. British Journal of Criminology, 55, 1115–1130. doi:10.1093/bjx/azv049

25.

Maskaly

Donner

C. M.

Green

Peoples

C. D.

(2011). On the association between SROs, private security guards, use-of-force capabilities, and violent crime in schools. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 11, 159–176.

26.

May

D. C.

Dunaway

R. G.

(2000). Predictors of fear of criminal victimization at school among adolescents. Sociological Spectrum, 20, 149–168. doi:10.1080/027321700279938

27.

Mayer

M. J.

Leone

P. E.

(1999). A structural analysis of school violence and disruption: Implications for creating safer schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 22, 333–356.

28.

Perumean-Chaney

S. E.

Sutton

L. M.

(2013). Students and perceived school safety: The impact of school security measures. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 570–588. doi:10.1007/s12103-012-9182-2

29.

Piquero

A. R.

Connell

N. M.

Piquero

N. L.

Farrington

D. P.

Jennings

W. G.

(2013). Does adolescent bullying distinguish between male offending trajectories in late middle age? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 444–453. doi:10.1007/s10964-012-9883-3

30.

Randa

Wilcox

(2012). Avoidance at school: Further specifying the influence of disorder, victimization, and fear. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10, 190–204.

31.

Reingle Gonzalez

J. M.

Jetelina

K. K.

Jennings

W. G.

(2016). Structural school safety measures, SROs, and school-related delinquent behavior and perceptions of safety: A state of the art review. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39, 438–454. doi:10.1109/PIJPSM-05-2016-0065

32.

Schreck

C. J.

Miller

J. M.

(2003). Sources of fear of crime at school: What is the relative contribution of disorder, individual characteristics, and school security? Journal of School Violence, 2, 57–79.

33.

Skiba

Simmons

A. B.

Peterson

Mckelvey

Forde

Gallini

(2004). Beyond guns, drugs and gangs: The structure of student perceptions of school safety. Journal of School Violence, 3, 149–171. doi:10.1300/J202v03n02_09

34.

StataCorp. (2015). Stata statistical software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.

35.

Tanner-Smith

E. E.

Fisher

B. W.

(2016). Visible school security measures and student academic performance, attendance, and post-secondary aspirations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 45, 195–210. doi:10.1007/s10964-015-0265-5

36.

Theriot

M. T.

(2016). The impact of school resource officer interaction on students’ feelings about school and school police. Crime & Delinquency, 62, 446–469. doi:10.1177/0011128713503526

37.

Time

Payne

B. K.

(2008). School violence prevention measures: School officials’ attitudes about various strategies. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 301–306.

38.

Tillyer

M. S.

Fisher

B. S.

Wilcox

(2011). Effects of school crime victimization on students’ violent victimization, risk perception, and fear of crime: A multilevel opportunity perspective. Justice Quarterly, 28, 249–277. doi:10.1080/07418825.2010.493526

39.

Varjas

Henrich

C. C.

Meyers

(2009). Urban middle school students’ perceptions of bullying, cyberbullying, and school safety. Journal of School Violence, 8, 159–176. doi:10.1080/15388220802074165.

40.

Welsh

W. N.

(2001). Effects of student and school factors on five measures of disorder. Justice Quarterly, 18, 911–947. doi:org/10.1080/07418820100095131

41.

Young

E. M.

Autry

Lee

Messemer

J. E.

Roach

P. S.

Smit

J. C.

(2002). Development of the student attitudes toward school safety measures (SATSSM) instrument. Journal of School Health, 72, 107–114. doi:10.1111/j.17461561.2002.tb06526.x

42.

Zhang

Musu-Gillette

Oudekerk

B. A.

(2016). Indicators of school Crime and safety: 2015 (NCES 2016-079/NCJ 249758). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.