Security Cameras in Schools

The Hamilton Fish Institute systematically monitors the research on making schools safer. In reply to a recent question on the effects of security cameras in high schools, the Institute reviewed the following resources:

1. Education Longitudinal Study 2002, School Administrator Questionnaire, Appendix G, Base Year Codebooks, Q38N – Not quite 30 percent (29.8) of all schools “use one or more security cameras to monitor the school.” http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004405_3.pdf, p.39. This Appendix is more than 300 pages; downloading it will take a while.

2. Garcia, G. A. (2003). School safety technology in America: Current use and perceived effectiveness. Criminal Justice Policy Review 14(1, March 2003), 30-54 – Part of the Abstract reads, “Although it is well known that cameras are useful for documenting events after the fact, further utility of the various school safety technologies is virtually unknown.” In other words, a “comprehensive report on the effects of security cameras in high schools” has probably not been produced. In order to obtain a Reprint of this article from Criminal Justice Policy Review, please contact Bob Vrooman, Commercial Sales Director, Sage Publications, Inc, 2455 Teller Rd., Thousand Oaks, CA 91320, Phone: (805) 499-0721 X7594, Fax: (805) 499-8096, E-mail: reprint@sagepub.com.

3. Surveillance cameras are authorized for acquisition by Local Education Agencies under PUBLIC LAW 107-110, January 8, 2002 [115 STAT. 1425][No Child Left Behind Act of 2001], under TITLE IV, PART A, Subpart 1, Section 4115(b)(2)(E)(ii), as below:

TITLE IV-21ST CENTURY SCHOOLS
PART A-SAFE AND DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES
. . .
Subpart 1-State Grants
. . .
SEC. 4115. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.
. . .
(b) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES.-
. . .
(2) AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.-Each local educational agency, or consortium of such agencies, that receives a subgrant under this subpart may use such funds to carry out activities that comply with the principles of effectiveness described in subsection (a), such as the following:
. . .
(E) Drug and violence prevention activities that may include the following:
. . .
(ii) Acquiring and installing metal detectors, electronic locks, surveillance cameras, or other related equipment and technologies.

4. See the report on Security Cameras at http://www.unl.edu/srs/pdfs/scameras.pdf, by Safe & Responsive Schools Project (http://www.indiana.edu/~safeschl/ or http://www.unl.edu/srs/).

5. See the National Institute of Justice report on The Appropriate and Effective Use of Security Technologies in U.S. Schools: A Guide for Schools and Law Enforcement Agencies (http://www.ncjrs.org/school/state.html).

6. See Safe School Design at http://www.eric.uoregon.edu/publications/pub_books_monographs.html.

7. See the Clearinghouse on Educational Policy and Management, College of Education, University of Oregon, http://eric2.uoregon.edu/trends_issues/safety/.

8. The American School Board Journals of the National School Boards Association has published articles and commentary on camera surveillance.
March 2002: Vol. 189, No. 3 – http://www.asbj.com/2002/03/0302expresslines.html http://www.asbj.com/2002/03/0302coverstory.html
July 2002: Vol. 189, No. 7 – http://www.asbj.com/2002/07/0702research.html
Brief on the new construction of a Delaware elementary school – http://www.asbj.com/lbd/2002/projects/southern.pdf

9. The National Association of State Boards of Education published Schools without fear: The Report of the NASBE Study Group on Violence and Its Impact on Schools and Learning, October 1994, http://www.nasbe.org/Educational_Issues/Reports/Schools%20without%20Fear.pdf.

10. The American Association of School Administrators published Minor transgressions matter by Martin J. Dunn, a former police chief in the Lower Camden County, N.J., Regional High School District, http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/2001_11/guest_column_dunn.htm, November 2001.

11. The National School Safety and Security Services reviews CCTV devices and other security equipment in http://www.schoolsecurity.org/resources/security-equipment.html.

12. The National Education Association offers topical debates. In NEA Today, please see, for instance, “Should we install classroom surveillance cameras to reduce discipline problems? [January 2004].” As of November 19, 2004, 52 percent of respondents have said “Yes,” http://www.nea.org/neatoday/0401/debate.html.

13. ED FACILITIES UPDATE – Safety by Design In the September 2004 issue of American School and University, Don Henley (American Institute of Architects) advocates a balanced approach to school security, describing unobtrusive facility design features combined with a social climate that emphasizes trust, conflict resolution, and tolerance.

Henley writes closed-circuit television cameras are cost-effective and “most effective when used to observe public corridors, stairwells and exterior doors, as well as larger spaces during school, such as the cafeteria and gymnasium,” http://asumag.com/mag/university_safety_design/.

The direct SOURCE is EdFacilities Updates for 11/05/2004. The indirect SOURCE is 11/22/04--OSDFS PREVENTION NEWS UPDATE. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osdfs/index.html?src=mr

14. U.S. Department of Education, OSDFS, has indicated no study has been completed to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of security cameras in schools and none is in progress.

15. The U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services, has indicated no study has been completed and none is in progress.

16. Please see the course materials for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Emergency Training Center – Building Design for Homeland Security Course, Course Number E155. You can access course materials at http://www.fema.gov/fima/rmsp155.shtm. CCTV cameras are prominent in the planning. Dan Bondroff, 301-447-1278, may provide additional information about the course and the instructors.

Page Updated: April 18, 2005