Page 1 of 16

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 8, No. 8

Publication Date: August 25, 2021

DOI:10.14738/assrj.88.10614. Kim, H., Carlson, J. S., & Nelson, S. R. (2021). Towards a Three-Dimensional Hardening of Schools to Promote Effective School Safety

Practices in the United States: A Systematic Review. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(8). 147-162.

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

Towards a Three-Dimensional Hardening of Schools to Promote

Effective School Safety Practices in the United States: A

Systematic Review

HaeDong Kim, PhD

Family Studies and Community Development

Towson University, Towson, MD

John S. Carlson, PhD

School Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

Sydney R. Nelson, LMSW

School Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

ABSTRACT

This article introduces a three-dimensional conceptual framework around

approaches to promoting school safety practices in the United States. Our

framework suggests school safety is maximized when three hardening dimensions

are equally deployed – physical hardening (school’s environmental elements),

procedural hardening (school’s policies and procedures), and psychological

hardening (school’s strategies used to improve psychological wellbeing). A

systematic review of the literature was completed and organized in the context of

our three-dimensional framework to identify current hardening practices that have

been empirically investigated. Among the 41 studies identified by our search

criteria, 28 included physical hardening practices, 12 included procedural

hardening practices, and 21 included psychological hardening practices. Few

studies (n=8) included all three hardening practices within their efforts to promote

school safety. The most commonly studied variables were school resource officers,

locker checks, and clear and fair rules. Implications of this three-dimensional

conceptual framework for future school safety research and policy directions in the

United States are highlighted.

Key words: school safety, target hardening, school violence prevention, systematic

review

INTRODUCTION

Creating a safe and secure environment free from violence is a necessary prerequisite to

promote learning within school settings. Sadly, however, almost one in five students report not

feeling safe in school1 and nearly half of all children in the United States report being the victim

of at least one form of school violence with intimidation (30%), victim of assault (14%), and

witness to assault (13%) being the most frequent.2 The rate of violence toward teachers in

schools appears to be even higher.3 Three-quarters of teachers in the United States reported at

least one instance of harassment (e.g., recipient of obscene remarks/gestures, being verbally

threatened, targeted with intimidation), a quarter reported being physically attacked with no

Page 2 of 16

148

Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 8, August-2021

Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom

need for medical care, and nearly 10% of teachers reported being physically attacked and in

need of medical care. Violence in schools impacts students’ ability to learn, teachers’ ability to

teach, and the community’s perception about whether schools are a safe and supportive

environment in which children can learn and develop.

In years leading up to the global pandemic, crimes against groups of individuals within schools

in the form of mass school shootings in the United States added a substantial layer of concern

for students, teachers, parents, and communities on top of other forms of school violence. In

2018, there were nine school shooting incidents in the United States (i.e., active shooter on

school property) with 30 killed and 52 injured. This was the most school shootings in a 20-year

period of analysis dating back to 1999.4 The Center for Homeland Defense and Security K-12

School Shooting Database indicates that over 1300 shootings have occurred since 1970 and

that 97 shooting instances (i.e., gun brandished, fired, or a bullet hit school property regardless

of victims, time, day of week, or reason) happened that same year, which is more than double

the number seen in any given year since 2006.5 Thus, researchers investigating school gun

violence urge new strategies be employed to mitigate and prevent these instances.6

A number of local, state, and federal initiatives are underway in the United States to promote

school safety and reduce school violence including school shootings. One billion dollars has

been pledged via the Students, Teachers, and Officers Preventing School Violence Act of 2018

(STOP).7 For a ten year period, $100 million will be funneled to states in an effort to promote

school safety initiatives. However, the predominant focus of these efforts appears to be focused

on changes to the physical elements of school buildings and safety procedures. For example,

the $25 million given out to schools in Michigan in 2018 and 2019 ($50 million total) via the

state’s Competitive School Safety Grant Program was allowed only for purchasing and installing

technology and equipment for school buildings. More effective and comprehensive school

violence prevention efforts and a reexamination of school safety practices are urgently needed

especially in light of increased occurrences of school shootings despite the widespread

adoption of bolstering physical security of school buildings.8

Numerous organizations and government agencies have generated reports to propose

guidelines for interventions that may prevent or mitigate school violence (e.g.,7,9,10). Some of

the measures that have been proposed and/or implemented are, but not limited to, school

resource officers (SROs), locks on doors, school entrance monitoring, security cameras,

lockdown drills, active shooter response drills, arming school personnel, changes in gun

regulations, and mental health screening. Further, national professional organizations have

proposed a stronger integration of services in schools (e.g., academic, behavioral, social,

emotional, mental health) through collaborative data-based problem solving within a public

health prevention framework (i.e., multitiered system of support).9 While the proposals for

preventing violence in schools may vary in specific measures, there is general agreement that

interventions need to be comprehensive and multifaceted in order to bring meaningful change.

The purpose of this study was threefold: 1) to propose a conceptual framework that

encompasses a diverse array of recommended and currently utilized school safety measures,

2) conduct a systematic review of the empirical literature across a diverse set of disciplines

(e.g., education, psychology, criminal justice) and organize that literature within our conceptual

framework to allow for a close examination of school-based safety measures that have been

Page 3 of 16

149

Kim, H., Carlson, J. S., & Nelson, S. R. (2021). Towards a Three-Dimensional Hardening of Schools to Promote Effective School Safety Practices in

the United States: A Systematic Review. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(8). 147-162.

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.88.10614

studied or understudied, and 3) to provide directions for future research and policy regarding

school violence prevention.

PROPOSED FRAMEWORK: THREE-DIMENSIONAL HARDENING

According to routine activity theory in criminology, an act of crime typically requires three

elements: (1) an offender with the intent and ability to commit a crime; (2) a suitable target

with value, physical visibility, access, and inertia; and (3) the lack of guardians to prevent the

act of crime.11 Any absence of these three elements may prevent or mitigate the crime. In this

regard, target hardening is a method of preventing crimes by adding measures that can

“harden” the target, such as door locks, surveillance cameras, and alarms. In an effort to make

schools safer, schools have engaged in increased target hardening efforts over the years. For

example, 81% of public schools reported using security cameras in 2015–16 compared to 19%

in 1999–2000.12

Although the concept of target hardening has been typically used to indicate the

implementation of physical security measures (e.g., locks and cameras), we propose the

expansion of this concept in the context of promoting safety practices and school violence

prevention approaches. The expansion of school target hardening can be illustrated as a three- dimensional (3D) framework that consists of physical hardening, procedural hardening, and

psychological hardening. Physical hardening can be defined as changes made to the visible

environmental elements of schools in order to increase or maintain safety. Examples of physical

hardening include improving doors, windows, and locks; addition of perimeter and within

building security cameras; use of metal detectors; hiring of school resource officers (SROs) and

arming school personnel. Procedural hardening is defined as changes to the procedures or

policies regarding school routines in order to increase or maintain safety. Examples of

procedural hardening include implementing lockdown drills, visitor sign in/out procedures,

locker checks, and active shooter response drills. Psychological hardening is defined as the

strategies used to establish a culture that promotes the psychological well-being of all people

in the school and, in turn, prevents violence while increasing school safety. Specifically,

psychological hardening approaches focus on potential violent offenders (i.e., the first element

of routine activity theory of criminology) to (a) prevent and/or reduce their violent intentions,

(b) identify and diminish their obsession or rumination pertaining to harming others or

themselves, and (c) intervene with and reduce their cognitive and behavioral capacity to

commit an act of violence. Some examples of psychological hardening include mental health

programs adopted to promote school safety, programs intended to increase student peer- relationships, fair and clear school rules, positive behavioral interventions and supports,

restorative justice programs, anonymous reporting systems, and threat assessments.

In our 3D school hardening framework, school safety is conceptually maximized when there is

balance among the three areas of hardening. To illustrate, we denote school safety as the

maximum sphere that can fit within the space created by the three areas of hardening (see

Figure 1). According to this framework, school safety cannot be increased by increasing one

aspect of school hardening alone. For example, if a school disproportionately focused its

resources on physical hardening measures, it would not result in the expansion of the sphere

(i.e., school safety) in Figure 1; the three areas of hardening would merely create a space that is

an elongated rectangular prism stretched along the physical hardening axis while the size of

the sphere remains the same. For this school to increase school safety (i.e., expand the sphere),