Does School Support Improve Student Safety?

Exploring the Relationship Between School Support Services, Environment, and Disciplinary Outcomes in K–12 Education

Video of Project of Overview

Introduction

SAFE SCHOOLS FOR ALL: The foundational promise that schools are not only places of learning but also safe, inclusive environments where all students can thrive—regardless of race, disability, gender identity, or background. And yet, each year, thousands of students report experiencing bullying, harassment, and exclusion—often along lines of race, ability, or orientation. These are not isolated incidents, but part of a broader pattern that raises difficult questions: Why are some students disproportionately affected? What role does school infrastructure play? And perhaps most urgently—what can be done to disrupt this cycle?

We must ask ourselves: Is every student truly safe at school? Are disciplinary measures addressing harm, or reinforcing inequality? And how do support resources—or the lack thereof—shape these outcomes?

Why is Analyzing Harassment and School Support Data Important?

Analyzing public school data on harassment, bullying, and suspensions offers a critical lens into how educational environments succeed—or fail—to protect their most vulnerable students. By investigating the presence of school counselors, psychologists, and security staff alongside demographic and geographic variables, we can begin to identify patterns of disparity. Do more counselors correlate with fewer incidents? Are certain students more likely to be punished than protected?

This analysis helps uncover whether school resources are distributed equitably and whether their presence meaningfully impacts student safety and discipline outcomes. In doing so, we aim to contribute to a broader conversation about educational equity, institutional accountability, and the urgent need for reform.

Bully Data Analysis

Thesis

The Support Gap: Examining the Link Between School Resources and Race-Based Harassment in U.S. Schools Racially-based harassment in U.S. schools remains persistently high across all states, highlighting a nationwide equity challenge in educational environments. However, our analysis reveals a consistent inverse relationship between the level of school-based support—such as counselors, psychologists, and security staff—and the frequency of race-related harassment incidents. These findings suggest that strengthening student support infrastructure may play a critical role in reducing race-based harassment and fostering safer, more inclusive learning environments.

Interact with our Preliminary Analysis

interactive graph

This interactive dashboard allowed us to explore the relationship between school staffing levels and reported harassment across different states in a dynamic, user-driven way. By visualizing the average number of counselors, nurses, psychologists, and security guards per 100 students alongside racial harassment incident rates, we were able to surface clear geographic patterns and disparities. These insights helped validate our thesis—that more robust support infrastructure correlates with lower rates of race-based harassment—and gave us the tools to investigate outliers and high-risk regions more deeply. ## From a National Lens to a Massachusetts Focus

Using data from the Civil Rights Data Collection (2021–2022), we observed that:

  • Harassment rates vary sharply by identity and geography
  • Massachusetts had the highest normalized rate of harassment allegations by race, religion, and orientation
  • Students of color, especially Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic students, experience higher harassment per 100 students

These trends pushed us to zoom in on Massachusetts for a closer, state-level look.

Key Finding: Staff Presence Reduces Harassment—but Only Partially

A 1% increase in total support staff correlates with a 0.35% decrease in harassment rates per 100 students
(β₁ = -0.352, R² = 0.08)

While the effect size is modest, the relationship is statistically significant—indicating that the presence of counselors, psychologists, nurses, and security staff has a measurable impact on student safety. However, this finding should be interpreted carefully:

  • Staff presence alone doesn’t guarantee safety, and the small R² suggests that many other factors influence harassment rates—such as school climate, leadership, community context, and training.
  • The decrease in harassment is not uniform across all student groups—highlighting the need for targeted, culturally responsive interventions.

Suspensions: A Different Story

No meaningful correlation was found between total support staff and suspension rates (R² < 0.01).

In fact, in Massachusetts, the data showed a slight increase in suspension rates with higher support staffing.
This counterintuitive result suggests that the role of support staff is more complex than simply acting as a buffer or moderator:

  • Are support staff being used to support or to discipline?
  • Could better reporting mechanisms (from more staff) be driving reported suspension increases?
  • Do systemic biases in school discipline still override the protective effect of staff presence?

These are critical questions that require deeper, perhaps qualitative, follow-up research.

Deep Dive: Massachusetts

Massachusetts reflects national patterns—but also reveals tensions:

  • Harassment and support staff show a negative correlation
    y = -0.376 - 0.325x, R² = 0.08, suggesting more staff likely reduces bullying and harassment.

  • Suspensions show a slight positive correlation
    y = 2.14 + 0.064x, R² = 0.02—which, while not strong, suggests support staff may be embedded in systems that perpetuate punitive discipline.

Racial Disaggregation Reveals Inequity

  • White, Hispanic, and Multiracial students appear to benefit the most from higher staffing levels.
  • Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students show no clear benefit, despite experiencing the highest rates of harassment.

This implies that infrastructure alone isn’t enough. Support staff must not only exist—but be:

  • Culturally competent
  • Well-integrated into restorative frameworks
  • Empowered to challenge systemic biases

Conclusion: Toward Equity, Not Just Equality

Our data analysis points to a central truth:

Support staff reduce harassment, but not automatically or equally.

If we want safer schools, just hiring more people isn’t enough. We must also focus on:

  • Training staff to be trauma-informed and inclusive
  • Allocating resources where they’re needed most
  • Embedding equity into staffing models, discipline systems, and school cultures

As debates about school safety continue across the U.S., this work underscores a deeper need—not just for resources, but for reform rooted in justice, empathy, and community care.