This article was downloaded by: [CDC] On: 16 May 2012, At: 14:23 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd

Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of School Violence

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsv20

Controlling Crime and Delinquency in the Schools

Ben Brown
a a

Criminal Justice Department, South Building, the University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort Brown, Brownsville, TX, 78520, USA Available online: 08 Oct 2008

To cite this article: Ben Brown (2006): Controlling Crime and Delinquency in the Schools, Journal of School Violence, 4:4, 105-125 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J202v04n04_07

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Controlling Crime and Delinquency in the Schools: An Exploratory Study of Student Perceptions of School Security Measures
Ben Brown
Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

ABSTRACT. This paper provides an analysis of data on school security measures which were obtained from a survey administered to a sample of 230 high school students. The majority of students indicated that the school police officers and security officers help keep the schools safe and that the drug-sniffing dogs help reduce drugs in the schools, but there was no clear consensus among the students on the issues of whether the video surveillance cameras increase safety, whether the police and security officers should search students with metal detectors, or whether there should be more police and security officers in the schools. The only security measure which the majority of students disliked was the policy that all backpacks be translucent. An examination of gender differences in student perceptions of school security measures shows that males were significantly more likely than females to negatively evaluate the school police officers and to oppose the use of metal detectors in the schools. Finally, the data indicate that the aforementioned security strategies have little impact on the presence of drugs and weapons in the schools. The policy implications are discussed. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. Ben Brown is affiliated with the Criminal Justice Department, South Building, the University of Texas at Brownsville, 80 Fort Brown, Brownsville, TX 78520 (E-mail: Ben.Brown@utb.edu). A draft of this paper was presented at the annual meetings of the Southwestern Social Science Association in March 2004. Special thanks to Dr. Wm. Reed Benedict for his invaluable assistance with this project. Journal of School Violence, Vol. 4(4) 2005 Available online at http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JSV 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1300/J202v04n04_07

105

106

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www. HaworthPress.com> 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. School security, high school, surveillance, detectors, gender differences, crime, delinquency

INTRODUCTION
Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

High schools and high school students pose a unique challenge in terms of crime control. On the one hand, there is no dispute that a lack of education fosters criminal behavior (Hawkins et al., 2000; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Hence, educators and educational institutions serve an essential role in preventing crime and enhancing public safety. However, it is also a well documented fact that adolescents and young adults are the demographic group most likely to engage in crime (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983; Steffensmeir, Allan, Harer, & Streifel, 1989), so it is no surprise that drug use, theft, and weapon carrying are common occurrences in high schools (DeVoe et al., 2002; Hanke, 1996; Hill & Drolet, 1999) and that crime rates are often high in neighborhoods close to high schools (Roncek & Lobosco, 1983). In brief, although the provision of public educational services helps control crime, the practice of requiring hundreds or thousands of adolescents to gather in a single location on a daily basis also provides a fertile breeding ground for criminal and delinquent activities (Felson, 1998, p. 111). However, school crime has historically been an issue of little public concern. In point of fact, until relatively recently there was no such thing as school crime. Throughout most of the history of public education, criminal acts which occurred at school were defined as discipline problems rather than crimes and were handled by teachers, principals, and parents rather than criminal justice officials. And although several reports of increasing disorder and violence in the schools emerged in the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Hellman & Beaton, 1986; Toby, 1980; U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1978), school violence was generally considered to be a problem found only in impoverished urban communities with predominantly racial/ethnic minority populations: a stereotype which was fueled by Hollywood productions such as Stand by Me and Dangerous Minds and then shattered by the small town school shootings in the mid-to-late 1990s. As documented by Maguire, Weatherby, and Mathers (2002), the school

Ben Brown

107

shootings in towns such as Jonesboro, Arkansas, and Littleton, Colorado, were widely covered by the national media. For example, the 1999 incident in Littleton dominated the evening news on ABC, CBS, and NBC for an entire week; a level of media attention comparable to that afforded to the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (Lawrence, 2000, p. 5; Maguire et al., 2002, p. 467). Consequently, school crime became an issue of national concern. Ironically, it was precisely during this period of growing concern about school violence that the rates of school violence began to fall. While the media coverage of the school shootings created the perception that school violence had reached epidemic levels, analyses of national data on school crime from the 1990s show that the chance of a juvenile being violently killed at school is less than one in a million and that from 1992 to 2000 there was a 46% decrease in violent victimizations on school grounds (Chandler, Chapman, Rand, & Taylor, 1998; DeVoe et al., 2002; Kaufman et al., 2000; U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, 1999). This does not mean, however, that school security is an issue to be taken lightly. Although school shootings are rare, research consistently shows that many students carry knives and guns to school which means the potential for weapon-associated violence is ubiquitous (Bailey, Flewelling, & Rosenbaum, 1997; Brown, 2004; DeVoe et al., 2002; Hill & Drolet, 1999; Simon, Crosby, & Dahlberg, 1999; Simon, Dent, & Sussman, 1997; Wilcox & Clayton, 2001). In addition, there is a substantial body of research which indicates that many schools are plagued by drug use, gang activity, and theft (DeVoe et al., 2002; Hanke, 1996; Howell & Lynch, 2000; Kaufman et al., 2000; Lowry et al., 1999; Toby, 1995). Concisely stated, although school crime is by no means as severe as presented by the media, there is no question that adolescents engage in a diversity of criminal and delinquent activities while at school. And even though many illegal acts which occur on school properties such as theft and vandalism may not physically injure the students or staff, such behaviors are detrimental to an atmosphere which is conducive to learning. Hence, there is a need for effective school security measures. SCHOOL SECURITY MEASURES In addition to traditional education practices through which problematic student activities are treated by behavioristic measures (i.e., rewarding students for appropriate behaviors and punishing students for

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

108

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

inappropriate behaviors), education and criminal justice officials have developed a plethora of policies and tactics to reduce delinquency and enhance school safety, the majority of which can be categorized as either soft control or hard control strategies (for a compendium of school security activities, see: Barrios et al., 2000; Garcia, 2003; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2001). First, there are the soft control strategies in which adolescents are taught to be aware of crime-associated problems, how to avoid crime-associated problems, and how to address interpersonal disputes in a non-violent manner. For example, there are programs such as D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) and G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance Education And Training) which are designed to inform kids about the dangers of drug use and gang activity and to provide them with social skills which reduce drug use and gang involvement (Arnette & Walsleben, 1998; Esbensen, 2000). There are also programs designed to increase juveniles awareness of the problems associated with bullying and to improve their mediation abilities such as law-related education in which adolescents serve on youth courts (also known as teen courts, student courts, and peer juries) and judge their peers who have been accused of minor transgressions (Ericson, 2001; Nessel, 2001). Then there are hard control strategies which focus on the identification of problematic youths, the punishment of problematic youths, and target hardening. For instance, following the school shootings of the 1990s, schools across the nation implemented zero tolerance security policies which mandated suspension or expulsion for any student caught carrying a weapon or engaging in violence while at school (Garcia, 2003; Tebo, 2000). Yet another approach has been the use of surveillance cameras and metal detectors to identify students who bring weapons to school or otherwise engage in crime and delinquency on school grounds (Garcia, 2003; Green, 1999). There has also been an increase in the number of School Resource Officers (SROs). Although the use of SROslocal law enforcement officials assigned to patrol and investigate crimes on school propertiesdates back to the 1950s, few states other than Michigan and Florida had active SRO programs prior to the 1990s. During the 1990s, however, the number of SROs increased dramatically and by the year 2000 almost half of all local police departments in the U.S. had assigned full-time officers the task of serving as SROs (Girouard, 2001; Hickman & Reaves, 2001, 2003). The problem is that few empirical evaluations of school security have been conducted and the conflicting findings make it impossible to ascertain which strategies are most effective.

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Ben Brown

109

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Consider, for instance, the studies of soft control strategies such as G.R.E.A.T. and D.A.R.E. On the one hand, some research indicates that the G.R.E.A.T. program has a small yet positive impact on students abilities to resist delinquent peer pressure (Esbensen & Osgood, 1999), while on the other hand an evaluation of D.A.R.E. suggests that the program has no impact on drug use (Lynham et al., 1999). Similarly, there is no consensus about the effects of hard control strategies such as the use of SROs or metal detectors. Whereas Johnson (1999) found that SROs contributed to a reduction in school crime, Jackson (2002) concluded that SROs had no impact on student perceptions of school crime or concerns about being apprehended while engaged in delinquency. And whereas Green (1999) contends that the use of technology such as metal detectors can effectively enhance school security, research conducted by Schreck, Miller, and Gibson (2003) indicates that the use of metal detectors has no impact on student victimization (for further discussion of the use of weapons detection systems in schools, see Mawson, Lapsley, Hoffman, & Guignard, 2002; Toby, 2002). In addition, there is a growing body of research which suggests that zero tolerance policies have failed to improve school security (Advancement Project and Civil Rights Project, 2000; Brooks, Schiraldi, & Ziedenberg, 1999; Tebo, 2000). In sum, it is too early to draw any conclusions about the most effective means of improving school security. The present study contributes to the literature by providing an analysis of survey data pertaining to the effectiveness of hard control strategies. RESEARCH SETTING AND METHODOLOGY This study was conducted in Brownsville, Texas, which is located at the southernmost tip of the state, directly on the U.S.-Mexico border, adjacent to Matamoros, Tamaulipas. Brownsville has a population of roughly 140,000 people, the majority (91.3%) of whom are Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002, 2003). Public education services in Brownsville are administered by the roughly 6,300 employees of the Brownsville Independent School District (BISD) who attend to the needs of more than 40,000 students. The BISD operates 5 high schools, 9 middle schools, 29 elementary schools, and 3 alternative schools. Most of the high schools enroll approximately 2,000 students each. As to the provision of security services, the BISD has its own police department which, at the time the survey was conducted (2000-2001), was staffed by 70 security officers and 15 police officers. Although the

110

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

BISD security officers are not armed and do not have any special powers of arrest, the BISD police officers carry sidearms and have the same legal authority as any local police officer in the state of Texas. Each high school is assigned 3 security officers, but owing to the small number of police officers it is not possible to station a police officer at each school. Thus, the BISD police officers patrol and investigate crimes on all school properties. In addition, the BISD Police Department uses drug-sniffing dogs to locate drugs on school properties and video cameras to facilitate surveillance of school properties. Moreover, as is the case with any school district, the BISD (2001) has a number of policies designed to enhance school safety and provide an environment conducive to learning such as a dress code which requires that students wear clothing that is appropriate and not so revealing as to cause a distraction and a set of standards for student conduct which require that students behave in a courteous manner and cooperate with faculty and staff (pp. 11, 29). While the majority of such policies are vague guidelines which do not prohibit any specific behaviors, there are several notable exceptions pertaining to school safety. In particular, the BISD (2001) prohibits students from possessing items such as fireworks, knives, razors, chains, tobacco, and drugs while at school and, in an effort to deter students from carrying banned items, the BISD has a policy which states that only clear, transparent, or mesh backpacks, waist packs, or purse packs shall be permitted (p. 10). The present data on school security were obtained from a survey administered to BISD high school students which contained questions pertaining to a variety of security-related issues such as student perceptions of law enforcement personnel, student perceptions of security tactics, and criminal and delinquent acts the students had witnessed at school. The survey also included a space for students to provide commentary on security-related issues. The survey was administered in cooperation with BISD officials, but the sampling process was by no means flawless. Although administrators at 4 of the 5 high schools cooperated, the level of cooperation varied between and within the institutions. To provide an example, at one location the cooperating administrator had to determine which teachers were willing to allocate class time to the study, whereas at another facility the cooperating administrator selected classes with large enrollments in an effort to obtain as many students as possible. Despite such exigencies in the sampling procedures, surveys were administered to 230 students. And although the students were not randomly selected, the sample consisted of an even mixture of males

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Ben Brown

111

(48.2%) and females (51.8%) and an assortment of freshmen (18.7%), sophomores (13.9%), juniors (28.7%), and seniors (38.7%). In addition, consistent with Census data showing that the majority (91.3%) of Brownsville residents are Hispanic, the majority of the students surveyed (93.8%) were Hispanic. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Overall, the students evaluations of the school law enforcement personnel and security tactics can best be described as mixed. As shown in Table 1, a clear majority of the students (more than 60%) thought that the BISD police officers do a good job of keeping the schools safe, that the BISD security officers do a good job of keeping the schools safe, and that the drug-sniffing dogs used by the BISD police officers help keep drugs out of the schools. On the other hand, the students were divided (with fewer than 60% in agreement or disagreement) on the issues of whether there should be more police and security officers in the schools, whether the police and security officers should use metal detectors to search students, and whether the video surveillance cameras help reduce crime in the schools. Finally, the majority of students were
TABLE 1. Frequency Distribution: Student Perceptions of School Police Officers, Security Officers, and Security Tactics
Yes f Police Officers Do a Good Job of Keeping School Safe Security Officers Do a Good Job of Keeping School Safe Clear/Mesh Backpack Policy Is a Good Policy Video Surveillance Cameras Help Reduce Crime Drug-Sniffing Dogs Help Keep Drugs Out of Schools There Should Be More Police and Security Officers in Schools Police/Security Officers Should Search Students w/Metal Detector 156 161 54 123 146 96 111 % 68.7 71.2 23.7 54.2 64.0 41.9 48.7 f 71 65 174 104 82 133 117 No % 31.3 28.8 76.3 45.8 36.0 58.1 51.3

N = 230 Note: Rows which do not total 230 are due to missing values. Percentages reported are valid percentages.

112

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

opposed to the requirement that all backpacks be made of mesh or clear plastic. In an effort to further assess the data, a chi square analysis of the correlations between gender and perceptions of school security tactics and policies was conducted. Given the limitations of the sample and the fact that the questions pertaining to the school security measures had dichotomous response categories, the nonparametric chi square test is an appropriate method of analysis. Although the chi square test is less powerful than parametric tests and does not allow for the potentially confounding impact of other variables to be controlled, it provides a quality means of examining statistical independence with tabular data (Walsh & Ollenburger, 2001) which is sufficient for the present purposes. As shown in Table 2, there were only two issues on which the gender differences proved to be significant. First, males were significantly more likely than females to oppose the suggestion that the school police and security officers use metal detectors to search students for weapons; a finding which is not difficult to explain. Considering the research which shows that males are more likely than females to carry guns and knives (Bailey et al., 1997; Brown, 2004; Hill & Drolet, 1999; Simon et al., 1997, 1999), it logically follows that many of the male students are concerned that if such a practice were to be put into effect they would either have to quit carrying weapons at school (e.g., pocket knives) or risk being detected and punished. The second difference in perceptions of school security tactics is that males were significantly more likely than females to rate the performance of the school police officers negatively; a finding which is not easy to make sense of. In particular, the data showing that the males rated the performance of the school police officers more negatively than the females, but that there were no significant gender differences in the evaluations of the school security officers or in the responses to the question of whether there should be more police and security officers in the schools are rather enigmatic. The most plausible explanation for the finding that the male students rated the performance of the school police officers less favorably than their female peers is that many of the male students perceive the police officers as a threat. Research consistently shows that males are more likely than females to engage in crime and delinquency and that young males are the demographic group most likely to engage in malfeasant behavior (Kanazawa & Still, 2000; Messerschmidt, 1993; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Thus, considering the rambunctious nature of adolescent males and the fact that the school police officers are armed and have

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Ben Brown

113

TABLE 2. Chi Square Crosstabulation: Gender and Assessment of Security Measures

BISD Police Officers Do a Good Job of Keeping School Safe Male f Yes No 63 45 108 % 58.3 41.7 100 f 91 26 117 Female % 77.8 22.2 100 f 154 71 225 Total % 68.4 31.6 100

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Total

Pearson Chi Square: 9.831**

BISD Security Officers Do a Good Job of Keeping School Safe Male f Yes No Total 76 33 109 % 69.7 30.3 100 f 83 32 115 Female % 72.2 27.8 100 f 159 65 224 Total % 71.0 29.0 100

Pearson Chi Square: 0.163

Clear/Mesh Backpack Policy Is a Good Policy Male f Yes No Total 29 80 109 % 26.6 73.4 100 f 24 93 117 Female % 20.5 79.5 100 f 53 173 226 Total % 23.5 76.5 100

Pearson Chi Square: 1.167

Video Security Cameras Help Reduce Crime Male f Yes No Total 67 47 109 % 56.9 43.1 100 f 60 57 117 Female % 51.3 48.7 100 f 122 104 226 Total % 54.0 46.0 100

Pearson Chi Square: .712

114

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE TABLE 2 (continued)

Drug-Sniffing Dogs Help Keep Drugs Out of Schools Male f % 62.7 37.3 100 f 76 41 117 Female % 65.0 35.0 100 f 145 82 227 Total % 63.9 36.1 100

Yes No Total

69 41 110

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Pearson Chi Square: .122

There Should Be More Police and Security Officers in the Schools Male f Yes No Total 50 59 109 % 45.9 54.1 100 f 45 73 118 Female % 38.1 61.9 100 f 95 132 227 Total % 41.9 58.1 100

Pearson Chi Square: 1.393

Police and Security Officers Should Use Metal Detectors to Search Students Male f Yes No Total 44 66 110 % 40.0 60.0 100 f 66 50 116 Female % 56.9 43.1 100 f 110 116 226 Total % 48.7 51.3 100

Pearson Chi Square: 6.452*

N = 230 * p < .05 **p .< .01 Note: Total columns do not total 230 due to missing data. Percentages reported are valid percentages.

special powers of arrest (whereas the security officers do not carry sidearms and do not have any special powers of arrest), it is at least conceivable that the male students are more concerned about being handled by the school police officers than being handled by the school security officers and may harbor some ill will toward the school police officers. This, however, is pure speculation. Moreover, it is important to clarify that although the male students were more likely than the female students to negatively evalu-

Ben Brown

115

ate the school police officers, the majority of males (58.3%) reported that the officers do a good job of keeping the schools safe. In order to delve beyond the inherent limitations of quantitative data and obtain a more in-depth understanding of student perceptions of school security tactics, the students qualitative comments were reviewed. The problem is that although narrative data are often richer than quantitative survey data, narrative data are not as easily coded and analyzed as data obtained from closed-ended survey questions (Weber, 1990). And given the boundaries of the present datain particular, the small sample size, the fact that many students chose not to write anything on the survey, and the fact that the student respondents who did provide comments opted to comment on different subjects (e.g., school security personnel, crimes they had witnessed)the analysis of the students comments is rudimentary. Among the students who wrote about the police and security officers, the opinions were mixed. Whereas several students provided positive commentary about the BISD police and security officers, others were less approving. As a case in point, one student wrote that The lady security is a real good person and another noted that the security and police are doing a very good job at my school. In contrast, a couple of other students wrote that The police officers dont do anything and that The security officers should be walking around the whole school to make sure everything is safe instead of standing in the lobby talking to one another. Next, although none of the students wrote anything about the drugsniffing dogs or video surveillance cameras, numerous students commented on the policy which requires that all backpacks be made of mesh or clear plastic. Concordant with the finding that the majority of students were opposed to this policy, the students commentaries on the backpack policy were consistently negative. One student, for example, commented that: Everything is good except the clear/mesh backpacks. Another wrote that The clear backpack rule is not important. And another commented: About the backpack kids should be allowed to bring regular ones because it makes them feel more comfortable. In fact, several students raised valid complaints about the translucent backpack policy which revolved around three points: (1) the practice of allowing student athletes and students involved with ROTC to carry non-translucent gym bags and allowing female students to carry nontranslucent purses is unfair, (2) the translucent backpacks do not prevent students from bringing drugs or weapons into the schools, and (3) the mesh backpacks are flimsy and tear easily (see Table 3).

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

116

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

TABLE 3. Categories of Student Commentary on Backpack Policy (Including Gender and Year in School)
Category #1: Backpack Policy Is Unfair School doesnt allow regular backpack because of weapons issue, but guns and knives can be concealed in women's purses. How come they get to bring the purses?Male Junior The Mesh bag rule applies to every one that isnt in ROTC or an Athletic sport, this rule isnt fair.Male Senior

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

The only thing I would like to say is that the New Rule about clear/mesh backpacks is probably the dumbest rule I have ever seen. Its unfair that the sports bags can be carried and not a regular backpack. If someone really wanted to bring something bad into school they would find another way.Male Junior I dont believe the use of only mesh backpacks is fair. The whole point was so that people would be able to look into your backpack, but as it turns out nobody cares. It also isnt fair to ban backpacks and allow athletes to carry sports bags. More guns and illegal drugs can easily be carried in one of those bags.Male Senior Category #2: Backpack Policy Has No Impact Clear backpacks are pointless because people can always find other creative ways of smuggling things in.Female Junior Clear or mesh backpacks do not help safety in the schools. You can still hide weapons, drugs, and alcohol in them.Female Junior If a student wanted to bring a gun or weapon to school he/she would no matter what rule about mesh backpacks. Maybe mesh backpacks lowered the percent by 1% but not enough to keep it safe.Male Sophomore Security is around and we have clear backpacks but if students have drugs or guns they would carry them in their clothing.Female Freshman I hate the mesh backpacks. Its very easy to hide a gun or knife in there. Metal detectors would do a much better job. Mesh backpacks don't solve anything.Female Sophomore The backpack policy is a joke! If someone wants to hide something they will. A clear backpack will only make them hide it better.Male Senior I think the new rule about mesh backpacks was not a very good idea. I understand why this rule was made but a weapon or drug can still be hidden. The only solution to this problem is to have metal detectors like the big high schools in bigger cities.Female Senior

Ben Brown
Category #3: Clear/Mesh Backpacks Are Flimsy

117

On another note, the whole mesh backpack thing is stupid. It has no effect on the students and they tear really easily. I hate them! They have absolutely no purpose whatsoever.Female Sophomore

Why do we have to have mesh backpacks. They tear easily and dont work. You can't even see through them. BISD board members just want to be recognized as doing something for the school. If they really want to do something for us get metal detectors. Female Sophomore

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Whatever the school district can do to make students feel safer is good. However, the backpack rule is bad. The mesh backpacks dont keep their shape and dont support the books therefore hurting our backs. They also dont protect our books from rain or other damage. So please reconsider the backpack rule. I understand that it is for the safety of the student but it is also hurting the student and people will always find other ways to bring weapons, alcohol, and drugs to school.Female Senior

It is useless to have mesh bags. Anyone can easily hide any kind of weapon or drugs in there. Nobody checks anyway. Securities dont care. Its just a waste of money for students and parents because they keep tearing and are expensive . . . . By the way, I quit my job and dont have money to buy a mesh backpack. Dont bother me. Im not rich.Female Senior

I find no point in using mesh or see-through backpack. Not the security or teachers actually check to see if people are hiding stuff. I bet I could hide something and nobody will ever notice. They tear easily and are more expensive. People I am not rich!Female Senior

Finally, the data on weapon carrying and drug activity in the schools were examined in an effort to ascertain whether the extant school security measures were effective. Unfortunately, these data suggest that the security measures have had little impact on the presence of weapons or drugs in the schools. More than half of the students reported having seen other students use drugs at school (55.1%), almost half of the students reported having seen other students carry knives at school (44.5%), and almost 1 out of 10 of the students reported having seen other students carry guns at school (9.6%); findings which attest to the validity of the students criticisms of the translucent backpack policy as being ineffective.

118

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

POLICY IMPLICATIONS Overall, the data suggest that school crime and school security in Brownsville are complex problems. Whereas the findings that many students carry weapons and use drugs at school indicate that the extant security tactics have a limited impact on school crime, these findings also indicate there is a genuine need for such tactics and, arguably, a need for more security personnel as it is doubtful that the students who bring drugs and weapons to school will desist of their own accord. Moreover, the data show that the majority of students are supportive of many of the tactics used to help ensure their safety. Specifically, the approbatory evaluations of the BISD police officers, the BISD security officers, and the drug-detecting dogs indicate that the students understand the need for such measures and appreciate the efforts made on their behalf. However, the data also suggest that school officials should reconsider some of the policies, the backpack policy in particular. Although the data are cross-sectional and cannot demonstrate the impact or lack of impact of a specific security measure, the triangulated consistency between the quantitative data on student perceptions of the backpack policy, the qualitative commentary on the backpack policy, and the quantitative data on student drug use and weapon carrying suggest that the backpack policy has done little to deter students from bringing drugs and weapons into the schools and a great deal to irritate the students. The problem is that by means of irritating the students the backpack policy may encourage the students carry contraband. As noted by Sherman (1993) in his original treatise on defiance theory, punishments which violate an individuals concept of fairness often lead to an increase in criminal and deviant behavior, especially among individuals who are not well-integrated into mainstream society. Specifically, Shermans (1993, p. 466) work calls attention to a problem that extends far beyond the criminal sanction: the conduct of everyday discourse with alienated persons who react with indignation to any hint of social disapproval. The basic premise of defiance theory is that the application of sanctions which an individual perceives as unfair (whether formal as in the case of a prison sentence or informal as in the case of a verbal reprimand) often encourages further defiance of extant rules and laws. And the application of a sanction which a large group perceives as unfair may result in mass defiance such as in the case of the riots in Los Angeles following the acquittal of the officers involved in the Rodney King beating.

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Ben Brown

119

Similarly, and with specific respect to school security, Hyman and Perone (1998, p. 22) conducted a review of the literature on school security and juvenile behavior and concluded that the use of harsh discipline and invasive security tactics by education officials may only serve to increase student alienation, misbehavior, and desire to get even. It is their position that invasive detection procedures such as locker searches and strip searches may lead to distrust for school staff and alienation from law enforcement authorities. These are often threshold factors for students motivation to increasingly break the rules (Hyman & Perone, 1998, p. 13). And based on an analysis of national survey data, Schreck et al. (2003, p. 475) reported that student perception that rules are unfairly enforced tends to be associated with greater risk of violence. To provide yet another example, Welsh (2003) found that student belief in the validity of school rules has a negative impact on both serious student offending and less-serious student misconduct. In sum, there is a small but growing body of evidence suggesting that school security measures which are viewed as unfair by students do not deter school crime. Thus, although the BISD policy that all backpacks be translucent is by no means equivalent to a policy of strip searching students suspected of carrying contraband, it is not inconceivable that the students perception of the policy as unjust may encourage students to distrust school officials and perhaps even to defiantly smuggle contraband into the school just to prove that it can be done. As shown in Table 3, several of the students comments suggest that the backpack policy is viewed as nothing more than an obstacle to be overcome or a challenge to the students ingenuity which requires a response. One student, for instance, noted that: I bet I could hid something an nobody will ever notice. And another commented that: The backpack policy is a joke! If someone wants to hide something they will. A clear backpack will only make them hide it better. In sum, the data showing that student weapon carrying and drug use are common occurrences suggest that hard control strategies such as the use of video surveillance, having police and security officers patrol school properties, and practices designed to enhance detection of contraband (i.e., drug-sniffing dogs and the translucent backpack policy) have a limited impact on school crime. This is not to imply that such practices are entirely ineffective, but simply that school officials should not rely solely on hard control strategies to curb crime and delinquency in the schools. In fact, given that roughly half of the students reported having seen other students use drugs and carry weapons and that major-

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

120

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

ity of students evaluated the school police officers, school security officers, and drug-sniffing dogs favorably, it would be irresponsible to suggest that such security measures are unwarranted. However, the data also indicate that school officials should avoid the use of policies and practices which the majority of students are opposed to. It is thus suggested that students be encouraged to participate in the development and implementation of school security measures; an approach which offers several potential benefits. First, student participation in the development and implementation of school security tactics should provide the students with a better understanding of the rationale behind security measures and thus increase student support and cooperation with security measures. Second, building upon research which shows that students who are less connected or bonded with the school environment tend to be involved with delinquency and to be victimized at disproportionately high rates (Eisenberg, Neumark-Sztainer, & Perry, 2003; Jenkins, 1997), it is possible that increasing student participation in school security measures may enhance the students feelings of connectedness with the school and thus reduce delinquency. Third, given that students are inevitably more knowledgeable about the immediate particulars of drug use, gang activity, and weapon carrying in the schools than administrators, gathering student input on school security measures may prove to be a quality means of an assessing crime-associated problems in the schools. Finally, gathering student input can alert administrators to issues of student discontent (e.g., security policies which the majority of students perceive as unjust and ineffective) which need to be addressed. This is not to imply that the students should be given the authority to decide which security measures will or will not be used, but simply that student input should be sought as a component of an informed policy-making process. CONCLUDING REMARKS When viewed as a whole, the present data are concordant with research showing that student weapon carrying and drug use are significant problems (e.g., Lowry et al., 1999) and that hard control strategies such as the use of video surveillance cameras have a limited impact on school crime (e.g., Schreck et al., 2003). Informed by Shermans (1993) defiance theory, the data also indicate that school officials should avoid the use of security measures that are viewed as unfair by the majority of the student population. Concisely stated, the data suggest that control-

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Ben Brown

121

ling crime and delinquency in schools and developing effective school security measures will not be easy, particularly here in the U.S. The simple fact of the matter is that the U.S. is a nation which was forged by an assembly of rebellious colonists and, over the years, this defiant spirit has fostered a culture that glamorizes the rebel: a culture wherein characters such as Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone, and John Gotti are idolized by the public. Thus, considering that this message is spoon fed to our nations youth, it should be no surprise that adolescents are a rebellious group. From James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, and Elvis Presley to Robert Downey Jr., Courtney Love, and Snoop Dogg, popular American youth culture has celebrated the free-spirited rule breaker for at least the past half century. It should also be no surprise that adolescents often react with defiant hostility toward perceived injustice which means that creating school security policies which students perceive as fair is an arduous task. Regardless of whether a school policy prohibits students from wearing certain types of clothing, prohibits students from carrying a particular type of backpack, requires that students submit to a search of their person or property, bans the possession of specific electronic devices (e.g., laser pointers, cell phones), or even prohibits students from carrying items which serve no purpose other than disrupting and distracting others (e.g., squirt guns, water balloons), there will inevitably be some students who perceive the policy as unfair and attempt to circumvent it. It is therefore suggested that school officials should strive to minimize student defiance of security measures and that one means for doing so is to encourage student participation in the development and implementation of school security measures. Regardless of whether the students are involved by means of having elected student representatives participate in the policy making process, using student courts to judge students accused of minor incidents of wrongdoing, training students in means of nonviolent conflict resolution, assigning students the responsibility of monitoring the hallways, getting students involved in the process of cleaning up graffiti or repairing vandalized school property, or using a buddy system that pairs younger students with more mature student mentors/guardians, encouraging student involvement in school security measures offers a diversity of potential benefits (for further suggestions, see Decker, 2000; Ericson, 2001; Kenney & Watson, 1999; Lockwood, 1997; Morley, Rossman, Kopczynski, Buck, & Gouvis, 2000). To date, however, there is no consensus as to which methods of encouraging student participation in school security measures are most effective and the present study offers little in terms of guidance for school

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

122

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

officials in search of the best means of reducing school crime. In sum, the clearest implication of this study is the need for additional and continuous research on school security measures. REFERENCES
Advancement Project and Civil Rights Project. (2000, June). Opportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Available: www.law.harvard.edu/groups/civilrights. Arnette, J. L. & Walsleben, M. (1998). Combating fear and restoring safety in schools (NCJ 167888). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs. Bailey, S. L., Flewelling, R. L., & Rosenbaum, D. P. (1997). Characteristics of students who bring weapons to school. Journal of Adolescent Health, 20, 261-270. Barrios, L. C., Baer, K., Bennett, G., Bergan, A., Bryn, S., Callaway, S., Davis, D., Downs, R., Dressler, K., Ho, T., Karp, N., Mathews-Younes, A., MacMurray, N., OBrien, E., Overpeck, M., Reed, W., Small, M., & Tuma, F. (2000). Federal activities addressing violence in schools. Journal of School Health, 70, 119-140. Brooks, K., Schiraldi, V., & Ziedenberg, J. (1999). School house hype: Two years later. San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Available: www. cjcj.org. Brown, B. (2004). Juveniles and weapons: Recent research, conceptual considerations, and programmatic interventions. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 161-184. Brownsville Independent School District. (2001). Student-parent handbook, 20012002. Brownsville, TX: Brownsville Independent School District, Department of Admissions and Attendance. Chandler, K. A., Chapman, C. D., Rand, M. R., & Taylor, B. M. (1998, March). Students reports of school crime: 1989 and 1995 (NCJ 169607). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Decker, S. H. (2000, December). Increasing school safety through juvenile accountability programs (NCJ 179283). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. DeVoe, J. F., Peter, K., Kaufman, P., Ruddy, S. A., Miller, A. K., Planty, M., Snyder, T. D., Duhart, D. T., & Rand, M. R. (2002, November). Indicators of school crime and safety, 2002 (NCJ 196753). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Eisenberg, M. E., Neumark-Sztainer, D., & Perry, C. L. (2003). Peer harassment, school connectedness, and academic achievement. Journal of School Health, 73, 311-316. Ericson, N. (2001, June). Addressing the problem of school bullying (FS-200127). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Esbensen, F. A. (2000, September). Preventing adolescent gang involvement (NCJ 182210). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Ben Brown

123

Esbensen, F. A., & Osgood, D. W. (1999). Gang Resistance Education And Training (G.R.E.A.T.): Results from the national evaluation. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 194-225. Felson, M. E. (1998). Crime and everyday life (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Garcia, C. A. (2003). School safety technology in America: Current use and perceived effectiveness. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 14, 30-54. Girouard, C. (2001, March). School resource officer training program (FS-200105). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). What schools do to prevent problem behavior and to promote safe environments. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 313-344. Green, M. W. (1999, September). The appropriate and effective use of security technologies in U.S. schools: A guide for schools and law enforcement agencies (NCJ 178265). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Hanke, P. J. (1996). Putting school crime into perspective: Self-reported school victimizations of high school seniors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 207-226. Hawkins, J. D., Herrenkohl, T. I., Farrington, D. P., Brewer, D., Catalano, R. F., Harachi, T. W., & Cothern, L. (2000, April). Predictors of youth violence (NCJ 179065). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Hellman, D. A., & Beaton, S. (1986). The pattern of violence in urban public schools: The influence of school and community. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 23, 102-127. Hickman, M. J., & Reaves, B. A. (2001, May). Local police departments 1999 (NCJ 186478). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Hickman, M. J., & Reaves, B. A. (2003, January). Local police departments 2000 (NCJ 196002). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Hill, S. C., & Drolet, J. C. (1999). School-related violence among high school students in the United States, 1993-1995. Journal of School Health, 69, 264-272. Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 552-584. Howell, J. C., & Lynch, J. P. (2000, August). Youth gangs in schools (NCJ 183015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Hyman, I. A., & Perone, D. C. (1998). The other side of school violence: Educator policies and practices that may contribute to student misbehavior. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 7-27. Jackson, A. (2002). Police-school resource officers and students perception of the police and offending. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25, 631-650.

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

124

JOURNAL OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE

Jenkins, P. H. (1997). School delinquency and the school social bond. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 337-367. Johnson, I. M. (1999). School violence: The effectiveness of a school resource officer program in a Southern city. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 173-192. Kanazawa, S., & Still, M. C. (2000). Why men commit crimes (and why they desist). Sociological Theory, 18, 434-477. Kaufman, P., Xianglei, C., Choy, S. P., Ruddy, S. A., Miller, A. K., Fleury, J. K., Chandler, K., Rand, M. R., Klaus, P., & Planty, M. G. (2000, October). Indicators of school crime and safety, 2000 (NCJ 184176). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Kenney, D. J., & Watson, S. (1999, July). Crime in the schools: Reducing conflict with student problem solving (NCJ 177618). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Lawrence, R. (2000, May/June). School violence, the media, and the ACJS. ACJS Today, 20 (2), 1-7. Lockwood, D. (1997, October). Violence among middle school and high school students: Analysis and implications for prevention (NCJ 166363). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Lowry, R., Cohen, L. R., Modzeleski, W., Kann, L., Collins, J. L., & Kolbe, L. J. (1999). School violence, substance use, and availability of illegal drugs on school property among US high school students. Journal of School Health, 69, 347-367. Lynham, D. R., Millich, R., Zimmerman, R., Novak, S. P., Logan, T. K., Martin, C., Leukefeld, C., & Clayton, R. (1999). Project DARE: No effects at 10-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 590-593. Maguire, B., Weatherby, G. A., & Mathers, R. A. (2002). Network news coverage of school shootings. Social Science Journal, 39, 465-470. Mawson, A. R., Lapsley, P. M., Hoffman, A. M., & Guignard, J. C. (2002). Preventing lethal violence in the schools: The case for entry-based weapons screening. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 27, 243-260. Messerschmidt, J. W. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Morley, E., Rossman, S. B., Kopczynski, M., Buck, J., & Gouvis, C. (2000, November). Comprehensive responses to youth at risk: Interim findings from the Safefutures Initiative (NCJ 183841). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Nessel, P. A. (2001, April). Youth for justice (NCJ 186161). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Roncek, D. W., & Lobosco, A. (1983). The effect of high schools on crime in their neighborhoods. Social Science Quarterly, 64, 598-613. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schreck, C. J., Miller, J. M., & Gibson, C. L. (2003). Trouble in the school yard: A study of the risk factors of victimization at school. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 460-484.

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Ben Brown

125

Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445-473. Simon, T. R., Crosby, A. E., & Dahlberg, L. L. (1999). Students who carry weapons to high school. Journal of Adolescent Health, 24, 340-348. Simon, T. R., Dent, C. W., & Sussman, S. (1997). Vulnerability to victimization, concurrent problem behaviors, and peer influence as predictors of in-school weapon carrying among high school students. Violence and Victims, 12, 277-289. Steffensmeir, D. J., Allan, E. A., Harer, M. D., & Streifel, C. (1989). Age and the distribution of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 803-831. Tebo, M. G. (2000, April). Zero tolerance, zero sense. ABA Journal, 86, 40-48. Toby, J. (2002). Is weapons-screening strategy for public schools good public policy? Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 27, 261-265. Toby, J. (1995). The schools. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime (pp. 141170). San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies. Toby, J. (1980, Winter). Crime in American public schools. The Public Interest, 58, 29-32. U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). American factfinder. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. Available: www.census.gov. U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). State and county quick facts. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. Available: www.census.gov. U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. (1999). 1999 annual report on school safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (1978). Violet schoolssafe schools: The safe school study report to the Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Walsh, A. & Ollenburger, J. C. (2001). Essential statistics for the social and behavioral sciences: A conceptual approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Welsh, W. N. (2003). Individual and institutional predictors of school disorder. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 1, 346-368. Wilcox, P. & Clayton, R. R. (2001). A multilevel analysis of school-based weapon possession. Justice Quarterly, 18, 509-539.

Downloaded by [CDC] at 14:23 16 May 2012

Received: April 2, 2004 Accepted: September 2, 2004