Expert Perspective: Julie Fisher, Education Funding Advisor
As every school and district leader in the U.S. knows, school funding dollars are finite. When funding becomes available, leaders must strategically distribute resources to support many competing needs. A strong school safety plan is a core consideration in that process, as feeling safe is essential to students’ ability to learn and staff members’ ability to support students.
State mandates, federal funding programs, district priorities, and community expectations all influence school safety spending. Funding sources vary across states and regions, and each district develops its own approach to determining how school safety investments are made. By understanding a few key points, schools and districts can more confidently navigate how to fund effective school safety solutions.
School Safety Funding Varies Across States and Districts
Nearly 43% of public education funding stems from local taxes. As a result, funding can vary widely among school districts based on local income levels. School districts with high-value property are often able to fund their schools above the state minimum level, whereas districts with lower property values cannot. Because of this funding disparity, the percentage of a district’s budget spent on school safety also varies widely.
According to recent research on school funding:
- The five highest-funded states spend over $5,000 per pupil more than the national average ($16,645).
- The five lowest-funded states spent over $4,000 per pupil less than the national average.
- Education spending has not kept pace with economic growth, making it more difficult for schools to pay for staff, services, and infrastructure.
In addition, some states earmark specific grant funds for school safety plans. State laws may mandate school security and infrastructure upgrades, school resource officers, or increased mental health services, for example. Other states allow districts to decide how much of their budgets to allocate to school safety.
School Safety Spending: What is a Typical Range?
Research shows that many districts spend 1-3% of their operating budgets on school safety. In larger urban districts with more security personnel and technology, school safety spending can be closer to 5% of a district’s budget. Many small and rural districts spend less on school safety planning and rely on state or federal funding for major safety initiatives.
Various factors may impact a district’s safety spending:
- Local context. Districts in high-risk areas or where safety incidents have recently occurred may increase budget allocations for school safety planning and infrastructure.
- Funding availability. Federal programs, including ESSER, COPS grants, or STOP School Violence, can temporarily boost a district’s safety spending.
- How a state or district defines “safety”. For some, the scope of safety spending extends to security hardware and personnel. Others may fund mental health services, counseling, and prevention programs.
Definitions of Safety Vary
The specific measures that qualify for school safety spending vary across districts, states, and regions. In some areas, spending has focused on supporting security infrastructure and technology, commonly referred to as “hardening” measures.
Most hardening measures involve controlling access to school buildings or using communication systems and technology. In some schools, safety efforts may include using metal detectors or banning backpacks. More common measures include:
- Controlling access to school buildings during school hours
- Requiring visitors to check in and wear badges
- Using security cameras to monitor the school
Other districts appropriate their spending with a focus on creating and supporting safe learning environments. This holistic approach to school safety plans advocates for districts to do the following:
- Address mental health stigmas
- Train teachers and support staff
- Support specific student populations
- Create a school safety plan
- Build a sense of community
- Celebrate student achievements
Districts that take a “safe learning environments” approach may invest in additional staffing, mental health curricula, social and emotional learning efforts, and other preventive measures to make schools safer.
Districts should design school safety plans that incorporate both hardening measures and efforts to create safe learning environments. To develop a culture of safety, a district must seek to provide both physical and emotional security for staff and students.
School Safety Guidance
School safety experts recommend approaching safety as a critical aspect of capital planning. School safety plans—and the investments required to implement them—should be front and center during the budgeting process.
The Partner Alliance for Safer Schools (PASS) brings together expertise from the education, public safety, and industry communities. The organization provides school administrators, school boards, and public safety and security professionals with the information, tools, and insight needed to implement a tiered approach to securing and enhancing school environments. PASS bases recommendations on schools’ individual needs and nationwide best practices, and focuses on helping schools make the most effective use of available resources. PASS develops and updates guidelines that address the following:
- Specific actions that can effectively raise the baseline of security
- Vetted security practices specific to K-12 environments
- Objective, reliable information on available safety and security technology
- Assessment of current security measures against nationwide best practices
- Multiple options for addressing security needs identified, based on available resources
- How to distinguish needed and practical solutions from sales pitches for unnecessary products
PASS Guidelines suggest a framework that districts can use to identify the most critical
needs and cost-effective school safety solutions. This information informs and improves districts’ safety budget formulas and strengthens grant applications. In addition, PASS recommends that districts adopt safety policies and practices on a tiered system. The school safety team identifies safety investments that will mitigate identified risks and places them on a continuum for purchase as funds become available.
The National Council on School Facilities advocates for support mechanisms and processes that equitably deliver safe, healthy, and educationally appropriate public school facilities that are sustainable and fiscally sound. The Council provides planning and budgeting tools and guidance for school leaders. This includes information on prioritizing and including safety investments in district budgets.
The US Department of Education does not prescribe a budget percentage for school safety spending. It recommends that districts seek to create “safe and supportive schools, in which schools direct resources toward students’ health and well-being as well as school safety, security, and emergency management and preparedness.”
Every District Must Determine Its Funding Formula
There is no nationally recognized spending “formula” that dictates a budget percentage for safety spending. Districts spend their safety dollars very differently, depending on factors that are specific to their region, enrollment, and culture. The school safety line item will look different in every district budget.
When making budgeting decisions, districts should view their peer districts as benchmarks and clarify the types of expenditures under consideration, including people, contracts, technology, and capital outlays. Here are some recent snapshots of school safety spending across the US:
New York City Public Schools
School safety spending is tallied across the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) and the New York City Police Department School Safety Division. Advocacy budget analysts estimate this spending at $431 million. In the 2024 fiscal year, the NYCDOE’s total expenditures were approximately $37.4 billion. Approximately 1.1-1.2% of the operating budget was spent on school safety measures (excluding safety-related capital projects).
Fairfax County Public Schools
Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) in Virginia is a suburban district with a central safety office. In fiscal year 2025, FCPS budgeted $8.2 million to the non-school-based Office of the Chief Safety & Security Officer. With a $3.7 billion School Operating Fund, FCPS budgeted approximately 0.2% for this safety investment. School-based security staff and other costs are budgeted under different categories, so safety spending is distributed systemwide.
Los Angeles Unified School District
The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) runs its own Los Angeles School Police Department (LASPD). This structure provides a valuable model for districts wishing to create a separate safety and security organization. Public financial documents provide the total district budget (approximately $18.4 billion) but do not clearly identify a budgeted amount for LAPSD operating costs. Other safety spending, including school climate programs and capital security upgrades, is separate from this spending, meaning total school safety spending is higher than LAPSD costs.
What Does This Mean for Setting a Spending Target?
Safety spending appears in different line items and categories across districts. For example, districts that include sworn police, dispatch, security guards, and contracted security inside the operating budget often spend approximately 0.5% to 1.5% of their operating budget on safety. Districts that rely on city-funded school resource officers (SROs) or categorize safety spending in their capital or facilities line items will show a smaller percentage of safety spending, even if the actual safety investment is greater.
The scope of safety investments a district seeks to make will also affect spending. Districts should carefully consider the costs associated with different aspects of school safety planning. These might include:
- Staffing: police, SROs, and security staff
- Technology: cameras, radios, and visitor management software
- Training
- Threat assessment
- Social-emotional learning, mental health, and restorative programs
- Safe Passage or similar programs
Funding sources significantly affect how much districts have available to spend on safety. Often, spending capacity varies greatly depending on whether funds are provided by the district, local or municipal governments, or by grants. In addition, a project’s time horizon affects spending, and spreading it across multiple years can ease this burden.
Practical Advice For Determining Safety Spending
When drawing up a district’s safety spending formula, school leaders should begin with a bottom-up build of what the district needs to meet its security model. This number should be cross-checked against a top-down benchmark of approximately 0.5% to 1.5% of the operating budget (for large, urban districts that directly fund safety in their operating budgets). Compare these numbers with those of peer institutions with similar safety models. Place “hardening” measures, including cameras, access controls, radios, and hardened entryways, into a three- to five-year plan; this will prevent your safety spending percentage from varying widely from year to year. This process will empower district leaders to present a precise safety spending figure that aligns with their district’s values and priorities.
CENTEGIX Safety Platform® is a comprehensive school safety solution that fosters a culture of safety and reduces emergency response times by eliminating delays, confusion, coverage gaps, and blind spots. To learn about how CENTEGIX® provides cost-effective school safety solutions to help you implement your school safety plan and create safe, supportive schools, schedule a demo today.
