DOI: 10.3886/icpsr38455
title: Identifying Cost-Effective Security Barrier Technologies for K-12 Schools: An Interdisciplinary Evaluation, Arizona, 2021
title: Archival Version

description: This multidisciplinary study included three objectives: (1) to conduct physical security surveys of K-12 schools in Arizona to compile a dataset of the physical security barrier technologies in use in those schools; (2) to survey parents and teachers about their perceptions of security in their schools, and compare their perceptions to those of security experts who conducted physical security surveys of participating schools; and (3) to test commonly used door and window materials in schools against ballistic and forced entry attack to determine the time necessary to penetrate the material. To assess physical security, researchers visited 73 schools in 15 school districts and collected data on 3712 doors. The data collected included door material, door condition, hinges, locks, door knobs, door closers, and any windows adjacent to, or in, each door. Board certified security professionals and a retired law enforcement officer then scored the security value of each type of physical security device on a scale of 0 to 5. The scores were aggregated to arrive at an overall security score for each school that was compared to the survey responses of stakeholders. Commonly used door and window materials used in schools were also tested against ballistic and force entry attacks to establish baseline penetration times. The Penetration Test Protocols is available to download as study documentation, but the completed test report is not available with this collection. Parent perceptions were assessed using a 45 item survey. Data were collected from 614 parents or guardians who had at least one child attending one of 43 K-12 schools in 9 Arizona school districts. Most parent respondents self-identified as females (n = 401; 94 missing data points). The average parent respondent age was 43.64 (SD = 8.70), with an age range from 23 to 78 years old (113 missing data points). Parent respondents identified as White, non-Hispanic (66 percent), Hispanic (10.3 percent), Black or African American (.5 percent), American Indian (4.6 percent), Asian (.7 percent), and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (.2 percent; 110 missing data points). Teacher perceptions were assessed using a 47 item survey. Data were collected from 384 teachers who taught at one of 43 K-12 schools in 8 Arizona school districts. Most teacher respondents self-identified as females (n = 292; 6 missing data points). The average teacher age was 45.38 (SD = 12.77), with an age range from 22 to 100 years old (39 missing data points). Teacher respondents identified as White, non-Hispanic (84.4 percent), Hispanic (7.8 percent), Black or African American (.5 percent), American Indian (1 percent), Asian (.3 percent), and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (.3 percent; 18 missing data points). The participants' reported an average job tenure of 7.12 years (SD = 6.65), with a range from .17 to 40 years at their school (26 missing data points).
description: The purpose of the study was to provide school administrators, school security directors, and policy makers with data on what physical security barriers are in place in K-12 schools, the condition of those barrier technologies, and how stakeholders (parents and teachers) perceive the level of security in their schools. The study sought to answer the following research questions: <strong>Question 1:</strong> What physical security barrier technologies are in use in K-12 schools and how secure, in the opinion of experienced security professionals, is each school? <strong>Question 2:</strong> How do parents and teachers perceive the level of security in their, or their children's schools, and how do their perceptions compare to those of experienced security professionals? <strong>Question 3:</strong> How long will various doors and windows commonly used in K-12 schools withstand ballistic and force entry attacks?
description: <strong>School Physical Security Data</strong> Researchers visited 73 schools from 15 school districts throughout Arizona and collected data from 3712 doors using physical security surveys. Physical security data were collected for every interior and exterior door (excluding storage rooms) and any windows in, or immediately adjacent to, each door. All door locks, handles, hinges, and door closers were visually inspected for damage and tested to determine functionality. The data were recorded in a standardized database using tablet computers. The locks, door knobs, dead latches, panic bars, and door closers of each door were tested and any problems were recorded in the database. Every inspection team was supervised by a board certified security professional. A scoring model was also developed by board certified security professionals and a retired law enforcement officer to rank the security value of each security item inspected during the physical security surveys. Each item was ranked on a scale of 0 to 5, with 5 indicating the highest security value. Data regarding the condition of each item were also ranked on a scale of 0 to 5 with 5 being the best condition and 0 indicating that an identified problem had a major impact on the security value of the item being assessed. <strong>Stakeholder Perceptions: Parent and Teacher Surveys</strong> Two members of the research team with expertise in item and assessment tool development created a parent and teacher survey, both of which were designed to assess parent and teacher perceptions, respectively, of their school's safety. Both survey instruments also assessed demographics, which are not available in this collection. The parent survey consisted of 45 items, and the teacher survey consisted of 47 items. There was an English and Spanish version of each survey. Once developed, all survey items were inputted into SurveyMonkey, an online survey platform, for administration. Members of the research team asked all participating districts to forward the survey links (English and Spanish versions) via their parent and teacher email distribution lists. A letter preceded entry into each survey that informed participants of the nature of and eligibility for the study and that participation was completely voluntary and confidential. <strong>Aggregate Safety Scores</strong> For each participating school, door features were scored separately (material, latch type and condition, presence of door and side lights, etc.) on a scale of 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating that the feature is safer than the lower scores. For each school door, feature scores were aggregated to the door level, then door level scores were aggregated to the school and district levels. This process created 2 global physical safety scores, one by school and one by district. For both parents and teachers, item scores were separately aggregated to the school and district levels, with higher scores indicating stronger safety perceptions. <strong>Ballistics Testing</strong> The ballistics testing was conducted by a certified ballistics testing laboratory, NTS Chesapeake (NTS), in Belcamp, Maryland. Each door and window was tested against the 3 most commonly used calibers of ammunition: 9 mm, 5.56 mm, and 12 gauge shotgun. The number of shots used per caliber, per test were based on the standard magazine capacity for firearms of that caliber: 15 rounds for 9 mm handguns, 30 rounds for the AR-15 rifle, and 5 rounds for the 12 gauge shotgun. Three types of doors were tested: solid core wood, 18 gauge solid core steel, and 16 gauge solid core steel. For the window glazing tests, 3 types of glass were tested: tempered, wired, and laminated. Each type of window was tested both with and without smash resistant film installed on the glass. Two types of smash resistant security films were used for testing: 3M 8 mil security film and 3M 8 mil Ultra+ C bond. A ballistics testing protocol was developed by the research team and provided to NTS. The protocol is available to download as study documentation.
description: The first dataset consists of physical security, parent, and teacher survey data collected during this project. Parent and teacher aggregate perceptions scores are included, as well as the physical security ratings data and aggregate scores. It contains 3712 samples and 60 variables. The second dataset contains the physical security data collected during the physical security survey which counted the types of security features in participating schools. This dataset contains 3712 samples and 26 variables. The third dataset contains the parent survey response data. This dataset contains 614 samples and 46 variables. The fourth dataset contains the teacher survey response data. This dataset contains 384 samples and 46 variables.
description: Not applicable.
description: Response Rates: Not available.
description: Presence of Common Scales: None.
description: Researchers recruited public school districts throughout the state of Arizona to participate in this study. The researchers gave presentations on the study during regional emergency management meetings organized by The Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, Inc. (The Trust), a non-profit organization that provides property and liability insurance to all public schools in the state. Interested meeting attendees then contacted the principal investigator to volunteer their school districts to participate in the research project. The participating school districts consisted of large suburban, small cities, and rural school districts, 3 of which were located on reservations. No large city school districts volunteered to participate in this study.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Physical Security Data, Scores, and Safety Perceptions DS2: Physical Security Survey Data DS3: Parent Survey Data DS4: Teacher Survey Data
description: Physical security barrier technologies in use in Arizona K-12 schools, and parents of children and teachers from those schools. Smallest Geographic Unit: State
description: coded on-site observation; web-based surveyAn objective of this study involved testing door and window materials commonly used in schools against ballistic and forced entry attacks to establish baseline penetration. The ballistic testing report referenced in study documentation is not available with this collection.