.jpg)
For school superintendents, securing school safety funding is only one part of the challenge. Deciding where to invest those resources can be equally consequential.
Should a district prioritize physical security improvements, mental health services, emergency communication, or additional personnel? How can leaders determine which investments address their most pressing needs? And how should they evaluate funding opportunities that come with specific requirements?
These questions are especially relevant in Michigan, where school districts must navigate state funding programs while balancing local priorities.
In Episode 12 of The Safety Signal, CENTEGIX CMO Robb Monkman discusses these decisions with two Michigan education leaders: Ben Kirby, Superintendent of Forest Hills Public Schools, and Nick Russo, Superintendent of Rochester Community Schools. Both describe the importance of evaluating district needs, involving stakeholders, and understanding the implications of accepting state funding.
Their experiences illustrate a central principle: school districts should prioritize safety funding based on documented needs, existing capabilities, stakeholder input, and the investments most likely to strengthen prevention, preparedness, and emergency response.
A comprehensive school safety plan provides the foundation for those decisions, helping leaders connect financial resources with operational priorities.
What Should Districts Evaluate Before Allocating School Safety Funding?
When Russo arrived at Rochester Community Schools, he began strengthening the district's safety leadership structure. One of his early priorities was establishing dedicated responsibility for safety and security within district administration.
The district then conducted a needs assessment that included reviewing facilities and gathering employee feedback. Russo describes evaluating different investments, including physical security measures such as protective glass and bollards.
But the assessment also identified an important operational question: Could employees reliably communicate when someone needed immediate help?
Rochester already had secure vestibules and established building-entry procedures. The district needed to determine which additional capabilities would most meaningfully strengthen its existing safety measures.
Russo's recommendation to other superintendents begins with the same principle: "I would first say a needs assessment." He also stressed the importance of involving employees in the process: "Get a team of people together. We want some input because we don't want it top down."
That approach aligns with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's K–12 School Security Guide, which encourages schools to evaluate vulnerabilities and select security measures based on their specific circumstances. The SchoolSafety.gov Safety Readiness Tool also provides resources for assessing school safety practices and identifying opportunities for improvement.
A district's needs assessment should consider several interconnected areas:
- Existing physical security and building infrastructure
- Emergency communication and notification capabilities
- Staff and student mental health needs
- Access to trained response personnel
- Emergency preparedness procedures and training
- Technology integration and maintenance requirements
- Staff, student, and community perspectives
The goal is to determine which gaps are most consequential before selecting products or committing funding. For districts facing aging school infrastructure, that assessment may reveal additional technology dependencies or installation requirements that affect the school safety budget.
How Can Districts Balance Mental Health and Physical Safety Investments?
At Forest Hills Public Schools, Kirby faced the challenge of balancing multiple safety priorities. During the podcast conversation, he describes weighing investments in mental health strategies against emergency response capabilities. Both were important to the district's broader approach to safety.
Kirby also emphasizes that school safety includes more than physical protection. It involves the emotional and psychological well-being of students and staff, preparation for emergencies, and the ability to respond when incidents occur.
That perspective reflects the broader approach to student well-being promoted by the U.S. Department of Education's National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Whole School, Whole Community, Whole Child framework similarly recognizes the interconnected roles of health, safety, supportive environments, and education.
For district leaders, the challenge is determining how different investments contribute to a coordinated strategy. Mental health services may help address student needs and support prevention. Physical security improvements can strengthen building protection, while emergency response technology can help employees request assistance and coordinate action when incidents occur.
These capabilities address different needs and should not automatically be treated as interchangeable. The experiences of both superintendents demonstrate why a school safety budget should reflect the district's actual conditions rather than a standardized purchasing checklist.
What Should Michigan Districts Know About Section 31aa School Safety Funding?
Michigan's Section 31aa funding program supports school safety and student mental health initiatives. For fiscal year 2027, the Michigan Department of Education identifies separate funding opportunities under Section 31aa(2) for mental health and Section 31aa(3) for school safety.
According to the Michigan Department of Education's FY2027 Section 31aa FAQ, districts must follow the applicable program requirements when planning how to use awarded funds. The department's grants information page lists application periods for the 2026–27 school safety and mental health opportunities.
The state also provides school health and safety funding resources, including guidance on allowable uses and application procedures.
For school leaders, several considerations are particularly important.
Funding eligibility and allowable expenditures: Districts should verify that proposed purchases or services qualify under the applicable funding category.
Application requirements: Administrators should understand what documentation, planning, and approvals are necessary.
Conditions attached to funding: District leadership and school boards should review any legal or operational obligations associated with accepting funds.
Long-term sustainability: Leaders should determine how recurring costs will be supported after the initial allocation is spent.
These considerations were central to Kirby's discussion of Michigan funding. He explained that district leaders must be able to evaluate both sides of a funding decision: why accepting the money may benefit the district and why the associated conditions might raise concerns.
"You have to be able to answer both questions. Why would you take the money and why would you not take the money?" Kirby explained.
He also emphasized the school board's responsibility in making those decisions. For superintendents, the appropriate role is to provide informed recommendations and clearly explain the available options.
Because funding rules can change between fiscal years, districts should rely on current Michigan Department of Education guidance and applicable legislation rather than previous-year assumptions.
How Can School Leaders Determine Which Safety Solutions Deliver the Greatest Value?
The value of a school safety investment depends on more than its purchase price. Districts should consider how a proposed solution addresses their identified needs, whether employees can use it effectively, and what additional resources implementation will require.
At Rochester, Russo explains that the district considered different physical security improvements before identifying emergency response technology as an important next step. One concern was the limitations of relying on walkie-talkies to communicate sensitive incidents. Another was the need for a system that employees could access without relying on personal phones.
Rochester's mix of suburban and rural facilities also made communication reliability an important consideration.
At Forest Hills, Kirby identified similar challenges. Not every employee had immediate access to a phone or radio, and the district wanted a way for all staff members to request assistance. Those findings shaped how both districts evaluated safety solutions.
The U.S. Department of Education's school emergency preparedness resources emphasize connecting preparedness activities with the specific needs and characteristics of school communities. For technology investments, that means considering the entire emergency response process.
Can an employee initiate an alert immediately? Does the system communicate the incident's location? Are designated responders notified? Does the technology integrate with existing procedures?
These questions help districts evaluate whether a proposed investment can reduce common emergency response delays. They also encourage a broader understanding of school safety technology ROI, including training, adoption, infrastructure, and ongoing operational costs.
A solution that appears affordable initially may require additional spending on installation, network upgrades, maintenance, or employee training. Understanding those potential hidden costs is essential when comparing competing proposals.
Why Should Stakeholder Input Shape School Safety Budget Decisions?
School safety investments affect the people responsible for using the systems every day. That makes employee involvement an important part of the evaluation process.
At Forest Hills, Kirby worked with a safety committee that included representatives from different departments and school levels. The committee reviewed potential solutions, participated in discussions with vendors, and provided feedback.
Kirby also describes how the district benefited from observing a system already operating in another Michigan school district. Forest Hills' safety director visited Rochester, where he could speak with personnel about implementation, operational challenges, and everyday use. That experience helped build confidence in the proposed investment.
After the visit, Kirby recalled his safety director returning with a simple assessment: "This is amazing." Kirby explained why that reaction mattered: "Initiatives are only most valuable when they're coming from within and moving up, not me telling people what to do."
Russo similarly emphasized the importance of firsthand demonstrations. For Rochester, seeing the technology operating in another school environment helped district leaders understand capabilities they might not have identified through written proposals alone.
These experiences suggest that effective evaluation should include multiple perspectives. Safety directors can assess emergency response requirements, IT personnel can evaluate technical dependencies, and school administrators can identify operational challenges. Employees can explain how systems will fit their daily responsibilities.
School boards can then consider the resulting recommendations within the district's financial and governance responsibilities. The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance provides research and evaluation resources that can help education leaders approach decisions using evidence rather than assumptions.
The principle is particularly important when school safety funding is limited: districts need to understand what they are purchasing, why it matters, and how they will determine whether the investment is effective.
What Does a Real-World Emergency Reveal About School Safety Investment?
At Forest Hills, the value of emergency response capabilities became tangible during a medical incident involving a student.
Kirby described how a member of the school's medical emergency response team reached a student experiencing a violent seizure in less than 60 seconds. Additional assistance was coordinated, including involvement from the school resource officer.
The incident demonstrated how employee access to alerting technology and established response procedures could work together during an actual emergency. It also highlights an important distinction in school safety funding decisions.
Schools must prepare for severe threats, but they also encounter medical emergencies, behavioral incidents, and other situations that require immediate assistance.
The CDC's seizure first aid guidance underscores the importance of responding appropriately to seizure emergencies and recognizing when additional medical assistance is necessary. Technology cannot replace trained personnel or clinical judgment. Its role is to help connect the people recognizing an emergency with those prepared to respond.
The Forest Hills example offers a practical way to evaluate safety investments: What specific capabilities will this purchase give employees and responders when an incident occurs? That question helps connect funding decisions to outcomes rather than features alone.
How Can Districts Make School Safety Investments Sustainable?
An effective school safety funding strategy should account for both immediate priorities and long-term operational requirements. District leaders can use the following framework to guide investment decisions.
1. Establish a clear picture of current needs. Review facilities, emergency procedures, employee feedback, and existing safety capabilities.
2. Prioritize the most consequential gaps. Consider which limitations could delay assistance, create confusion, or prevent employees from carrying out emergency procedures.
3. Identify appropriate funding sources. Review state, federal, and local opportunities, including applicable school safety mandates and program restrictions.
4. Evaluate total implementation costs. Include installation, training, maintenance, integrations, and future operating expenses.
5. Involve stakeholders and governing bodies. Ensure staff, safety personnel, administrators, and school board members understand the proposed investment and its purpose.
6. Establish a process for measuring results. Evaluate training participation, system adoption, operational performance, and lessons learned from drills and actual incidents.
This approach also supports the continuous improvement principles in FEMA's National Preparedness framework, which emphasizes building and sustaining the capabilities needed to respond to emergencies.
For districts investing in connected safety technology, the objective should be to support both immediate emergency response and the broader preparedness strategy. The CENTEGIX Safety Platform is designed to support that approach by connecting wearable emergency alerting, precise incident location information, and coordinated response capabilities.
Districts should evaluate those capabilities alongside their existing infrastructure, personnel, and long-term funding responsibilities.
School Safety Funding Should Follow District Needs
The experiences of Ben Kirby and Nick Russo demonstrate that effective school safety funding decisions begin before a district selects a technology provider or submits a grant application. They begin with understanding the school community.
Rochester's needs assessment helped identify gaps in emergency communication. Forest Hills' collaborative evaluation process brought employees and safety leaders into purchasing decisions. Both districts considered how technology could support their existing safety strategies.
Their experiences reinforce an important lesson for school leaders: the most valuable school safety investment is one that addresses a clearly identified need and can be implemented effectively.
As districts evaluate funding opportunities, they should connect every proposed expenditure to a specific safety objective, understand the associated requirements, and determine how success will be measured.
When asked what every school board member should consider before approving a safety purchase, Kirby offered a straightforward question: "How does this help protect our students and staff?"
Hear more from Michigan school leaders: Listen to Episode 12 of The Safety Signal: 60 Seconds That Show Why School Safety Matters to hear Ben Kirby and Nick Russo discuss funding decisions, technology evaluation, employee trust, and emergency response.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Michigan Section 31aa school safety funding?
Michigan Section 31aa provides funding for school safety and student mental health purposes. The applicable allocations, allowable expenditures, application requirements, and conditions depend on the fiscal year and funding subsection. Districts should consult current Michigan Department of Education guidance.
How should districts prioritize school safety funding?
Districts should begin with a needs assessment, identify their most significant safety gaps, evaluate available funding sources, consider stakeholder input, and prioritize investments that address documented operational requirements.
Can school safety funding be used for emergency response technology?
Some school safety funding programs permit eligible emergency response and security technology expenditures. However, eligibility depends on the specific funding program, fiscal year, and applicable rules. Districts should verify proposed purchases before committing funds.
How can schools balance mental health and physical security investments?
School leaders can evaluate mental health services, physical security, and emergency response capabilities as complementary parts of a comprehensive safety strategy. Funding priorities should reflect district needs, program restrictions, and long-term sustainability.
What should school boards consider before approving safety investments?
School boards should review the identified need, proposed solution, funding eligibility, implementation requirements, total cost of ownership, potential obligations, stakeholder input, and methods for evaluating effectiveness.