SAFETY AND SECURITY
This chapter examines the Cedar Hill Independent School District (CHISD) safety and security functions in the following areas:
- A. Safety and Security
- Part 1
- Part 2
- B. Crisis Management
A. SAFETY AND SECURITY (Part 2)
FINDING
Neither the city nor CHISD sought replacement grant funding for the COPS FAST program since the September 9, 1997 initial award. The entire cost of the CRO program is now borne by the city and CHISD.
Other federal grant programs are available and include the Universal Hiring Program (UHP), which provides funding to all eligible communities, regardless of size, to hire police officers and sheriffs' deputies engaged in community policing. UHP funding constitutes 75 percent of an entry-level officer's salary and benefits or a total of $75,000 per officer; whichever is less, over a three-year period. Generally, departments contribute at least 25 percent in local matching funds, unless the grantee requested and received approval for a waiver of the local match upon demonstrating extraordinary fiscal hardship. The Cedar Hill police chief applied for this grant in May 2002. This program can directly affect a school, because it can help with community related programs, including education and crime prevention.
By identifying and pursuing grant opportunities, Fort Bend ISD (FBISD) improved its safety and security programs. The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) awarded the FBISD a grant of $229,000. The grant funded the addition of two drug and weapon detection officer and K-9 teams.
In 1997, FBISD received a $35,000 grant from the Houston Galveston Area Council (HGAC) to fund a community services officer position charged to provide drug and violence prevention programs for students, faculty and parents.
FBISD's Safe Schools program received a two-year, $223,340 grant from the State of Texas After School Initiative for middle schools to establish after-school programs at five campuses with high "at-risk" populations.
Many Texas districts that do not have a designated grant writer assign responsibility for grant applications to the individual program directors with oversight from another central administrator or coordinator such as the business manager.
Recommendation 63:
Apply for grants to improve school safety programs.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The superintendent assigns the assistant superintendent, Administrative Services, responsibility for safety and security grant research and application and instructs the assistant superintendent, Personnel and Student Services, to draft a revised position description that includes grant responsibilities.
September 2002 2. The assistant superintendent, Personnel and Student Services, revises the assistant superintendent, Administrative Services' job description to reflect the responsibility and authority to work on coordinating grant applications. October 2002 3. The superintendent reviews and approves the revised job description and classification. October 2002 4. The superintendent presents the revised job description to the board for approval. November 2002 5. The superintendent directs the assistant superintendent, Administrative Services, to contact the Cedar Hill Police Department and investigate cooperative efforts regarding grant research and design. November 2002 6. The superintendent works with the Cedar Hill chief of Police requesting a designated contact from the Police Department to work with CHISD. November 2002 7. Both designees work together to research and apply for appropriate safety and security-related grants. December 2002 FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING
CHISD does not use the additional fee available by law and levied by the City of Cedar Hill for traffic violations within district school zones for CHISD's security programs. CHISD and the City also has not established procedures to transfer collected funds to the district.
House Bill 374enacted in May 2001 provides that a person convicted of an offense in Section 545.066, Transportation Code, may be required to pay a court cost of $25 in addition to other taxable court costs. This additional assessment is provided to finance child health and safety programs in municipalities. This court cost was approved effective September 1, 2001 with funds collected by Cedar Hill Municipal Court. From that time to April 11, 2002, the fund totaled $1,460.
The review team interviewed members of the CHPD, the CROsergeant, CHISD's assistant superintendent, Business and Support Services, Cedar Hill Municipal Court staff and Cedar Hill Finance Department staff to ascertain whether any monies collected since the program began were transferred to the district. Written procedures do not exist. Most had not heard of the program and no one is responsible to initiate payment. The chief of police of Cedar Hill was not aware of the program and said that he does not have adequate coverage with only two dedicated motor officers to enforce the violations in the current 26 school zones.
The Houston City Council established a court cost to be filed in the municipal courts of an amount between $2.00 to $5.00 per violation of any type. The City of Houston also established a Child Safety Fund court cost of $5.00.Houston ISD uses funds from these fees for district safety and security programs. Harris County passed a ruling to permit the County Commissioners Court to establish an additional $1.50 fee for all vehicle registrations to be used to operate child safety programs.
Alief's chief of Police said that he was able to recover 85 percent of the CRO's budget from available school zone violation traffic fees. Monies are transferred automatically by the Alief Finance Department and all parties are aware of the existence of school zone funds.
Recommendation 64:
Create a fund transfer process to automatically move school zone violation fees collected by the City of Cedar Hill to CHISD.
The district should include specific procedures defining how funds from school zone violation fees should be transferred to the district and could also explore enforcement of these violations with the CHPD to determine whether more aggressive efforts could generate increased revenue.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The superintendent directs the assistant superintendent, Administrative Services, to meet with the assistant superintendent, Business and Support Services and the City of Cedar Hill's Finance director to create a process and corresponding procedures for a quarterly fund transfer. September 2002 2. The assistant superintendent, Administrative Services, presents the process to the superintendent for review. October 2002 3. The superintendent submits the process to the board for approval. 4. The board approves and directs the assistant superintendent, Administrative Services, to implement the process and monitor compliance. November 2002 5. The assistant superintendent, Administrative Services, communicates the process and procedures to all concerned parties and monitors compliance.
November 2002 6. The superintendent discusses enforcement efforts with the chief of Police. December 2002 FISCAL IMPACT
This fiscal impact was calculated using the funds collected during 2001-02 ($1,460) for the first year of implementation and a conservative estimate of 50 percent of that amount ($1,460 x .50 = $730) for each year thereafter.
Recommendation 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Create a fund transfer process to automatically move school zone violation fees collected by the City of Cedar Hill to CHISD. $1,460 $730 $730 $730 $730 FINDING
CHISD has not formally developed a long-range safety and security plan to assess areas of needed improvement to maintain a safe and secure environment in both existing and future facilities. The district has implemented programs, such as student identification badges and uses some surveillance equipment, but physical conditions in each school and the age of buildings also affect the safety and security of faculty and students.
The district has addressed some safety and security issues on a case-by-case basis. For example, the CHPD recommended controlled access around the high school, and CHISD acted promptly to install perimeter fencing. The CHPD also informally encouraged CHISD to apply for its own radio frequency. The district, however, took no action without a formal request.
Many districts planning to build new schools develop long-term safety and security plans that include early intervention efforts by police department experts who work closely with architects. These districts sometimes include safety and security devices in the early construction design of facilities avoiding more costly retrofits in the future. Some districts use committees that include safety and security experts, staff, parents and community members in their planning efforts. They include current needs, research on possible funding sources, implementation strategies, evaluation methods and scheduled communication of progress in their long-term plans.
Georgetown ISD hired an external consultant to help the district develop and design the district's safety and security plan and strategies. Georgetown ISD, in conjunction with Houston ISD, received a three-year $1.2 million Safe and Drug Free School grant. The grant funding allowed Georgetown ISD to hire a full time Safe School director, conduct a detailed safety and security assessment and implement a safety and security plan.
Recommendation 65:
Create a safety and security committee to develop a long-range safety and security plan.
The district's long-range security plan should clearly outline what it wants to accomplish in the areas of safety and security and delineate the expected responsibilities. It should contain a mission statement, long-term goals and measurable objectives and strategies to achieve those goals. It should also keep stakeholders informed about safety and security initiatives through regular evaluations that measure performance against a set of standards.
Plan development should be coordinated through a district safety and security committee chaired by a district-assigned safety and security coordinator. The committee should be empowered to assess the district's safety and security needs and develop a comprehensive safety and security plan. Specific responsibilities of the committee should include:
- assessing the safety and security needs of each campus and building;
- aligning and prioritizing safety and security needs against identified risks;
- identifying funding sources such as grants and shared service agreements;
- formulating objectives that describe the desired outcomes and impact of prevention efforts; and
- developing strategies and specific tasks for accomplishing stated objectives.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The superintendent appoints a safety and security committee of district administrators, teachers, law enforcement agencies and parents. November 2002 2. The superintendent instructs the safety and security committee to develop a long-range district security plan that includes prevention, intervention and enforcement components. December 2002 3. The safety and security committee develops a long-range district security plan and submits it to the superintendent for approval. December 2002 - February 2003 4. The superintendent submits the plan to the board for review and approval. March 2003 5. The board reviews and approves the long-range safety and security plan. March 2003 6. The superintendent publishes and implements the long-range safety and security plan. April 2003 FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING
CHISD and CHPD do not clearly define their respective roles and responsibilities regarding administrative violations, criminal activities and reporting incidents. School violations are not reported or defined consistently by CHISD administration and CHPD.
The CROs' primary duty is to prevent crime and disturbances, investigate criminal activity and provide educational programs to encourage safety and security compliance. CROs take police action and make arrests in and around school property, but they are not responsible for enforcing district administrative policy such as classroom discipline. Typically, teachers go through the principal to contact the CRO, but if a CRO is present, the teacher may ask the CRO to handle a discipline problem in the classroom when the teacher is not able to do so. This type of request takes the police officers away from their primary duties.
Keeping Texas Children Safe in School states that the student code of conduct is only useful when used consistently for all students and at all locations. Enforcement of administrative violations and criminal activities varies between schools.
During 2000-01, CROs investigated criminal offenses, observed violations of the student code of conduct and referred offenders to school administration for disciplinary action. Most of the criminal offenses investigated occurred at the secondary schools.
Senate Bill 1724, passed during the 1999 Legislature, requires each school district to annually report, beginning with 1999-2000, the number, rate and type of violent and criminal incidents occurring on each campus and requires the districts to include a violence prevention and intervention component in their annual campus improvement plans. Exhibit 9-12 shows the location and number of offenses within CHISD.
Exhibit 9-12 Source: TEA, PEIMS, Student Disciplinary Action Summary, 2000-01.
Location of Offenses within CHISD
2000-01
Location Number of
Criminal OffensesViolations of
Code of ConductDisruptive
BehaviorHigh school 116 1,848 0 Middle school 12 958 2 Intermediate schools 9 585 117 Elementary schools 2 316 120 Exhibit 9-13 shows criminal offenses by type and indicates that possession of a controlled substance is the most common criminal occurrence with 55 offenses reported in 2000-01, followed by possession of alcoholic beverages with 29 offenses.
Exhibit 9-13 Source: TEA, PEIMS, Student Disciplinary Action Summary, 2000-01.
CHISD Criminal Offenses by Type of Offense
2000-01
Type of
OffenseNumber of
OffensesCode of Conduct violations 3,422 Disruptions 241 Possession/controlled substance 55 Possession/alcohol 29 Public lewdness/indecent exposure 14 Assault 17 Terrorist threat 7 Possession/illegal knife 5 Possession/prohibited weapon 1 Other/miscellaneous 300 Total Data integrity and definitions of crime may vary between the CHPD and the district. As a result, PEIMS entries can be inconsistent. There are differences in definitions between the systems and coding variances among the principals. In previous years, the district used a code of 01 rather than a 21 for a classroom disturbance. For example, teachers were to use the 01 code when removing a student from class. A placement review committee determined whether the student returned to that teacher's classroom per Texas Education Code 37.002. However, CHISD was using the 01 for typical classroom disturbances.
According to the assistant superintendent, Administrative Services, on August 2, 2001, CHISD provided training for principals and some school PEIMS clerks. The district has moved from recording only the PEIMS-related data, to entering all discipline actions into the system. The reason for the change is that more computer entry will facilitate more accurate PEIMS data due to familiarity with the system. More precise reporting would allow for easier identification of areas and situations demanding greater safety and security efforts.
TSPR's plan for Keeping Texas Children Safe in School warns districts to leave no room for double standards. "When a student commits a crime on school premises, the district faces a dilemma. Should the districts turn the student over to the proper authorities for arrest and sentencing, or should they discipline him or her internally? Are certain crimes more deserving of arrest than others? When does misbehavior cross the line into crime?"
Creating Safe and Drug-Free Schools: An Action Guide - September 1996 states that "without accurate and consistent data to analyze, it is difficult for educators, parents and communities to draw conclusions on the impact of any policy relating to safer public schools, much less to determine which schools are doing a good job and where resources should be concentrated."
Dallas Independent School District (DISD) separately categorizes incidents as criminal offenses on-campus, criminal offenses non-police, arrests on-campus, arrests-public property and arrests local.
Recommendation 66:
Define CHISD and Cedar Hill Police Department (CHPD) roles and responsibilities regarding administrative violations, criminal activities and reporting incidents.
CHISD should define their respective roles and convey these responsibilities to all district personnel. CHISD should also develop a definition of a police incident. The common definition of a police incident is any incident wherein the presence of a law enforcement officer would prevent criminal acts, deter crime (including investigations and prosecution), maintain or restore public order or assist a citizen in dire need. CHISD should list all other activities as administrative incidents. After defining a police incident, CHISD should report police incidents to CHPD and PEIMS.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The superintendent instructs the assistant superintendent, Administrative Services, to work with the Cedar Hill Chief of Police to define respective roles and responsibilities for CHISD and the CHPD. October 2002 2. The superintendent contacts the Cedar Hill Chief of Police and TEA to develop detailed coding of incidents in CHISD. October 2002 3. The assistant superintendent, Administrative Services, and the Chief of Police present their recommendations to the superintendent for approval. November 2002 4. The superintendent approves and communicates the new standards to all appropriate parties in the district. November 2002 5. The principal at each school monitors the role distinctions and incident reports. December 2002 6. The assistant superintendent, Administrative Services, reviews districtwide data to provide overall quality control and reports the findings to the superintendent. Ongoing FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.
FINDING
The high school does not consistently enforce nor require visitors to sign-in or wear identification badges when they enter campus buildings. Although CHISD's administrative rules require visitors to sign-in at the front office, wear identification badges and sign-out when leaving, enforcement of this policy is sporadic. Cedar Hill High School has multiple access points and 40 doors that are not monitored, which affords uncontrolled building access. The main lobby is large but not visible to the staff inside the office. Unless there is a staff member in the lobby when a visitor enters, there is no assurance that the visitors will comply with rules for sign-in.
Robstown ISD installed surveillance equipment to assist in monitoring areas of the district. Its Alternative Education School has two video cameras viewing the front entrance of the school, while one elementary school has one video camera. All RISD facilities have security alarms installed for surveillance of facilities during non-operating hours. The district contracts with an outside security company for monitoring. While none of the schools have identification badges for staff, visitors or students, all schools in the district do require visitors to report to the main office before entering school facilities. This requirement is on signs at all entrances of every campus in the district. The district and all campuses encourage parents to visit the schools and classrooms, but they must sign-in at the main office before entering any classroom.
Katy Independent School District uses volunteers to sit at the front door and key access points, request signatures of visitors and issue badges. Typically, parents and senior citizens volunteer to man the doors in one-hour shifts. The presence of a visible adult is an inexpensive strategy to discourage unwelcome visitors to school buildings and prevent unsuitable student behavior.
Recommendation 67:
Enforce sign-in rules and the use of visitor badges at Cedar Hill High School.
The high school principal should consider using volunteers to monitor the front hall and issue visitor passes.
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND TIMELINE
1. The superintendent directs the principal of Cedar Hill High School to develop a plan to enforce a sign-in policy for visitors. October 2002 2. The principal presents the plan to the superintendent for approval. November 2002 3. The principal implements the approved plan and communicates the plan to all teachers, staff and students. November 2002 4. The principal monitors the success of the plan, conducts a periodic walk through of the building and monitors teachers and staff to ensure that all are assisting with these efforts. December 2002 FISCAL IMPACT
This recommendation can be implemented with existing resources.