The

Appropriate and Effective Use

of Security Technologies

in U.S. Schools

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

A Guide for Schools and Law Enforcement Agencies

The

Appropriate and Effective Use

of Security Technologies

in U.S. Schools

tional Institute of Justice

Research Report
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

Raymond C. Fisher

Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Noël Brennan

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Jeremy Travis

Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
The 

Appropriate and Effective Use

of Security Technologies

in U.S. Schools

A Guide for Schools and

Law Enforcement Agencies

Mary W. Green

Sandia National Laboratories

September 1999

NCJ 178265
National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis

Director

Raymond Downs

Program Monitor

nder award number 97–IJ–R–072 from the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,

Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position

stice.

stice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance,

tics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
ools is the responsibility of the entire

ich a school or school system resides,

 for maintaining them on a day-to

ncipally with school administrators

xtent, the local law enforcement

schools in this task, the U.S.

ucation and the U.S. Department of

nsored, often jointly, both research

n programs to collect data and test

that will expand understanding of

nd disorder and lead to new programs

roblems. 

ovides basic guidelines to law

cies and school administrators and

collaboration as they decide what, if

hnologies should be considered as

school strategies. In the wake of

e school tragedies with multiple

of this Nation’s communities have

l districts to incorporate security

heir safety programs. This guide

ols, in concert with their law enforce

nalyze their vulnerability to violence,

sm, and suggest possible technolo

ese problems in an effective manner.

bes existing commercially available

urges thoughtful consideration of not

 safety benefits that may accrue from

their use but also the costs that schools may incurfor capital investments, site modifications, additionalstaffing, training, and equipment maintenance andrepair.Topic areas included in this guide are: security concepts and operational issues, video surveillance,weapons detection devices (walk-through and handheld metal detectors and x-ray baggage scanners),entry controls, and duress alarms. Though this document does not replace the use ofappropriate expert advice or provide detailed instructions on installing equipment or making cost estimates, it does offer practical guidance that shouldenable schools and law enforcement agencies to makebetter informed decisions on security technology. Safety and security technology can only be one tool ina comprehensive program that each school must develop to create a safe learning environment that isperceived to be safe by all students and staff.Jeremy TravisDirector, National Institute of JusticeU.S. Department of JusticeBill ModzeleskiDirector, Safe and Drug-Free Schools ProgramU. S. Department of Education

iii
y specialists from the Security

hnologies Center at Sandia National

talked with local schools in 1991.

to share what we had learned about

 weaknesses of security technologies

 with the U.S. Department of Energy

ublic schools.

e 120-plus schools across the country,

OE-funded work to improve security at

l in New Mexico and performing addi

rity work for the National Institutes 

e have learned that school security,

her applications, is not simple and

We have learned a lot about the unique

security from the many students, par

and law enforcement personnel we met

 of our work. At any particular school,

oduct of funding, facilities, building

ut, administrators, teachers, parents,

, campus order, security personnel,

eighborhood, policies, the school

nforcement, fire codes, local govern

d reputation. No two schools will have

cessful security programs—hence, a

for one school cannot just be replicat

s with complete success.

clear after working with more than

ng the past 7 years is that school

ed a good information resource on

hysical security problems. This guide

riate and Effective Use of Security

S. Schools, is anticipated to be the

first in a series of manuals designed and written for useby school administrators and law enforcement agencies. The goals of these documents are to provide nontechnical, nonvendor-specific information on:

• The kinds of security products available on the

market.

• The strengths and weaknesses of these products and

their expected effectiveness in a school environment.

• The costs of these products, including installation,

long-term operational and maintenance expenses,manpower, and training.

• Requirements to include in Requests For Quotes

(RFQs) to get a good product for an application.

• Legal issues that may need to be addressed.

Although security products can certainly have many different applications, this document covers products thatcan be applicable to some of the issues of violence inschools: video surveillance, weapon detection, entry control, and duress alarms. Future volumes are expected tocover issues and products such as bomb threats andexplosives detection; drug residue and drug vapor detection; drug use detection; alcohol use detection; interiorand exterior intrusion detection sensors; alarm communications; antigraffiti sealers; false fire alarm pulls;glass-break sensors; two-way radios; fencing; antitheftproperty marking; doors, locks, and key control; CrimePrevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)principles; and parking lot safety. Most of the issuesand philosophies covered in these manuals are gearedtoward middle schools and high schools, but elementaryschools will likely find several of the technologies tohave possible applications at their facilities.Although this document addresses nontechnology measures that we felt were important for the completeness

v
many good resources and refer

dress these people/policy/proce

uch better. See the Resources

his book.

rcement agencies, schools, and

/vendors is welcome, especially

s or errors on our part. This

o provide an overview of securi

reas that might be appropriate

ol applications. Appropriate 

 will be included in future

f our cost estimates for hard

ent pricing; this document was

ar before actual publication.)

r deep appreciation to the many

d us to visit them and to assess

es of their facilities and opera

s of the good things on their

e bad). I never failed to learn

school we have visited. I found

chools in this country, with very

king administrators giving 110

 to keep their students safe. I

ense and stressful hours they

 importance of their jobs.

nal Institute of Justice (NIJ) for

o conduct the research that

his guidebook. I hope that we

dards NIJ has set for providing

nd technologies have to offer in

nited States. I owe special grati

 Director of Sandia’s Security

ies Center; Dennis has always

been an advocate for schools and was the greatest allyin accomplishing Sandia’s school security work.Information regarding the availability and orderingprocess for these manuals and any updates may beobtained at the NIJ Web site: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij;the Justice Technology Information Network (JUSTNET):

www.nlectc.org; or by calling 1–800–248–2742.

I would be interested in hearing from readers regarding their successes, as well as their failures, in dealingwith school security technology issues.Mary W. Green

mgreen@sandia.govSandia National LaboratoriesMail Stop 0782P.O. Box 5800Albuquerque, NM 87185Since 1941, Sandia National Laboratories has been aU.S. Department of Energy facility whose primary mission is providing engineering support for the U.S. nuclearweapons program. For the past 30 years, the SecurityTechnologies and Research Division at Sandia has beenthe principal provider of research, design, development,and testing of leading-edge technologies to solve physicalsecurity problems at high-risk U.S. facilities.Today, the Sandia facility in Albuquerque, New Mexico,employs more than 8,000 scientists, engineers, mathematicians, technicians, and support personnel to provideservice in the national interest. More than 150 of thesepersonnel are dedicated solely to research and development of security technologies.

vi
ents

Mary W. Green, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico

by: Steven Scatliffe, Tech Reps, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico

George Wagner, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Steven Scatliffe, Tech Reps, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico

tion: Rosanne C. Rohac, Tech Reps, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico

Elaine Perea, Tech Reps, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico

utors: Janet Ahrens, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Tim Malone, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New MexicoDale Murray, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New MexicoCharles Ringler, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New MexicoGeorge Wagner, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New MexicoFred Wolfenbarger, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Kay Kelly, BEI, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Raymond Downs, Program Manager, National Institute of Justice

William Modzeleski, Director, Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program, U.S. Department ofJoe N. Anderson, Director of School Safety and Security, Metropolitan Nashville Public SchoolsMichael S. Ganio, Sr. Manager, Security Services, Orange County Public SchoolsJohn J. McLees, Executive Director, Philadelphia Office for School SafetyTom Hall, School Police Chief, San Diego Unified School DistrictKenneth Trump, President and CEO, National School Safety and Security ServicesGary Underwood, Chief, San Bernardino Police, School Safety DepartmentPaul Schultz, Chief of Police, LaVista Police, LaVista, NebraskaRonald Sloan, Chief of Police, Arvada Police Department, Arvada, ColoradoJohn C. Martinez, Deputy Chief, Dallas Police DepartmentJ.M. Hutt, Sergeant Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office, Englewood, ColoradoTod Schneider, Crime Prevention Specialist, Police Services Division, Eugene, OregonEd Hardy, Chief, Special Investigative Unit, Broward County School District, Sunrise, FloridaDonovon Collins, Chief, Dallas Independent School District PoliceMel Seo, Auxiliary Service Specialist, Hawaii Department of EducationJack Lazzarotto, Director, Police Services, Clark County School District, Las Vegas, NevadaCharles Clark, Director, Security Emergency Preparedness, Long Beach Unified School DistrictWesley Mitchell, Chief, Los Angeles School PoliceSharon O’Connor, Tech Reps, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico

vii
Contents

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Picture: Security Concepts and Operational Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

urveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

meras? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

eo cameras? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

tions versus poor applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

 not to monitor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

black-and-white cameras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

pan-tilt-zoom cameras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

rsus wireless systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

ical discussion of formats, resolution, pixels, lenses, and field of view. . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

ings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

d mounting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

irements and nighttime applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

as. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

and expected lifespan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

bid for equipment and system maintenance contracts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

se of cameras on school grounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

 of the use of video cameras in schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

viii
rding equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

the weak link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

exers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

pse recorders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

ecorders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

recorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

etal Detection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

ugh metal detectors for personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

al detectors really work?—The basics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5

equirements and layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

hput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

are costs and manpower costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

ures for the operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

tions for the scannee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

larms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

s of interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

ance testing and performance testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

nance and expected lifespan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

g with the vendor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

 scanners for personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

me of the game: Policies and procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

equirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

hput . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

are costs and manpower costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

ures for the operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

tions for the scannee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

nance and expected lifespan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

g with the vendor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

ix
canners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

ns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

ace requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

ts and manpower costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

r the operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

or the scannee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

sting and performance testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

9

and expected lifespan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

 the vendor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

ontrol Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

exit points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

proaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

 in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

VE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

OW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Alarm Devices and Their Role in Crisis Management . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Publications, Web Sites, and Conferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

x
xi

Pearl High School, Pearl, Mississippi