CPTED and Metal Detectors in School Proposal

Abstract

The proposed study aims to compare crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) with the use of metal detectors in schools in order to develop an adequate understanding about their effectiveness and how they could be used together to prevent violence and crime in school environments. The study, which will be quantitative in approach and cross-sectional in design, targets to sample 200 students from public high schools in the United States to collect data that will be used to prove or disapprove the stated hypothesis. The findings of the proposed study will be important in informing policy directions as well as ensuring that educators and school boards have the capacity to select the most appropriate crime prevention strategy.

Introduction

The 2012 mass execution of twenty children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, serves as a horrific reminder of how crime and violence have become enveloping experiences not only in American public schools but also globally (Nance, 2013). Some years earlier, on April 20, 1999, two high school students gained access to Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, and massacred a teacher and twelve students before taking their own lives (Kleck, 2009). These tragic incidents, along with numerous other less violent crimes occurring in school environments, have caused parents, teachers, school heads, community members, and policymakers throughout the United States to question their basic assumptions about school safety in general and crime prevention in particular (Robers, Zhang, Morgan, & Musu-Gillette, 2015). Although schools should be viewed as nurturing environments that aim to promote the children’s intellectual and social development, it is no longer a secret that the institutions are increasingly becoming primary sites of violent victimization and crime going by the fact that 45 school-associated violent deaths were documented from July 1, 2011 through June 30, 2012 (Robers et al., 2015).

Available literature demonstrates that “school crime and violence remain a threat to the physical, physiological, and emotional health of children and adolescents” (Limbos & Casteel, 2008, p. 540). Research is consistent that crime and violence in schools not only generate disruptions that interfere with the learning environment, but also “create a climate of fear in which children avoid school or engage in self-protective behavior” (Gagnon & Leone, 2001, p. 101). School-based crime and violence have also been associated with other adverse outcomes that include learning barriers, low student participation and performance, feelings of detachment from school, high school dropout and depression rates, and atmosphere of fear and insecurity at school (McDonald, 2013). In response to these adverse outcomes and to prevent further school shootings in American public schools, many statewide legislative bodies and local school boards are considering whether to apportion additional funding to educational institutions for the adoption of available crime prevention strategies (Nance, 2013).

However, only a few studies have focused attention to investigating the effectiveness of crime prevention strategies available to American public schools and how these strategies can be applied in diverse contexts (Steinberg, Allensworth, & Johnson, 2011). Based on this gap in the literature, the proposed study aims to compare crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) with the use of metal detectors in schools in order to develop an adequate understanding about their effectiveness and how they could be used together to prevent violence and crime in school environments.

The findings of the proposed study will be instrumental in informing the decisions of policymakers at both the federal and local levels with regard to the funding of school-based crime prevention initiatives. It is clear that “the federal government has provided funding for the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative, a partnership between the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice” (Steinberg et al., 2011, p. 7 ). Such funding, in the view of the researcher, can best be utilized when there is sufficient knowledge on the effectiveness of various crime prevention initiatives applied in school-based contexts. Developing a knowledge base on the effectiveness of CPTED and metal detectors will provide policymakers with a framework to use when allocating scarce resources to crime prevention initiatives and also in formulating alternative solutions that aim to deal with the noted weaknesses.

Additionally, the findings of the proposed study will be important in ensuring that educators and school boards have the capacity to select the most appropriate crime prevention strategy. Although it is imperative that institutions of learning establish a safe and secure environment for students and teachers alike, it is nevertheless “less clear what strategies are most effective, especially in schools located in neighborhoods with high rates of crime and poverty and few human and social resources” (Steinberg et al., 2011, p. 7). Based on this assertion, the need for comparing CPED with metal detectors becomes clearer as such a comparison will provide a knowledge pool that could be used by educators and school boards to implement effective crime prevention initiatives in schools.

Literature Review

This section reviews the literature on the factors that trigger crime and violence in schools, crime prevention strategies in schools, and the effectiveness issue. Although there are many programs that can be used in schools to prevent crime and violence, the review will only focus on metal detectors and CPTED due to their importance to the proposed study.

Factors that Trigger Crime and Violence in Schools

Understanding the factors associated with crime and violence in schools is important in selecting appropriate prevention mechanisms. In a study examining the effect of school’s organizational and educational environment on crime rates in secondary schools, researchers found that low academic performance, lack of informal social controls, neighborhood dilapidation, lack of certified teachers, and inability of students to be attached to their teachers contribute significantly to the rise of crime and violence in schools (Limbos & Casteel, 2008). Findings of this study showed a strong relationship between the physical condition of the neighborhood (e.g., presence of litter, graffiti, as well as dilapidated and abandoned buildings) and school crime rate, implying that CPTED can serve as a critical constituent in school crime prevention programs. This particular study concluded that effective crime prevention initiatives should include school and community partnerships or networks aimed at addressing some of the modifiable factors known to trigger crime and violence in schools.

Another study associated the dimensions of school social-organizational structure (e.g., school leadership, teacher collaboration and support, school-family interactions, and student-teacher relationships) with the presence of crime and violence in schools (Nickerson & Martens, 2008). Findings of this study demonstrated that authoritarian school leadership and poor teacher collaboration and support provide a fertile ground for violence to become entrenched in school environments. Similarly, inadequate school-family interactions and poor student-teacher relationships exacerbate violence by encouraging the development of distrust, hatred, and disillusionment. This study reinforces Limbos and Casteel’s (2008) finding that the incapacity of students to be emotionally, socially, and academically attached to their teachers contributes substantially to the rise of crime and violence in schools. The findings are collaborated by Maring and Koblinsky (2013), who also added that inadequate school security measures such as vague school rules and behavioral expectations, incoherent enforcement of rules violations, and unprofessional hallway supervision nurture crime and violence in schools.

Metal Detectors as a Crime Prevention Strategy

According to Gagnon and Leone (2001), metal detectors are “designed to detect and deter potential perpetrators of school violence before they harm themselves or others” (p. 115). Metal detectors introduce techniques that parallel those employed in airports and prisons, hence can be effectively used in conjunction with other school security measures including but not limited to school security officers and surveillance cameras. Nance (2013) argued that metal detectors can be categorized in the class of strict security measures that use the qualities of visibility and tangibility to address school violence.

Several studies have been conducted to assess the effectiveness of metal detectors in preventing crime and violence in school environments. In their review on the impacts of metal detector use in schools, Hankin, Hertz, and Simon (2011) cited data from the 2006 School Health Policies and Programs Study to demonstrate that “approximately 10% of middle and senior high schools [in America] use metal detectors, and the proportion of elementary schools using metal detectors more than tripled between 2000 (1.2%) and 2006 (4.4%)” (p. 101). The findings of their review demonstrated a mixed, multifaceted, and sometimes paradoxical picture of the impact of metal detector use in educational institutions due to the wide variation of responses. For example, some studies used in the review found that students at public schools with metal detector systems were less likely to carry a weapon to school, though this did not make a difference in the prevalence of threats or violence. Another study used in the review found that “students who were exposed to safe-school policies such as the presence of security guards and metal detectors were likely to report feeling less safe in their schools” (Hankin et al., 2011, p. 102). Although metal detectors reduced the likelihood of students to arm themselves to school, the authors of this review failed to collect any substantial evidence to demonstrate that the systems were beneficial to student and staff behavior and perceptions regarding safety in schools.

Gagnon and Leone (2001) cited the results of a statewide study in California that found no evidence supporting the effectiveness of metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and canine searches. Another ethnographic study documented by the same authors found evidence suggesting that metal detectors, surveillance cameras, perimeter fencing, and school perimeter fences were ineffective in containing gang activity and student violence in educational institutions. The findings of these studies made Gagnon and Leone (2001) to conclude that, although the use of security technology (e.g., metal detectors and surveillance cameras) may be politically popular in compelling the public to believe that school administrators are addressing threats to the safety of students and teachers in the school environment, “there is no evidence supporting the effectiveness of these approaches in preventing school violence and some evidence that the use of security technology may actually exacerbate school disorder” (p. 121). This conclusion is consistent with the views of Nance (2013), who argued that strict security measures such as the use of metal detectors and surveillance cameras are responsible for creating an intense, prison-like environment that not only deteriorates the learning climate but also stresses and isolates the student population. Some of the studies used in the review conducted by Hankin et al. (2011) had established a positive correlation between the use of metal detectors in American public schools and high levels of disorder within the school environment.

The article by Nance (2013) introduces new dynamics with regard to the effectiveness of metal detectors in preventing crime within the school environment. Strict security measures such as the use of metal detectors and surveillance cameras, according to this particular article:

• undermine the climate of trust required to effectively educate children;
• send a negative message that students are harmful, dangerous, and prone to commit illegal, violent acts;
• sour students’ attitudes toward school and school authorities and undermine a positive respectful academic environment;
• increase student behavioral problems and crime by alienating students;
• generate barriers between students and their schools and are a frequent cause of disunity and discord within the school community.

Nance (2013) concluded that strict security measures not only worsen underlying problems by forging barriers of adversity and mistrust between students and educators, but also divert scarce financial resources away from other educational and mental health services that students need to develop socially responsible behavior, understand collective responsibility, and build social and emotional stability.

Studies reveal that the issues of race and socioeconomic status have permeated the use of strict security measures such as metal detectors and surveillance cameras in American schools. The findings of one particular study demonstrated that “schools serving high percentages of low-income students or minority students are more inclined to rely on heavy-handed, justice-oriented measures to control crime and maintain order than other schools that confront similar crime and discipline issues” (Nance, 2013, p. 41). In their review, Hankin et al. (2011) noted that the disproportionate use of physical and personnel-based security measures (e.g., metal detectors and security guards) on students from racially marginalized and poor economic backgrounds increases their perceptions of school disorder and contributes to the their feelings of detachment from school. While these outcomes may not serve as a valid indicator of the effectiveness of metal detectors in preventing crime and violence in schools, they nevertheless illuminate a worrying trend associated with exposing students to strict security measures based on their racial and socioeconomic background (Gastic & Johnson, 2015).

CPTED as a Crime Prevention Strategy

One study defines Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) as “the design or redesign of an environment to improve safety, to decrease the incidence of criminal activity, and to eliminate conditions that may contribute to crime” (Walsh, 1999, p. 42). CPTED is based on the justification that “through the proper design and use of the built environment, it is possible both to reduce the actual incidence of criminal activity and to mitigate fear of crime” (Parnaby, 2006, p. 2). This crime prevention strategy uses design to modify potential or existing opportunity structures with the view to transforming the environment in terms of making it appear less amendable to criminal activities for the rational offender. In the planning context, CPTED has been used to not only reconceptualize communities and reconstruct them in ways conducive to strengthening the informal social controls, but also to reduce access to potential crime targets and improve the quality of life by modifying the social and physical environment (Parnaby, 2006).

The main principles of CPTED, according to Carter, Carter, and Dannenberg (2003), include “facilitating the visibility of people’s activities (eyes on the street), natural access control to manage ingress and egress, territorial reinforcement to distinguish public and private spaces, and ongoing maintenance to sustain the other principles” (p. 1442). The study by Carter et al. (2003) provides evidence suggesting that the provision of natural surveillance in CPTED contexts can be achieved through the placement and design of physical amenities to optimize visibility (e.g., by changing the orientation of buildings, reinforcing windows and exits, landscaping the immediate physical environment to enhance visibility, and using signage to provide directions), the placement of individuals and security-oriented activities to optimize surveillance opportunities, as well as lighting that provides for nighttime illumination of important amenities within and around the secured building. Similarly, the provision of natural access control can be met through:

1. designing sidewalks, pavement, illumination, and landscaping in a way that is able to provide directions to people who visit the building;
2. using fences, walls, or landscaping designs in a way that not only prevents access to certain areas within the building but also discourages public access to unsafe areas.

Lastly, the principle of territorial reinforcement can be met through the use of pavement treatments, hallway marking, landscaping, art, signage, screening, and fences to describe and delineate ownership of property and access considerations, while that of maintenance can be met through the use of low maintenance landscaping and illumination treatment to embolden or strengthen the CPTED components of natural surveillance, natural access control, and territorial reinforcement (Carter et al., 2003).

Support for the use of CPTED in preventing crime and violence in schools come from several quarters. After the Columbine mass massacres in 1999, the United Sates Secret Service and the Department of Education issued a joint statement suggesting that “a fundamental component for reducing school violence is to improve the school’s climate and strengthen trust and communication among students and educators” (Nance, 2013, p. 49). It is evident that the school’s climate can be improved through designing and redesigning the physical environment in accordance to CPED principles and interventions discussed by Carter et al. (2013).

In their seminal study on neighborhood design and crime, Greenberg and Rohe (1984) concluded that CPTED’s basic components of target hardening, community building, and changes to the physical environment have the capacity to reduce crime in school environments and improve the perceptions of students with regard to their own safety while in school. Target hardening denotes the techniques of making a “target” of crime less accessible to potential offenders through the use of other security measures such as locks, metal detectors, alarm systems and surveillance cameras, while community building denotes the process of reinforcing the ties or relationships between individuals and organizations in an area (Parnaby, 2006). Changes in the physical environment, according to this author, denote a multiplicity of methods and techniques that are intended to alter both the behavior of individuals who reside in a given locality and how outsiders view the locality. However, a major drawback mentioned in several studies (e.g., Carter et al., 2003; Walsh, 1999) is that CPTED should be used in combination with other security measures to achieve effectiveness in reducing crime.

In his study, McLester (2011) analyzed some of the challenges associated with CPTED. The researcher argued that CPTED has minimal applicability in the school context as decisions about whether to remodel or rebuild an educational institution are complex based on the fact that they must consider a multiplicity of logistical, economic, as well as political factors. The researcher noted that, unlike private properties, public schools do not have a single ownership and hence it may be difficult to focus resources toward remodeling or rebuilding them according to CPTED principles. This view is consistent with that of Kennedy (2005), who argued that the implementation of CPTED in school environments may be met with strong opposition and delays from stakeholders (e.g., state or federal government agencies, school districts, educators, and communities) with vested interests. Additionally, as acknowledged by Greenberg and Rohe (1984), there is lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating CPTED’s effectiveness in school or community settings as many of the studies conducted so far show that the concept may be ineffective against certain types of crimes based on the fact that each crime is unique.

In criticizing the model, Parnaby (2006) acknowledged that it is difficult for CPTED’s component of target hardening to work in isolation with other security measures such as using metal detectors, improving the locking mechanisms, and installing alarms and surveillance systems. As such, it may also be costly to implement CPTED principles in the school environment. Other CPTED challenges documented in the literature include poor definition of the components underlying the concept and impractical nature of its theories, predisposition to displace crime rather than reduce it (CPTED techniques focus on reducing the opportunity for potential offenders to commit a crime but fail to address other factors that cause crime), poor design of the studies that have been conducted so far to demonstrate CPTED effectiveness, and lack of consideration of other theories that are known to explain the causes of crime (Kennedy, 2005; McLester, 2011).

Problem Statement and Hypotheses

From the reviewed literature, it is evident that only a few studies have been interested in investigating the effectiveness of CPTED and metal detectors in reducing crime and violence in schools (Steinberg et al., 2011). The few studies that have addressed the topic report mixed findings about the effectiveness of CPTED and metal detectors, with some even arguing that some crime prevention strategies such as metal detectors do more harm than good (Carter et al., 2003; Gagnon & Leone, 2001; Nance, 2013; Hankin et al., 2011; Walsh, 1999). It is also clear from the reviewed literature that CPTED may not achieve optimal results in terms of crime prevention if it is implemented in isolation (Parnaby, 2006; Walsh, 1999). Before school officials and policy makers decide to make substantial investments in metal detectors and CPTED as school-based crime prevention strategies, there is need to examine these initiatives in more detail to ensure their effectiveness in reducing crime and their appropriateness in the learning environment (Nance, 2013). Lastly, it is evident that most of the studies reviewed do not consider contemporary dynamics of crime in schools and hence may be unable to portray a true picture of the effectiveness of the selected crime prevention strategies.

Based on these deficits in the literature, it is important to undertake a study that seeks to compare the effectiveness of CPTED with use of metal detectors in contemporary school contexts. It is also important to investigate how CPTED can be used in conjunction with metal detectors to achieve optimal effectiveness in preventing crime in contemporary schools. As crime trends and intentions continue to shift, there is need to update the existing knowledge base on the strategies and initiatives that could be deployed in our schools to effectively reduce crime and ensure a safe learning environment. The proposed study aims to fill these gaps in the literature by collecting quantitative data from students in selected public schools to prove or disapprove the following hypotheses:

1. Students exposed to metal detector searches are less likely to carry weapons to schools than students who are not exposed to such searches.
2. There is a positive association between the use of metal detectors in schools and the deterioration of the school climate.
3. CPTED alone is ineffective in changing the behaviors of students and reducing crime and violence in school.
4. Combining CPTED with metal detectors is likely to be more effective in preventing school crime and violence than using the strategies in isolation.
5. CPTED’s component of target hardening can serve as an effective basis for the inclusion of metal detectors in school-based crime prevention initiatives.

Definition of Terms

Violence – “The intentional use of force or power, threatened or actual, (against oneself), another person, or against a group or community, that either results or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation” (McDonald, 2013, p. 22).

Metal detectors – Any electronic instruments located at designated places within the school to detect the presence of metallic objects carried to the school by students (Gastic & Johnson, 2015).

CPTED – In the proposed study, CPTED is defined as the “design or redesign of an environment to improve safety, to decrease the incidence of criminal activity, and to eliminate the conditions that may contribute to crime” (Walsh, 1999, p. 42).

Weapon – In the proposed study, a weapon will be conceptualized as “any knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, nunchaku, firearm, shotgun, rifle, and [anything else] capable of inflicting serious bodily injury” (When can your Child, 2002, p. 1).

Crime – Any activity that is deemed illegal and against the law, such as serious violence (murder, suicide, robbery, rape, and assaults or fights with weapons), fighting or physical attack without weapons, and property crimes (vandalism and petty theft) (Cantor, 2002).

School climate – “The quality and character of school life, [which is] based on patterns of students’, parents’ and school personnel’s experience of school life and reflects norms, goals, values, interpersonal relations, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures” (School Climate, 2016, para. 3).

Target hardening – In the proposed study, target hardening will be used to imply any changes made within the school’s physical environment with the view to making it more difficult for a potential offender to engage in criminal activity, hence reducing the risk of crime (Parnaby, 2006).

Research Design

The proposed study aims to compare CPTED with the use of metal detectors in schools in order to develop a better understanding of their effectiveness and how they could be used together to prevent crime and violence in school. This section details the methodologies and techniques that will be used to design and conduct the study with the view to proving or disapproving the stated hypotheses based on the data collected from the field.

Research Philosophy

The proposed study will employ a positivist research philosophy to compare CPED with the use of metal detectors in selected American public schools. The positivist research philosophy views research in social science as a form of scientific explanation, or as an organized method for combining deductive logic with accurate empirical observations of behavior intended to discover and confirm a set of probabilistic causal laws that can then be used by the investigator to predict or envisage general patterns of human behavior (Creswell, 2014). A positivist research philosophy is better placed to serve the objective of the proposed study than an interpretivist research philosophy as it allows the researcher to, among other things, (1) collect specific empirical data on the effectiveness of CPED and metal detectors in school environments, (2) develop testable hypotheses and operationalize them based on the main issues of interest to the study, and (3) empirically test the hypotheses with the view to corroborating existing relationships between the main issues of interest to the proposed study (Mesel, 2013; Zachariadis, Scott, & Barett, 2013).

Research Approach

The proposed study will use a quantitative research approach, which is normally associated with an empiricist/positivist research philosophy and a survey technique of data collection from the field (Weaver & Olson, 2006). A quantitative research approach is defined in the literature as “a type of empirical research into a social phenomena or human problem, testing a theory consisting of variables which are measured with numbers and analyzed with statistics in order to determine if the theory explains or predicts phenomena of interest” (Yilmaz, 2013, p. 312). In the context of the proposed study, a quantitative research approach is more effective than qualitative or mixed methods research approaches by virtue of allowing the researcher to not only test the stated hypotheses via empirical or statistical techniques, but also to compare the effectiveness of the two crime prevention strategies through the use of numbers (statistics) to establish the relationship between the variables of interest to the study (Creswell, 2014). It is important to note that, although the quantitative research approach has the capacity to provide the researcher with a comprehensive analysis of the main issues of interest to the proposed study, it is nevertheless below the qualitative research approach in providing an in-depth analysis of social processes (Griffin, n.d.).

Research Strategy

The proposed study will use a cross-sectional (survey) research design as the researcher intends to contact the sampled study participants at a fixed point in time with the view to collecting primary data using a standardized questionnaire (Sekaran, 2006). Available literature shows that a survey research strategy is most appropriate in the proposed study as it provides “a quantitative or numeric description of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population” (Creswell, 2014, p. 13). In the context of the proposed study, the survey design will be effective than other research designs (e.g., case studies, longitudinal designs and experimental designs) as it will grant the researcher an opportunity to not only investigate the effectiveness of CPTED and metal detectors in the prevention of school violence at a particular point in time, but also to use minimal finance and time resources to study a sample of students as opposed to studying the whole population. Furthermore, the proposed research strategy is easy to apply, demonstrates sufficient capacity to be descriptive, and allows the researcher to gather data that can adequately prove or disapprove the stated hypotheses due to its broader scope (Sekaran, 2006).

Population and Sampling

The term “population” is defined in the literature as “a group of individuals or things of interest that a researcher intends to examine or investigate in order to provide responses to the key research questions or to test the stated hypotheses (Creswell, 2014). Following this description, the target population for the proposed study will include high school students in 10 public schools that employ CPTED and metal detectors to reduce crime and prevention. The schools will be selected from the most recent database of violence and crime prevention in American schools. Purposive sampling will be used to select the schools in order to get students who are well versed with the issues of CPTED and metal detectors in educational institutions. Convenience sampling technique will be used to select 20 students from each public high school to attain a sample size of 200 students. Purposive sampling is beneficial in the selection of the schools to be included for the study as it will allow the researcher to “handpick” the schools that are already using CPTED and metal detectors (Sekaran, 2006). On the other hand, convenience sampling is justified in the selection of students as it is easy to administer and less costly than other probability sampling techniques; however, it is known to lead to an unrepresentative sample if adequate care is not taken (Teddlie, 2007).

Data Collection

Data for the proposed study will be collected by means of a standardized questionnaire instrument, which will be administered to the participants through online platforms. The self-administered, web-based questionnaire will contain a combination of numerical questions, Yes and No questions, closed-ended questions, and a few open-ended questions intended to elicit sufficient information that will then be used to prove or disapprove the stated hypotheses. The questionnaire will make use of the Lickert-type scale to reduce the phenomena to numerical values that can then be used to carry out statistical analysis in line with the quantitative research approach (Gelo, Braakmann, & Benetka, 2008). In the context of the proposed study, the self-administered questionnaire is effective than other data collection techniques such as interviews and focus groups due to low administration costs, capacity to reach a wider geographical area, and ability to provide greater participant anonymity due to the absence of the researcher in the data collection process (Harrell & Bradley, 2009). The questions to be included in the questionnaire instrument are shown in Appendix 1.

Validity and Reliability

In the proposed study, reliability (the degree or level to which a test or procedure is able to generate similar results under constant conditions on all occasions) will be guaranteed through (1) standardizing the questionnaire instrument, (2) documenting shifts or progress on a regular basis, and (3) ensuring the stability of the Lickert-type scale in measuring participant responses. Validity (the degree to which a particular measure is effective in measuring what it is supposed to measure) of the study findings will be guaranteed by (1) using available literature on CPTED and metal detectors to structure the items in the standardized questionnaire in order to ensure their relevance and representativeness, (2) comparing the survey instrument with other similar validated measures used in evaluating the effectiveness of CPTED and metal detectors in preventing crime within the school environment, and (3) establishing the correct operational measures for the theoretical concepts under investigation by effectively linking the items contained in the survey instrument to the study’s main objective and hypotheses (Sekaran, 2006).

Data Analysis

Various statistical applications contained in SPSS (e.g., one sample tests, descriptive statistics, and nonparametric tests) will be used to test the stated hypotheses with the view to comparing the effectiveness of CPTED and metal detectors in preventing crime within the school environment. The statistical software program will also be used to analyze data related to how the two crime prevention approaches can be used together, after which the findings will be presented though the use of graphs, tables, frequency distributions, and text.

References

Cantor, D. (2002). School crime patterns: A national profile of U.S. public high schools using rates of crime reported to police. Web.

Carter, S.P., Carter, S.L., & Dannenberg, A.L. (2003). Zoning out crime and improving community health in Sarasota, Florida: “Crime prevention through environmental design.” American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1442-1445.

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Gagnon, J.C., & Leone, P.E. (2001). Alternative strategies for school violence prevention. New Directions for Youth Development, 20(92), 101-125.

Gastic, B., & Johnson, D. (2015). Disproportionality in daily metal detector student searches in U.S. public schools. Journal of School Violence, 14(3), 299-315.

Gelo, O., Braakmann, D., & Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research: Beyond the debate. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 42(3), 266-290.

Greenberg, S.W., & Rohe, W.M. (1984). Neighborhood design and crime: A test of two perspectives. Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(1), 48-61.

Griffin, C. (n.d.). The advantages and limitations of qualitative research in psychology and education. Web.

Hankin, A., Hertz, M., & Simon, T. (2011). Impacts of metal detector use in schools: Insights from 15 years of research. Journal of School Health, 81(2), 100-106.

Harrell, M.C., & Bradley, M.A. (2009). Data collection methods: Semi-structured interviews and focus groups.Web.

Kennedy, M. (2005). Novel approaches. American School & University, 77(5), 16-18.

Kleck, G. (2009). Mass shootings in schools: The worst possible case for gun control. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(10), 1447-1464.

Limbos, M.A.P., & Casteel, C. (2008). Schools and neighborhoods: Organizational and environmental factors associated with crime in secondary schools. Journal of School Health, 78(10), 539-544.

Maring, E.F., & Koblinsky, S.A. (2013). Teachers’ challenges, strategies, and support needs in schools affected by community violence: A qualitative study. Journal of School Health, 83(6), 379-388.

Mesel, T. (2013). The necessary distinction between methodology and philosophical assumptions in healthcare research. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 27(3), 750-756.

McDonald, Z. (2013). Interrupting school violence with deliberative encounters. South African Review of Sociology, 45(3), 20-33.

McLester, S. (2011). Designing safe facilities. District Administration, 47(8), 71-78.

Nance, J.P. (2013). Students, security, and race. Emory Law Journal, 63(1), 1-57.

Nickerson, A.B., & Martens, M.P. (2008). School violence: Associations with control, security/enforcement, educational/therapeutic approaches, and demographic factors. School Psychology Review, 37(2), 225-243.

Parnaby, P.F. (2006). Crime prevention through environmental design: Discourses of frisk, social control, and a neo-liberal context. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 48(1), 1-29.

Robers, S., Zhang, A., Morgan, R.E., & Musu-Gillette, L. (2015). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2014.Web.

School climate. (2016). Web.

Sekaran, U. (2006). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. Bombay: Wiley-India.

Steinberg, M.P., Allensworth, E., & Johnson, D.W. (2011). Student and teacher safety in Chicago public schools. Web.

Teddlie, C.Y. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100.

Walsh, E.M. (1999). Crime prevention through environmental design. Journal of Housing and Community Development, 56(4), 42-44.

Weaver, K., & Olson, J.K. (2006). Understanding paradigms used in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53(4), 459-469.

When can your child be expelled for bringing weapons to school? (2002). Web.

Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological, theoretical, and methodological differences. European Journal of Education, 48(2), 311-325.

Zachariadis, M., Scott, S., & Barett, M. (2013). Methodological implications of critical realism for mixed-methods research. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 855-879.

Appendix 1: Questionnaire Instrument

1. 1. Age of student…………………
   2. Ethnicity of student

3. 3. Please respond to the following statements related to the use of metal detectors in your school (“1=strongly disagree”; “2=disagree; “3=neither agree nor disagree”; “4=agree”; “5=strongly disagree”

4. 4. Please respond to the following statements related to the use of CPTED in your school (“1=strongly disagree; “2=disagree”; “3=neither agree nor disagree”; “4=agree”; “5=strongly agree”)

5. 5. Do you believe that CPTED should be implemented together with metal detectors to reduce incidences of crime and violence in the school?

6. 6. If your answer to question 5 above is YES, why do you believe this is so?……………….

………………………………………………………………………………………..

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

……………………………………………………………………………………………

7. 7. Do you believe that CPTED alone can be an effective strategy for reducing crime and violence in your school?

8. 8. If your answer to question 7 above is either YES or NO, kindly explain your reasoning

…………………………………………………………………………………………..

………………………………………………………………………………………….

………………………………………………………………………………………….

9. 9. In your own opinion, do you believe that metal detectors can be used within the school environment to make it more difficult for a potential offender to engage in criminal activity, hence reducing the risk of crime within the school?

10. 10. If your answer to question 9 is YES, kindly explain your reasoning

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………