School Social Workers and School Security: Implications for Improving the Development of Today's Youth

Background and Purpose: School social workers have traditionally been utilized to perform a number of functions that aim at positively impacting student academic performance and behavioral outcomes (Dupper, 2002; Franklin, Kim, & Tripodi, 2009). The School Social Work Practice Model highlights three main foci of practice: 1) facilitate home-school-community linkages; 2) provide evidence-based services; and 3) promote school climate conducive to learning (Frey, et al., 2013). School social worker effectiveness is reliant on an ability to identify and understand factors that influence the educational environment (Astor, et al., 2005). Therefore, practitioners have a vested interest in policies and practices that shape school context, such as those introduced through school safety and security initiatives. However, there is a dearth of research that explores how common school safety strategies, such as authoritarian (e.g., school policing) or educational/therapeutic (e.g., conflict resolution) strategies, might influence school social workers’ ability to provide holistic, high quality interventions to the students they serve. This study aims to contribute to filling this gap by exploring the effects of different types of school security approaches on school social work practitioners in the United States.

Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected using a multi-dimensional survey instrument designed for the purposes of this study. Responses from 229 school social workers across the United States were included in analyses. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to determine the extent to which: 1) various student- and school-level characteristics predict the type of school safety strategies used in schools; and 2) different types of school safety strategies influence the types of practices in which school social workers engage.

Results: School social workers employed in larger, urban schools with more socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority students worked within more authoritarian school security environments. Conversely, those who practiced in schools that were smaller, less urban and served fewer socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority students were characterized by more educational/therapeutic security environments. Social workers in schools with authoritarian environments focused on significantly more direct practice with their students, where as those employed in schools with educational/therapeutic environments tended to significantly engage in all practice domains as outlined by The School Social Work Practice Model.

Conclusions and Implications: School social workers are trained professionals that have the ability to promote student success by fostering and maintaining a nurturing educational environment. Social work practitioners in today’s larger schools, particularly those that serve more disadvantaged youth, must survey the needs of their schools and consider how facilitating home-school-community linkages and addressing school-level needs can help them improve service coordination and delivery. Simultaneous engagement in multiple areas of practice might help school social workers improve student academic and behavioral performance through the provision of holistic interventions that promote positive trajectories for their youth, particularly when working in authoritarian practice contexts that serve more disadvantaged and minority populations. Findings from this study can help researchers and practitioners take the next steps in ensuring healthy development of the youth they serve. Implications for practice are discussed and recommendations for future research are provided.