Since the Columbine shooting, many schools are installing surveillance cameras in attempts to reduce threats and monitor day-to-day activity (Addington, 2009).

 

Statistics

• In the 2013–2014 school year, an estimated 89% of public high schools used security cameras to monitor the school (Tanner-Smith et al., 2018).

• In 2017, 83.8% of schools used one or more security cameras to monitor the school (U.S. Department of Education, 2018).

 

Locations of Cameras in Schools

• Entry Points

• Classrooms

• Utility Rooms

• Hallways

• Stairwells

• Building Exterior

 

Purpose of Surveillance Cameras

Entry Control

• Video surveillance is a valuable security measure for entry control (DeVos, Nielsen & Azar, 2018)

Monitoring

• Surveillance cameras can also be used beyond entry points to monitor areas that are not within the normal view of teachers, administrators, or security personnel, such as hallways and enclosed stairwells (DeVos, Nielsen & Azar, 2018).

• Personnel or other staff should actively monitor video feeds (DeVos, Nielsen & Azar, 2018)

Mitigate Behavior

• Using videos in hallways, stairwells, and utility rooms may be necessary to mitigate nefarious behavior (DeVos, Nielsen & Azar, 2018).

• The use of video cameras in segregated settings will, instead of limiting abuse, foster unintended consequences. Therefore, the use of video camera surveillance in self-contained classrooms where special education services are provided to students with disabilities is NOT recommended (Amos, White & Trader, 2015)

 

Pros and Cons of Using Surveillance Cameras

PROS

Collaboration

• The local first responder community should have access to the videos (DeVos, Nielsen & Azar, 2018)

• Schools sharing video feeds with local law enforcement or others should ensure they are complying with all appropriate privacy laws, such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (DeVos, Nielsen & Azar, 2018)

CONS

Negative School Culture

• Visible security measures may create a culture of criminalization and fear in schools, which can negatively affect school climate (Tanner-Smith et al., 2018)

• May reduce the effectiveness of traditional approaches to behavior management (e.g., increasing feelings of connectedness) (Tanner-Smith et al., 2018).

Negative Behavior

• Schools using cameras, security personnel, and metal detectors  were associated with greater exposure to drugs and fighting, particularly in schools with high proportions of racial/ ethnic minority and low socioeconomic status students (Tanner-Smith et al., 2018).

Lack of Evidence

• No clear evidence indicates that measures such as security cameras are effective in preventing school violence. (Addington, 2009).

• School safety administrators found security cameras to be the most popular security measure and the one they believed to be the most effective at preventing crime on campus (Addington, 2009; Garcia, 2003). (no evidence was available to substantiate this belief)

• Students [do] not believe security cameras [are] effective or perceive crimes will decrease (Addington, 2009; Brown, 2005).

Costly

• Unlike other commonly used options such as locking entrances or requiring visitors to sign in, adding security cameras and guards incur significant financial costs (Addington, 2009).

​

Suggestions (Alternatives to using Cameras)

• As policymakers seek to find ways to keep schools safe, relying on visible security measures alone does not appear to be sufficient, given that the root causes of school crime and violence occur at multiple ecological levels (Henry. 2009; Tanner-Smith et al., 2018).

• Interventions and policies aimed at reducing school crime and violence should operate at multiple levels, incorporating individual youth, schools, families, neighborhoods, and other social institutions (Tanner-Smith et al., 2018).

• Alternative approaches to cultivate a safe, positive environment (Amos, White & Trader, 2015):

  • Adopt inclusive education practices

  • Implement Positive Intervention and Supports (PBIS)

  • Augment and Integrate School Wide PBIS with Trauma-Informed Practices

  • Include all Students in Integrated Classroom Settings

  • Recognize and Support Cultural Differences

  • Expect Vigilance in Screening School Personnel

 

 

References

Addington, L. A. (2009). Cops and cameras: Public school security as a policy response to Columbine. American

     Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1424– 1446.

Amos, P., White, J., & Trader, B. (2015). Will Cameras in Classrooms Make Schools Safer?. TASH position statement on       camera surveillance in self-contained classrooms. Retrieved October, 11, 2016.

Brown, B. (2005). Controlling crime and delinquency in the schools: An exploratory study of student perceptions of              school security measures. Journal of School Violence, 4, 105-125.

DeVos, B., Nielsen, K. M., & Azar, A. M. (2018). Final Report of the Federal Commission on School Safety. Presented to        the President of the United States. US Department of Education.

Garcia, C. A. (2003). School safety technology in America: Current use and perceived effectiveness. Criminal Justice          Policy Review, 14, 30-54.

Henry, S. (2009). School violence beyond columbine: A complex problem in need of an interdisciplinary analysis.                American Behavioral Scientist. 52, 1246-1265.

Tanner-Smith, E. E., Fisher, B. W., Addington, L. A., & Gardella, J. H. (2018). Adding security, but subtracting safety?            Exploring schools’ use of multiple visible security measures.  American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 102–119.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). Indicators of School Crime and Safety:        2017 (NCES 2018-036), Indicator 20.