Guest article by Jason Russell, Founder and President of Secure Environment Consultants (SEC).
The recently released school security standard developed by ASIS (American Society for Industrial Security) has prompted concern among educators and mental health professionals due to its heavy focus on physical security measures like cameras, locks, fences, and panic buttons, while offering comparatively less attention to behavioral threat assessment and mental health. While the intent to protect students is clear, the approach raises important questions about how best to achieve safe school environments.
A keyword analysis of the document illustrates this imbalance: terms such as “camera” and “lock” appear 40 times each, while “fence” appears 14 times and “panic button” 9 times. In contrast, “mental health” is mentioned only 9 times. Additionally, the section on Physical Protection Systems and Measures spans a significant 34 pages, while the Behavioral Threat Assessment section is a mere 12 pages long. This prioritization suggests that the standard leads with physical security rather than focusing first on behavioral threat assessment and mental health, which are crucial for preventing violence before it escalates.
The Role of Vendors and the Focus on Physical Security
Though security vendors likely contributed valuable expertise to the standard, the emphasis on physical security infrastructure—much of which is manufactured and sold by these same vendors—raises concerns. There is a fear that schools could be driven to allocate scarce resources toward costly security products like surveillance systems and fencing, while mental health services and educational initiatives, which are equally if not more important for long-term safety, may be sidelined.
While physical barriers and surveillance are certainly components of school safety, their impact on preventing intrusions and gun violence is limited. Research shows that fencing, for example, may not effectively prevent intruders. A 2020 report published in Crime Prevention & Community Safety found that fences, while potentially useful for controlling movement within school grounds, were not a significant deterrent to determined intruders. In fact, such measures might create a false sense of security while neglecting more proactive approaches like threat assessment and early intervention.
Imbalance Between Physical Security and Behavioral Threat Assessment
One of the most pressing concerns about the ASIS standard is its disproportionate attention to physical security at the expense of behavioral threat assessment. As mentioned, the Physical Protection Systems section spans 34 pages, while the Behavioral Threat Assessment section covers only 12. The latter includes crucial strategies for identifying and addressing potential threats early—through the lens of mental health, behavior, and environmental factors. Research shows that these approaches are critical for violence prevention.
For instance, the U.S. Secret Service emphasizes that effective behavioral threat assessment, coupled with mental health services, plays a vital role in preventing acts of violence in schools. A positive school climate, in which students feel connected to their peers and supported by faculty, is one of the best defenses against potential violence. By focusing on relationships and early intervention, schools can address concerning behavior before it escalates into a crisis.
Given this reality, many experts argue that school security standards should lead with behavioral threat assessment rather than physical security. The current structure of the ASIS standard suggests that the reverse is true, potentially pushing schools to invest first in security infrastructure rather than in the mental health and well-being of students.
The Potential Financial and Administrative Burden
If implemented, the ASIS standard would likely place significant financial and administrative burdens on schools. Physical security upgrades such as installing cameras, fencing, and alarm systems require substantial investment—funds that could otherwise support mental health services, educational programs, or other areas essential to student success. Many schools already face limited budgets and difficult decisions about how to allocate resources, and this standard could further complicate those challenges.
Moreover, the administrative workload that would come with compliance is another major concern. The ASIS standard calls for extensive documentation, regular audits, and ongoing management of security systems. These tasks could overwhelm school administrators and staff who are already juggling a range of responsibilities, leaving little time for the relational aspects of school safety, such as building trust and maintaining a positive school culture.
Increased Liability Risks for Schools
Another issue that the ASIS standard may introduce is an increase in liability for schools that are unable to fully meet its requirements. Given the financial and logistical challenges that come with compliance, many schools—particularly those in underfunded districts—may struggle to achieve the levels of security detailed in the standard. If a security breach or violent incident were to occur, these schools could face heightened liability simply because they did not have the resources to implement every measure outlined in the ASIS guidelines.
This potential for increased liability creates further pressure on schools to prioritize physical security over other vital needs, such as mental health support and educational programs. It is essential to consider whether a security standard should impose such high risks on schools, particularly when evidence suggests that physical security alone cannot guarantee the prevention of violence.
Limited Effectiveness of Physical Security Measures in Preventing Violence
There is substantial evidence that physical security measures alone are insufficient in preventing school violence, particularly gun violence. A comprehensive study by the National Center for Education Statistics found no clear evidence that physical security measures such as surveillance cameras or controlled access significantly reduce the likelihood of school shootings. While these measures may deter some types of misconduct or unauthorized access, they do little to address the root causes of violence, which are often linked to mental health issues, social isolation, or interpersonal conflicts.
Furthermore, highly visible security measures, such as metal detectors, armed guards, and extensive fencing, can contribute to a climate of fear among students. Research published in the Journal of Adolescent Health suggests that students who attend schools with prominent security features report feeling less safe, not more. Such environments can undermine students’ sense of belonging and connection to the school community, which are critical components of effective violence prevention strategies.
Conclusion: The Need for a Balanced Approach
The ASIS school security standard, while well-intentioned, falls short in its approach to creating truly safe school environments. By prioritizing physical security measures over behavioral threat assessment and mental health, it risks diverting valuable resources away from areas that have a proven impact on preventing violence. Moreover, the administrative and financial burden of compliance could overwhelm schools, increasing liability risks for those that cannot meet the standard.
A more balanced approach is needed—one that begins with behavioral threat assessment, mental health support, and fostering a positive school climate. Physical security measures should complement these efforts, not overshadow them. Schools should be given the flexibility to invest in what works for their communities, ensuring that the focus remains on the well-being of students, staff, and educators.
As this standard is considered for adoption, it is essential to critically assess its potential impact on schools and to prioritize the strategies that will have the greatest long-term benefit for safety and education.
Jason Russell is the Founder and President of Secure Environment Consultants (SEC). As president, Jason leads a team of former federal law enforcement agents, police officials, and military specialists in delivering White House-level threat assessment and protection to schools and businesses.
Jason has worked with the Michigan Legislature to bring forward critical funding for site assessments for K-12 schools throughout the state and was appointed by Governor Whitmer to serve on Michigan’s School Safety and Mental Health Commission.
Jason is a frequent keynote and content speaker at conferences on the topics of emergency preparedness, active shooter response, safety and security processes, and behavioral threat assessment.
Because of his expertise in safety and security, Jason is frequently asked to respond to crises, including mass shootings and security threats, to serve as an advisor for school districts and corporations nationwide. He is recognized nationally as a subject matter expert in safety and security. Since SEC’s inception in 2013, Jason and his team have conducted over 3,000 site assessments of schools across the country.
Copyright and Disclaimer: The above comments were NOT submitted as part of the ASIS consensus process. The author chooses not to be a part of that process. The author’s name and the content of this post are not authorized for use including by ASIS or with its standard creation processes.