School Security Survey 2016

This study examined safety and security in Finnish schools as well as preparedness for safety disturbances and detrimental behaviour in the school environment. The respondents of the survey were rectors and vice rectors in Finnish primary and upper secondary schools. The study was commissioned and funded by the Institute of Criminology and Legal Policy at the University of Helsinki. Three different questionnaires were used to collect the data depending on the type of the institution (primary school, upper secondary school, combined primary and upper secondary school). The data were processed according to the questionnaire for primary schools because primary schools constituted the majority of responses, but variables specific to a certain type of institution are indicated in the data. First, the study charted background information concerning e.g. class sizes in the school, how long the respondent had worked for the school, which grades were taught in the school, and how many times during a given day students had to switch from one classroom to another. It was also queried whether a school social worker, a school psychologist and a school nurse/doctor visited the school at least once per week. The next questions covered the school environment with questions regarding whether a variety of phenomena occurred near the school premises, e.g. panhandling, littering, drug use/sale or vandalism. It was also charted which services and locations were found within 500 metres of the school building as well as what sort of security personnel worked at the school during and outside school hours. The respondents were also asked whether syringes or other items relating to drug use had been found on school premises during the school year 2015-2016. The next questions pertained to whether the school had adopted specific security-increasing practices, such as camera surveillance, access control in school buildings, personal user accounts and passwords for computers, restricted access to internet sites, anti-bullying campaigns, and collaboration with the police. It was also queried what sort of punishments the school used for student misbehaviour (e.g. removing a student from class, teacher-parent discussion, detention or expulsion). Next, incidents of criminal behaviour against the school and the school building were examined (e.g. intentional damage to school or staff property, breaking and entering into school premises, arson or attempted arson, harm to information systems). It was also asked if any crimes had been reported to the police and what the monetary extent of intentional damage to school property had been during the school year 2015-2016. Cases of defamation, violence or threat of violence against personnel were charted, as well as how many days staff members had spent absent from work due to these crimes during the school year 2015-2016. Different crimes against students were also charted, such as bicycle and cellphone thefts and violence, as well as whether these cases were reported to the police. Further questions were asked about the perpetrators and victims of violent crimes, such as their gender and national background, and whether the crime was motivated by e.g. skin colour or sexual orientation. Next, the study surveyed whether students or other persons had brought dangerous items, such as knives or other weapons, into school premises during school hours and whether the school had reported these incidents to the police. Certain phenomena, such as racism among students and between students and teachers, were also charted. General threats of violence not against any particular person were also examined as well as whether there was any sign that the maker of the threat would have been preparing to carry out the act. The respondents were also asked if the school had carried out different surveillance and security measures during the school year 2015-2016 (e.g. searching students' bags, clothes or lockers; confiscating dangerous items, alcohol or drugs) and whether these measures had prevented an act or threat of violence or if they had caused a threatening situation. Finally, it was queried whether any students or their parents had threatened the respondent or teachers with legal action or reported a crime to the police where the respondent or teachers were accused. In addition, the respondents' preparedness to report a student's crime to the police in two hypothetical situations was examined (a student paints a graffiti on the school's wall; a student hits another student in the face, causing bruises and bleeding from the nose). The study finally surveyed some more background information on e.g. gender, age, and how many years the respondent had worked as rector or vice rector.

本研究旨在探讨芬兰学校的安全与安保状况，以及对安全干扰和校园环境中不良行为的应对准备。调查对象为芬兰小学及中学的校长和副校长。该研究由赫尔辛基大学犯罪学及法律政策研究所委托并资助。根据机构类型（小学、中学、小学与中学合并）的不同，采用了三种不同的问卷来收集数据。由于小学的回复占多数，因此数据处理遵循了小学问卷的指导原则，但数据中亦指出了特定类型机构的相关变量。首先，研究梳理了诸如班级规模、受访者为学校工作的时间长短、学校所教授的年级以及学生在一天内需要更换教室的次数等背景信息。同时，调查了是否有学校社会工作者、学校心理学家和学校护士/医生每周至少一次访问学校。接下来，针对校园环境进行了提问，包括学校附近是否发生各种现象，如行乞、乱扔垃圾、毒品使用/交易或破坏公物等。还记录了学校建筑周围500米范围内的服务和地点，以及在学校工作时间和校外时间工作的安保人员类型。调查还询问了在2015-2016学年期间，学校是否在学校场所发现了与毒品使用相关的注射器或其他物品。随后的问题是关于学校是否采取了特定的安全提升措施，例如摄像头监控、学校建筑物的出入控制、个人用户账户和密码、限制访问互联网网站、反欺凌运动以及与警方合作。还查询了学校针对学生不当行为的惩罚方式（例如将学生从课堂中移除、教师与家长的讨论、留校或开除）。接着，研究了针对学校和学校建筑的犯罪行为案例（例如故意损坏学校或员工财产、非法侵入学校场所、纵火或企图纵火、对信息系统造成损害）。还询问了在2015-2016学年期间，是否向警方报告了任何犯罪，以及故意损坏学校财产的货币损失程度。记录了针对员工的不当行为，如诽谤、暴力或暴力威胁，以及员工因这些犯罪而在2015-2016学年缺席工作多少天。还记录了针对学生的不同犯罪，如自行车和手机盗窃以及暴力事件，以及这些案件是否已向警方报告。进一步的问题询问了暴力犯罪的施害者和受害者，例如他们的性别和民族背景，以及犯罪是否由例如肤色或性取向等动机引起。接下来，研究调查了学生在上课时间是否携带危险物品，如刀具或其他武器进入校园，以及学校是否向警方报告了这些事件。还记录了学生之间以及学生与教师之间存在的诸如种族主义等特定现象。还考察了针对任何特定个人的暴力威胁的一般性威胁，以及是否有迹象表明威胁制造者正在准备实施该行为。受访者还被问及在2015-2016学年期间，学校是否实施了不同的监控和安保措施（例如搜查学生的书包、衣物或储物柜；没收危险物品、酒精或毒品）以及这些措施是否防止了暴力行为或威胁，或者是否导致了威胁性的情况。最后，询问了是否有学生或其家长威胁受访者或教师采取法律行动，或者向警方报告了犯罪，其中受访者或教师被指控。此外，还考察了受访者在两种假设情境下向警方报告学生犯罪准备情况（一名学生在学校墙上涂鸦；一名学生打了一名学生的脸部，造成鼻血和淤青）。研究最后还调查了一些关于性别、年龄以及受访者作为校长或副校长工作了多少年的更多背景信息。