N※N

School-Violence Expert Calls for a Human-Centred Approach to Campus Safety

  //stocks-investing.news-articles.net/content/202 .. r-a-human-centred-approach-to-campus-safety.html
  Published in Stocks and Investing on Tuesday, November 11th 2025 at 21:59 GMT by wjla

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-11 228 x 221 / 14270 Bytes

2025-11-11 204 x 224 / 8210 Bytes

2025-11-11 192 x 224 / 10575 Bytes

2025-11-11 224 x 224 / 11894 Bytes

School‑Violence Expert Calls for a Human‑Centred Approach to Campus Safety

A recent piece in WJLA’s “Newsletter Daily” turns the spotlight onto the ongoing crisis of gun violence in U.S. schools. The article, written by investigative journalist Sarah Jennings, features a conversation with Dr. Marissa E. Bennett, a leading scholar in school‑violence prevention and former director of the National Center for Safe Schools. Bennett argues that the nation’s current safety strategy—reliant on costly physical security devices and surveillance technology—has failed to stem the tide of mass shootings and instead has drained resources from programs that actually protect students and staff.

Dr. Marissa E. Bennett: A Background in Prevention

Bennett’s credentials are no surprise to anyone familiar with the field. She earned a Ph.D. in Criminology from the University of Chicago, where her dissertation focused on the social dynamics of youth gang violence. She later served on the advisory board of the Center for Gun Violence Prevention and has testified before both the House Committee on Education and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. “I’ve spent two decades looking at what really works in preventing school shootings,” Bennett says. “And the data is unequivocal: human resources—mental‑health staff, trained counselors, community liaisons—are far more effective than locked doors or metal detectors.”

The Problem with “Products”

Bennett’s critique centers on the U.S. school‑safety industry, which she estimates is a $12 billion market that sells metal detectors, biometric access‑control systems, and “smart” security cameras to districts nationwide. The article points out that many of these systems are installed in schools with the same enthusiasm as a new science lab or computer center, but they rarely involve a coordinated plan for crisis management.

“Security products are only as good as the people who use them,” Bennett says. “Without trained staff to interpret camera footage, intervene before a student gets a weapon, or de‑escalate a tense situation, a camera is just a blinking light.”

A follow‑up link in the article takes readers to a 2022 report by the American Public Safety Institute that details how 73 % of school‑shooting incidents were preceded by behavioral red flags—bullying, isolation, or expressions of violence—that were never addressed. The report stresses that “early intervention is the single most effective preventive measure.”

Evidence‑Based Alternatives

Bennett offers a set of evidence‑based alternatives that have shown measurable success in reducing violence. She cites a study published in Child Development (2020) in which districts that increased their counseling budgets by 30 % saw a 45 % reduction in reported incidents of violence among students aged 12‑18. The study also noted an improvement in overall academic performance.

Another link in the article references a case study from the National Center for Safe Schools showing that schools implementing a “Community‑Based Crisis Response” program—featuring partnerships with local law‑enforcement, mental‑health providers, and parent‑teacher associations—experienced a 50 % drop in altercations over a three‑year period.

Bennett also emphasizes the role of “restorative justice” frameworks, which focus on repairing harm and restoring relationships rather than punitive measures. A quick look at the Restorative Justice Association’s website—linked in the article—offers resources and best‑practice guides for districts looking to pilot such programs.

Policy Recommendations

The article ends with a set of concrete policy recommendations that Bennett believes could transform school safety at a national scale:

1. Reallocate Funding
   Shift 40 % of the current $1.4 billion federal grant allocated for “school‑security infrastructure” to mental‑health staffing, anti‑bullying programs, and community‑based outreach.

2. Standardize Crisis‑Management Protocols
   Adopt a federal standard for crisis‑management training that includes situational awareness, de‑escalation techniques, and trauma‑informed care. The linked Department of Education policy brief outlines the current gaps in state‑level standards.

3. Data‑Driven Monitoring
   Create a national database that tracks behavioral red flags, intervention outcomes, and post‑incident analyses. Bennett cites a 2018 proposal by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine for a similar system—linking to the proposal in the article.

4. Community Partnerships
   Encourage local businesses, nonprofits, and faith‑based organizations to participate in school‑safety planning committees. The article notes that a pilot program in Springfield, Illinois—link provided—has already recruited over 50 community volunteers who conduct weekly “check‑in” sessions with at‑risk students.

5. Legislative Support
   Advocate for the Safe Schools Act of 2025, which proposes bipartisan funding for mental‑health services and grants for community‑based violence prevention. The article provides a link to the current bill’s text and highlights the bipartisan support it has garnered.

Challenges and Counter‑Arguments

The article does not shy away from potential obstacles. Critics argue that investing in people is less concrete than purchasing a new set of steel doors. Bennett counters that, “People are not a variable we can easily budget; they’re the variable that actually determines outcomes.” She also addresses concerns about cost: a 2021 Education Policy Analysis report, linked in the article, found that schools that invested in mental‑health staff actually saved an average of $12,000 annually in reduced disciplinary incidents and improved academic performance, offsetting the initial costs.

Another concern is the “security‑first” culture that pervades many districts. Bennett suggests that a cultural shift can be catalyzed by involving parents, teachers, and students in safety planning, ensuring that the conversation moves beyond “locked doors” to “open support.”

The Bottom Line

The WJLA article presents a compelling case for rethinking how society protects our children. While physical security measures—metal detectors, security cameras, and lockdown drills—are not entirely without merit, they are insufficient on their own. Dr. Bennett’s message is clear: “The most powerful weapons against school violence are empathy, early intervention, and a strong, trusted community network.”

By following the links in the article—ranging from federal policy briefs to local case studies—readers gain a fuller picture of the data, programs, and policy tools that can help shift the national conversation from reactive “products” to proactive, human‑centred solutions. For policymakers, educators, and parents alike, the article offers a roadmap for building safer schools that do not merely secure doors, but also secure futures.