Community Organizations' Involvement In School Safety Planning: Does It Make A Difference In School Violence?
Abstract
It is highly suggested by researchers, authors and government entities that
schools involve community organizations in school safety planning and the
development of safety strategies. However, there are no known studies suggesting the
effectiveness of this involvement.
This study investigated community organizations involvement in school safety
planning as a predictor of serious violent incidents using a regression analysis. In block
one, law enforcement involvement in school safety planning was the only significant
predictor of serious violent incidents (p < .05). Law enforcement organizations had
showed a negative relationship with serious violent incidents (t= -2.994). When law
enforcement organizations were involved in school safety planning, there were lower
numbers of serious violent incidents. In block two, when adding school characteristics (size, location and racial
distribution) to the model, law enforcement involvement continues to be a significant
predictor of serious violent incidents (p < .05) and still having a negative relationship (t
= -2.058). School size (t = 7.736, p < .01), school location (t= -3.386, p < .01) and racial
distribution (t = 4.125, p < .01) were also significant predictors of serious violent
incidents.
In block three of the regression model, violence prevention and intervention
variables were added. The results of this analysis shows that law enforcement is no
longer a significant predictor of violence (t= -1.829, p > .05). In this model it can be
seen that prevention variables related to student surveillance was a significant predictor
of serious violence incidents with a negative relationship (t = -2.240, p < .05).
Although the variables of law enforcement, school characteristics and
prevention are significant, the percent of variance in each block is small. In block one
only 0.7% of the variance is explained, in block two only 5.2% of the variance is
explained and in block three only 5.3% of the variance is explained.