��ݮ��Ƶ

We are all going to be okay, there are bad guys out there now, and now we have to wait for the good guys

~Kaitlin Roig, First Grade Teacher, Sandy Hook Elementary School[1]

Statement of the Problem

The tragic mass-murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School caused a massive increase in school security spending across the United States.[2] An unfortunate by-product of increased spending on security in schools has been an increase in poorly thought-out, and sometimes ridiculous,[3] physical security products being marketed to schools and school districts looking to improve security.[4] Too often school officials base security buying decisions on fear rather than sound security risk management principles and divert funds that could otherwise be spent on students.[5] School administrators, who lack knowledge of physical security design,[6] often rely on unqualified “security experts” or security product salespeople for guidance on which security products to use in their schools.[7] Previous studies of school security technologies have identified available school security products and ascertained school officials’ views of which technologies they need, but none have identified the most cost-effective and practical security technologies. [8] If school officials know the best security technologies to fix security vulnerabilities in their schools, they will be more receptive to adopting those security measures and earmarking funds for their purchase. They will also be less likely to make poor buying decisions based on emotion.[9]

In addition, there is a substantial lack of scholarly research into school security technologies that included experienced security practitioners on the research team. This research proposal will be unique and far more applicable to the current public school environment because it will have three security practitioners in the research team, working alongside behavioral scientists and engineers. This scientist-practitioner approach to school safety is the best way to comprehensively and efficiently address these costly and potentially high-risk scenarios.

After identifying the best technologies for each type of school, the research team will create a guidebook that educators, with little to no security knowledge, can reference before buying security products. This research will be brand neutral and will make no specific manufacturer recommendations, rather it will evaluate the best technologies for improving school security at the lowest cost.

Review of Relevant Literature

After the mass shooting at Sandy Elementary School, the State of Connecticut created two commissions to examine ways to improve school security. In June 2014, the School Safety Infrastructure Council issued its report, which recommends schools use an emergency response time analysis to guide physical security design in schools.[10] In March 2015, the Sandy Hook Advisory Commission issued its final report supporting the recommendations of the School Safety Infrastructure Council.[11] In April 2015, the Rand Corporation surveyed school safety experts and discovered:

…a key distinction in thinking about safety is police response times—roughly under five minutes (i.e., urban districts) and over five minutes (i.e., suburban/rural districts)—since response times dictate how self-sufficient schools need to be in response to crisis situations such as cases of active shooters.

Combining penetration time analysis with emergency response time analysis is a fundamental principle of physical security design—delaying an attacker long enough for a response force to arrive and stop the attack.[12] Although both reports recommend using an emergency response time analysis to guide school physical security design, neither report gives a practical model for performing this analysis nor offers delay time data for physical security barriers. Without knowing how long various security devices will delay an intruder, there is no easy way for school administrators to use emergency response time analysis data to pick the best products. Schools with long emergency response times need more robust physical security measures than schools with much shorter response times; and the present research proposes to address this issue.

In A Comprehensive Report on School Safety Technology, researchers from Johns Hopkins University cataloged available physical security products for schools. Unfortunately, it did not show which products are the most feasible, affordable, and effective for K-12 schools throughout the United States. Our research team believes that a key problem with the Hopkins report is the lack of security practitioners on the research team to help filter-out security technologies that are inappropriate, impractical, or infeasible. For example, the Hopkins report discussed pneumatic vehicle barriers, which are an effective solution to protect high-risk terror targets from suicide vehicle attacks, but are expensive and unnecessary for schools.[13] The Hopkins report also discussed bullet resistant doors and door coverings, citing the death of a professor at Virginia Tech as an example of someone being shot and killed through a door.[14] We think this misses the key take-away of that incident. The professor was blocking the door with his body because he could not lock the classroom door, which is the primary reason he was shot.[15] In another classroom, students laid on the floor and blocked the door with their feet, the shooter fired several rounds through the door but no one was injured and the shooter never entered the room.[16] This report also addressed lock and window technologies, but it did not assess penetration delay. School safety research that takes into account both the science of security as well as the practical, day-to-day cost-benefit considerations of real schools, such as we propose, is essential and not yet conducted.

In 1978, Sandia National Labs published a report titled, Barrier Technology Handbook, with penetration time test results against various barrier technologies used in nuclear facilities as guidance for physical security managers.[17] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission shared this report with all nuclear reactor operators as a reference to the latest available security technologies.[18] Later, in 1999, Sandia published another report, The Appropriate and Effective Use of Security Technologies in U.S. Schools: A Guide for Schools and Law Enforcement Agencies, which provided information on various security technologies and the suitable use of those technologies to counter specific security threats. The guide included information on the limits of each technology. This report mostly focused on video surveillance and metal detection technologies. It also briefly discussed access control approaches and duress alarms, but did not address doors, windows, or locks. ��ݮ��Ƶ – Prescott is proposing research that will result in similar handbooks for K-12 schools but focusing on emergency response and penetration times in the school setting, taking into account cost considerations and emergency response times in real-world security technology application. Currently, school administrators have no guidance on which technologies are most cost-effective and practical for use in schools. Identifying Cost-Effective Security Barrier Technologies for K-12 Schools: An Interdisciplinary Evaluation will fill this void using a team of security practitioners, mechanical engineers, and industrial psychologists to identify the most feasible, cost-effective, and practical security technologies to delay intruders in K-12 schools. In addition, we have not found any scholarly research into school security technologies that included experienced security practitioners in the research team. Having three security practitioners on the research team will make this study unique.

Another important aspect of our research is understanding various stakeholders’ perceptions of school safety, especially in regards to various technology. Many surveys have assessed actual school violence or school safety. In 2015, The National Center for Education Statistics identified Twenty-three indicators of school crime and safety.[19] Their only measure of students’ perceptions of safety was asking if students were afraid of being attacked at school. We feel that this measure can be expanded to capture more about their fear, including type of attack and responder times. In another study, researchers looked at how the intersection of school violence and school climate affect student, staff, and parental perceptions of safety.[20] Interestingly, this study showed that perceptions of safety were likely more related to school climate than actual violence. Several studies cover stakeholders’ perceptions of Safety Resource Officers (SROs), and findings suggest that SROs fail to make people feel safer.[21] In another study, researchers found that metal detectors, the only technology measured, did not affect risk perception but did lower fear of serious violence.[22] Our study will cover a broader range of perception variables and focus specifically on the types of technologies that not only increase actual safety but increase perceptions of safety.

Another unique aspect of this research study is that researchers will not look at K-12 schools as a uniform group. The research will examine the appropriateness of security technologies based on the age ranges of students served by the school. In most school districts, schools are organized by the ages and developmental levels of students. Most school districts organize schools into elementary (K-6), junior high (7-9), and high schools (10-12), or elementary (k-5), middle schools (6-9), and high schools (10-12). Some early childhood education centers provide preschool through second grade education.[23]

The students in each type of school differ in intellectual development, how they are taught, student behavior, and student dependence on adults. Because younger children cannot communicate “stranger danger”[24], schools with younger children face different security challenges than schools with older students. Jean Piaget, a pioneer of childhood development, developed a four-stage theory to describe cognitive growth through the lifespan: (1) sensorimotor (ages 0 to 2); (2) preoperations (ages 2 to 7); (3) concrete operations (ages 8 to 12); and (4) formal operations (ages 12 and over).[25] For K-12 schools, students will be in stages 2 to 4. Preoperational children (Stage 2) cannot grasp that a person’s core-self stays the same despite changes in external appearance, they believe everything is alive, and human beings make everything in nature.[26] Further, understanding and applying rules is difficult at this age because it requires abstract conceptualization, a skill that preoperational children do not have. In addition, information-processing functions evolve as children grow. Executive functions, inhibition, working memory, cognitive flexibility, and planning ability all develop as a child ages—all of which have implications for a child’s self-preservation responses during an emergency.[27] For example, young students are less able to assess a situation and make sound survival decisions, and they are physically less able to flee or defend themselves during an active-shooter event than older students. The implications of these differences for physical security design are that barriers and delay time become more important the younger the students.

In elementary schools, students stay in one classroom most of the day only leaving the room for recess, lunch, physical education, and sometimes music class. This contrasts significantly with high schools where students are mobile, moving autonomously between classrooms every hour, driving themselves to and from school, and maybe free to leave campus during the lunch hour.

Between elementary schools and high schools are junior high and middle schools. These schools serve as a transition from elementary school to high school. Students move between classrooms but several core classes may be held in the same classroom so they do not move often as high school students. These students eat lunch at school and are too young to drive so they are less mobile and independent than high school students. They are however, more mobile and independent than elementary school students. These differences matter for physical security design since security should provide protection while minimally interfering with peoples’ ability to go about their daily business. In addition, differences in students’ social, emotional, and intellectual development influences the origin of threats to schools. Threats to elementary schools are mostly external while they are mostly internal in junior high and high schools. Problems with interpersonal violence and drug use increase as students move on to junior high and high school.

For these reasons, the research team will view the research results from three different perspectives: the needs of early childhood education schools, the needs of schools with early-adolescent students, and schools with mid- to late- adolescent students. The tested technologies may be useful in all schools, but the research team will discover the best technologies for each type of school. The team also recognizes the differences among rural, suburban, and urban schools as well as differences between schools in wealthy and low-income communities. Therefore, the team will also develop recommendations based on school location (e.g., rural versus urban) and cost (low-cost/high value versus high cost/high value).

The results of this research will serve as the basis for the security buying guidebook mentioned earlier. This research will be brand neutral and will make no specific manufacturer recommendations, rather it will evaluate the best technologies for improving school security at the lowest cost.

Purpose and Objectives

Access control, such as locked or monitored doors, is the most common security measure used in American schools. During the 2013-2014 school year 95% of elementary schools, 95% of middle schools, and 89% of high schools report controlling access during the school day.[28] The percentage of schools using access control increased 18% percent over the 14-year period between 2000 and 2014.[29] This research will focus on doors, locks, and windows because access control is most common security measure used in K-12 schools.

This study will be the first large interdisciplinary applied study of school security technologies to look at physical security barrier delay-times for use in schools. The study will be unique in that it will have three board certified security practitioners on a research team that also includes industrial psychologists and mechanical engineers.

The research objectives are:

·       Conduct penetration testing to gather delay time data for commonly used doors in schools;

·       Penetration testing of common window glazing materials and smash resistant films for use in schools;

·       Test the effectiveness of door blocking devices marketed to schools;

·       Collect data on the type, condition, appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of security devices currently used in schools;

·       Examine teacher, staff, and parents’ (school populations) perceptions of security in their schools as well as perceived needs for additional security technologies.

·       Create a guidebook for school officials and law enforcement that will simplify using emergency response times to guide school security design

·       Disseminate the research findings to school administrators, security practitioners, and researchers through target audience appropriate means such as peer reviewed journals, trade magazines, guidebooks, and presentations to professional and academic conferences

·       Archive data for use by the research community

The ultimate goal of this research is to create guidelines school administrators, law enforcement, and security practitioners can use when designing or upgrading security measures in schools. This guidebook will be key to adopting an approach to school security design that uses emergency response time analysis because it will provide data on how long these barrier devices will delay an intruder. The guidebook will also provide information on cost-effectiveness that will help school administrators determine security spending priorities and avoid wasteful spending.

Project Design and Implementation

Researchers from ��ݮ��Ƶ – Prescott’s College of Security and Intelligence, College of Engineering, and Behavioral & Safety Sciences Department will evaluate security technologies for: feasibility, durability, effectiveness, practicality, and cost-effectiveness, and will assess how well students and staff can use or interact with those technologies. For example, during laboratory testing a particular door material may prove to be resilient against a forced entry attack, but because of the material’s mass, small children would not be able to open the doors making them impractical for use in elementary schools.

The research team will test technologies based on the fundamental security principles of delay and mitigation. A good physical security design will delay an attacker long enough for a response force to arrive and neutralize the threat–mitigating loss during an attack. Delay is achieved by using physical barriers such as doors, windows, and locks. In this study, the research team will assess how long those technologies will delay an attacker from accessing a protected space rather than whether the device can stop bullets and prevent any injuries. Attack resilient materials can prevent, discourage, or delay burglars or vandals trying to enter a school building after hours—mitigating the risk of loss from theft or destruction. These materials can provide schools with security against multiple threats beyond that of an armed intruder.

The research team has identified 23 school districts within the State of Arizona to study as part of this research. These 23 school districts have 447 schools, serve 299,295 K-12 students, and employ 32,107 faculty and staff. To ensure the study has broad scalability to schools nationwide the school districts are diverse in location, student demographics, and financial resources. The districts range from large urban school districts to small rural districts to schools on Native American reservations. We identified these school districts by considering several variables: number of students, location, racial and ethnic diversity, community size, and annual budget. For example, we chose school districts on Native American chosen based on distance from large urban areas, sources of income (i.e., casinos, mining, power generation etc.), and geographic size.

This research will consist of four parts:

1.     surveying teachers, staff, and parents' perceptions of security;

2.     physically touring schools identify which security technologies are in use;

3.     comparing parent and staff perceptions of security with those of security experts; and,

4.     penetration testing of commonly used security barriers.

Part I will survey teachers, staff, and administrators (school populations) to discover how they perceive security in their schools. The surveys will gather data about how school populations perceive threats and the need for security technologies to mitigate those threats in their schools. Researchers will analyze the collected data to see if there are differences in perceptions among various groupings such as rural versus urban, students versus staff, poorer districts versus wealthy districts, etc. Researchers will also use this data to determine school populations’ perceptions are in line with actual risks, and whether perceived need for security matches the capabilities of those security technologies. To evaluate security perceptions effectively, this study will use a multimodal research design to gather converging evidence in support of the school security guidebook design. This will include risk perception assessments; overall attitudes toward safety and security; and perceived and actual security vulnerabilities.

Researchers will collect data using online or written surveys (for lower income areas that may lack Internet access) and the surveys will be available in the Spanish and Diné (Navajo) languages. Participation is voluntary and the surveys will not collect personally identifiable information as part of the research. Research survey forms will use unique identifier numbers to distinguish individual survey responses; however, the identifier numbers will not connect to participant’s identities. Participants will receive informed consent forms before engaging in the study.

Part II of the research will involve having board certified security experts touring schools and conducting physical security surveys to inventory existing security technologies. During the physical security surveys, the security experts will identify threats and vulnerabilities at each school as well as what security technologies are best suited to mitigate any identified threats or vulnerabilities. Data gathered in Parts I and II of the project will be analyzed and compared to identify security issues at participating schools, perceptual disconnects between laypersons and security experts, and which security technologies will have the broadest application to most schools.

Part III of the project will involve testing security barrier products. This part will involve, designing product testing protocols, buying materials, product testing, and analysis of test data. The research team will test: classroom doors, sidelight glazing materials, smash resistant window films, and aftermarket door blocking technologies. Researchers will test commonly used classroom doors (solid birch, 16-gauge and 18-gauge steel clad) against 5.56 mm, 9 mm, 357 Magnum munitions, and 12 gauge 00 Buckshot combined with brute-force entry to discover the assailant delay time of each door. The assailant delay time will be determined using the U.S. Army definition of “the time it takes to make a 96-square-inch (man-sized) opening with the least dimension greater than 6 inches in a construction assembly using a given set of tools.”[30] Researchers will also assess how door materials react to ballistic impacts to assess indirect safety issues such as material spalling that could cause injuries to room occupants. Data gathered during this testing will be used to identify the most cost-effective security barrier technologies for use in K-12 schools.

Researchers will also test window glazing materials to discover the penetration delay times of those glazing materials both without and with smash resistant films applied to the glazing. The research team will use two criteria for penetration time. The first being the time needed to create a hole large enough to allow passage of a person’s arm. Many classrooms have sidelights or doors with windows making this test protocol necessary since an attacker could reach inside the classroom and unlock the door during an attack. The second penetration time criteria will be the same U.S. Army criteria used for the door testing: the time necessary to create a 96 square inch hole in the material. Video of all penetration tests will be recorded from two angles for later review and analysis.

We understand these materials will not stop bullets and will not be testing for bullet resistance. Rather, we will test the resilience of these barrier technologies against ballistic and brute force to determine how long they will keep an intruder out of a protected area. This delay may reduce the number of casualties during a school shooting event.

Capabilities and Competencies

The research team is ideally positioned to conduct the research proposal outlined above. Professor Tom Foley is a faculty member in the College of Security & Intelligence, the first such College within the United States. He holds a Doctor of Jurisprudence and is board certified in security management (Certified Protection Professional) and physical security (Physical Security Professional). He has consulted for numerous schools in the Prescott and Phoenix areas, conducting physical security assessments, helping to create emergency response plans, and suggesting low- or no- cost methods to improve school safety. Professor Foley is widely recognized as a school security expert and has been interviewed by ABC15, CBS5, NBC, NPR, KTAR radio, and various print media. He organized a symposium on school shootings attended by school administrators, emergency planners, law enforcement officers, and private security professionals from throughout Arizona. He is a member of ASIS International, the Association of Threat Assessment Professionals, and the National Domestic Preparedness Coalition. He is a past member of the ASIS International School Safety and Security Council and a current member of the ASIS International/National Fire Protection Association Active Shooter Initiative. Professor Foley is also a member of Embry-Riddle’s Behavioral Intervention Team and Emergency Response Team.

Dr. Erin Bowen is Director of the Robertson Safety Institute as well as Chair of the Behavioral & Safety Sciences Department at Embry-Riddle. She holds a Ph.D. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology, a doctoral minor in Research Methodology, and focuses her research on the cognitive/behavioral components of safety and evidence-based approaches to safety training. She also has extensive experience in human subjects research protection and Institutional Research Board protocols, and served as a member on the University IRB. In addition, Dr. Bowen has expertise in the design, implementation, and assessment of organizational training programs as well as the development and validation of survey and assessment instruments. Her expertise in aviation safety and psychology has been featured nationally on NBC’s “Meet the Press”, other local and national television and print media, as well as internationally on BBC Radio, CBC, and CTV, and other venues.

Dr. Michele Gazica is an Assistant Professor in the Behavioral and Safety Sciences Department at ��ݮ��Ƶ. She has extensive research experience in the areas of occupational health and safety as well as survey development and validation. Dr. Gazica has additional expertise in legal analysis, sophisticated data analysis, and test and measurement theory. Dr. Gazica received her PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of South Florida and her Juris Doctor from the University of Florida. Before choosing to pursue her PhD, she practiced law for seven years.

Professor Reginald Parker is an assistant professor in the College of Security and Intelligence at ��ݮ��Ƶ in Prescott, Arizona. Professor Parker has extensive security experience and is board certified in security management as a Certified Protection Professional (CPP). Professor Parker is also a certified Professional Project Manager (PMP) by the Project Management Institute and specializes in project scheduling and cost control to maintain budget and on time completion metrics of multimillion dollar programs. He teaches project management methods class at ERAU and prepares students for the PMP professional exam. He is a member of ASIS International, the Project Management Institute, FBI Infragard Program, and the Homeland Security Trusted Partners program.

Brooke Shannon is an Assistant Professor of Intelligence and Security and Intelligence at ��ݮ��Ƶ in Prescott, Arizona. She has a PhD in Information Science and Learning Technologies with a doctoral minor in Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis with research interests in content analysis and phenomenology. She has a Masters in Applied Behavioral Science and served as in the United States Air Force as a Behavioral Influences Analyst at the National Air and Space Intelligence Center.

Michael Brady, MA, CPP, is the Director of Campus Safety & Security at ��ݮ��Ƶ – Prescott. As a Certified Protection Professional (CPP) he is Board Certified in Security Management by ASIS International. Across his nearly 40 years in the protection field, Director Brady has served as an in-house security and safety professional, as a consultant, and as an executive in the contract guarding industry. He has been applying workplace violence prevention, mitigation, and response strategies since the late 1980s. Trained by both the Center for Personal Protection and Safety and the ALICE Institute, he has made many presentations on how to detect, prevent, and mitigate targeted violence in schools and the workplace.  Director Brady has taught security management courses as an adjunct instructor for Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota and University of South California – Santa Cruz. He is a member of ASIS International and the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators (IACLEA). Director Brady is also a member of Embry-Riddle – Prescott’s Behavioral Intervention Team and Emergency Operations Team.

Dr. Muna Slewa is an assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at ��ݮ��Ƶ – Prescott. Dr. Slewa holds two Ph.D. degrees and has over 10-years of university teaching experience. She has conducted research in large laboratories, including the Los Alamos National Lab. Dr. Slewa’s research expertise includes: microscopic analysis using Scanning Electron Microscopes, EBSD microscopes, and XRD refraction. Her research includes investigating phase change in A36 steel as a result of high-speed impact loading, plastic deformation of steel plates under high-impact loading, and she was a researcher on the Fischer Space Pen. Dr. Slewa is a member of the National Society of Leadership and Success.

Kusay Rafo is the Owner and CEO of Rafail CAD & Engineering in Ontario, Canada. Mr. Rafo holds a master’s degree in mechanical engineering/welding/manufacturing engineering, and explosive welding. He is a licensed professional engineer and he serves as an executive member of the Canadian Welding Association. Mr. Rafo has experience in industrial structural engineering, custom machinery design failure analysis, high impact/explosive welding, and mechanical failure analysis. He is also experienced in welding metallurgy, metallography, and microstructure analysis using optical and scanning electron microscopes, as well as welding inspection non-destructive testing. Mr. Rafo has more than 10-years’ of experience teaching university level courses.

��ݮ��Ƶ is a historic leader in aviation education that has evolved into a leader in engineering, security, and safety. Resources available at the Prescott, AZ campus include space and skill for test bed design, data analysis software, and security knowledge and expertise not typically available to public school systems interested in performing similar research.

Management Plan and Organization

This project has been funded by a grant from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in the amount of $770,000 and began on January 15, 2018 and will be completed on December 31, 2019. The research team consists of one principal investigator, seven co-investigators, three graduate research assistants, and three undergraduate assistants. Tom Foley is the principal investigator and Reg Parker will serve as the project manager. The behavioral science portion of the research will be conducted by Dr. Erin Bowen and Dr. Michelle Gazica with two graduate research assistants. Dr. Muna Slewa and Kusay Rafo will conduct the material testing and analysis portion of the project with help from the rest of the research team as needed. Kusay Rafo will create CAD drawings of testing layouts and testbeds in addition to providing his materials testing and failure analysis expertise to the team. The physical inspection and inventory of security devices currently in use will be conducted by Tom Foley, Reg Parker, Michael Brady, and one graduate research assistant with help from other members of the team. Dr. Brooke Shannon will code and archive data, assist in statistical analysis, and oversee the dissemination of the research results. The risk of project delay because of loss of a team member is mitigated by skill redundancies among the researchers.

Potential Impact

The potential impact of the proposed research is high. Not only is the project filling a significant gap in the research and practice literature for school safety and security, but it is doing so in a way that integrates scientific rigor with real-world practicality. The project design takes advantage of the significant resources of the College of Security & Intelligence, College of Engineering, and the Robertson Safety Institute at Embry-Riddle as leaders in the science and practice of security and safety.

This research will provide a basis for emergency response time based on the physical security design in schools, which has the potential to create a more structured and rational approach to school security technology spending. Such an approach could lead to selecting more cost-effective security technologies and physical security designs that best meet the unique needs of each school regardless of location. This research will help rural schools to layer security barrier technologies to increase delay and compensate for longer police response times. It will also help urban schools avoid buying too many security barrier technologies relative to police response times. As a matter of public policy, creating better guidance on the proper application of security barrier technologies will reduce wasteful spending and increase security value per dollar spent and make for a safe environment for our nation’s school-going population.

Physical security is an under researched area of school security. As described earlier in this proposal, the nature of attacks and victim population characteristics (ability to respond and avoid harm during an attack) differs significantly among elementary school, middle school, and high school students. This research is essential to give school administrators, teachers, and parents useful knowledge to retrofit existing school buildings with security features that will protect occupants until responders can arrive and stop the threat.

This research project has substantial implications for current criminal justice policy and practice. It will change the current “one-size-fits-all” approach to K-12 physical security to a risk-based approach that considers the developmental levels of students, police response times, and most likely origin of threat (insider versus outsider). Current discussions and research regarding school security categorize schools into preschool, K-12, and college without considering that the educational system consists of preschools, elementary, middle, and high schools because of the intrinsically different developmental levels, capabilities, and behaviors of students. This research will challenge existing assumptions and create a framework for physical security design in rural and urban elementary, middle, and high schools. This research will also build on previous research by Sandia National Laboratories in 1999, which resulted in the first of what was hoped to be several guidebooks for use by schools and law enforcement.[31] This guidebook series was never completed because of funding issues but its continuation, as we propose here, is essential.

Dissemination Strategy

The scientist-practitioner approach employed by the research team will not only create a practical guidebook for broad distribution to school administrators, but the results will also be disseminated to the broader scholarly and security practitioner communities. The research team will share results through a combination of industry-based safety and security conferences and trade publications to invite open discussion on the results of the durability testing of the security products. The researcher will also present key findings at each phase of the research to relevant safety and security conferences and submit articles to leading education and security research journals. The practical guidebook in combination with the new systems-based models (tested using CFA and SEM) of stakeholder perception encompass a major addition to the school safety field.

In addition, researchers will present to school districts throughout Arizona (where the research will be conducted) and beyond based on the level of interest. It is the research team’s primary goal to disseminate this knowledge as widely as possible and make freely available to school administrators. The guidebook will be available to schools for free download from the College of Security and Intelligence website. The guidebook will also be provided at no charge to various nonprofit school safety organizations such as Sandy Hook Promise and Coyote Crisis Cooperative, to distribute freely to their audiences as well.

Results of this research will also be disseminated to the scholarly community through publication in scholarly journals and presentations at academic conferences. The results will also be communicated to security practitioners through articles in trade publications, white papers, and presentations to professional conferences such as the ASIS International Annual Seminar.

Summary

Embry-Riddle’s College of Security and Intelligence, Robertson Safety Institute, and College of Engineering are uniquely qualified to develop a revolutionary framework for school security that moves away from a one-size-fits-all approach to school security to a risk based approach that considers student ages and abilities, school location, local emergency response times, the time-delay created by various physical security barriers, and cost-effectiveness. Its research team consists of an impressive group of security practitioners, industrial psychologists, and engineering researchers. In partnership with rural, suburban, urban, and tribal schools throughout Arizona, Embry-Riddle will develop a guidebook of school security barriers for use by schools nationwide.