Each school is unique in many ways. They differ in terms of their culture or climate, methods of instruction, location, demographics, level of student engagement, and safety, among other factors. Such differences encourage various avenues of research, with the primary goal of understanding what factors best promote student learning and well-being. The prestent study adds to the growing body of literature through assessing the extent to which various security-related approaches work in schools with different demographics.

School safety is of notable concern to many parents, teachers, school administrators, and students. The negative effects of students feeling unsafe at school include students avoiding school, feeling a decreased sense of belonging at school, and having limited relationships with teachers (Williams et al. 2018). Several high-profile shootings beginning around the turn of the century have generated much attention toward providing safe school environments, as do the many less serious yet also important daily incidents that decrease school safety. Mass shootings at various levels of schools in the United States, including those at Robb Elementary School in 2022, Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in 2007, for example, have demonstrated that students at all levels of education are susceptible to serious harm. The various levels of safety in schools warrant consideration of the characteristics and practices of safe schools in relation to less-safe schools.

Determining what approaches work best in different schools is necessary for student safety. School culture is important with regard to effective school functioning and of particular significance with regard to school safety (Crawford and Burns 2020). School officials, teachers, and students significantly impact school culture and more specifically school safety; for instance, administrators may seek to promote a more punitive approach to misconduct, or they may wish to create a more supportive environment. Arguably, a combination of both approaches works best, although determining how much to emphasize one over the other is debatable and influenced by many factors.

Existing research has highlighted the extent to which student demographics are related to differences in levels of school violence and perceptions of safety on campus. Minoritized students’ experiences with school violence, perceptions of safety, and discipline vary widely and interact in complex ways with race, ethnicity, school composition, and immigration generation. For example, Peguero (2009) found that first-generation Latino and Asian American youth attended schools they feel to be unsafe, and third-generation Latino and first- and second-generation Asian American students were at higher risk of victimization. Additionally, Lacoe (2015) found that after controlling for relevant school characteristics such as location and climate, Black students reported feeling less safe at school. Furthermore, these works suggest that there are indeed differences in the responses to violence and discipline on campus. For instance, schools with larger proportions of minority students are likelier to employ punitive practices compared to their counterparts (Welch 2018). Students may perceive the fairness of these disparate discipline practices differently by race, which has been correlated with achievement gaps and feelings of safety for minority students (Skiba et al. 2002). Furthermore, even when controlling for school context and demographics, in schools with greater discipline gaps and risks between Black and white students, Black students generally maintain less favorable perceptions of fair treatment by adults at schools, which was associated with increased adjustment problems (Bottiani et al. 2017). The disproportionality generally affects the perceptions of connectedness to adults for all students (Anyon et al. 2016).

2. Supportive and Punitive Approaches

School climate encompasses physical, emotional, social, and intellectual safety (Ruiz et al. 2018). Supportive school approaches place a greater emphasis on the latter three forms of safety compared to punitive approaches. Schools vary in their approach to providing supportive services to students. However, the general idea behind such efforts is to provide enhanced opportunities for students to feel comfortable, be safe, and have resources at their quick disposal to address concerns they may have. Support services help create safer environments that are more conducive to learning and general well-being. Research in the area suggests that a weak sense of belonging is among the strongest predictors of students’ fear of school violence (Akiba 2010), and levels of school violence are lower in schools in which the majority of students feel that school is important (Crawford and Burns 2015). Students feeling a sense of school belonging demonstrate higher levels of academic competence and efficacy and lower levels of academic skepticism (Morris et al. 2020). Further, students who feel they lack support from teachers and classmates more often experience maladjustment at school (Demaray and Malecki 2002), and a lack of school bonding is positively related to delinquency (Liljeberg et al. 2011). The importance of school climate is not restricted to student levels of comfort, as it can also contribute to higher levels of academic outcomes (DiPietro et al. 2015). Support services for students exist in many forms, including various acceptance groups. These groups assist students by providing resources for them to address issues pertaining to acceptance by other students, or the challenges associated with being in often-marginalized groups. For instance, Gay–Straight Alliances (GSAs) and related support groups assist LGBTQ students by providing a network of friends and resources (Greytak et al. 2013), which is particularly important given that these students are more likely than others to be harassed and bullied (e.g., White et al. 2018). Such support groups generally provide more positive school outcomes for LGBTQ students (Kosciw et al. 2013). Disability support groups assist a different group of students who are also at a greater risk of victimization, as students with disabilities are roughly twice as likely as their counterparts to be bullied (e.g., Malecki et al. 2020). School administrators also offer support services in schools with racial inequality and tension, which is particularly important given that these characteristics appear to be positively related to school crime (e.g., Crawford and Burns 2015; Jennings et al. 2011; Maume et al. 2010). Not all schools provide such support services. For instance, only 28% of schools in the current data set offered LGBTQ acceptance groups, 34% provided support services to address racial tension, and 38% provided support groups for students with disabilities. Other efforts to provide a supportive school environment include the existence of peer-mediation programs and parental involvement. Peer-mediation programs provide a less threatening alternative to conflict resolution, which historically has involved a school authority figure (e.g., an assistant principle) imposing discipline. It is a cost-effective, seemingly useful process that often leaves participants feeling satisfied and respected. Peer mediators listen to complaints, ask questions, and offer suggestions in resolving conflict. Those involved in the mediation often feel more comfortable speaking to peers as opposed to school officials, and the safe, supportive environment is conducive to conflict resolution (Angaran and Beckwith 1999). Generally, support systems in school may be particularly important for minority students (Demaray et al. 2005), for instance, as the relationships between African American students and their teachers assist greatly with positive school adjustment (McKown and Weinstein 2002). Research suggests that the involvement of parents in schools is related to lower levels of delinquency, and may offer a preventive measure that relies less on strict punishments (e.g., Bower 2020). Schools that take a more punitive approach to student misconduct generally adopt the approach that discipline, including strict discipline, is most effective. The use of suspensions (both within- and out-of-school), transfers to other schools, and zero-tolerance policies are characteristics of schools that seek to instill discipline in students. Schools across the United States and elsewhere have generally become increasingly punitive in response to several high-profile incidents (e.g., school shootings) that have led to questions regarding the safety of students on school grounds. The general idea behind these school-based “get tough” approaches is that physically removing misbehaving students or deterring them through punishment helps protect others. More punitive approaches to controlling student behavior have become increasingly popular since the 1990s, as more schools have implemented zero-tolerance approaches, emphasized crime prevention and law-enforcement-based practices, and relied more on suspensions and expulsions to address problematic behavior (e.g., Dunbar et al. 2019). These more punitive approaches have disproportionately impacted students and youth of color (e.g., Fabelo et al. 2011; Skiba et al. 2014). Gage et al. (2021) examined data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Office and found that Latinx students with and without disabilities were significantly more likely to receive exclusionary discipline as compared to white students but less likely than Black students. The implications for getting tough on problematic student behavior are both short-term and long-term. Researchers have examined the complex interaction of race, discipline, and academic achievement and found different results for Black and Latinx students. Pearman et al. (2019) found there was a discipline gap between Hispanic and white students, and Black and white students, which was correlated with the achievement gap. However, once community-level variables such as segregation and poverty were introduced, the achievement gap between Hispanic and white was statistically insignificant, but it remained for Black and white. This finding is further supported by Morris and Perry (2016), who found that school suspensions explained roughly one-fifth of the differences between Black and white students, and noted that “school punishment hinders academic growth and contributes to racial disparities in achievement” (p. 68). Both in- and out-of-school suspensions seek to address problematic student behavior through physically removing the misbehaving student. They are among the most punitive approaches taken by school officials, along with removals from school without services for the remainder of the school year, and transfers to other school. In 2017–2018, 35% of public schools (roughly 28,700 schools) imposed at least one out-of-school suspension, removal, or transfer to a specialized school for problematic students. Roughly 291,000 serious disciplinary actions were taken during this period, most often in response to physical attacks or fights (Wang et al. 2020). Nationally, students in 2015–2016 missed over 11 million days of instruction in schools due to out-of-school suspensions, with Black students facing higher rates of suspension than others (Losen and Whitaker 2018). Zero-tolerance and related policies have increasingly become incorporated in school policies and practices, as school administrators seek means to create safer school environments. Such practices became more common beginning in the 1990s and contributed to increased levels of student suspensions and expulsions (e.g., Wald and Losen 2003). There are costs associated with more punitive approaches to school safety, including the use of suspensions. For instance, strict discipline through the use of suspensions removes the problematic student, but it appears to be related to negative outcomes for the student. Among the harmful consequences associated with out-of-school suspensions are increased risks of academic failure and school disengagement (e.g., Arcia 2006; Noltemeyer et al. 2015), dropping out of school (e.g., Rosenbaum 2018), and involvement in the justice systems (Rosenbaum 2018). The use of alternative schools is another means to address school disorder, primarily through removing disruptive and dangerous students. These schools propose to provide alternative learning environments for students struggling in conventional schools, ensure safety at conventional schools, and address juvenile delinquency. Limited research, however, suggests that these schools have met their objectives (Vanderhaar et al. 2014).

3. Other Considerations

Levels of school violence and general disorder are not solely influenced by supportive and punitive approaches. Other factors, such as school context and law-enforcement-based/crime prevention approaches, also impact safety in schools. Schools have increasingly adopted various crime prevention and law enforcement approaches in response to concerns about school violence and disorder. Primary among these efforts are the use of school resources officers (SROs), threat-assessment teams, metal detectors, and cameras (e.g., Crawford and Burns 2015; Jennings et al. 2011). The increased use of SROs (Justice Policy Institute 2011), for instance, occurred in response to increased federal funding for greater security in schools in light of concerns about victimization in schools and increased rates of delinquency in the 1980s (Na and Gottfredson 2013). Although law enforcement and crime prevention approaches have become increasingly popular, results from evaluations of these approaches are generally inconsistent (e.g., Tanner-Smith et al. 2018). For instance, research suggests that SROs and other forms of crime prevention and enforcement actions can assist with bullying, racial tensions, gang problems, and student disrespect (Jennings et al. 2011). In addition, uniformed SROs and security personnel may also contribute to decreased levels of school suspension and violence in schools (Jennings et al. 2011). Other studies, however, have found that SROs and other forms of school security personnel have limited or counterproductive effects on student safety. Security personnel may be ineffective in reducing student victimization (e.g., Burrow and Apel 2008; Schreck et al. 2003; Tillyer et al. 2011), and students may be at greater risk of theft in schools with security personnel (Burrow and Apel 2008) and have poorer relationships with teachers (Fisher et al. 2019). Homer and Fisher (2020) noted a positive relationship between police presence in schools and arrest rates, with Black students and males being notably influenced. Crosse et al. (2022) suggest that Critical Race Theory may offer insight into the racialized nature of SRO presence and arrests. SROs may perceive and interpret students of color’s behaviors as more problematic and needing a formal response as compared to white students, which may in turn give the appearance of a more serious crime problem among minoritized students within the school. Research suggests that strict enforcement practices such as zero-tolerance policies, the increased use of law enforcement personnel, and the implementation of policies requiring the mandatory reporting of problematic behavior are related to increased levels of criminalization of students, especially racial and ethnic minorities (e.g., Alexander 2012; Monahan and Torres 2010). Schools are not isolated from the communities in which they exist, and as such are not immune to the larger problems faced in some communities. For instance, schools located in high crime areas generally experience higher rates of violence and disorder (e.g., Augustine et al. 2002; Chen 2008; Crawford and Burns 2015; George and Thomas 2000; Jennings et al. 2011; O’Neill and McGloin 2007; Robers et al. 2013). School context also includes racial and ethnic tensions and the frequency of bullying (as well as other harmful characteristics) that, when present, result in schools facing higher levels of violence and general disorder (e.g., Crawford and Burns 2015; Jennings et al. 2011; Maume et al. 2010). As noted throughout this review and the research literature in general, school violence and discipline are related in various ways to student demographics.

4. Student Demographics

The racial and ethnic composition of schools is seemingly also related to school safety and the associated reactions. Of particular interest to the current study are the levels of violence and general disorder in schools in which the student body is predominantly minority in relation to schools that are predominantly white. For example, Thibodeaux (2013) found that while being in a mostly same-race high school predicted students’ feelings of safety, this correlation was dependent on the student race, with Hispanic and Black students reporting feeling less safe in a same-race school. According to the author, this suggests a complex interaction of community context and stereotypes applied to place. Student demographics are significant in the sense that schools with higher levels of racial and ethnic homogeneity generally have lower rates of student victimization (e.g., Felix and You 2011), minority students face higher rates of discipline in schools (Townsend 2000), Black students feel less safe than white and Asian students at school (Lacoe 2015), and African American and Hispanic students are suspended and expelled at a higher rate than white students (Cruz and Rodl 2018; Shirley and Cornwell 2011; United States Department of Education 2010; Pesta 2018; Vanderhaar et al. 2014; Welsh and Little 2018). African American students are also more likely to be placed in alternative schools (Vanderhaar et al. 2014). Much of the existing research regarding school violence and minoritized groups focuses on African Americans. Evidence suggests, however, that other minoritized groups certainly face differential treatment in schools. For instance, Peguero et al. (2016) noted that enhanced school punishments contribute to Hispanic students dropping out of school, although improvements to school fairness and justice could reduce the likelihood of them leaving school. Relatedly, schools with higher percentages of Latinx students were more likely to favor certain punitive responses (out-of-school suspension) and less likely to favor particular mild responses such as the loss of privileges and probation (Welch and Payne 2018). Further, it is argued that Native American students receive more frequent and harsher discipline than white students (Ko et al. 2021). Relatedly, schools in which there is racial inequality and tension generally experience higher rates of school crime, including violent crime (e.g., Crawford and Burns 2015; Jennings et al. 2011; Maume et al. 2010), and schools with proportionately more minority students have higher levels of victimization (Chen 2008; George and Thomas 2000). Schools with higher proportions of racial and ethnic minorities are generally more punitive compared to others (e.g., Welch and Payne 2010). These findings demonstrate the need for additional study in this area, with a primary goal of understanding why demographics are so strongly related to levels of school disorder and the associated responses. The relationship between student demographics and approaches to controlling student behavior is particularly important in the sense that each school is different, and what works in one setting may not somewhere else. These and related findings highlight the significance of understanding what school-safety approaches work best in schools with different characteristics, and, more generally, what can be done to improve school safety in all schools.