In schools and workplaces, a “propped open door” is rarely an act of malice. More often, it is a moment of convenience that creates a disproportionate risk. A staff member steps out without credentials, a delivery arrives, an overhead door is left open during loading, or a door simply does not latch cleanly due to seasonal expansion and contraction. The intent may be harmless, but the outcome is the same: a controlled entry point becomes an uncontrolled opening.
That gap matters because perimeter security is only as strong as its most convenient workaround. The Partner Alliance for Safer Schools (PASS) specifically calls out that students or staff can “easily open or prop doors from the inside” to let someone enter, bypassing the screening and control typically concentrated at the main entrance. PASSK12
When a secondary door is held open, it can defeat visitor management processes, undermine access control policies, and create blind spots for staff who are doing the right thing at the primary entry.
Door propping is also not only a security issue. Tom and Sam pointed out the operational and safety impacts that facilities teams see every day: heating and cooling loss, pests or animals entering, and avoidable wear on doors and hardware. Those impacts are real costs, but they are also warning signs. If an organization tolerates propped doors for “practical reasons,” it often signals that the facility lacks a fast, non-disruptive way to detect the condition and prompt correction before it becomes normal.
Because door propping is often treated as a behavioral issue, it is under-reported compared to “major incidents.” But several sources still show how frequently “open door” conditions surface when people actually test for them:
Texas intruder detection audits use “an exterior door was propped or unlocked” as a finding condition, and officials cited that in about 95% of audits, intruders were not able to gain access, implying that the remaining cases still represent meaningful, correctable vulnerabilities. KEYE
Reporting on those audits also indicated that 28.4% of audited campuses required corrective actions, reinforcing that access control discipline (including door status) is a persistent operational challenge, not a one-time fix. Dallas News
In the private-sector context, one frequently cited survey of security stakeholders reported 54% had been left at risk by doors “propped open or simply left unlocked.” While survey-based, it aligns with what most integrators and security managers see in the field: open-door conditions are common, and they are often routine rather than exceptional. Dsigo
From a broader school security standpoint, NCES data also shows how widely districts have adopted measures like security cameras, controlled access, and related practices. That trend is important context: if schools are investing in layered security, leaving perimeter doors unmanaged is a classic “last 5%” gap that erodes the value of the other 95%. National Center for Education Statistics
Tom and Sam’s core message is straightforward: you do not have to solve door propping solely with policy reminders and signage. If the door is already monitored (for example, by a standard door contact tied into a Radionix/Bosch intrusion panel), you can often add a simple “door prop” notification using configuration, not new hardware.
That approach matters because it changes the operational dynamic:
Staff are not being asked to be perfect. They are being supported by fast feedback.
Facilities and security teams are not relying on chance observation. They receive a targeted notification with enough context to act.
The organization can distinguish between “door held briefly for use” and “door left open long enough to be a problem,” using a timer threshold that fits the door’s purpose.
PASS guidance also supports this “status awareness” mindset at the perimeter, recommending door status monitoring so staff can know remotely whether an opening is closed and secure. PASSK12
Based on Tom and Sam's discussion, the workflow looks like this:
Use existing monitored points
Most exterior doors already have door contacts tied into the intrusion system. The door prop feature builds on that monitored state rather than requiring special sensors.
Configure a timed “door prop” threshold
In Bosch Remote Programming Software (RPS), Sam described configuring the door prop behavior using a monitor delay on the door’s point profile. The delay can be tuned in seconds or minutes depending on the opening (for example, a shorter threshold for a staff entry door, longer for a roll-up/loading door).
Notify the right people without creating a full alarm event
The configuration they demonstrated sends a text message notification to selected personnel (facilities, admins, security supervisors) in addition to (if desired) sounding a keypad alarm. In other words, it surfaces a door condition that needs correction without turning it into an emergency response.
Operate even when the system is disarmed
One of the most operationally useful points they emphasized is that these notifications occur while the intrusion system is disarmed, which is when door propping happens (busy daytime operations).
Support remote enablement
Sam noted that if the system is already installed and the opening is already monitored, an integrator may be able to implement the changes remotely (depending on the site’s connectivity and programming access), reducing cost and avoiding a truck roll for what is often a quick configuration improvement.
A door prop feature is only as good as how thoughtfully it is deployed. These are the practices that tend to separate “useful signal” from “ignored noise”:
Set door-by-door thresholds based on use case
Staff entries: short thresholds that allow normal passage but flag “held open.”
Receiving/loading/roll-up doors: longer thresholds aligned to delivery procedures.
Student exterior doors (where applicable): thresholds plus administrative follow-up, because repeated events are often behavioral, not technical.
Route notifications to owners, not bystanders
Facilities for hardware issues and door alignment.
Security/admin for repeated policy violations or after-hours conditions.
Tune for seasonal door behavior
Tom and Sam made an important point: many “door prop” events are actually “door didn’t latch.” Those are still valuable alarms, but only if you treat them as maintenance intelligence rather than punishment. A short post-installation review to adjust closers, strikes, and latch alignment prevents chronic false alerts.
Use the alarm history as a management tool
If a specific door generates repeated props, it is telling you something actionable:
The door is inconveniently located relative to operations.
People lack reliable credentials or readers are poorly placed.
The hardware is failing to latch consistently.
Deliveries are not being handled with a controlled process.
The data you collect can justify targeted fixes that are far cheaper than adding “more security” everywhere.
Integrate with layered security where possible
Door prop alerts become even more powerful when paired with:
Video coverage at secondary entrances (for quick verification and coaching)
Access control logs (to identify patterns by time of day)
Clear procedures for deliveries and contractors
PASS explicitly emphasizes that secondary doors can be exploited to bypass main-entrance screening, which is why treating every exterior door as part of the perimeter layer is critical. PASSK12
Door props persist because they solve a short-term convenience problem. The right response is not to assume bad intent; it is to make the “secure” behavior easier and more automatic. Tom and Sam’s example is a strong model: use an existing intrusion system, apply a timed threshold appropriate to the opening, and push a targeted notification to the people who can correct it quickly. Done well, door prop alarms reduce security exposure, cut energy waste, improve maintenance visibility, and strengthen the integrity of every other security layer you have already paid for.