Introduction

Over the past 4 decades, schools and universities in Australia have been the target of arson, vandalism, assault, and other antisocial behaviors that resulted in state governments implementing risk-based strategies to mitigate the ever-present threats to both private and public education schools.

In October 2002, Australia gained first-hand experience of an active shooter incident at a major university in Melbourne, Victoria. Two students died in this incident but the escalation of active shooter incidents generally, in Australia, caused the Australian government to implement wide-ranging gun laws to reduce the number and availability of firearms in Australia. No school shootings have occurred since this incident.

Arson and assaults continued to occur at schools with principals and teachers becoming the targets of parents and students. It was not unusual to read of an arson attack on a school just before the commencement of a new term of schooling. Recent media reports indicate an escalation of assaults on principals and teachers although this has been an ongoing threat for many years with some evidence, in the 1990s, of firearms being kept on school property, for defense.

In recent years, many schools recognized the need for after-hours security and implemented such security for community activities being held on school property after hours. At the local Nakara Primary School in the Northern Territory, Judo lessons are provided by a local club that operates from the school. Activities such as this provided community ownership of the property with after-school activities that also allowed schools to detect and report any antisocial or criminal behavior occurring on their property after teaching hours, while these activities are in progress.

Reduce Overall Crime

The Australian, State, and Territory governments also recognized the need to adopt risk-based strategies to reduce overall crime that had been escalating in schools around the nation. Many states led the way in operating successful risk management programs that allows the Federal government to be selective in its funding areas. Funding was set aside to support existing controls or implement new controls to protect students and staff at both private and public schools.

The Australian government, through the Attorney-Generals’ Department, implemented a Secure Schools Program for schools identified as being at risk of racial, religious, or ethnically motivated violence, property crime, and harassment with funding to cover the costs of installing security systems. Funding under the program typically covered the costs for:

• Digital surveillance systems (closed-circuit television, CCTV);

• Fencing;

• Lighting; and

• Alarm systems.

The program did not cover security measures to deal with:

• Student bullying;

• Harassment;

• Student violence;

• Child protection;

• Opportunistic acts of vandalism; or

• Property crime.

As such, Australia moved toward securing its schools using the security-in-depth principle, utilizing fencing, lighting, CCTV systems, and alarm systems. The Secure Schools Program, funded by the Australian government, has provided funding for many schools to improve security based on their risks. Fencing, lighting, and alarm systems are pretty common now but some have installed CCTV and others have on-site contracted security guards. The gap not covered by the Secure Schools Program was picked up by State and Territory governments.

Some of the strategies adopted by State and Territory government education departments included:

• Site risk reviews of all public schools in their areas of responsibility;

• Adopting School Watch programs, similar to Neighbourhood or Business Watch;

• Employing contracted security guards; and

• Introducing school-based community police.

The introduction of school-based community policing can be tracked as far back as 1984, where a pilot program was introduced at Casuarina High School, one of Darwin’s largest schools located in the northern suburbs. In 1997, Victoria introduced the Police/School Involvement Program (PSIP). These programs, although starting on rocky grounds through lack of trust and understanding of what was trying to be achieved, did operate successfully and resulted in a reduction of criminal activity both in the schools and within the community at large. Finite resources and funding constraints have seen many of these initiatives cut back or discontinued.

Despite the current economic environment, school security continues to be an important issue for governments and local schools can now benefit from being able to offer a safe learning environment for children and young adults. An example based on a local primary school with an attached preschool has seen a reduction of itinerants that defecate in areas used by children and leave syringes in sand pits that could potentially infect young children by the simple introduction of fencing and signage, although the risk of assault of staff remains an issue due to the openness of school properties once inside. This risk is a common one and is being addressed by several State governments at present.

Universities remain at risk through their openness and high numbers of national and overseas students concentrated in one area, often having night lectures and returning home late at night through areas that may not meet CPTED principles. Most universities have security guards on site and are quick to respond to incidents, as reported, but many fail to fully protect staff and students as a result of the long-standing culture of universities.

Conclusion

Overall, school security in Australia is improving but is consistent with the Australian government’s “Protective Security Policy Framework” of putting in place risk-based strategies for individual sites rather than a blanket strategy for all schools. In this way, costs are managed and those schools that require physical security hardening receive the necessary funding. Schools in both Australia and the United States experience similar problems, and we may face them in a similar manner because we do not have a lot of choices. But we must be proactive.