|
Home
IFPO
Membership
Educational
Programs
Recertification
Guide
IFPO
News
Articles
and Reports Publications
Career
Center
Security
Resources
IFPO
Certified Instructors
IFPO
Training Partners Industry
Testimonials
Corporate Members
IFPO
Accessories
FAQs
Contact
IFPO
|
|
A Five-Step Plan To Solving School Security
Matthew V. Robinson, CPO
Schools are the safest place for children according to
the Uniform Crime Reports. Children have a higher percentage
of being involved in a homicide or a violent crime in their
own homes or on the streets compared to school (Leone, 2000).
Students are 100 times more likely to be a victim of homicide
while away from school (Leone, 2000). Despite these facts,
school security has become a raging issue once again in
the 21st century.
School security was a high profile issue in 1990's. The
Columbine Shooting culminated the many school shootings.
First, there was a 14-year-old student in West Paducah,
Kentucky who killed three students and injured five. Second,
there was another 14-year-old student in Edinboro, Kentucky
who killed his science teacher at an 8th grade dance (Band,
1999). Last, two students went on killing spree at Columbine
High School in Littleton, Colorado, killing 15 people before
they turned their guns on themselves and committed suicide
(Kennedy, 2002). Since the Columbine shooting, school shootings
has been dormant.
School security has come alive once again in the 21st century
after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
Once again, everyone has become aware of how fragile our
sense of security is (Kennedy, 2002). These attacks forced
all Americans to look at their own level of security in
all aspects of everyday life. Before September 11, parents
knew that school violence was on a decline; however, they
did not realize that the crimes that were still being committed
were becoming more violent (Nilsson, 2002). Now that parents
see that the crimes committed in schools are increasing
in their level of violence, school security is an issue
once again.
Schools should be a place where children develop intellectually
and socially. Not only does school violence cause physical
injury, it is causes the disruption of the school environment
which interferes with others learning and may create an
environment in which children fear. If children begin to
fear school, they may avoid school or engage in behaviors
to protect themselves (Leone, 2000). In 1999, 1.1 million
students reported avoiding areas in schools for their own
safety (Nilsson, 2002). In order to keep schools from becoming
negative social institutions, schools, the community, and
the police need to understand the problem and develop a
solution.
The first step in solving the problem is to Assess the
Schools' Needs. A concrete plan for all schools to follow
would be ideal; unfortunately, not all schools have the
same problems. Assessing the school needs should involve
analyzing the school current policies and programs and decide
what works and what does not. A 1997 survey by the U.S Department
of Education gives a good understanding of some security
measures that schools currently have in place (Beger, 2002).
They are:
- 96% of public schools require guests to sign in
- 80% of public schools have a closed campus policy that
forbids students to leave during lunch
- 53% of public schools control access to their school
buildings
An assessment would show whether these measures are successful
in preventing school violence.
First, an assessment should ideally not be conducted after
a serious incident or crisis. If an assessment is conducted
immediately following an incident, emotions may still be
high and could cause the utilization of security measures
that are not necessary. After an incident, the public will
yearn for a quick fix; however, fast fixes are often drastic
and may cause more harm then good. An assessment should
be more than a speedy walk-through of the school. The purpose
of an assessment is to understand the structural, economic,
cultural, linguistic, and developmental variations that
influence the functioning of the school. One will get a
better sense of personal and cultural attributes of students,
staff, community; prior experiences with prevention strategies;
and current perceptions of order and disorder (Leone, 2000).
To accomplish this, one should scheduled structured interviews
with members of the school staff and community (Trump, 1999).
These interviews give the assessor a better understanding
of the problems that currently exist, which may not be visible
to one who just walked around. After the interviews and
walk through, one should analyze the school's policies and
procedures, review the crime and discipline trends, examine
the school physical facilities, and analyze other school
and community information sources (Trump, 1999). A typically
assessment can be successfully completed in one to two days
on-site, with additional related off-site work.
Here is a checklist of things one should note during the
assessment:
1. Security and police staffing:
-Is present staffing adequate in terms of form,
organization, policies/procedures, training, etc.
-Is more or fewer personnel needed? Should they be professional
staff members?
2. Security related policies and procedures:
-Are policies current with today's threats?
3. Crisis preparedness
-Are crisis guidelines in place? Are they current?
-Do guidelines involve the best personnel?
4. Education and training
-Are staff members and students educated about
what to do in a crisis?
-Is training accurate? Is training conducted often?
5. Physical security
-Are improvements in the access control system
necessary?
6. Personnel security
-Are appropriate measures in place to screen internal
security and hiring concerns?
7. Internal and community linkages
-Is the school collaborating with the police?
After assessing the school, one should develop a relationship
between the school and the community (Trump, 1999). This
leads to the second step in solving the school security
problem.
The second step is to Develop Parent and Community Support.
"School violence is not the sole responsibility of
the school system. Law enforcement, local government, civic
groups, corporate entities, schools, and parents must form
a partnership to combat these violent acts (Band, 1999)."
To accomplish this, all of these groups should come together
and sign memorandums of understandings (MOUs). These MOUs
clearly illustrate the responsibilities of all groups during
a crisis. This is extremely important to have in place before
a situation. During a situation, those present have no time
to think, but can act without thinking when they already
know what they are supposed to do.
Another way to develop parent and community support is to
have functions in which students, police, and citizens interact
with one another. "Effective school-wide prevention
plans operate best when they involve individual parents
and parent organizations in meaningful ways. Parent/school
collaboration enhances opportunities for schools to work
successfully with troubled youth, extending prevention initiatives
beyond schools and into local communities" (Leone,
2000). A basketball tournament involving students, faculty,
officers, and community members will help to develop rapport
(Kennedy, 2002). As students develop relationships with
the police and the school's staff, they become the eyes
and ears for them.
The third step is to Develop A Leadership Team. A
prevention team should include all types of individuals
from the school, community, and others. These individuals
should develop school-wide prevention plans. The leadership
team should conduct and analyze the needs assessment and
formulate short- and long- term goals (Leone, 2000).
One problem that the leadership team will face is whether
or not to use high-tech instruments as a solution to the
problem. One common device that is brought up quite often
is a metal detector. In urban neighborhoods, metal detectors
are used in 39 percent of the schools (Beger, 2002). Metal
detectors are hard to justify in low-crime settings and
may take away from the school's atmosphere (Schneider, 2001).
Metal detectors may also be difficult to justify in high
crime schools because there are other ways students can
bring a weapon into school. One could slip a weapon in an
open window or an unattended door. Schools with prior incidents
involving guns and knives are the ones that should implement
the use of metal detectors. There are other hi-tech devices
such as x-ray scanners that can be used in conjunction with
metal detectors to further eliminate students from bringing
weapons to school (Linescan, 2003).
A high-tech security measure that larger schools would benefit
from is the SchoolLobby system. This system keeps a record
and picture of all students and faculty in the school. The
system would also allow one to print out ID's for students,
faculty, and guests. The ID cards would have a barcode on
them, which can be scanned for easy reference or as a tracking
measure (SchoolLobby, 2003). Smaller schools on a stricter
budget may opt for the TIMEbadge system. The TIMEbadge system
prints badges for guests that change color when their time
is up (TIMEbadge, 2003). With this, the amount of time guests
are allowed to spend in the school can be controlled.
There are many additional high-tech solutions for which
the leadership team must determine their effectiveness.
Alarms, CCTV, and access cards are some other items they
must consider. CCTV is interesting in the fact that students
have a high opinion of cameras in schools. Students feel
safer with cameras because someone in always watching (Schneider,
2001). Students no longer feel that fighting will be a problem.
They know that security personnel will respond to the situation.
Despite the fact that students like CCTV, the leadership
team needs to look at all of the costs related to each product
and the product's longevity. Once that is figured out, they
can determine which is the best to implement.
The fourth step is to Provide Staff Development.
Staff training ensures understanding, support and use of
the school-wide violence prevention plan (Leone, 2000).
Staff development is most critical. One may have a crisis
plan in place; however, if the plan is not reviewed and
practiced throughout the year, it is just writing on paper.
Administrators should provide regular training to both students
and faculty during the school year (Kennedy, 2002). The
constant training makes students and faculty comfortable
with the crisis plan. As a result of being more comfortable,
they are more inclined to act in the appropriate behavior
in a time of crisis.
In addition to training on what to do during a crisis, instructional
programs are also good for students. Schools are good at
teaching; therefore, they should teach students about things
such as social competency and academic skills with the goals
of preventing or remedying academic failure, raising awareness
and knowledge of social influences on violent behavior,
and teaching students the best response to these influences
(Leone, 2000).
The fifth step is to Evaluate The Plan. One should
look at the cost-benefit analysis to see what programs worked
and to eliminate those that did not and those that did not
produce significant results for money spent. Secondly, schools
should eliminate the programs that only targeted a specific
group of individuals (Leone, 2000). After evaluating the
plan and the system the school currently has in place, one
may want to look at several options. A school could hire
more police officers to be in place at the school. Students
feel safer with officers in the school because they know
that they are trained to handle all situations. With more
officers, it will become easier for the faculty and staff
to determine what students need to be watched and what problems
are not significant (Kennedy, 2002).
Another item a school could consider is fewer entrances.
After school has started for the day, all individuals should
have to enter the school through one entrance (Kennedy,
2002). To keep students from propping doors and allowing
unwanted visitors, alarms can be installed in the doors.
These alarms can be set to go off when a door is open for
more than 10 seconds or immediately (Schneider, 2001). The
bottom line is that there are many ways to improve security;
schools just have to determine what is best for each school.
For one to determine the best security measures for a school,
the evaluation process should be similar to the assessment.
By keeping the two the same, one can compare the assessment
to the evaluation. Having the two to compare will help in
deciding which measures are the most effective in that particular
school.
School security is a coming issue and each school should
evaluate themselves in a thorough manner. The five steps
laid out above constitute a good introduction to providing
security for schools. Reviewing some of the websites listed
below may help one to gather further knowledge about school
security.
1. Indicators of School Crime and Safety
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/iscs02.pdf
2. National Resource Center for Safe Schools
http://www.nwrel.org/safe/
3. National School Safety and Security Services
http://www.schoolsecurity.org/
4. School Security Solutions
http://www.schoolsecuritysolutions.com
5. Articles on Specific School Security Problems
http://www.securitymanagement.com/library/000760.html
Matthew V. Robinson, CPO
privatemvr@hotmail.com
Matthew V. Robinson was born on June 15, 1982 in Danbury,
CT. He has lived in the Poconos, PA most of his life. Matthew
is a 2000 graduate from Pocono Mountain High School. He
is currently studying Criminal Justice at York College of
PA and will earn a B.S. in May 2004 with minors in Public
Relations and Sociology. Matthew is currently a member of
the Air Force Reserves with his unit in Wyoming, PA. Matthew
recently received his certification as a CPO in April of
2003.
References
Band, Stephen R., and Joseph A. Harpold. (1999). School
Violence: Lessons Learned. The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,
68(9), 9-15.
Beger, Randall R. (2002). Expansion of police power in public
schools and the vanishing rights of students. Social Justice,
Spring-Summer 2002, 119-131.
CEIA-Classic Security Metal Detector. (n.d.). Retrieved
March 18, 2003, from http://www.bombdetection.com/ceia_classic.shtml
Kennedy, Mike. (2002). Keys to a safe, secure school: A
mix of programs, personnel and equipment help schools provide
a secure environment for learning. Here are 10 steps that
work. American School And University, 74(5), 24-27.
Leone, Peter E., Matthew J. Mayer, Kimber Malmgren, and
Sheri M. Meisel. (2000). School Violence and Disruption:
Rhetoric, Reality, and Reasonable Balance. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 33(1), 1-17.
Linescan 222. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2003, from http://www.bombdetection.com/linescan_222.shtml
Nilsson, Fredrik. (2002). The Groundwork For Safety. American
School and University, July 1, 2002, 1-3.
Schneider, Tod. (2001). Newer Technologies for School Security.
Eric Digests, 145, 1-5.
School Lobby. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2003, from http://www.schoolsecuritysolutions.com/schoolLobby.asp
Thermal TIMEbadge. (n.d.). Retrieved March 18, 2003, from
http://www..schoolsecuritysolutions.com/tempBadge.asp
Trump, Kenneth. (1999). Scared or Prepared? Educing Risks
with School Security Assessments. The High School Magazine,
6(7), 1-6.
|
|