IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/envsyd/v45y2025i1d10.1007_s10669-025-10004-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceived effectiveness and intrusiveness of school security countermeasures among parents, students, and staff

Author

Listed:
  • Katie Byrd

    (University of Southern California (USC)
    University of Southern California (USC))

  • Kevin Kapadia

    (University of Southern California (USC)
    University of Southern California (USC))

  • Richard John

    (University of Southern California (USC)
    University of Southern California (USC))

Abstract

This study evaluates the perceptions of school security countermeasures among parents, recent students, and staff (n = 1105) recruited via Prolific.com. The survey elicited participants’ perceptions of safety and countermeasure effectiveness and invasiveness. Results show broad acceptance of measures like emergency drills, door locks, and security cameras, while more invasive measures, including armed staff, bag inspections, and clear bag policies, generate discomfort. A binary logistic regression found that perceived safety was negatively predicted by a desire for additional countermeasures and positively predicted by perceptions of countermeasures as both comfortable and effective. Socioeconomic factors, like household income, were also positively related to students’ sense of safety. Future research should examine the broader impacts of security measures on student well-being and the school environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Katie Byrd & Kevin Kapadia & Richard John, 2025. "Perceived effectiveness and intrusiveness of school security countermeasures among parents, students, and staff," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 45(1), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:45:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-025-10004-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s10669-025-10004-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10669-025-10004-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10669-025-10004-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:envsyd:v:45:y:2025:i:1:d:10.1007_s10669-025-10004-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.