View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Scoping Review of School Safety in Charter School Settings: Advancing Science, Practice, and Policy in Charter School Safety

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Scoping Review of School Safety in Charter School Settings: Advancing Science, Practice, and Policy in Charter School Safety
Language: English
Authors: Nicholas L. Scheel (ORCID 0000-0002-9474-1365), Justin P. Allen (ORCID 0000-0003-0172-5970), Rachel J. O'Neill (ORCID 0000-0002-8589-4677), Shane R. Jimerson (ORCID 0000-0003-2685-7486)
Source: Journal of School Choice. 2025 19(3):439-470.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 32
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Education Level: Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: School Safety, Charter Schools, Prevention, Attitudes, Incidence, Educational Policy, Research Needs, School Choice, Violence, Educational Environment, Elementary Secondary Education, Rural Urban Differences
DOI: 10.1080/15582159.2024.2437822
ISSN: 1558-2159
1558-2167
Abstract: Families often cite safety as a primary reason for choosing charter schools, yet policymakers rarely evaluate charter schools on safety-related measures. This scoping review examines 25 years of empirical literature on school safety in charter schools. Using PRISMA-ScR guidelines and the PICOS framework, 44 studies employing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods were analyzed. Findings identified three key themes: (a) perceptions of safety, (b) prevention practices, and (c) safety incident frequency. Gaps in the literature remain, particularly in qualitative research, rural settings, educator perspectives, and safety assessment measures. Recommendations for future research to address these gaps are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1489491
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwED1DWho8rKjIDDwVtpLEptAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOAMLW1UQF3PdODhHwIBEICBm8sFUBaAax3oTWolDiAf1he-yaLlk1gc-rtr8KXEYNL6cZjCZGw15Eja_CzRxE5roQM0JuLbDfc85d13MMpaG_ouYUKJmvg9v6auvdhvWOwx6l8FpEt03NbikcyP0MANm9hY7mWrpWwpzsVWsuIvv0uEJ9XYwLY7U6-F_90uF3QeNBdg5fHtLip-I4JoWhZVBjQsb9bIcoQm0nFs
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187695591;[2y6a]01jul.25;2025Sep04.05:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187695591-1">A Scoping Review of School Safety in Charter School Settings: Advancing Science, Practice, and Policy in Charter School Safety </title> <p>Families often cite safety as a primary reason for choosing charter schools, yet policymakers rarely evaluate charter schools on safety-related measures. This scoping review examines 25 years of empirical literature on school safety in charter schools. Using PRISMA-ScR guidelines and the PICOS framework, 44 studies employing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods were analyzed. Findings identified three key themes: (a) perceptions of safety, (b) prevention practices, and (c) safety incident frequency. Gaps in the literature remain, particularly in qualitative research, rural settings, educator perspectives, and safety assessment measures. Recommendations for future research to address these gaps are discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: Charter schools; school safety; school violence</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-2">A scoping review of the literature on school safety in charter schools</hd> <p>School safety is an ongoing concern in education (Jimerson & Furlong, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref1">73</reflink>]; Jimerson et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref2">74</reflink>]; Mayer & Jimerson, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref3">83</reflink>]). However, an increase in high-profile events such as school shootings, bullying, and victimization (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref4">93</reflink>]) has driven community agencies, school practitioners, and researchers to take a greater interest in understanding initiatives that keep students safe (e.g., Madfis et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref5">78</reflink>]; Mayer et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref6">84</reflink>]; Nickerson et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref7">95</reflink>]). School safety includes factors related to promoting physical safety (e.g., crime prevention through environmental design) and psychological safety, encompassing student emotional and social well-being, such as school climate and student support (D. G. Cornell et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref8">29</reflink>]). These components are necessary for creating safe learning environments in schools (National Association of School Psychologists [NASP], [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref9">91</reflink>]). Notably, the use of school safety measures in public schools has increased (Mayer & Jimerson, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref10">83</reflink>]). For example, controlled access to school buildings during school hours, the implementation of social-emotional learning programs, and the implementation of systems to promote communications that identify and support students in need have increased significantly in public schools over the past 20 years (NCES, [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref11">92</reflink>]).</p> <p>Charter schools have rapidly expanded across the United States (Jacobs & Veney, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref12">72</reflink>]), particularly in cities with high rates of crime and poverty (e.g., Los Angeles, CA [153,877 charter enrollments in the 2021–22 school year], New York City, NY [139,526 charter enrollments in the 2021–22 school year]; Xu, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref13">126</reflink>]). In these regions, safety has become a critical priority for families seeking alternatives to traditional public schools (Bell, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref14">12</reflink>]; Dynarski et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref15">41</reflink>]; Hamlin, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref16">64</reflink>]). Charter schools are often viewed as safer options, offering enhanced security measures, structured environments, and innovative approaches to discipline and student support (Hamlin & Li, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref17">66</reflink>]; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref18">121</reflink>]). This focus on safety, combined with the promise of quality education, has driven significant growth in charter schools in cities where families are most concerned about their children's well-being and safety. However, despite the increasing prominence of charter schools, there are limited comprehensive reviews of how scholars have evaluated their impact on school safety, underscoring the need for scoping reviews to synthesize existing evidence and identify gaps in the field.</p> <p>Conducting a scoping review is a systematic process to review and synthesize current literature on a topic (Allen et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref19">1</reflink>]). What makes scoping reviews unique is that the methods allow for a broader search of a topic and research questions which enables researchers to gauge the current volume and focus of research on a particular topic (Munn et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref20">90</reflink>]). Specifically, a scoping review is exploratory in nature with the primary goal of providing an overview of research methods, key concepts, and gaps in knowledge to better identify the state of the research and literature about a broad topic or set of variables (Allen et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref21">1</reflink>]; Armstrong et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref22">3</reflink>]). A systematic review, on the other hand, aims to statistically synthesize evidence of research with identical variables and outcome measures to answer specific research questions. For example, Schwalbach and DeAngelis ([<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref23">107</reflink>]) conducted a systematic review related to school safety in charter school settings, focusing on synthesizing evidence with more defined parameters and variables. However, researchers have recently conducted extensive scoping reviews of school safety-related practices in public school settings (e.g., Stratford et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref24">111</reflink>]); however, there have been no known efforts to review empirical evaluations addressing school safety in nontraditional settings, such as public charter schools. Public charter schools often operate under different organizational structures, policies, and funding models compared to traditional public schools (Tong et al., [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref25">113</reflink>]), which may influence the implementation and outcomes of school safety initiatives. A scoping review is particularly needed to map the existing literature in this underexplored context, identify potential gaps in research designs, methods, and variables examined, and guide future research to address safety concerns unique to these settings. This scoping review examined the current breadth of literature evaluating school safety in the public charter school setting.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-3">School safety</hd> <p>Researchers and practitioners working to develop a comprehensive model of school safety have identified three factors that, when integrated, create safe learning environments for all students. Specifically, school safety consists of (a) physical safety, (b) school climate, and (c) student behavior (Espelage et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref26">44</reflink>]). Physical safety consists of practices and initiatives that enhance the physical structure and environment of the school to reduce the opportunities for aggression, bullying, and violence (e.g., crime prevention through environmental design, security cameras, metal detectors, and SROs; Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref27">122</reflink>]). School climate is the extent to which students perceive their environment as safe and welcoming (National School Climate Center, [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref28">94</reflink>]). Social-emotional learning curriculums, opportunities for students to participate in decision-making, and connectedness are examples of school climate-strengthening tools. Student behavior combines an awareness of student trauma, mental health, and behavioral challenges and an equitable prevention approach to order and discipline (Gregory et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref29">59</reflink>]). Trauma-informed approaches, culturally responsive positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), and anti-racist practices are examples of initiatives schools can take on to ensure teachers and staff are well trained to understand student social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health (Edyburn et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref30">42</reflink>]; Fallon et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref31">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>To understand the impact of school safety prevention and response practices, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers rely on a variety of variables and tools to adequately evaluate school safety. Most frequently observed in the literature is perceptions of safety, as it relies on the subjective experience of various informants impacted by practices, programs, and policies (Marraccini et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref32">80</reflink>]; Rudasill et al., [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref33">105</reflink>]). Other variables used to assess school safety include the number of school safety incidents, specific prevention and response measures and practices, and program implementation fidelity and student outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-4">Public charter school selection and safety</hd> <p>The growing body of empirical literature on charter school selection highlights the significance of safety as a primary driver for families when choosing between traditional public schools and charter schools (Barrows et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>]; Dynarski et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref35">41</reflink>]; Hamlin, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref36">64</reflink>]; Lange & Lehr, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref37">76</reflink>]). Many families view charter schools as safer alternatives, especially in urban areas where concerns about crime, poverty, and violence are most pronounced (Bell, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref38">12</reflink>]; Xu, [<reflink idref="bib126" id="ref39">126</reflink>]). This perception is often tied to the structured environments, smaller student populations, and preventative discipline practices that charter schools tend to offer (Hamlin & Li, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref40">66</reflink>]). However, it is important to recognize the selection effect (Hamlin, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref41">65</reflink>]), where families' preferences for safety may lead them to choose charter schools over traditional public schools, independent of the actual effectiveness of safety practices in charter school settings. Empirical studies examining the effectiveness of safety measures in charter schools remain limited, particularly when compared to the breadth of school safety research conducted in traditional public schools.</p> <p>Key differences between charter and traditional public schools can influence school safety policies and initiatives, though these factors may operate differently depending on the context of each school (Tong et al., [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref42">113</reflink>]; Vergari, [<reflink idref="bib118" id="ref43">118</reflink>]). For example, higher parental and community involvement, often more pronounced in charter schools (Bifulco & Ladd, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref44">14</reflink>]; Wohlstetter et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref45">123</reflink>]; Zimmer & Buddin, [<reflink idref="bib128" id="ref46">128</reflink>]), has been linked to positive school safety outcomes (Eugene et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref47">45</reflink>]). Additionally, while both sectors receive state funding, charter schools often receive less per student based on average daily attendance (Xu & White, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref48">127</reflink>]). Given that many evidence-based safety initiatives require substantial resources (DeAngelis et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref49">39</reflink>]; Heise & Nance, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref50">68</reflink>]), disparities in funding may impact the implementation of these programs. Despite being required to follow the same state and federal safety regulations (e.g., Every Student Succeeds Act, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref51">46</reflink>]), the safety protocols and procedures in charter schools can vary significantly depending on factors such as location and available resources. Regarding disciplinary practices, urban charter schools are more likely to implement "no excuses" approaches, which are associated with higher suspension rates and lower truancy (Golann, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref52">57</reflink>]; Angrist et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>]). Conversely, McEachin and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref54">86</reflink>]) found that students transferring from public to charter schools by 9th grade had lower suspension and truancy rates and were less likely to commit crimes.</p> <p>Despite these differences, the empirical evidence on whether charter schools are inherently safer than traditional public schools remains mixed. For example, in the evaluation of safety and climate between traditional, charter, and private schools by DeAngelis and Lueken ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref55">37</reflink>]), charter schools tend to face more issues like physical conflicts and vandalism, but they demonstrate advantages in fewer instances of teacher abuse and gang activities when compared to traditional public schools. Other research evaluating the frequency of school safety incidents in charter and traditional public schools across different states has demonstrated conflicting results. For example, Hamlin ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref56">62</reflink>]) found that charter schools in New York report fewer violent and nonviolent offenses than traditional public schools; however, Sabornie et al. ([<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref57">106</reflink>]) found that crime and violence across the two school types in North Carolina were only statistically significant in favor of charter schools in four of the fourteen indicators. Thus, it remains crucial for future studies to rigorously assess the safety practices in charter schools, particularly in comparison to traditional public schools, and explore the specific mechanisms that contribute to perceptions of safety among parents and students. Ultimately, these gaps warrant a scoping review of school safety in charter schools to better understand what has been done, how, and what is missing in the research.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-5">Purpose and aims</hd> <p>Based on the initial literature search, there is a small but growing number of studies addressing school safety in charter school settings. However, the structure and governance of charter schools face various challenges that may hinder their ability to address school safety adequately. Further, the initial search revealed a breadth of empirical methods investigating school safety using a variety of participants, measures, and study designs addressing a variety of school safety outcomes. Despite the nearly equivalent rates of school-related violence between traditional public schools and charter schools (70% and 68%, respectively; Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref58">121</reflink>]), the research community does not have sufficient access to the scope of school safety practices and outcomes within charter schools and the gaps in this area of research. Considering the extant empirical literature investigating school safety variables and outcomes in charter school settings, it is evident that a scoping review would contribute to advancing understanding. To date, no scoping reviews of this topic have been located.</p> <p>The present scoping review aims to contribute: a) a summary of the extant literature addressing school safety in charter schools and a description of the breadth and depth of studies focused on school safety in charter schools, b) a summary of the types of designs used to evaluate school safety in charter schools, including the settings and populations, outcomes evaluated, and factors that influence use of school safety practices, and c) a critical analysis of the state of this literature to identify gaps, rigor, and areas that warrant further focus.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-6">Method</hd> <p>The population, independent variable, comparison, outcome, and setting (i.e., PICOS; Robinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref59">101</reflink>]) framework guided our study parameters. Study parameters were developed before initiating search procedures. Population and setting parameters included students, parents, teachers, and administrators directly associated with (i.e., attending or employed by) public charter schools. Studies examining school safety concerns addressed the independent variable. When studies included other schools for comparison, they were included if they examined non-charter public schools. Due to the nature of a scoping review, the outcome variables remained undefined (Munn et al., [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref60">90</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-7">Search strategy</hd> <p>This scoping review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref61">114</reflink>]) and followed current reporting procedures (e.g., Maggin et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref62">79</reflink>]; Peters et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref63">99</reflink>]; Siddaway et al., [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref64">109</reflink>]). EBSCO's Discover Service indexer was used to conduct the search procedures for this study. The search was conducted on August 27, 2024, using terms related to charter school settings (e.g., "charter school," "charter academy," "charter education") and school safety (e.g., "school safety," "school violence," "school climate") using Boolean operators including "AND" and "OR." The full list of search terms and Boolean operators is in Appendix A. Search limiters included scholarly articles published in English after 1996. The search parameters also included "gray" areas of scholarly publications (i.e., dissertations and governmental reports), which were included in this review. Scholarly disciplines were narrowed to search within the fields of Education, Psychology, Public Health, Social Sciences and Humanities, and Social Work. Search expanders included selections to search the articles' full text and to apply equivalent subjects to the search terms. The search procedure returned 1,118 results containing 792 duplicates.</p> <p>When a journal appeared in the final database three or more times, a manual search of the journal's archives was completed to identify additional relevant articles. One journal (i.e., <emph>Journal of School Choice</emph>) met these criteria; however, a manual search of the journal's archives revealed no additional relevant articles. When a primary author was identified in 3 or more publications, these individuals were contacted to request completed reports currently under review or in-press. Two authors met these qualifications; however, each indicated they did not have additional reports meeting our criteria.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-8">Inclusion and exclusion criteria</hd> <p>Screening and coding protocols were developed using a grounded theory approach (Bowers & Creamer, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref65">16</reflink>]) and incorporating current recommendations for scoping reviews (Peters et al., [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref66">99</reflink>]). Titles and abstracts were screened to exclude articles that did not 1) include original research, 2) conduct the study in a charter school, and 3) examine an outcome variable related to school safety. At this stage, <emph>school safety</emph> articles were defined by explicitly mentioning "school safety" and broader concepts such as "school climate." Before initiating coding procedures, reviewers were trained on the operational definitions of the coding variables. Interrater agreement was established by randomly selecting articles for cross-comparisons. Using a random number generator (Haahr, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref67">60</reflink>]), 25% of the articles identified for screening (<emph>n</emph> = 82) were cross-rated to ensure consistent implementation and study replication. An analysis of rater agreement revealed 95% agreement across raters, which exceeded the 70% threshold for agreement between raters (Multon, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref68">89</reflink>]). Cohen's Kappa (Gisev et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref69">55</reflink>]; McHugh, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref70">87</reflink>]) was used to examine the levels of rater agreement and revealed a coefficient of (K =.64), indicating moderate agreement (Gisev et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref71">55</reflink>]; McHugh, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref72">87</reflink>]). When screening the full-text articles, nine were randomly selected for interrater agreement analysis, revealing 89% agreement, again exceeding the threshold for minimal agreement levels described by Multon ([<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref73">89</reflink>]). An analysis of the Kappa coefficient for the full-text articles revealed moderate levels of agreement (K =.608, Gisev et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref74">55</reflink>]; McHugh, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref75">87</reflink>]).</p> <p>A subset of the identified studies (<emph>n</emph> = 6) was randomly selected for a descendent review procedure. Using Google Scholar's Cited by function, 93 additional articles were identified for screening. Four of these additionally identified articles were duplicates and, therefore, removed. In total, 89 articles were screened at the abstract level. Eighty articles were excluded, and the nine remaining were screened at the full-text level. Two additional articles were excluded, resulting in seven additional sources being included in the coding process. Five of these sources were dissertations. The search procedure phases are outlined in Figure 1.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. PRISMA flow.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-9">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187695591-10">General article description</hd> <p>The search revealed 44 articles that met the inclusionary criteria and were included in this scoping review (see list of included articles in Table B1 in Appendix B). The included articles were published between 2000 and 2021. Notably, there was a significant increase in publications (<emph>n</emph> = 22) between 2017 and 2021, with the most published in 2020 (<emph>n</emph> = 6). Regarding publishing sources, most articles were identified as journal articles (<emph>n</emph> = 32), whereas five were identified as dissertations and seven as state or technical reports. Study design varied across the collected studies. Many sources utilized a quantitative methodology (<emph>n</emph> = 27); ten used qualitative, and seven used mixed methods (see Table 1). Studies primarily examined middle (<emph>n</emph> = 27) and high schools (<emph>n</emph> = 32) and occurred in urban settings (<emph>n</emph> = 38). Across all the articles, students were the most frequent participants (<emph>n</emph> = 26), followed by administrators (<emph>n</emph> = 16), parents (<emph>n</emph> = 15), and teachers (<emph>n</emph> = 10). It is important to note that administrators were also considered participants when school-level data was not directly collected by the study authors (e.g., school principals provided safety incident frequency data). The primary interests in the present study included the school safety-related study variables, outcomes investigated, and the type of measures used (see Figure 2). Notably, none of the studies reviewed addressed site safety assessment scores as variables or outcomes. Regarding study results and outcomes, most studies demonstrated statistically significant and favorable outcomes related to safety for charter schools (<emph>n</emph> = 29); however, 13 studies demonstrated mixed results (i.e., some safety-related variables were found to be statistically significant and favorable, and other safety-related variables were either statistically significant and negative or non-significant) and two studies demonstrated non-significant safety results. This scoping review identified three key variables and outcomes: (a) perceptions of safety (see Table 2), (b) safety incident frequency (see Table 3), and (c) prevention practices (see Table 4). In addition to these three key variables and outcomes, two studies evaluated school safety in charter school settings only through student-level data (e.g., out-of-school suspensions, office disciplinary referrals, etc.; see Table 5).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. School safety variable definitions.</p> <p>Table 1. Overview of included studies.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Study</td><td>Design</td><td>Variable(s)</td><td>Outcome</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Barrett (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2003</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Student-level data</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Barrows et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2017</xref>)</td><td>Quant*</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Safety incident frequency</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Barrows et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2019</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Safety incident frequency</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Beardall (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">2011</xref>)</td><td>Qual</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Betts et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2016</xref>)</td><td>Quant*</td><td>Student-level data; Preventative practices</td><td>±</td></tr><tr><td>Carpenter and Peak (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2013</xref>)</td><td>Quant*</td><td>Preventative practices</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Christofferson and Callahan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>)</td><td>Mixed**</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Student-level data; Safety incident frequency; Preventative practices; Program implementation fidelity</td><td>±</td></tr><tr><td>Clonan-Roy et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2021</xref>)</td><td>Qual</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Preventative practices</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Crosby et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2019</xref>)</td><td>Qual</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Day et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2015</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Student-level data</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>DeAngelis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2018</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>DeAngelis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2020</xref>)</td><td>Quant*</td><td>Student-level data; Safety incident frequency</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>DeAngelis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2021</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Safety incident frequency</td><td>±</td></tr><tr><td>DeAngelis and Flanders (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2019</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Safety incident frequency</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>DeAngelis and Lueken (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">2020</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Safety incident frequency; Preventative practices</td><td>±</td></tr><tr><td>DeAngelis and Brent (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2012</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Preventative practices; School safety resources</td><td>±</td></tr><tr><td>Duszka (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2018</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Dynarski et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2016</xref>)</td><td>Quant*</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>±</td></tr><tr><td>Ferráns and Selman (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2014</xref>)</td><td>Qual</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Preventative practices</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Gawlik (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2018</xref>)</td><td>Qual</td><td>Preventative practices</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Gbolo and Grier-Reed (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>)</td><td>Mixed*</td><td>Student-level data; Preventative practices</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Gleason et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr56">2010</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Student-level data</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Gibson and Robles (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">2021</xref>)</td><td>Quant*</td><td>Student-level data</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Goldberg et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2010</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Student-level data</td><td>Null</td></tr><tr><td>Hamlin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2017</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Safety incident frequency; Neighborhood crime</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Hamlin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2020a</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Safety incident frequency</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Hamlin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2020b</xref>)</td><td>Qual</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Preventative practices</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Hamlin and Li (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66">2021</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Safety incident frequency; Preventative practices</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Hays (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2013</xref>)</td><td>Qual</td><td>Preventative practices; Response practices</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Hutchinson et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr70">2014</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Safety incident frequency</td><td>±</td></tr><tr><td>Kleitz et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr75">2000</xref>)</td><td>Quant*</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>±</td></tr><tr><td>Lange and Lehr (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr76">2000</xref>)</td><td>Mixed**</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>Null</td></tr><tr><td>Lundeen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr77">2012</xref>)</td><td>Mixed</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>±</td></tr><tr><td>McDonald et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr85">2007</xref>)</td><td>Mixed**</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Parris et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr97">2015</xref>)</td><td>Mixed*</td><td>Student-level data; Preventative practices</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Patton et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr98">2016</xref>)</td><td>Qual</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Safety incident frequency</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Rodriguez (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr103">2006</xref>)</td><td>Qual</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Ross et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr104">2021</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Sabornie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr106">2020</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Safety incident frequency</td><td>±</td></tr><tr><td>Shakeel and DeAngelis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr108">2018</xref>)</td><td>Quant**</td><td>Student-level data; Safety incident frequency; Preventative practices</td><td>±</td></tr><tr><td>Tuttle et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr115">2015</xref>)</td><td>Quant*</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>±</td></tr><tr><td>VandeVeer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr117">2020</xref>)</td><td>Mixed**</td><td>Perceptions of safety</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Walls et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr120">2021</xref>)</td><td>Qual</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Preventative practices</td><td>+</td></tr><tr><td>Wolf et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr124">2009</xref>)</td><td>Quant*</td><td>Perceptions of safety; Safety incident frequency</td><td>±</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: + = positive outcomes (e.g., outcomes were positively statistically significant); ± = mixed outcomes (e.g., outcomes were a mix of positively statistically significant differences and null or negative outcomes); Null = outcomes were neither positively nor negatively statistically significant.</p> <p>2 *descriptive design **observational/correlational design.</p> <p>Table 2. Methodological features of school safety variables: perceptions of safety.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Safety Variable (<italic>n</italic>)</td><td>Design</td><td>School Type</td><td>School Setting</td><td>Participants</td><td>Measure Type</td><td>Comparator</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Perceptions of Safety (<italic>13</italic>)</td><td>Quant − 6</td><td>Elem − 6</td><td>Urban − 11</td><td>Student − 8</td><td>Survey − 8</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Qual − 3</td><td>MS − 9</td><td>Rural − 6</td><td>Teacher − 3</td><td>Archival − 1</td></tr><tr><td>Mixed − 4</td><td>HS − 10</td><td>Sub − 5</td><td>Admin − 1</td><td>Group Int − 3</td></tr><tr><td>Comb − 3</td><td /><td>Parent − 8</td><td>1-on-1 Int − 5</td></tr><tr><td>Other − 1</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Perceptions & Safety Incident Frequency <italic>(5)</italic></td><td>Quant − 4</td><td>Elem − 3</td><td>Urban − 5</td><td>Student − 3</td><td>Survey − 4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Qual − 1</td><td>MS − 3</td><td>Rural − 2</td><td>Parent − 3</td><td>1-on-1 Int − 1</td></tr><tr><td /><td>HS − 5</td><td>Sub − 2</td></tr><tr><td>Perceptions & Prevention Practices <italic>(4)</italic></td><td>Qual − 4</td><td>Elem − 1</td><td>Urban − 3</td><td>Student − 3</td><td>Group Int − 1</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>MS − 2</td><td>Sub − 2</td><td>Teacher − 3</td><td>1-on-1 Int − 4</td></tr><tr><td>HS − 1</td><td /><td>Admin − 2</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Comb − 3</td><td /><td>Parent − 2</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Perceptions & Student-level Data <italic>(3)</italic></td><td>Quant − 3</td><td>MS − 1</td><td>Urban − 2</td><td>Student − 3</td><td>Survey − 2</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Comb − 2</td><td>Rural − 3</td><td>Parent − 1</td><td>Rating − 1</td></tr><tr><td>Sub − 2</td></tr><tr><td>Perceptions, Safety Incident Frequency, & Community Crime (<italic>1</italic>)</td><td>Quant − 1</td><td>Elem − 1</td><td>Urban − 1</td><td>Student − 1</td><td>Survey − 1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>MS − 1</td><td /><td>Teacher − 1</td><td>Archival − 1</td></tr><tr><td>HS − 1</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Comb − 1</td></tr><tr><td>Perceptions, Student-level Data, Incident Frequency, Preventative Practices, & Program Fidelity <italic>(1)</italic></td><td>Mixed − 1</td><td>Elem − 1</td><td>Urban − 1</td><td>Student − 1</td><td>Survey − 1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher − 1</td><td>Rating − 1</td></tr><tr><td>Admin − 1</td><td>Archival − 1</td></tr><tr><td>Parent − 1</td><td>Open-ended − 1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 Note: Elem = elementary; HS = high school; Int = interview; MS = middle school; Sub = suburban.</p> <p>Table 3. Methodological features of school safety variables: safety incident frequency.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Safety Variable (<italic>n</italic>)</td><td>Design</td><td>School Type</td><td>School Setting</td><td>Participants</td><td>Measure Type</td><td>Comparator</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Safety Incident Frequency (<italic>4</italic>)</td><td>Quant − 4</td><td>Elem − 4</td><td>Urban − 4</td><td>Admin − 3</td><td>Archival − 4</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>MS − 4</td><td>Rural − 1</td><td>Student − 1</td></tr><tr><td>HS − 4</td><td>Sub − 1</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Comb − 4</td></tr><tr><td>Safety Freq & Prevention Practices (<italic>2</italic>)</td><td>Quant − 2</td><td>Elem − 2</td><td>Urban − 2</td><td>Admin − 2</td><td>Survey − 2</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>MS − 2</td><td>Rural − 2</td><td /><td>Archival − 1</td></tr><tr><td>HS − 2</td><td>Sub − 2</td></tr><tr><td>Comb − 2</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Safety Freq & Student-level Data (<italic>1</italic>)</td><td>Quant − 1</td><td>Elem − 1</td><td>Urban − 1</td><td>Student − 1</td><td>Archival − 1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>MS − 1</td><td>Rural − 1</td></tr><tr><td>HS − 1</td><td>Sub − 1</td></tr><tr><td>Comb − 1</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Safety Freq, Student-level Data, & Prevention Practices (<italic>1</italic>)</td><td>Quant − 1</td><td>Elem − 1</td><td>Urban − 1</td><td>Admin − 1</td><td>Survey − 1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>MS − 1</td><td>Rural − 1</td></tr><tr><td>HS − 1</td><td>Sub − 1</td></tr><tr><td>Comb − 1</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 <emph>Note</emph>: Elem = elementary; HS = high school; MS = middle school; Sub = suburban.</p> <p>Table 4. Methodological features of school safety variables: prevention practices.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Safety Variable (<italic>n</italic>)</td><td>Design</td><td>School Type</td><td>School Setting</td><td>Participants</td><td>Measure Type</td><td>Comparator</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Prevention Practices (<italic>2</italic>)</td><td>Quant − 1</td><td>Elem − 2</td><td>Urban − 1</td><td>Admin − 2</td><td>Survey − 1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Qual − 1</td><td>MS − 1</td><td>Rural − 2</td><td /><td>Est Practices − 1</td></tr><tr><td>HS − 1</td><td>Sub − 1</td><td /><td>1-on-1 Int − 1</td></tr><tr><td>Prevention Practices & Student-level Data <italic>(3)</italic></td><td>Quant − 1</td><td>Elem − 1</td><td>Urban − 2</td><td>Student − 2</td><td>Survey − 1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Mixed − 2</td><td>MS − 1</td><td>Rural − 1</td><td>Teacher − 1 Admin − 2</td><td>Est Practices − 1</td></tr><tr><td>HS − 2</td><td>Sub − 1</td><td>Bx Specialist − 1</td><td>Archival − 1</td></tr><tr><td>Comb − 1</td><td /><td /><td>Group Int − 2</td></tr><tr><td>1-on-1 Int − 1</td></tr><tr><td>Prevention Practices & Resources/Funding (<italic>1</italic>)</td><td>Quant − 1</td><td>HS − 1</td><td>Urban − 1 Rural − 1</td><td>Admin − 1</td><td>Est Practices − 1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Prevention Practices & Response Practices (<italic>1</italic>)</td><td>Qual − 1</td><td>HS − 1</td><td>Urban − 1</td><td>Student − 1</td><td>1-on-1 Int − 1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>Teacher − 1</td></tr><tr><td>Admin − 1</td></tr><tr><td>Other − 1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph>Note</emph>: Bx = behavior; Elem = elementary; Est = established; HS = high school; Int = interview; MS = middle school; Sub = suburban.</p> <p>Table 5. Methodological features of school safety variables: student-level data.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Safety Variable (<italic>n</italic>)</td><td>Design</td><td>School Type</td><td>School Setting</td><td>Participants</td><td>Measure Type</td><td>Comparator</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Student-level Data <italic>(2)</italic></td><td>Quant − 2</td><td>Elem − 1 MS − 1 HS − 2</td><td>Urban − 2 Rural − 1 Sub − 1</td><td>Student − 2</td><td>Rating − 1 Archival − 1</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>6 <emph>Note</emph>: Elem = elementary; HS = high school; MS = middle school; Sub = suburban.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-11">Perceptions of safety</hd> <p>The most notable finding of this review was the emphasis on studies investigating perceptions of safety in charter school settings. Specifically, studies that only addressed perceptions of safety were identified most frequently (<emph>n</emph> = 13). These studies reflected the general article descriptions in school type and setting; however, parents (<emph>n</emph> = 8) participated as often as students (<emph>n</emph> = 8), but more than teachers (<emph>n</emph> = 3) and administrators <emph>(n</emph> = 1). Regarding measures utilized, surveys (<emph>n</emph> = 8) were the primary quantitative approaches followed by archival data (<emph>n</emph> = 1), while one-on-one interviews (<emph>n</emph> = 5) and group interviews (<emph>n</emph> = 3) were the primary qualitative approaches. Only four studies included a comparison school (e.g., public or private).</p> <p>Combinations of perceptions of safety and other school safety-related variables and outcomes were also evident in this review. Four qualitative studies investigated perceptions and prevention practices (e.g., Clonan-Roy et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref76">26</reflink>]; Ferráns & Selman, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref77">48</reflink>]; Hamlin, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref78">63</reflink>]); two quantitative studies (i.e., Barrett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref79">8</reflink>]; Day et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref80">32</reflink>]) and one National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) report (i.e., Gleason et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref81">56</reflink>]) investigated perceptions and student-level data; another NCEE report (i.e., Wolf et al., [<reflink idref="bib124" id="ref82">124</reflink>]) three quantitative studies (e.g., Barrows et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref83">10</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref84">9</reflink>]; Hutchinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref85">70</reflink>]), and one qualitative study (i.e., Patton et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref86">98</reflink>]) investigated perceptions and safety incident frequencies; and one quantitative study investigated perceptions, and safety incident frequencies alongside community crime (i.e., Hamlin, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref87">61</reflink>]). Only one mixed-method study investigated perceptions, student-level data, safety incident frequency, prevention practices, and program implementation fidelity scores (i.e., Christofferson & Callahan, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref88">24</reflink>]). Studies were primarily conducted in secondary schools in urban settings, with students being the most frequent participants.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-12">Safety incident frequency</hd> <p>Four studies (i.e., C. A. DeAngelis, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref89">35</reflink>]; C. A. DeAngelis & Flanders, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref90">36</reflink>]; Hamlin, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref91">62</reflink>]; Sabornie et al., [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref92">106</reflink>]) investigated safety incident frequency in charter schools as a single variable. All studies were quantitative and were set in urban elementary, middle, high, and combination schools. Administrators were the primary participants (<emph>n</emph> = 3), followed by students (<emph>n</emph> = 1), and the researchers utilized archival data in each study. Notably, each study included a non-charter school comparator in the design. In addition to these four studies, four other studies investigated a combination of safety incident frequency and other school safety-related variables and outcomes including preventative practices (i.e., C. A. DeAngelis & Lueken, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref93">37</reflink>]; Hamlin & Li, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref94">66</reflink>]), student-level data (i.e., C. A. DeAngelis, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref95">34</reflink>]), and a combination of student-level data and preventative practices (i.e., Shakeel & DeAngelis, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref96">108</reflink>]). Most safety incident frequency combination studies (<emph>n</emph> = 4) were conducted in elementary, middle, high, and combination schools in urban, rural, and suburban areas, with the primary participants being administrators (<emph>n</emph> = 3). Studies addressing preventative or response practices administered surveys (<emph>n</emph> = 3), whereas only two safety incident frequency combination studies collected archival data. Each of the four studies focusing on a combination of safety incident frequency and other variables included a non-charter school comparator in the design.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-13">Preventative practices</hd> <p>This scoping review yielded two studies investigating only preventative practices as the primary variable. The single quantitative study (i.e., Carpenter & Peak, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref97">22</reflink>]) was conducted in elementary, middle, and high schools in urban, rural, and suburban areas and administered a general survey that included items specific to identified preventative practices to administrators. The second study (i.e., Gawlik, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref98">52</reflink>]) employed a qualitative design and was conducted in rural elementary schools. The researcher observed the preventative practices (i.e., policies and procedures for maintaining discipline and order) and conducted one-on-one interviews with administrators. Neither study included a non-charter school comparator. In addition to these studies, five studies investigated a combination of preventative practices and other school safety-related variables and outcomes. Two mixed-method studies (i.e., Gbolo & Grier-Reed, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref99">53</reflink>]; Parris et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref100">97</reflink>]) and one quantitative study (i.e., Betts et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref101">13</reflink>]) investigated student-level data in a variety of settings focusing on students (<emph>n</emph> = 2), administrators (<emph>n</emph> = 2), teachers <emph>(n</emph> = 1) and behavioral specialists (<emph>n</emph> = 1). One quantitative study (i.e., K. J. DeAngelis & Brent, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref102">38</reflink>]) investigated school safety resources in urban and rural high schools, and one qualitative study (i.e., Hays, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref103">67</reflink>]) investigated response practices in urban high schools. These five preventative practices combination studies utilized a variety of measures, including observing established practices (<emph>n</emph> = 2), group interviews (<emph>n</emph> = 2), and one-on-one interviews (<emph>n</emph> = 2). Two of the five combination studies (i.e., K. J. DeAngelis & Brent, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref104">38</reflink>]; Gbolo & Grier-Reed, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref105">53</reflink>]) included a non-charter school comparator.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-14">Student-level data</hd> <p>Student-level data was utilized in several studies as an additional variable (<emph>n</emph> = 9); however, two quantitative studies (i.e., Gibson & Robles, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref106">54</reflink>]; Goldberg et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref107">58</reflink>]) evaluated student-level data as the single, primary safety-related variable. These studies were conducted in elementary (<emph>n</emph> = 1), middle (<emph>n</emph> = 1), and high schools (<emph>n</emph> = 2). Both studies focused on students as participants with one measuring outcomes using rating scales and the other utilizing archival data. Both studies included a non-charter school comparator.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-15">Discussion</hd> <p>This scoping review synthesized 44 empirical studies investigating school safety in public charter school settings. Most of the publications were studies that utilized quantitative designs (e.g., experimental and quasi-experimental), whereas just over a third utilized qualitative and mixed methods. Researchers investigated a variety of school safety-related variables and outcomes while controlling for the school type (i.e., public charter school settings). Notably, there was a strong emphasis on evaluating perceptions of safety, safety incident frequency, and preventative practices in urban settings. Additionally, students and administrators were the most frequent participants, and just over half included a non-charter school comparator. The alignment across the commonly investigated variables and outcomes, as well as important discrepancies in research conceptualization and designs specific to the unique aspects of charter school settings, are discussed below.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-16">Common variables</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187695591-17">Perceptions of school safety</hd> <p>Perceptions of school safety were the most common variable investigated in the reviewed studies. Self-reported perceptions of safety within the school by important school stakeholders, including students, teachers, parents, and administrators, are meaningful and diverse sources of information for evaluating crisis prevention and response measures and practices (Furlong & Morrison, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref108">50</reflink>]). Further, Skiba et al. ([<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref109">110</reflink>]) determined that schools are best suited to evaluate safety using perceptions of safety over the frequency of incidents of violence and incivility, as perceptions inform the subjective and objective safety of the environment. For example, schools that are perceived as safe by students tend to experience fewer office disciplinary referrals (Gage et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref110">51</reflink>]), while schools experiencing an increase in such referrals are at a heightened risk of violent incidences (D. Cornell et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref111">30</reflink>]). The research in charter schools has paired these perceptions with other variables to assess factors in the community (e.g., community crime rates; Hamlin, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref112">61</reflink>]), school (e.g., safety incident frequency and preventative practices, Betts et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref113">13</reflink>]), and within students (e.g., student-level outcomes, Barrett, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref114">8</reflink>]; Gleason et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref115">56</reflink>]) to promote safe school environments effectively.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-18">Safety incident frequency</hd> <p>Safety incident frequency was a variable prevalent throughout this review. Studies reporting safety incident frequency only included quantitative designs, and researchers utilized surveys and archival data to understand the scope of incidents. Indeed, safety incident frequency is a common variable in the general school safety research (e.g., variables related to increased school shootings; Flannery et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref116">49</reflink>]), state and national reports (e.g., National Center for Education Statistics; K. Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref117">121</reflink>]), and school-based preventative program evaluations (e.g., anti-bullying programs; Rawlings & Stoddard, [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref118">100</reflink>]). This was an expected finding, as understanding safety frequency incidents is a standard variable within national reports (e.g., Irwin et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref119">71</reflink>]) and the general school safety literature (e.g., Nickerson et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref120">95</reflink>]), and this is also true in the charter school literature (e.g., Hamlin & Li, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref121">66</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-19">Prevention practices</hd> <p>Preventative practices were also a common variable within this review. Alongside other variables (e.g., student-level data, implementation fidelity, perceptions of safety), identifying specific prevention strategies helps address various school needs. Various preventative practices may be implemented in schools, ranging from psychological strategies, including social-emotional learning programs, to physical strategies, such as metal detectors and security cameras (Jimerson et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref122">74</reflink>]). For example, Gbolo and Grier-Reed ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref123">53</reflink>]) investigated the protective factors of a support and connections meeting (i.e., African American Student Network) for African-American-identifying students in a charter school. Students reported increased feelings of connectedness, belongingness, and overall safety. Whereas K. J. DeAngelis and Brent ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref124">38</reflink>]) investigated the implementation of a breadth of security practices in charter schools, including security cameras, metal detectors, and lock or monitor entryways related to charter school funding and resources. These varying preventative measures warrant further evaluation in future research in charter schools and should be completed alongside additional variables.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-20">Study outcomes</hd> <p>Similar to the findings in public charter schools of the systematic review by Schwalbach and DeAngelis ([<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref125">107</reflink>]), the results related to school safety of the studies included in this scoping review were generally positive. The positive safety outcomes reported in this review raise important questions about how school structure, governance, and community engagement contribute to student safety. While these findings suggest unique benefits in charter schools, they also contrast with studies reporting mixed or limited differences between charter and traditional public schools (e.g., Sabornie et al., [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref126">106</reflink>]; C. A. DeAngelis & Lueken, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref127">37</reflink>]. This variability likely reflects the influence of contextual factors, such as local policies, school demographics, and resource allocation. To better understand these differences, future research should explore not only the presence of safety measures but also the mechanisms driving their success in charter schools. However, despite the growing body of research, important gaps remain in understanding how and why these safety outcomes vary across settings, highlighting the need for targeted investigations to address these unanswered questions.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-21">Gaps in the literature</hd> <p>Most of the studies in this review utilized quantitative methodologies. Although quantitative designs have interpretative benefits, more qualitative approaches may advance research in the area of school safety in charter schools. By employing qualitative research designs and mixed methods designs that triangulate multiple perceptions and experiences, cultural and contextual factors, and policy implementation analyses, scholars and practitioners can gain a deeper understanding of the multifaceted and complex variables related to school safety in charter schools (R. Astor & Benbenishty, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref128">6</reflink>]; Connell, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref129">28</reflink>]). It was notable that only one quantitative study in this review called for additional research with qualitative methodologies to inform interpretations of school safety-related qualitative data (i.e., C. A. DeAngelis, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref130">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Furthermore, a major gap in the current literature is the lack of causal research designs (i.e., randomized intervention or experimental designs with adequate control of extraneous variables). All included quantitative studies were correlational or descriptive, with only a few employing longitudinal designs (e.g., Duszka, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref131">40</reflink>]; Hamlin & Li, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref132">66</reflink>]; Parris et al., [<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref133">97</reflink>]). Future research should explore whether causal methods, such as randomized lottery studies (Cohodes & Roy, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref134">27</reflink>]), could be adapted to provide more robust causal estimates for safety outcomes in charter schools, similar to their use in assessing individual academic achievement (e.g., Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref135">25</reflink>]). Doing so could address critical questions about the efficacy of commonly evaluated safety practices in charter school settings and guide the design of empirical investigations into often-overlooked variables, such as the roles and perspectives of charter school stakeholders, which are essential for fully understanding safety practices in this unique educational context.</p> <p>An additional limitation identified in this review was the issue of selection effects (Gleason et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref136">56</reflink>]; Hamlin, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref137">65</reflink>]). Families self-select into charter schools, and the systematic differences in characteristics and motivations among these families (e.g., a focus on safety or active involvement in their children's education) may confound the observed relationships between safety practices and outcomes in charter schools. Several studies included in this scoping review identified selection effects in their limitations (e.g., Barrows et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref138">9</reflink>]; Hamlin, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref139">61</reflink>]; Hamlin & Li, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref140">66</reflink>]). Addressing this limitation requires researchers to adopt designs that control for selection bias, such as propensity score matching (Bai, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref141">7</reflink>]; Xiang & Tarasawa, [<reflink idref="bib125" id="ref142">125</reflink>]) in observational studies, or randomized lottery designs where feasible.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-22">Charter school stakeholders in research</hd> <p>The discrepancy between perceptions of safety of educators and parents was particularly evident in this review. Parent perceptions of safety were investigated in 12 of the reviewed studies, whereas teacher perceptions of safety were investigated in 8. Although the literature demonstrates an increased parental involvement in decision-making and governance of charter school settings when compared to traditional public school settings (Boylan et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref143">17</reflink>]; Hamlin, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref144">64</reflink>]), which has beneficial academic outcomes for students (Matthews et al., [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref145">82</reflink>]), it is important that schools often utilize teacher perceptions to inform change, especially regarding school safety (Astor et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref146">5</reflink>]; Booren et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref147">15</reflink>]). Teachers have different perspectives of a school's structural organization than do students and parents, which may further inform policies and procedures as well as identify contextual factors related to school violence and safety. Educators in charter schools have reported lower levels of job satisfaction in a variety of related factors including stress and school climate (Erichsen & Reynolds, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref148">43</reflink>]; Roch & Sai, [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref149">102</reflink>]). Further, teachers may also directly experience safety concerns (e.g., verbal harassment and physical assault; McMahon et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref150">88</reflink>]), so teacher perceptions must be included in both research investigations and school accountability and evaluation of preventative programs (R. A. Astor et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref151">4</reflink>]). However, the discrepancy evident in this review also exists in school safety research conducted in public school settings. As revealed in a recent systematic review of the school safety literature, there is a dearth of high-quality, rigorous studies investigating teacher perceptions of school safety in public schools (Charlton et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref152">23</reflink>]). It is important that researchers evaluate charter school programs, practices, and policies related to school safety by including the perspectives of educators and other informants.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-23">Charter school settings in research</hd> <p>An additional discrepancy was found between studies examining safety at the secondary level (i.e., middle and high schools; <emph>n</emph> = 45) and elementary level (<emph>n</emph> = 18). Historically, reviews of empirical research focused on school safety-related variables have demonstrated that investigations of school safety have included more secondary schools than elementary schools (e.g., Vreeman & Carroll, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref153">119</reflink>]; M. T. Wang & Degol, [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref154">122</reflink>]). This may be due to the rate of safety incidents being lower at the elementary level than at the high school level (58% and 90%, respectively, K. Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref155">121</reflink>]). However, the frequency of violent incidents in elementary schools has increased as steadily as those in high school since 2016 (NCES, [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref156">93</reflink>]). Further, the number of violent incidents in elementary schools since 2000 (<emph>n</emph> = 320) surpasses that in middle schools (<emph>n</emph> = 162). This increase in violent incidents in elementary settings is concerning and warrants the attention of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.</p> <p>In addition to the discrepancies across grade levels, 13 studies were conducted only in urban settings, whereas two studies (i.e., Gawlik, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref157">52</reflink>]; Lundeen, [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref158">77</reflink>]) were conducted only in rural settings. Although other studies were conducted in urban, rural, and suburban settings (<emph>n</emph> = 15), there has been minimal research focused solely on charter schools in rural settings. It is important to note that roughly 90% of public charter school enrollment is in non-rural areas (Marshall et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref159">81</reflink>]). Nonetheless, this should not deter efforts to investigate school safety-related variables in these unique settings. Rural charter schools tend to have fewer resources related to behavioral management, mental health support, and social services (Marshall et al., [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref160">81</reflink>]; K. Wang et al., [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref161">121</reflink>]; Xu & White, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref162">127</reflink>]). Such resources impact the availability and efficacy of school safety procedures and practices. Despite fewer charter schools in rural settings, a lack of understanding of these unique factors will not allow researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to address the consistent school safety concerns within these schools.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-24">Measures evaluating school safety in charter schools</hd> <p>One study utilized program implementation fidelity scores (i.e., Christofferson & Callahan, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref163">24</reflink>]), and no studies utilized site safety assessment as school safety measures. A lack of implementation fidelity of evidence-based programs leads to less effective practices and poorer outcomes (Brand et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref164">21</reflink>]). Conversely, the effectiveness of programs implemented with high fidelity is significantly stronger and yields more favorable and predictable outcomes (Hill & Erickson, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref165">69</reflink>]). Christofferson and Callahan ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref166">24</reflink>]) evaluated the implementation of Positive Behavior Support in Schools (PBSIS) within an urban charter school to determine if the framework improves student behavior and school climate. The authors utilized the School-Wide Evaluation Tool (SET; Sugai et al., [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref167">112</reflink>]) to measure the fidelity implementation. This tool, which was administered to students, teachers, and administrators, assessed several components including defining and teaching behavioral expectations, rewarding positive behavior, addressing behavioral violations, and using data-driven decision-making. The findings showed that PBSIS significantly reduced in-school suspensions and office discipline referrals, but it did not significantly impact out-of-school suspension rates despite the SET score increasing from 89.9 in Year 1 to 95.6 in Year 2. Although other studies included in this review investigating established practices (e.g., implementing safe spaces for racial-ethnically minoritized students [Clonan-Roy et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref168">26</reflink>]] and engaging school hardening practices [Shakeel & DeAngelis, [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref169">108</reflink>]]), implementation fidelity was not considered a variable of interest. Future research investigating school safety practices in charter schools should include some measure of implementation integrity to better interpret the students' or system's outcomes and provide more applicable implications for practitioners in related settings.</p> <p>Relatedly, site assessment scores are essential variables that inform environmental conditions and physical attributes of schools related to safety and climate. Fundamentally, the design of school spaces and structures can influence human behavior and, consequently, impact the rate of problem behavior and violence. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a multidisciplinary theoretical model of preventing criminal activity by altering natural access and surveillance of schools, reinforcing territoriality among students and staff, and ensuring that the school is well-maintained and managed (Vagi et al., [<reflink idref="bib116" id="ref170">116</reflink>]). According to K. Wang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref171">121</reflink>]), charter schools engage in a variety of these safety and security measures (e.g., controlled access to the school grounds and building, locked classrooms, and security cameras) equally if not more frequently than traditional public schools; however, this review did not yield a single study investigating the effectiveness of these strategies using a site assessment measure such those used in research in traditional public schools (e.g., School Assessment for Environmental Typology [SAfETy], Bradshaw et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref172">20</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref173">18</reflink>]). In their study exploring crisis preparedness in 98 public secondary schools, Bradshaw et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref174">19</reflink>]) focused on the procedures for responding to school safety crises. The SAfETy was utilized to evaluate school environments based on indicators such as disorder and surveillance across multiple locations. Findings showed that schools with more disorder were less prepared for crises. Based on these results, researchers, practitioners, and policymakers need to utilize valid and reliable site assessment tools to adequately evaluate the efficacy of environmental and structural safety measures in charter schools in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-25">Limitations</hd> <p>This scoping review is not without limitations. The expansive nature of scoping reviews limits the search strategy as well as the parameters of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Although our search strategy was developed by two authors who advise school safety and threat assessment practices in charter school districts, the terms utilized were intentionally broad to address a wider scope of research questions. Compared to systematic review search strategies, which typically include very specific variables and outcomes, the focus of scoping review search strategies must be comprehensive and less defined to capture a larger purview of research in the area of interest (Armstrong et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref175">3</reflink>]). While this review's purpose was to be comprehensive, the publications identified in this study remain vulnerable to selection effects, thus potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. Finally, our results are not generalizable to private charter schools and other private settings. It is important to note that policies and procedures related to school safety are different in the private sector. There may be substantial differences in the working definition of school safety, how school safety is conceptualized and evaluated, and the varying gaps within the empirical literature.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-26">Conclusion</hd> <p>The findings of this scoping review indicated that studies investigating school safety in charter school settings most often addressed perceptions of school safety, safety incident frequency, and preventative practices. These studies, primarily quantitative in nature, typically were conducted in secondary-level schools and focused on student, parent, and administrator participants in urban settings. Despite observing variables and outcomes that may inform practice and policies, the nascent empirical literature investigating school safety in charter school settings requires additional research.</p> <p>This review identified a need for qualitative and mixed methodologies in research evaluating school safety practices in charter schools. Qualitative methods are valuable for delving into and elucidating complex factors and contexts that impact school safety variables. Moreover, mixed-method designs allow researchers to gather more comprehensive data. This integration bolsters a holistic understanding of the multifaceted factors influencing school safety by incorporating both interpretations of statistical values and nuanced perspectives and experiences from school and community stakeholders. This review also identified a need for more emphasis on elementary schools in rural settings and a lack of school safety-related variables, including implementation integrity and site safety assessments. Future research needs to evaluate prevention and response measures and practices using these tools and other informative data (e.g., perceptions of safety and safety incident frequency) across multiple charter school levels (i.e., elementary, middle, and high school) and settings (i.e., rural, urban, and suburban).</p> <p>Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews of synthesized outcomes of these studies should be utilized to further develop empirically informed recommendations to bolster unique safety measures and strategies often implemented in charter school settings. Such recommendations would benefit the diverse leadership and school and community stakeholders who make school-wide decisions on the design, delivery, and evaluation of prevention and response procedures and practices.</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-27">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-28">Appendix A: Search strategy</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187695591-29">Charter school terms</hd> <p>("charter school*" OR "charter academ*" OR "charter education*" OR "charter system*" OR "charter network*" OR "public charter school*" OR "public charter academ*" OR "public charter education*" OR "public charter system*" OR "public charter network*" OR "freestanding school*")</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-30">School safety terms</hd> <p>AND</p> <p>("school safety" OR "safety" OR "crisis" OR "crisis prevention*" OR "crisis response*" OR "school violence" OR "student safety" OR "campus safety" OR "crisis management" OR "crisis intervention*" OR "threat prevention" OR "threat response*" OR "threat intervention*" OR "school climate")</p> <hd id="AN0187695591-31">Appendix B</hd> <p>Table B1. Table of included articles.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tbody><tr><td>1.</td><td>Barrett (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr8">2003</xref>). Evaluating education reform: Students' views of their charter school experience. <italic>The Journal of Educational Research, 96</italic>(6), 351–358. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309596618" /></td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Barrows et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">2017</xref>). What do parents think of their children's school? EdNext poll compares charter, district, and private schools nationwide. <italic>Education Next, 17</italic>(2), 8–18.</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Barrows et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">2019</xref>). Do charters pose a threat to private schools? Evidence from nationally representative surveys of U.S. parents. <italic>Journal of School Choice, 13</italic>(1), 10–32. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2018.1547589" /></td></tr><tr><td>4.</td><td>Beardall, J. M. (2011). <italic>Taken over: The story of the Locke High School takeover through a qualitative study of student voice</italic> (Publication No. 260) [Doctoral Dissertation, Loyola Marymount University]. Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School.</td></tr><tr><td>5.</td><td>Betts et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">2016</xref>). <italic>Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Features of schools in DC (NCEE 2016–4007)</italic>. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567789.pdf" /></td></tr><tr><td>6.</td><td>Carpenter and Peak (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">2013</xref>). Leading charters: How charter school administrators define their roles and their ability to lead. <italic>Management in Education, 27</italic>(4), 150–158. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020613487919" /></td></tr><tr><td>7.</td><td>Christofferson and Callahan (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr24">2015</xref>). Positive behavior support in schools (PBSIS): An administrative perspective on the implementation of a comprehensive school-wide intervention in an urban charter school. <italic>Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 2</italic>(2), 35–49.</td></tr><tr><td>8.</td><td>Clonan-Roy et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr26">2021</xref>) Safe rebellious places: The value of informal spaces in schools to counter the emotional silencing of youth of color. <italic>International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 34</italic>(4), 330–352. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1760392" /></td></tr><tr><td>9.</td><td>Crosby, S. D., Patton, D., Duncan, D. T., & Lee, J. R. S. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">2019</xref>). Framing neighborhood safety and academic success: Perspectives from high-achieving Black boys in Chicago. <italic>Children, Youth and Environments, 29</italic>(1), 1–19. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://dx.doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.29.1.0001" /></td></tr><tr><td>10.</td><td>Day et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">2015</xref>). Evaluation of a trauma-informed school intervention with girls in a residential facility school: Student perceptions of school environment. <italic>Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24</italic>(10), 1086–1105. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1079279" /></td></tr><tr><td>11.</td><td>C. A. DeAngelis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr33">2018</xref>). Does choice matter for school choice? An instrumental variables analysis of the effect of choice on parental satisfaction in charter schools. <italic>Journal of School Choice, 12</italic>(2), 216–236. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2017.1408003" /></td></tr><tr><td>12.</td><td>C. A. DeAngelis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr34">2020</xref>). <italic>School sector and climate: Evidence from New York (EdWorking Paper 20–206)</italic>. Reason Foundation & Cato Institute. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://appam.confex.com/appam/int20/mediafile/ExtendedAbstract/Paper35523/ai20-206.pdf" /></td></tr><tr><td>13.</td><td>C. A. DeAngelis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">2021</xref>). Are charter schools safer than district-run schools? Evidence from Pennsylvania. <italic>Journal of School Choice, 15</italic>(4), 496–539. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2020.1805289" /></td></tr><tr><td>14.</td><td>C. A. DeAngelis and Flanders (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr36">2019</xref>). The education marketplace: The predictors of school growth and closures in Milwaukee. <italic>Journal of School Choice, 13</italic>(3), 355–379. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2019.1595949" /></td></tr><tr><td>15.</td><td>C. A. DeAngelis and Lueken (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">2020</xref>). School sector and climate: An analysis of K–12 safety policies and school climates in Indiana. <italic>Social Science Quarterly, 101</italic>(1), 376–405. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12737" /></td></tr><tr><td>16.</td><td>K. J. DeAngelis and Brent (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">2012</xref>). Books or guards? Charter school security costs. <italic>Journal of School Choice, 6</italic>(3), 365–410. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2012.702038" /></td></tr><tr><td>17.</td><td>Duszka, C. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">2018</xref><italic>). School climate in the school choice era: A comparative analysis of district-run public schools and charter schools</italic>. (Publication No. 27736471) [Doctoral Dissertation, Florida International University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</td></tr><tr><td>18.</td><td>Dynarski et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr41">2016</xref>). <italic>Applying to the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: How do parents rate their children's current schools at time of application and what do they want in new schools?</italic> (NCEE 2016–4003). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565616.pdf" /></td></tr><tr><td>19.</td><td>Ferráns and Selman (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">2014</xref>). How students' perceptions of the school climate influence their choice to upstand, bystand, or join perpetrators of bullying. <italic>Harvard Educational Review, 84</italic>(2), 162–187. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.2.h488313410l651mm" /></td></tr><tr><td>20.</td><td>Gawlik (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">2018</xref>). Leadership knowledge and practices in the context of charter schools. <italic>Leadership & Policy in Schools, 17</italic>(4), 422–453. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1326145" /></td></tr><tr><td>21.</td><td>Gbolo and Grier-Reed (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">2019</xref>). An African American student networking group in an urban high school: Experiences and outcomes. <italic>Urban Education, 54</italic>(9), 1210–1232. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916641170" /></td></tr><tr><td>22.</td><td>Gleason et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr56">2010</xref>). <italic>The Evaluation of Charter School Impacts: The final report</italic> (NCEE 2010–4029). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510573.pdf" /></td></tr><tr><td>23.</td><td>Gibson and Robles (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">2021</xref>). <italic>School discipline and engagement of law enforcement in charter and traditional public schools. A secondary analysis of the civil rights data collection to inform policy and practice: Key findings and guiding questions that examine the experiences of students with disabilities in charter and traditional public schools. Technical Brief 4</italic>. Center for Learner Equity. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED618233.pdf" /></td></tr><tr><td>24.</td><td>Goldberg et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">2010</xref>). An analysis of inner-city students' attitudes toward violence before and after participation in the "Cradle to Grave" programme. <italic>Injury, 41</italic>(1), 110–115. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2009.09.024" /></td></tr><tr><td>25.</td><td>Hamlin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">2017</xref>). Are charter schools safer in deindustrialized cities with high rates of crime? Testing hypotheses in Detroit. <italic>American Educational Research Journal, 54</italic>(4), 725–756. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217705060" /></td></tr><tr><td>26.</td><td>Hamlin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">2020a</xref>). Do charter schools worsen conditions in neighborhood public schools? An analysis of school safety in New York City. <italic>Urban Education, 58</italic>(10), 2491–2514. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920959119" /></td></tr><tr><td>27.</td><td>Hamlin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">2020b</xref>). Flight to safety in deindustrialized cities: Perceptions of school safety in charter and public schools in Detroit, Michigan. <italic>Education and Urban Society, 52</italic>(3), 394–414. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124519846288" /></td></tr><tr><td>28.</td><td>Hamlin and Li (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66">2021</xref>). Factors mediating school safety in charter schools: An analysis of five waves of nationally representative data. <italic>Journal of School Choice, 15</italic>(3), 371–392. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2020.1783475" /></td></tr><tr><td>29.</td><td>Hays (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">2013</xref>). Narrowing the gap: Three key dimensions of site-based leadership in four Boston charter public schools. <italic>Education and Urban Society, 45</italic>(1), 37–87. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511404065" /></td></tr><tr><td>30.</td><td>Hutchinson et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr70">2014</xref>). Can school choice improve more than just academic achievement? An analysis of post-Katrina New Orleans. <italic>Journal of School Health, 84</italic>(4), 221–232. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12146" /></td></tr><tr><td>31.</td><td>Kleitz, B., Weiher, G. R., Tedin, K., & Matland, R. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr75">2000</xref>). Choice, charter schools, and household preferences. <italic>Social Science Quarterly, 81</italic>(3), 846–854.</td></tr><tr><td>32.</td><td>Lange and Lehr (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr76">2000</xref>). Charter schools and students with disabilities: Parent perceptions of reasons for transfer and satisfaction with services. <italic>Remedial and Special Education, 21</italic>(3). <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100303" /></td></tr><tr><td>33.</td><td>Lundeen (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr77">2012</xref>). <italic>Middle school students' perceptions of satisfaction with their charter school experience</italic> (Publication No. 3540691) [Doctoral Dissertation, Azusa Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</td></tr><tr><td>34.</td><td>McDonald, A. J., Ross, S. M., Bol, L., & McSparrin-Gallagher, B. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr85">2007</xref>). Charter schools as a vehicle for education reform: Implementation and outcomes at three inner-city sites. <italic>Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12</italic>(3), 271–300. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660701601282" /></td></tr><tr><td>35.</td><td>Parris et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr97">2015</xref>). Implementing Trust-Based Relational Intervention® in a charter school at a residential facility for at-risk youth. <italic>Contemporary School Psychology, 19</italic>(3), 157–164. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-014-0033-7" /></td></tr><tr><td>36.</td><td>Patton et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr98">2016</xref>). Hardiness scripts: High‐achieving African American boys in a Chicago charter school navigating community violence and school. <italic>Journal of Community Psychology, 44</italic>(5), 638–655. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21791" /></td></tr><tr><td>37.</td><td>Rodriguez, R. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr103">2006</xref>). <italic>Evaluation of an urban charter middle school serving predominantly Latino students</italic> (Publication No. 3217465) [Doctoral Dissertation, Fielding Graduate University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</td></tr><tr><td>38.</td><td>Ross, A., Legg, E., & Wilson, K. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr104">2021</xref>). The influence of peer and coach relationships in after-school sports on perceptions of school climate. <italic>Health Education Journal, 80</italic>(4), 487–497. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896920988750" /></td></tr><tr><td>39.</td><td>Sabornie et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr106">2020</xref>). Crime, violence, and suspensions in traditional versus public charter schools: Large scale evidence from one U.S. state. <italic>Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 17(</italic>5). <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.v17i5.3223" /></td></tr><tr><td>40.</td><td>Shakeel and DeAngelis (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr108">2018</xref>). Can private schools improve school climate? Evidence from a nationally representative sample. <italic>Journal of School Choice, 12</italic>(3), 426–445. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2018.1490383" /></td></tr><tr><td>41.</td><td>Tuttle, C. C., Gleason, P., Knetchel, V., Nichols-Barrer, I., Booker, K., Chojnacki, G., Coen, T., & Goble, L. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr115">2015</xref>). <italic>Understanding the effect of KIPP as it scales: Volume I, impacts on achievement and other outcomes</italic>. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560080.pdf" /></td></tr><tr><td>42.</td><td>VandeVeer, E. L. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr117">2020</xref>). <italic>Parents pushing back against school push out</italic> (Publication No. 28256746) [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Boston]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</td></tr><tr><td>43.</td><td>Walls, J., Ryu, J., Fairchild, L., & Johnson, J. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr120">2021</xref>). Contexts of belonging: toward a multilevel understanding of caring and engagement in schools. <italic>Educational Policy, 35</italic>(5), 748–780. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819843590" /></td></tr><tr><td>44.</td><td>Wolf et al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr124">2009</xref>). Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts after three years (NCEE 2009–4050). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. <ext-link ext-link-type="url" href="https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504783.pdf" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ref id="AN0187695591-32"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref19" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allen, J. P., Kim, E. K., & Jimerson, S. R. (2023). Meta-analyses and systematic reviews advancing the practice of school psychology: The imperative of bringing science to practice. School Psychology Review, 52 (2), 87 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2023.2178769</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref53" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Angrist J. D., Pathak P. A., Walters C. R. (2013). Explaining charter school effectiveness. American Economic Journal. Applied Economics, 5 (4), 1 – 27. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.4.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref22" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong, R., Hall, B. J., Doyle, J., & Waters, E. (2011). Cochrane update. 'Scoping the scope' of a Cochrane review. Journal of Public Health, 33 (1), 147 – 150. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdr015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref151" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Astor, R. A., Benbenishty, R., Capp, G. P., Watson, K. R., Wu, C., McMahon, S. D., Worrell, F. C., Reddy, L. A., Martinez, A., Espelage, D. L., & Anderman, E. M. (2023). How school policies, strategies, and relational factors contribute to teacher victimization and school safety. Journal of Community Psychology, 52 (1), 39 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.23084</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref146" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Astor, R. A., Guerra, N., & Van Acker, R. (2010). How can we improve school safety research? Educational Researcher, 39 (1), 69 – 78. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357619</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref128" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Astor, R., & Benbenishty, R. (2017). Mapping and monitoring bullying and violence: Building a safe school climate. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref141" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bai, H. (2011). A comparison of propensity score matching methods for reducing selection bias. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 34 (1), 81 – 107. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2011.552338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref79" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barrett, E. J. (2003). Evaluating education reform: Students' views of their charter school experience. Journal of Educational Research, 96 (6), 351 – 358. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670309596618</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref84" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Barrows, S., Cheng, A., Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2019). Do charters pose a threat to private schools? Evidence from nationally representative surveys of U.S. parents. Journal of School Choice, 13 (1), 10 – 32. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2018.1547589</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barrows, S., Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2017). What do parents think of their children's school? EdNext poll compares charter, district, and private schools nationwide. Education Next, 17 (2), 8 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beardall, J. M. (2011). Taken over: The story of the Locke High School takeover through a qualitative study of student voice (Publication No. 260) [ Doctoral Dissertation, Loyola Marymount University]. Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bell, C. A. (2007). Space and place: Urban parents' geographical preferences for schools. Urban Review, 39 (4), 375 – 404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-007-0059-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Betts, J., Dynarski, M., & Feldman, J. (2016). Evaluation of the DC opportunity scholarship program: Features of schools in DC (NCEE 2016-4007). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED567789.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2005). Institutional change and coproduction of public services: The effect of charter schools on parental involvement. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 16 (4), 553 – 576. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Booren, L. M., Handy, D. J., & Power, T. G. (2011). Examining perceptions of school safety strategies, school climate, and violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 9 (2), 171 – 187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204010374297</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowers, A. W., & Creamer, E. G. (2021). Core principles of grounded theory in a systematic review of environmental education for secondary students. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24 (6), 713 – 726. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1818414</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boylan, R. L., Petts, A., Renzulli, L., Domina, T., & Murray, B. (2021). Practicing parental involvement: Heterogeneity in parent involvement structures in charter and traditional public schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57 (4), 570 – 606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X21990431</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradshaw, C. P., Cohen, J., Espelage, D. L., & Nation, M. (2021). Addressing school safety through comprehensive school climate approaches. School Psychology Review, 50 (2–3), 221 – 236. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1926321</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradshaw, C. P., Debnam, K. J., Kush, J. M., & Johnson, S. L. (2022). Planning for a crisis, but preparing for every day: What predicts schools' preparedness to respond to a school 96 safety crisis? Frontiers in Communication, 7 (1). https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2022.765336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bradshaw, C. P., Milam, A. J., Furr-Holden, C. D. M., & Lindstrom Johnson, S. (2015). The school assessment for environmental typology (SAfEty): An observational measure of the school environment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 56 (3), 280 – 292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-015-9743-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brand, D., Henley, A. J., DiGennaro Reed, F. D., Gray, E., & Crabbs, B. (2019). A review of published studies involving parametric manipulations of treatment integrity. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28 (1), 1 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-09311-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpenter, D. M., & Peak, C. (2013). Leading charters: How charter school administrators define their roles and their ability to lead. Management in Education, 27 (4), 150 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020613487919</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charlton, C. T., Moulton, S., Sabey, C. V., & West, R. (2020). A systematic review of the effects of schoolwide intervention programs on student and teacher perceptions of school climate. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 23, 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300720940168</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christofferson, R. D., & Callahan, K. (2015). Positive behavior support in schools (PBSIS): An administrative perspective on the implementation of a comprehensive school-wide intervention in an urban charter school. Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 2 (2), 35 – 49.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, M. A., Gleason, P. M., Tuttle, C. C., & Silverberg, M. K. (2015). Do charter schools improve student achievement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37 (4), 419 – 436. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714558292</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clonan-Roy, K., Gross, N., & Jacobs, C. (2021). Safe rebellious places: The value of informal spaces in schools to counter the emotional silencing of youth of color. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 34 (4), 330 – 352. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1760392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohodes, S., & Roy, S. (2024). Thirty years of charter schools: What does lottery-based research tell us? Journal of School Choice, 1 – 42. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2024.2379644</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Connell, N. M. (2018). Fear of crime at school: Understanding student perceptions of safety as a function of historical context. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 16 (2), 124 – 136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016680407</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornell, D. G., Mayer, M. J., & Sulkowski, M. L. (2020). History and future of school safety research. School Psychology Review, 50 (2–3), 143 – 157. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1857212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornell, D., Maeng, J. L., Huang, F., Burnette, A., Datta, P., & Heilbrun, A. (2015). Threat assessment in Virginia schools: Technical report of the threat assessment survey for 2013-2014. Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. https://<ulink href="http://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248881.pdf">www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248881.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crosby, S. D., Patton, D., Duncan, D. T., & Lee, J. R. S. (2019). Framing neighborhood safety and academic success: Perspectives from high-achieving Black boys in Chicago. Children, Youth and Environments, 29 (1), 1 – 19. https://dx.doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.29.1.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Day, A. G., Somers, C. L., Baroni, B. A., West, S. D., Sanders, L., & Peterson, C. D. (2015). Evaluation of a trauma-informed school intervention with girls in a residential facility school: Student perceptions of school environment. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 24 (10), 1086 – 1105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.1079279</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeAngelis, C. A. (2018). Does choice matter for school choice? An instrumental variables analysis of the effect of choice on parental satisfaction in charter schools. Journal of School Choice, 12 (2), 216 – 236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2017.1408003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeAngelis, C. A. (2020). School sector and climate: Evidence from New York (EdWorking paper 20-206). Reason Foundation & Cato Institute. https://appam.confex.com/appam/int20/mediafile/ExtendedAbstract/Paper35523/ai20-206.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeAngelis, C. A. (2021). Are charter schools safer than district-run schools? Evidence from Pennsylvania. Journal of School Choice, 15 (4), 496 – 539. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2020.1805289</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeAngelis, C. A., & Flanders, W. (2019). The education marketplace: The predictors of school growth and closures in Milwaukee. Journal of School Choice, 13 (3), 355 – 379. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2019.1595949</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeAngelis, C. A., & Lueken, M. F. (2020). School sector and climate: An analysis of K-12 safety policies and school climates in Indiana. Social Science Quarterly, 101 (1), 376 – 405. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12737</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeAngelis, K. J., & Brent, B. O. (2012). Books or guards? Charter school security costs. Journal of School Choice, 6 (3), 365 – 410. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2012.702038</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeAngelis, K. J., Brent, B. O., & Ianni, D. (2011). The hidden cost of school security. Journal of Education Finance, 36 (3), 312 – 337. https://doi.org/10.1353/jef.2011.0004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duszka, C. (2018). School climate in the school choice era: A comparative analysis of district-run public schools and charter schools. (Publication No. 27736471) [ Doctoral Dissertation, Florida International University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dynarski, M., Betts, J., & Feldman, J. (2016). Applying to the DC opportunity scholarship program: How do parents rate their children's current schools at time of application and what do they want in new schools? (NCEE 2016-4003). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED565616.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edyburn, K. L., Bertone, A., Raines, T. C., Hinton, T., Twyford, J., & Dowdy, E. (2023). Integrating intersectionality, social determinants of health, and healing: A new training framework for school-based mental health. School Psychology Review, 52 (5), 563 – 585. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.2024767</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erichsen, K., & Reynolds, J. (2020). Public school accountability, workplace culture, and teacher morale. Social Science Research, 85, 102347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Espelage, D. L., Woolweaver, A. B., & Robinson, L. E. (2023). Synthesizing knowledge on equity and equity-based school safety strategies [ White paper ]. National Institute of Justice. https://<ulink href="http://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/305338.pdf">www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/305338.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eugene, D. R., Du, X., & Kim, Y. K. (2021). School climate and peer victimization among adolescents: A moderated mediation model of school connectedness and parental involvement. Children and Youth Services Review, 121, 105854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105854</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Every Student Succeeds Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 (2015). https://<ulink href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177">www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1177</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fallon, L. M., Veiga, M., & Sugai, G. (2023). Strengthening MTSS for behavior (MTSS-B) to promote racial equity. School Psychology Review, 52 (5), 518 – 533. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1972333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ferráns, S. D., & Selman, R. L. (2014). How students' perceptions of the school climate influence their choice to upstand, bystand, or join perpetrators of bullying. Harvard Educational Review, 84 (2), 162 – 187. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.2.h488313410l651mm</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Flannery, D. J., Fox, J. A., Wallace, L., Mulvey, E., & Modzeleski, W. (2021). Guns, school shooters, and school safety: What we know and directions for change. School Psychology Review, 50 (2–3), 237 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1846458</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furlong, M., & Morrison, G. (2000). The school in school violence: Definitions and facts. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8 (2), 71 – 82. https://doi.org/10.1177/106342660000800203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gage, N. A., Larson, A., Sugai, G., & Chafouleas, S. M. (2016). Student perceptions of school climate as predictors of office discipline referrals. American Educational Research Journal, 53 (3), 492 – 515. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216637349</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gawlik, M. A. (2018). Leadership knowledge and practices in the context of charter schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17 (4), 422 – 453. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1326145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gbolo, S., & Grier-Reed, T. L. (2019). An African American student networking group in an urban high school: Experiences and outcomes. Urban Education, 54 (9), 1210 – 1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916641170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson, P., & Robles, A. (2021). School discipline and engagement of law enforcement in charter and traditional public schools. A secondary analysis of the civil rights data collection to inform policy and practice: Key findings and guiding questions that examine the experiences of students with disabilities in charter and traditional public schools. In Technical brief (Vol. 4). Center for Learner Equity. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED618233.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gisev, N., Bell, J. S., & Chen, T. F. (2013). Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Key concepts, approaches, and applications. Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy, 9 (3), 330 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.04.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C. C., & Dwoyer, E. (2010). The evaluation of charter school impacts: The final report (NCEE 2010-4029). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510573.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Golann, J. (2015). The paradox of success at a no-excuses school. Sociology of Education, 88, 103 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040714567866</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldberg, A. J., Toto, J. M., Kulp, H. R., Lloyd, M. E., Gaughan, J. P., Seamon, M. J., & Charles, S. P. (2010). An analysis of inner-city students' attitudes towards violence before and after participation in the "cradle to grave" programme. Injury, 41 (1), 110 – 115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2009.09.024</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregory, A., Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Jagers, R. J., & Sprague, J. R. (2021). Good intentions are not enough: Centering equity in school discipline reform. School Psychology Review, 50 (2–3), 206 – 220. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1861911</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haahr, M. (2022, September 3). RANDOM.ORG: True random number service. https://<ulink href="http://www.random.org">www.random.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamlin, D. (2017). Are charter schools safer in deindustrialized cities with high rates of crime? Testing hypotheses in Detroit. American Educational Research Journal, 54 (4), 725 – 756. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217705060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamlin, D. (2020a). Do charter schools worsen conditions in neighborhood public schools? An analysis of school safety in New York City. Urban Education, 58 (10), 2491 – 2514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920959119</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamlin, D. (2020b). Flight to safety in deindustrialized cities: Perceptions of school safety in charter and public schools in Detroit, Michigan. Education & Urban Society, 52 (3), 394 – 414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124519846288</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamlin, D. (2021). Parental involvement in high choice deindustrialized cities: A comparison of charter and public schools in Detroit. Urban Education, 56 (6), 901 – 929. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917697201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamlin, D. (2022). Parental involvement in schools of choice: The interdependence of parents and schools. In W. Jeynes (Ed.), Relational aspects of parental involvement to support educational outcomes (pp. 329 – 350). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamlin, D., & Li, A. (2021). Factors mediating school safety in charter schools: An analysis of five waves of nationally representative data. Journal of School Choice, 15 (3), 371 – 392. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2020.1783475</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hays, P. S. (2013). Narrowing the gap: Three key dimensions of site-based leadership in four Boston charter public schools. Education & Urban Society, 45 (1), 37 – 87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511404065</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heise, M., & Nance, J. P. (2022). Per pupil and school safety spending: An empirical perspective. Journal of Education Finance, 47 (3), 225 – 249. https://doi.org/10.1353/jef.2022.a852708</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, H. C., & Erickson, A. (2019). Using implementation fidelity to aid in interpreting program impacts: A brief review. Educational Researcher, 48 (9), 590 – 598. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19891436</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hutchinson, P. L., Ferrell, N., Broussard, M., Brown, L., & Chrestman, S. K. (2014). Can school choice improve more than just academic achievement? An analysis of post-Katrina New Orleans. The Journal of School Health, 84 (4), 221 – 232. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Irwin, V., Wang, K., Cui, J., & Zhang, J. (2024). Report on indicators of school crime and safety: 2023 (NCES 2024-145/NCJ 309126). National Center for Education Statistics. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED656193.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacobs, D., & Veney, D. (2023, December). Believing in public education: A demographic and state-level analysis of public charter school and district public school enrollment trends. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED652770.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jimerson, S. R., & Furlong, M. J. (2006). Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jimerson, S. R., Swearer, S. M., & Espelage, D. L. (Eds.). (2010). The handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleitz, B., Weiher, G. R., Tedin, K., & Matland, R. (2000). Choice, charter schools, and household preferences. Social Science Quarterly, 81 (3), 846 – 854.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lange, C. M., & Lehr, C. A. (2000). Charter schools and students with disabilities: Parent perceptions of reasons for transfer and satisfaction with services. Remedial and Special Education, 21 (3), 141 – 151. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lundeen, P. A. (2012). Middle school students' perceptions of satisfaction with their Charter school experience. (Publication No. 3540691). [ Doctoral Dissertation, Azusa Pacific University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madfis, E., Hirschfield, P., & Addington, L. A. (2021). School securitization and its alternatives: The social, political, and contextual drivers of school safety policy and practice. School Psychology Review, 50 (2–3), 191 – 205. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1855063</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maggin, D. M., Talbott, E., Van Acker, E. Y., & Kumm, S. (2017). Quality indicators for systematic reviews in behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorder S, 42 (2), 52 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742916688653</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marraccini, M. E., Fang, Y., Levine, S. P., Chin, A. J., & Pittleman, C. (2020). Measuring student perceptions of school climate: A systematic review and ecological content analysis. School Mental Health, 12 (2), 195 – 221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-019-09348-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marshall, D. T., Neugebauer, N. M., Huang, L., & White, J. (2022). Describing rural charter schools in the United States. Journal of School Choice, 16 (4), 562 – 587. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2022.2110460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matthews, A., McPherson-Berg, S. L., Quinton, A., Rotunda, R. S., & Morote, E.-S. (2017). The school-parent relationship across different income levels. Journal for Leadership and Instruction, 16 (1), 15 – 21. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1159887.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, M. J., & Jimerson, S. R. (2019). School safety and violence prevention: Science, practice, and policy. American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, M. J., Nickerson, A. B., & Jimerson, S. R. (2021). Preventing school violence and promoting school safety: Contemporary scholarship advancing science, practice, and policy. School Psychology Review, 50 (2–3), 131 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1949933</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, A. J., Ross, S. M., Bol, L., & McSparrin-Gallagher, B. (2007). Charter schools as a vehicle for education reform: Implementation and outcomes at three inner-city sites. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12 (3), 271 – 300. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660701601282</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McEachin, A., Lauen, D. L., Fuller, S. C., & Perera, R. M. (2020). Social returns to private choice? Effects of charter schools on behavioral outcomes, arrests, and civic participation. Economics of Education Review, 76, 101983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.101983</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22 (3), 276 – 282. https://<ulink href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900052/">www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900052/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McMahon, S. D., Martinez, A., Espelage, D., Rose, C., Reddy, L. A., Lane, K., Anderman, E. M., Reynolds, C. R., Jones, A., & Brown, V. (2014). Violence directed against teachers: Results from a national survey. Psychology in the Schools, 51 (7), 753 – 766. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21777</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Multon, K. D. (2010). Interrater reliability. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 627 – 629). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288.n194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18 (1), 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association of School Psychologists. (2018). NASP expresses concern regarding federal school safety report. https://<ulink href="http://www.nasponline.org/fedreport2018">www.nasponline.org/fedreport2018</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Safety and Security Practices at Public Schools. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Violent deaths at school and away from school, school shootings, and active Shooter incidents. In Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved November, 2023, from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National School Climate Center. (2024). What is school climate and why is it important? Retrieved March, 2024), from https://schoolclimate.org/school-climate</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nickerson, A. B., Randa, R., Jimerson, S., & Guerra, N. G. (2021). Safe places to learn: Advances in school safety research and practice. School Psychology Review, 50 (2–3), 158 – 171. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1871948</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S. ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA, 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 178 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parris, S. R., Dozier, M., Purvis, K. B., Whitney, C., Grisham, A., & Cross, D. R. (2015). Implementing Trust-based relational Intervention® in a charter school at a residential facility for at-risk youth. Contemporary School Psychology, 19 (3), 157 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-014-0033-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, D. U., Miller, R. J., Garbarino, J., Gale, A., & Kornfeld, E. (2016). Hardiness scripts: High-achieving African American boys in a Chicago charter school navigating community violence and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 44 (5), 638 – 655. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21791</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Khalil, H., Larsen, P., Marnie, C., Pollock, D., Tricco, A. C., & Munn, Z. (2022). Best practice guidance and reporting items for the development of scoping review protocols. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 20 (4), 953 – 968. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-21-00242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rawlings, J. R., & Stoddard, S. A. (2019). A critical review of anti-bullying programs in North American elementary schools. The Journal of School Health, 89 (9), 759 – 780. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12814</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, K. A., Saldanha, I. J., & McKoy, N. A. (2011). Development of a framework to identify gaps from systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 64 (12), 1325 – 1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roch, C. H., & Sai, N. (2017). Charter school teacher job satisfaction. Educational Policy, 31 (7), 951 – 991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815625281</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez, R. (2006). Evaluation of an urban charter middle school serving predominantly Latino students (Publication No. 3217465) [ Doctoral Dissertation, Fielding Graduate University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross, A., Legg, E., & Wilson, K. (2021). The influence of peer and coach relationships in after-school sports on perceptions of school climate. Health Education Journal, 80 (4), 487 – 497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0017896920988750</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rudasill, K. M., Snyder, K. E., Levinson, H., & Adelson, L. J. (2018). Systems view of school climate: A theoretical framework for research. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (1), 35 – 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9401-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sabornie, E. J., Motsinger-Reif, A. A., Crossland, C. L., Griffith, E. H., Biswas, M., Walker, H. M., & Hussey, W. J. (2020). Crime, violence, and suspensions in traditional versus public charter schools: Large scale evidence from one U.S. state. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 17 (5). https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.v17i5.3223</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwalbach, J., & DeAngelis, C. A. (2020). School sector and school safety: A review of the evidence. Educational Review, 74 (4), 882 – 898. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2020.1822789</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shakeel, M. D., & DeAngelis, C. A. (2018). Can private schools improve school climate? Evidence from a nationally representative sample. Journal of School Choice, 12 (3), 426 – 445. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2018.1490383</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70 (1), 747 – 770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skiba, R., Simmons, A. B., Peterson, R., McKelvey, J., Forde, S., & Gallini, S. (2004). Beyond guns, drugs and gangs. Journal of School Violence, 3 (2–3), 149 – 171. https://doi.org/10.1300/J202v03n02_09</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stratford, B., Cook, E., Hanneke, R., Katz, E., Seok, D., Steed, H., Fulks, E., Lessans A., & Temkin, D. (2020). A scoping review of school-based efforts to support students who have experienced trauma. School Mental Health, 12 (3), 442 – 477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-020-09368-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A. W., & Horner, R. H. (2005). School-wide evaluation tool version 2.1. Education and Community Supports. University of Oregon. https://<ulink href="http://www.pbis.org/resource/school-wide-evaluation-tool-set">www.pbis.org/resource/school-wide-evaluation-tool-set</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tong, T., Smith, S. L., Fienberg, M., & Kho, A. (2023). Charter schools: An alternative option in American schooling. Encyclopedia, 3 (1), 362 – 370. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia3010022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C. ... Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169 (7), 467 – 473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tuttle, C. C., Gleason, P., Knetchel, V., Nichols-Barrer, I., Booker, K., Chojnacki, G., Coen, T., & Goble, L. (2015). Understanding the effect of KIPP as it scales: Volume I, impacts on achievement and other outcomes. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560080.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vagi, K. J., Stevens, M. R., Simon, T. R., Basile, K. C., Carter, S. P., & Carter, S. L. (2018). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) characteristics associated with violence and safety in middle schools. The Journal of School Health, 88 (4), 296 – 305. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12609</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> VandeVeer, E. L. (2020). Parents pushing back against school push out (Publication No. 28256746) [ Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Boston ]. University of Massachusetts.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vergari, S. (2007). The politics of charter schools. Educational Policy, 21 (1), 15 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904806296508</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 161 (1), 78 – 88. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.161.1.78</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walls, J., Ryu, J., Fairchild, L., & Johnson, J. (2021). Contexts of belonging: toward a multilevel understanding of caring and engagement in schools. Educational Policy, 35 (5), 748 – 780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904819843590</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, K., Kemp, J., & Burr, R. (2022). Crime, violence, discipline, and safety in U.S. public schools in 2019-20. Findings from the school survey on crime and safety (NCES 2022-029). National Center for Education Statistics. <ulink href="http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2022029">http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2022029</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (2), 315 – 352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., & Farrell, C. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school performance in perspective. Harvard Education Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolf, P., Gutmann, B., Puma, M., Kisida, B., Rizzo, L., & Eissa, N. (2009). Evaluation of the DC opportunity scholarship program: Impacts after three years (NCEE 2009-4050). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504783.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xiang, Y., & Tarasawa, B. (2015). Propensity score stratification using multilevel models to examine Charter school achievement effects. Journal of School Choice, 9 (2), 179 – 196. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2015.1028862</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, Y. (2023, December 19). Where are Charter schools located? National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. https://data.publiccharters.org/digest/charter-school-data-digest/where-are-charter-schools-located/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xu, Y., & White, J. (2022, December 6). How are Charter schools financed?. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. https://data.publiccharters.org/digest/charter-school-data-digest/how-are-charter-schools-financed/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmer, R., & Buddin, R. (2007). Getting inside the black box: Examining how the operation of charter schools affects performance. Peabody Journal of Education, 82 (2–3), 231 – 273. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560701312954</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Nicholas L. Scheel; Justin P. Allen; Rachel J. O'Neill and Shane R. Jimerson</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib126" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib118" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib128" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib124" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib125" firstref="ref142"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref143"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl99" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl100" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl101" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref159"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl102" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl103" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref165"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl104" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref167"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl105" bibid="bib116" firstref="ref170"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl106" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl107" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref173"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl108" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref174"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1489491
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Scoping Review of School Safety in Charter School Settings: Advancing Science, Practice, and Policy in Charter School Safety
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nicholas+L%2E+Scheel%22">Nicholas L. Scheel</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9474-1365">0000-0002-9474-1365</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Justin+P%2E+Allen%22">Justin P. Allen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0172-5970">0000-0003-0172-5970</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rachel+J%2E+O'Neill%22">Rachel J. O'Neill</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8589-4677">0000-0002-8589-4677</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Shane+R%2E+Jimerson%22">Shane R. Jimerson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2685-7486">0000-0003-2685-7486</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+School+Choice%22"><i>Journal of School Choice</i></searchLink>. 2025 19(3):439-470.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 32
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Safety%22">School Safety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Charter+Schools%22">Charter Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prevention%22">Prevention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes%22">Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Incidence%22">Incidence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Needs%22">Research Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Choice%22">School Choice</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Violence%22">Violence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rural+Urban+Differences%22">Rural Urban Differences</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15582159.2024.2437822
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1558-2159<br />1558-2167
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Families often cite safety as a primary reason for choosing charter schools, yet policymakers rarely evaluate charter schools on safety-related measures. This scoping review examines 25 years of empirical literature on school safety in charter schools. Using PRISMA-ScR guidelines and the PICOS framework, 44 studies employing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods were analyzed. Findings identified three key themes: (a) perceptions of safety, (b) prevention practices, and (c) safety incident frequency. Gaps in the literature remain, particularly in qualitative research, rural settings, educator perspectives, and safety assessment measures. Recommendations for future research to address these gaps are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1489491
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1489491
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15582159.2024.2437822
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 32
        StartPage: 439
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: School Safety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Charter Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Prevention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Incidence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Choice
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Violence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary Secondary Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rural Urban Differences
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Scoping Review of School Safety in Charter School Settings: Advancing Science, Practice, and Policy in Charter School Safety
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nicholas L. Scheel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Justin P. Allen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rachel J. O'Neill
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Shane R. Jimerson
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1558-2159
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1558-2167
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of School Choice
              Type: main
ResultId 1