RESEARCH ARTICLE

School Climate Factors Contributing

to Student and Faculty Perceptions of Safety
in Select Arizona Schools
KRIS BOSWORTH, PhDa LYSBETH FORD, MPHb DILEY HERNANDAZ, MAc

ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To ensure that schools are safe places where students can learn, researchers and educators must understand
student and faculty safety concerns. This study examines student and teacher perceptions of school safety.
METHODS: Twenty-two focus groups with students and faculty were conducted in 11 secondary schools. Schools were
selected from a stratied sample to vary in location, proximity to Indian reservations, size, and type. The data analysis was based
on grounded theory.
RESULTS: In 9 of 11 schools, neither faculty nor students voiced overwhelming concerns about safety. When asked what makes
school safe, students tended to report physical security features. School climate and staff actions also increased feelings of
safety. Faculty reported that relationships and climate are key factors in making schools safe. High student performance on
standardized tests does not buffer students from unsafe behavior, nor does living in a dangerous neighborhood necessarily lead
to more drug use or violence within school walls. School climate seemed to explain the difference between schools in which
students and faculty reported higher versus lower levels of violence and alcohol and other drug use.
CONCLUSIONS: The ndings raise provocative questions about school safety and provide insight into elements that lead to
perceptions of safety. Some schools have transcended issues of location and neighborhood to provide an environment perceived
as safe. Further study of those schools could provide insights for policy makers, program planners, and educational leaders.

Keywords: school safety; student perceptions; teacher perceptions.

Citation: Bosworth K, Ford L, Hernandaz D. School climate factors contributing to student and faculty perceptions of safety in
select Arizona schools. J Sch Health. 2011; 81: 194-201.

Received on August 14, 2009

Accepted on June 18, 2010

T he idea of harm befalling a child at school

is fundamentally unacceptable to most adults;
however, school safety remains a popular topic in
the media, particularly whenever a serious incident
occurs at a school. Fortunately, students overall remain
safer at school than anywhere else; violent crime in
schools declined by 50% between 1992 and 2003,1 and
between 1992 and 2000, school-aged children were
more than 100 times more likely to be murdered away
from school than on school property.2 Even though the
biannual Youth Risk Behavior and Surveillance Survey
(YRBSS) conducted by the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention reports a small decrease in violence
since 1991, there are still a considerable number of
threats to safety in schools and on school grounds.
More than 10% of high school students report having
been in a fight at school in the last year, 5.5% did not
go to school in the past 30 days because of fear, 6%
reported carrying a weapon at least once in the past
30 days, and 27% reported property being stolen or
damaged.3
Although many researchers argue that the percep-
tion of danger versus safety at school is more important
than the reality in affecting students success in school,
most studies have taken quantitative approaches to
exploring issues of school safety.4-6 At the most basic

a Professor and Smith Endowed Chair in Prevention and Education, (boswortk@email.arizona.edu), Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arizona, PO Box 210069,

Tucson, AZ 85721.
bResearch Specialist, (lford@email.arizona.edu), Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arizona, PO Box 210069, Tucson, AZ 85721.
c
Graduate Associate, (dyla@email.arizona.edu), Department of Educational Leadership, University of Arizona, PO Box 210069, Tucson, AZ 85721.
Address correspondence to: Kris Bosworth, Professor and Smith Endowed Chair in Prevention and Education, (boswortk@email.arizona.edu), Department of Educational
Leadership, University of Arizona, PO Box 210069, Tucson, AZ 85721.
*Indicates CHES and Nursing continuing education hours are available. Also available at: http://www.ashaweb.org/continuing_education.html

194 Journal of School Health April 2011, Vol. 81, No. 4 2011, American School Health Association
level, a safe school could be characterized as one Table 1. School Characteristics
without physical violence. Measuring police reports
Enrollment, Charter/ Academic
or discipline referrals, suspensions, and expulsions are
School SY 2005-2006 Public Level Location Achievement
ways of gauging school safety. Most experts agree,
however, that a feeling of safety is much more Alpha 257 Charter HS Urban High
complex and that defining school safety as simply Beta 1159 Public MS Urban High
Gamma 2315 Public HS Suburban High
the absence of violence ignores the complex reali-
Delta 670 Public MS Suburban High
ties of student and faculty experiences. Thus, for many Epsilon 149 Charter HS Rural High
researchers, measures of disciplinary actions alone pro- Zeta 455 Public HS Rural High
vide inadequate data, because the social and emotional Eta 271 Public MS Urban Low
aspects of safety are equally important.7 For example, Theta 41 Charter HS Rural Low
Peguero8 argued that a definition of school violence Iota 125 Charter HS Urban Low
Kappa 169 Public MS Rural/Res Low
should encompass student victimization, property
Lambda 317 Public MS Rural/Res Low
damage and violence, student fear, and formal dis- Pi 96 Charter HS Urban Low
ciplinary sanctions (p. 399). Juvonens9,10 studies of
ethnic diversity and perceptions of safety include a HS, high school; MS, middle school; Res, Native American reservation; SY, school
year.
sense of vulnerability in the definition of school
safety.
A more important measure of the relative safety of
any school campus may be the perceptions of safety the Arizona Department of Education (ADOE). A
among students, faculty, and staff. Such perceptions purposeful sample of 12 schools was identified
capture the sentiments and experiences of the school from a 2005-2006 list of all Arizona public and
community.11 Perceptions of school safety may or may charter schools within a 3-hour driving radius of
not correlate with concrete safety statistics such as dis- Tucson. The sample was equally divided between
cipline referrals, physical assaults, or the presence of high and low academically achieving schools (Table 1).
illegal drugs.6 Yet recent school safety studies have Academic achievement was measured by percentage
shown that perceptions of school safety may have of students in the school passing Arizona standardized
greater influences on students than do the concrete achievement tests in 2005. The 6 high-achieving
incidents measured by statistics.12,13 Godstein et al12 schools ranked in the top 5 among all Arizona schools,
reported that students academic performance is lower and the 6 low-achieving schools in the bottom 5.
when they view the school environment as dangerous. The high-achieving public schools were selected to
So are students confidence, motivation, commitment, include a large urban middle school (Beta), a large
attendance, and grades.10,14-16 This article explores fac- suburban high school (Gamma), a midsized subur-
tors that influence student and faculty perceptions of ban middle school (Delta), and a midsized rural high
safety. school (Zeta). The charter schools in this group were a
Using a qualitative approach, students and faculty large urban high school (Alpha) and a midsized rural
attending focus groups were asked about how they felt high school (Epsilon). In general, charter schools are
safe or unsafe at school. We sought to answer these smaller than public schools, so the designation of size
questions: is considered relative to the school type. The low-
achieving public schools were selected to include a
1. What school characteristics are related to percep- midsized urban middle school (Eta), a midsized rural
tions of school safety? middle school on an Indian Reservation (Kappa), and
2. What is the relationship of perceptions of school a large rural middle school on an Indian Reservation
safety to: (Lambda). The charter schools in this group were a
small rural high school (Theta) and 2 midsized urban
a. standardized test score ranking
high schools (Iota and Pi).
b. neighborhood characteristics, and
The principals at all 12 schools were contacted, and
c. school climate?
11 agreed to host student and faculty focus groups.
3. To what degree do students and faculty in the same Four were in urban areas, 2 in suburban areas, and 5
school concur in their perceptions of how safe their in rural areas, including 2 on Indian reservations. The
school is? average student enrollment was 539 students (range:
41-2315).
Recruitment of students and faculty was both active
METHODS
and passive.17 Researchers visited schools and either
Subjects spoke with a group of potential student and faculty
This study was developed in partnership with participants (active recruitment), or met with fac-
the Division of School Safety and Prevention of ulty representatives and provided written recruitment

Journal of School Health April 2011, Vol. 81, No. 4 2011, American School Health Association 195
Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Focus-Group were drafted from the list of concepts. The questions
Participants were reviewed for validity by students, educators, and
experts in educational safety, then edited according to
Students (N = 70; Faculty (N = 74;
mean per mean per
their feedback. Public school faculty and former fac-
group = 6.4) group = 6.7) ulty (n = 7) tested the instruments, leading to further
edits. Topics in the focus-group instrument measured
% (n) % (n)
aspects of operational school safety, addressing school
Female participation 54.6 (38) 64.8 (48) climate, personal feelings of safety both on campus
School level and traveling to and from school, safety-enhancing
Middle school 50.5 (35) 51.4 (38) features, and threats.
High school 50.5 (35) 48.6 (36)
School achievement level
High 51.4 (36) 45.9 (34) Procedure
Low 48.6 (34) 54.1 (40)
Groups were facilitated by 2 doctoral students with
School characteristics
Charter 32.9 (23) 33.8 (25) experience in focus-group facilitation and this specific
Urban 40.0 (28) 33.8 (25) protocol. One facilitator led the discussion. The lead
Suburban 17.1 (12) 16.2 (12) author attended 4 focus groups to provide direction
Rural 42.9 (30) 50.0 (37) on facilitation skills. Sessions were also audio recorded
and later transcribed for analysis.
documents. For students, parental consent and minor
assent to participate in the focus groups were obtained. Data Analysis
Informed consent was obtained from participating Focus-group data analysis relied on grounded
adults. Faculty received $20 for their time and par- research theory21 and occurred in 5 waves. In wave 1, 2
ticipation; students were not compensated. investigators read the transcripts and developed a cod-
The student focus-group participants at each school ing scheme that rated answers according to frequency
were representative of the student body by grade, and severity. Waves 2 and 3 compared the categories
gender, and ethnicity. Faculty participants were also to other indicators of school safety documented in the
representative in terms of grade taught, experience, literature. In wave 4, a third researcher recoded all the
and gender (Table 2). Student and faculty attended focus-group transcripts for validity of themes. To deter-
separate groups so as not to influence each others mine the level of agreement between the student and
responses. Four of the faculty groups contained at least faculty focus groups at each site, statements related to
1 school administrator and 2 included a counselor. Fac- a specific item (eg, weapons) were coded as frequent
ulty and students met separately in groups of 4 to 16 (H), some (M), or low/rare (L) in both data sets.
(mean size: faculty = 6.7; student = 6.4). Twenty-two
focus groups were conducted over 2 months in spring
2007. Each was conducted in English and lasted 30 to RESULTS
60 minutes. Perceived Characteristics of Safe Schools
When asked What makes a school safe? students
Instruments and faculty identified features within 3 categories:
The definition of school safety guiding protocol (1) Physical characteristics and safety features are tangi-
development was determined by school health and ble and visible items (eg, security cameras) located in
safety experts through an iterative process. A safe or around schools and designed to increase physical
school was defined as one lacking direct and indirect safety. (2) Organization and school discipline are features
violence, fear, and drugs or alcohol, and one where a that create an orderly environment. (3) School staffing
positive school climate enhanced learning and feelings and relationships enhance feelings of safety by promot-
of safety. While our interview protocol was informed ing a sense of caring and community (Table 3).
by the extant literature, questions were open-ended Physical Characteristics and Safety Features. In
to allow participants understandings and lived expe- general, both students and faculty cited physical char-
riences to emerge from the data. acteristics that secure their school (eg, security cam-
The focus-group protocol was developed in several eras, fences around the school, and locked doors).
stages, beginning with a literature review to identify Students and faculty also agreed that (when present)
school safety constructs from similar studies.6,11,18-20 a safe surrounding neighborhood contributed to keep-
A group of university faculty, school district admin- ing their school safe. Small school size was also viewed
istrators, police and school resource officers (SROs), as a positive influence on safety in schools perceived
and ADOE staff from the school safety and preven- as being small. Faculty in 1 large school commented
tion unit reviewed the concepts for construct and face that a certain amount of disruption was inevitable in
validity. Faculty and student focus-group instruments a school of such size.

196 Journal of School Health April 2011, Vol. 81, No. 4 2011, American School Health Association
Table 3. Descriptors of a Safe School fights and enforce discipline and that absence of a
behavior management system and lack of accountabil-
Faculty Students
ity compromised their safety. For example, students
Physical characteristics Cameras Cameras/monitors commented: This year they enforce the rules more
and safety features Fences Locked doors and its better. and We have procedures. We have
Small size Gates punishments, and we know what they are. Faculty
Location Location
comments reflected these feelings, stating that their
Lighting Police/SROs
SRO
school was safe because Im watching all the time
and kids know that . . . there will be consequences.
Organization and Teacher awareness Fire drills
school discipline Emergency procedures Rules
School Staffing and Relationships. For faculty, rela-
Absence of weapons Lockdowns tionships among faculty and with students contribute
Absence of ghts Absence of ghts to a feeling of safety. They cited, for example, a caring
Absence of intimidation Emergency procedures atmosphere, positive relationships, and overall com-
Kids know consequences Faculty stop ghts fort, saying, [Students] feel comfortable talking to
No injuries us. Students gave similar responses: Teachers are
School stafng and Experienced staff People know cool, tough, and fair, and Teachers make the school
relationships Caring atmosphere everything feel safe.
24-hour person presence Faculty are on top of it A visible teacher presence helps students feel safer,
Faculty talk (to each Authority
other) Peoples attitudes
as reflected in such comments as, There is always a
Faculty listen to students Faculty are everywhere teacher, wherever we go. Students often reported
Work as a team Faculty ask if we are ok feeling unsafe in locations where no adults were
We are a community present. In contrast, some students and faculty com-
We know each other plained of denial, apathy, and complacency among the
Kids are comfortable with faculty, counselors, and administrators. In 1 drug- and
each other violence-prone school, faculty complained of not hav-
Kids are comfortable with
ing access to the principal. Faculty in another school
faculty
Not a lot of teacher with a similar profile acknowledged similar issues, but
turnover complacently attributed their students risky behav-
ior to typical things that teenagers go through. A
teacher in another school said, After the shootings
Security features or equipment (eg, cameras, visitor in schools, I e-mailed that we need to do something,
passes, fences, or monitors) were more important to but nothing has happened. In another similar school,
students than to facultys feelings of safety. For stu- students reported that one could sneak anything into
dents, the next most important categories were climate school: they never check your backpack or nothing
(eg, rules, discipline, fear, and staffing [eg, monitors, like that.
oversight by faculty]). Faculty, in contrast, cited rela-
tionships (eg, the faculty respects students, the faculty Factors Affecting School Safety: Neighborhood,
cares, were like a family), climate, and physical Academics, and Climate
characteristics (eg, small size, proximity to danger) as Overall, the level of organization and the climate of
key factors that help to make a school safe. the school appear to be more influential factors on per-
Faculty and student focus groups in school Delta, ceptions of school safety than academic achievement
a suburban middle school, mentioned that the SRO or geographic location. Two schools, Beta and Delta,
made their school safer. In all other focus groups, both similar-sized middle schools in the high-academic-
students and faculty described the SROs as not being achieving group, illustrate this dynamic. Both school
on campus often and not being visible when present. campuses are surrounded by middle-class homes and
Faculty comments included, Because we dont know are separated from commercial areas. Yet, students
his role, we cant ask him to do things. and Where and faculty in the 2 schools expressed very different
is he? perceptions of safety.
Students and faculty feel safer when they feel that Both students and faculty in Beta reported being
procedures for timely and effective responses to a afraid of strangers coming on campus. As 1 student
threat are in place. Faculty were more likely to cite said, They have lockdowns, if they get suspicious
the existence of an emergency plan, whereas students about something or something happens on the street.
identified fire drills and lockdowns as responses to Faculty reported concern that anyone could come into
dangerous or threatening situations. the office and sign in. A teacher noted that when
Organization and School Discipline. Students who delivery trucks came on campus we dont know who
recognized a clear and consistent discipline system felt those delivery people are. Students and faculty alike
safer. They reported feeling safe when faculty stop expressed a general feeling of fear of strangers.

Journal of School Health April 2011, Vol. 81, No. 4 2011, American School Health Association 197
 In contrast, Delta students and faculty reported feel-
ing very safe, and neither group felt unsafe in any area
of the campus. The school was fenced, and visitors had
to have passes. They also perceived that faculty were
on top of any disruptive behavior and take care of
it right away. The faculty discussion focused on the
emotional safety of students. One teacher commented,
for example, the dangers [students] face are more
from the kids being emotionally mean to each other.
Unlike Beta and Delta, school Eta, a low-achieving
urban middle school, is located in the middle of a
dangerous neighborhood. One teacher described the
immediate area around the school as an industrial
area with no houses and several major intersections.
Another reported that the residential neighborhood
surrounding Eta had the highest rate of sex offend-
ers in the city and most people around here have a
family member in prison. Yet, in spite of the neigh-
borhood challenges, both students and faculty feel Eta
is a safe place. One student reports, I feel safe at
school because of the [school] environment. There
are people [in school]. Walking home is scary cause
there are homeless and crazy people asking things. I
feel safer at school than walking home. A teacher
echoes these comments: Many kids think this is the
best place in the neighborhood. They dont want to go
home or leave for the summer.
Safety at Eta is not left to chance; faculty and
administrators actively implement strategies to deal
with routine events as well as crises. One student
said, Teachers make you feel safe. Faculty reported,
We have a system in place that is consistent. We
refuse to let that go. A new administrator has helped
increase perceptions of safety. Both faculty and stu-
dents reported seeing improvements in the school
climate compared to the previous year. One student
stated, This year we have a new principal. He cares
more. They can check your backpack every day. A
teacher shared that impression, This year is better
because of follow-through by the teachers and the
administrator.
Table 4. Student-Faculty Consensus on Severity of Threats to Safety at Each Site
Item Alpha Beta Gamma Delta Epsilon
Weapon L H L L
Physical attack L L
Alcohol L L H L L L
Marijuana L L H M
Other illegal drugs L H L L
Property theft L 9% (1)
Vandalism M H H L
Intimidation M H H H
Agreement 75% (6) 63% (5) 63% (5) 63% (5) 75% (6)
Consensus regarding degree of threat at each site. Blank cells indicate lack of agreement between student and faculty perceptions.
H, high; M, medium; L, low.
198 Journal of School Health April 2011, Vol. 81, No. 4
In contrast to Eta, 2 other low-academic-achieving
schools, Kappa and Lambda, experience similar dys-
function in school as in their surrounding neighbor-
hoods. Both schools report high gang activity, low
parental involvement, and frequent family dysfunc-
tion, especially alcoholism. Students in both schools
were reluctant to answer questions in the focus
group. One group, however, was anxious to show
the researchers the gang graffiti that had covered a
bathroom wall for months. Students report damage
to school and personal property, as well as fights and
harassment or intimidation, mostly related to gang
activity. As 1 teacher says, It is hard to get kids to
think that here [ie, school] has to be different [than
the surrounding neighborhood].
According to faculty, The school is in turmoil
and We are not in control here. This situation is
directly attributed to administrators in both schools.
One teacher describes the climate this way: There
is a lack of support from administration. The prin-
cipal is like a dictator, and my opinion is never
valued. Another teacher reports that the discipline
handbook is never followed for infractions. One spec-
ulates that administrators are reluctant to expel or
suspend students for fear of losing enrollment and
funding. These schools illustrate the complex inter-
play of school climate, academic achievement, and
neighborhood surroundings. It is clear that school
leadership and a positive school climate influence
feelings of safety for both students and faculty
regardless of academic success and neighborhood
characteristics.
Agreements Between Faculty and Student Perceptions
of Safety-Enhancing Factors
Table 4 shows the level of agreement between fac-
ulty and students in the same school regarding issues
affecting their schools safety. To determine agree-
ment, the codings from the student and teacher focus
groups at each site were compared. For sites with
student-teacher consensus regarding level of threat at
the school, that level is reported in Table 4. Agreement
Zeta Eta Theta Iota Kappa Lambda Agreement
L L L L L 81% (9)
L L H 45% (5)
54% (5)
L H H H 63% (7)
L L H H 81% (9)
H L L H H 81% (9)
H H M H 72% (8)
38% (3) 50% (4) 63% (5) 75% (6) 63% (5) 50% (4) 61%
2011, American School Health Association
is high on 7 of the 8 factors: more than 60% in 8
of 11 schools. Overall student-faculty agreement was
61% regardless of school achievement level, size, or
neighborhood characteristics.
Yet within the agreement are differences in empha-
sis. In 1 school, for example, faculty and students
agree that personal property being stolen is an issue.
Yet students focused on electronic devices, whereas
faculty cited purses and whether they lock their desks
or classrooms: iPods [get] stolen like every day. . . .
Last year a lot of stuff starting disappearing, including
clothes, and the way they caught her [the thief] is
because she wore one of the outfits to school. She
stole, like, from five kids. A faculty member from
the same school reported, Four years ago [a] purse
[was] taken out of a desk drawer. But I dont worry
about it anymore. I have a lot of personal items, and
I am not worried. . . . Kids to kids [steal things that
are] more valuableiPods and cell phones. . . . A lot
of theft [occurs] between kids.
In schools with student parking lots, students but
not adults mentioned parking lot safety as a major
concern. Across all 11 schools, agreement is highest on
the issues of weapons, illegal drugs other than mar-
ijuana, and maintenance (including vandalism). Our
observations of the level of maintenance at each site
concurred with the focus groups assessments. Thus,
many of the discrepancies between student and fac-
ulty perceptions appear to be related to the different
contexts of the 2 groups.
DISCUSSION
Based on this small sample of faculty and stu-
dent perceptions, we conclude that perceptions of
safety at school are related to several factors, fore-
most school climate. This finding is supported by
several quantitative studies.4,5,22-27 For example, in
analyzing predictors of academic achievement for
10th graders on the NELS, Stewart28 found that
the educational ills commonly associated with large,
urban, minority schools are mitigated by a cohesive
school environment (p. 20). Academic success does
not buffer students from risky behavior or from feeling
unsafe. Rather, both adults and students felt safe in
schools where they perceived that adults were car-
ing and helpful, and rules were clear, consistent, well
communicated, and consistently applied. They also
saw fewer unsafe behaviors such as bullying, fight-
ing, weapons, alcohol and drug use, and vandalism.
At most schools, however, both faculty and students
report either marijuana use or bullying, which are
gateway behaviors to harder drug use and escalat-
ing violence, respectively.29-31 Interestingly, students
and adults tended to agree strongly about whether
weapons, hard drugs, vandalism, and bullying were
problems on campus. Yet only 1 group agreed on
Journal of School Health April 2011, Vol. 81, No. 4
whether property theft was frequent, suggesting that
students and adults may be differentially victimized
and perhaps that many thefts go unreported to adults.
In accordance with Maslows hierarchy of needs,
students who are focused on meeting basic needs for
safety and health cannot spare full attention to learning
and academic success.32 Thus, ensuring students phys-
ical and mental health is a necessary feature of safety.
In part, this means providing an environment free of
drugs and alcohol. Use of illegal drugs and alcohol con-
tinues to be a common feature of adolescents in-school
experiences.13 Yet in only a little more than half of the
schools did students and adults agree on the prevalence
of alcohol and marijuana use at the school, suggesting
that adults may often overlook these behaviors.
Even in schools with safety challenges, studies
show that many students are still able to thrive
academically.13,32 Several studies of resiliency have
cited characteristics such as active, caring faculty and
administrators, school size, and anti-bullying pro-
grams as important for perceived school safety.9,14,32,33
The frequency of student and teacher focus-group
comments about the effects of adult-adult and adult-
student relationships; school size; and firm, consistent
discipline on their school climate bear out these
findings.
Limitations
This study has several limitations that are common
to qualitative research. While focus-group methodol-
ogy provides an economical and timely way to obtain
a rich body of information on student and faculty
perceptions, the sample does not provide sufficient or
appropriate data for statistical analysis. Because this
was an exploratory study, we used a nonrandomized
sampling method with a small number of participants
at each site. As a result, some student and faculty views
within each school may not have been captured. The
purposeful sample of 11 schools also may not be rep-
resentative of the general experience for other school
communities. In addition, the massacre at Virginia
Tech occurred during our data collection, with some
focus groups taking place before and others after that
event. Although we could not detect any reference to
or discussion of the Virginia Tech incident in our data,
it could have affected the responses of students and
teachers interviewed after the shooting.
Conclusion
In this study neither students nor adults in most
schools expressed high levels of fear for their safety.
Overall, faculty and students have similar percep-
tions of safety on their campus. Supporting Stewarts
findings,34 perceptions of safety do not appear to be
clearly correlated with the schools location, neigh-
borhood factors, or level of academic achievement.
2011, American School Health Association 199
Well-functioning schools may act to mitigate stu-
dents negative life environments. Determinants of
perceived safety are 2 components of a schools cli-
mate: organization/discipline and caring relationships.
In well-organized schools with clear rules and dis-
cipline procedures, visible and caring adults, and
respect between faculty and administrators, students
and adults report feeling safe. Clearly some of the
findings, such as the role of leadership in promoting
perceptions of safety, may be important to explore
further with a more rigorous design.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SCHOOL HEALTH
This study adds to the growing literature that iden-
tifies school climate as a foundational component of
a safe and protective environment that promotes con-
nectedness and bonding. Having clear rules and proce-
dures, and positive relationships among all members of
the school community, are important to creating and
maintaining such an environment.35 Health educators
can play an important role in creating and maintaining
a positive and protective school climate.
Listening to both students and teachers voices can
provide a rich picture of the relative safety of a school,
becoming the basis for a cross-generational conversa-
tion about ways to improve school safety. Especially
important are areas where students and teachers have
different perceptions on safety issues, but also infor-
mative are areas of agreement. For example, in several
schools both students and faculty identified the physi-
cal condition of the school as an issue. This agreement
could lead to creative solutions. Where differences
occur, as they did in this study regarding parking lot
issues and thefts at some schools, serious problems
could be averted if adults at the site were aware of
students perceptions.
Many stereotypes exist about the relationships
among income levels, academic performance, and
school safety. This study shows that those relationships
are not always clear-cut and that concerned adults at
a particular site can make a notable difference for
students and faculty. Assuming that it is unneces-
sary to invest in safety at schools with good locations
or academic standings might have dire consequences.
This study provides health educators with guidance on
strategies to improve perceptions of safety at their site.
Human Subjects Approval Statement
This study was approved by the University of
Arizonas institutional review board.
REFERENCES
1. Limbos M. Schools and neighborhoods: organizational and
environmental factors associated with crime in secondary
schools. J Sch Health. 2008;78(10):539-544.
200 Journal of School Health April 2011, Vol. 81, No. 4
2. Cornell DG. School Violence: Fears Versus Facts. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006.
3. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
YRBSS. Youth online: Comprehensive results. 2008. Available
at: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/yrbss/. Accessed June 14, 2010.
4. Astor RA, Benbenishty R, Zeira A, Vinokur A. School climate,
observed risky behaviors, and victimization as predictors of
high school students fear and judgments of school violence as
a problem. Health Educ Behav. 2002;29:716.
5. Gottfredson GD, Gottfredson DC, Payne AA, Gottfredson N.
School climate predictors of school disorder: results from a
national study of delinquency prevention in schools. J Res
Crime Delinq. 2005;42:412.
6. Kitsantas A, Ware HW, Martinez-Arias R. Students percep-
tions of school safety: effects by community, school envi-
ronment, and substance use variables. J Early Adolesc.
2004;24(4):412.
7. Osher D, Dwyer K, Jimerson S. Safe, supportive and effective
schools: promoting school success to reduce school violence. In:
Jimerson SR, Furlong MJ, eds. Handbook of School Violence and
School Safety: From Research to Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2006:51-71.
8. Peguero A. Is immigrant status relevant in school violence
research? An analysis with Latino students. J Sch Health.
2008;78(7):397-404.
9. Juvonen J, Nishina A, Graham S. Ethnic diversity and per-
ceptions of safety in urban middle schools. Psychol Sci.
2006;17(5):393-400.
10. Juvonen J, Nishina A. Peer harassment, psychological adjust-
ment, and school functioning in early adolescence. J Educ
Psychol. 2000;92(2):349.
11. Resnick MDea. Protecting adolescents from harm: findings
from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health.
JAMA. 1997;278(10):823.
12. Godstein SE, Young A, Boyd C. Relational aggression at school:
associations with school safety and social climate. J Youth
Adolesc. 2008;37:641.
13. Dinkes R, Forrest Cataldi E, Lin-Kelly W. Indicators of school
crime and safety: 2007. 2007. NCES 2008021. Available at:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008021.pdf. Accessed June 6,
2010.
14. Bowen NK, Bowen GL. Effects of crime and violence in
neighborhoods and schools on the school behavior and
performance of adolescents. J Adolesc Res. 1999;14(3):319.
15. Brown B, Benedict WR. Bullets, blades, and being afraid in
Hispanic high schools: an exploratory study of the presence
of weapons and fear of weapon-associated victimization
among high school students in a border town. Crime Delinq.
2004;50(3):372-394.
16. Schwartz D, Gorman AH, Nakamoto J, Toblin RL. Victimiza-
tion in the peer group and childrens academic functioning.
J Educ Psychol. 2005;97(3):425-435.
17. Friebela TM. Active recruitment increased enrollment in a
hereditary cancer registry. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(11):1172.
18. Whitlock JL. Youth perceptions of life at school: contextual
correlates of school connectedness in adolescence. Appl Dev Sci.
2006;10(1):13.
19. Shoffner MF, Vacc NA. Psychometric analysis of the inviting
school safety survey. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 1999;32(2):66.
20. Brener ND, Kann L, McManus T, Kinchen SA, Sunberg EC,
Ross JG. Reliability of the 1999 Youth Risk Behavior Survey
questions. J Adolesc Health. 2002;31:336.
21. Corbin J, Strauss A. Grounded theory research: procedures,
canons and evaluation criteria. Qual Sociol. 1990;13(1):3-21.
22. Bradshaw CP, Sawyer AL, Brennan LM. A social disorganiza-
tion perspective on bullying-related attitudes and behaviors:
the influence of school context. Am J Community Psychol.
2009;43(3-4):204.
2011, American School Health Association
23. Koth CW, Bradshaw CP, Leaf PJ. A multilevel study of
predictors of student perceptions of school climate: the effect
of classroom-level factors. J Educ Psychol. 2008;100(1):96.
24. Payne AA. A multilevel analysis of the relationship among
communal school organization, student bonding and delin-
quency. J Res Crime Delinq. 2008;45:429.
25. Welsh WN. The effectors of school climate on school disorder.
Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2000;567:88.
26. Johnson SL. Improving the school environment to reduce
school violence: a review of the literature. J Sch Health.
2009;79(10):451.
27. Walters SK, Cross DS, Runions K. Social and ecological struc-
tures supporting adolescent connectedness to school: a theo-
retical model. J Sch Health. 2009;79(11):516.
28. Stewart EA. School social bonds, school climate and school
misbehavior: a multilevel analysis. Justice Q. 2003;40(3):575.
29. Morral AR, McCaffrey DF, Paddock SM. Reassessing the mari-
juana gateway effect. Addiction. 2002;97:1493.
30. Olweus D. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can
Do. Malden, MA: Blackwell; 1993.
Journal of School Health April 2011, Vol. 81, No. 4
31. Loeber R, Hay D. Key issues in the development of aggression
and violence from childhood to early adulthood. Annu Rev
Psychol. 1997;48:371.
32. Jimerson SR, Furlong MJ. Handbook of School Violence And School
Safety: From Research to Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates; 2006.
33. Mintrop H, Trujillo T. Corrective action in low-performing
schools: lessons for NCLB implementation from state and
district strategies in first generation accountability systems.
(CSE Rep. No. 641). Los Angeles, CA: University of California,
National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and
Student Testing; 2005 (ERIC ED488713).
34. Stewart EB. School structural characteristics, student effort,
peer associations and parental involvement. Educ Urban Soc.
2008;40(2):179.
35. Bosworth K, Orpinas P, Hein K. Development of a positive
school climate. In: Kenny ME, Horne AM, Orpinas P, Reese
LE, eds. Handbook of Prevention: Promoting Health and Social
Justice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association;
2008:229-248.
2011, American School Health Association 201