Facilitating access to criminal justice research, data, and information
Greetings everyone,
For November at criminaljusticeaccess.com, be sure to check out Research Briefs and explore an improved understanding of jurors’ assessment of eyewitness testimony, learn about profiling efforts to distinguish between single victim and serial rapists, understand how marijuana using mental health professionals relate risk to their marijuana using clients, and consider crime incident risk factors that support the use of tactical officers as opposed to their reported over-use.
Evaluating Witness Testimony: Juror Knowledge, False Memory, and the Utility of Evidence-Based Directions
Helm, The International Journal if Evidence & Proof, 2021
Helm states that there is a general assumption that jurors are capable of accurately assessing the truthfulness of witnesses, including the accuracy of their recollections of the incident in question, based on their own experiences with memory recall. However, research in law and the cognitive sciences suggest that they do in fact have difficulty assessing the validity of other individuals’ memories. Jurors understand that factors like fearful and stressful emotions and intoxication, and observation circumstances such as distance from an event or lighting, will affect the recording of a memory. However they are less knowledgeable about the factors that affect memory recall, such as suggestion, after the memory is encoded, which can alter the recall of specifics or generate inaccurate or nonexistent events. This is problematic as false or misleading eyewitness testimony has been identified as a leading cause of wrongful convictions. Distinguishing between true and false memories can be challenging and jurors likely have a poor understanding of the cues that suggest a memory could be false. Juries are provided little guidance in identifying false memories and make mistakes based on intuitive concepts of memories rather than established cognitive science. Helm suggests how legal procedure can facilitate the presentation of information in this way, specifically in cases involving potential false memory.
False memories can be generated in a few ways. For example, source misattribution can occur when people are incapable of distinguishing between two or more sources of their memories. The image that people generate in their minds when thinking about an occurrence can be confused and misattributed to something that happened in reality. False memories can also be generated spontaneously when people recall the gist of something occurring. This familiarity with a person or event but not a specific, verbatim, precise recollection can result in a false memory For example, recalling a general description of an offender may produce a familiarity but is lacking in enough precise details that would determine the suspect is not a true match for the offender, which results in misidentification of a suspect. Helm also notes that “spontaneous false memory can also arise as a result of what is known as change blindness where a witness does not notice that a perpetrator and a bystander are actually different people. These errors can lead to an occurrence known as unconscious transference, or the familiar bystander effect. This effect refers to a memory error whereby a witness identifies a familiar, but innocent person, as an offender. For example, research has shown a tendency to misidentify an innocent bystander to a crime as an offender or to identify a familiar person from an entirely different context as an offender”.
While research has demonstrated how false memories can occur and is well accepted and understood in legal contexts, lay persons’ viewpoints on the generation of false memories diverge from the experts and as well are over confidant in the accuracy of memories. Helm states this lack of understanding must be accounted for and corrected by legal procedure. Direction can be provided to jurors, warning them of a need for caution before convicting a defendant in reliance on the correctness of the identification, debunk relevant memory “myths” (such as the belief that a confident witness is always reliable), list potential influential encoding factors, or explain relevant discrepancies in witness statements. It is also possible to call expert witnesses to explain memory pitfalls to jurors and judges.
Helm states that “in order to be effective, directions relating to witness memory must both appropriately alter juror knowledge relating to witness memory, and facilitate the application of that knowledge in a case context.” However in referencing the Turnbull directions in use in England and Wales, they may do neither and are essentially ineffective. As in the U.S., judges are not memory experts and the application of juror direction is dependent on the discretion of judges and that many cases are moved through the system based solely on eyewitness information. However, even if accurate information regarding memory is presented to jurors there may be a problem in the delivery of this information through a relatively superficial judicial direction following the presentation of the evidence. With jurors having their own “common sense” intuitions of about memory that needs to be dispelled, the relevant research and information about memory must be related with enough detail and background to be persuasive enough to update jurors beliefs. To influence jurors a more central direct approach may not be influential enough to change jurors’ minds. For example simply giving direction to the jurors that a confidant witness may not be accurate will be unlikely to change a juror’s mind as it lacks the meaningful information for the jurors to evaluate and substantiate the claim.
A different approach to jurors may be necessary as research indicates the leading model of jury decision making, the Story Model, indicates juries make decision by a narrative “story” organization on trial information. Evidence is incorporated into a narrative that explains what happened and verdicts are reached by matching the best fitting narrative to a verdict category. Their mental representations of evidence in story structure indicate that “jurors are more likely to remember evidence that is consistent with the story associated with their verdict, and that jurors are likely to find evidence more important where that evidence has a causal role in the story that is associated with their verdict”. Existing direction on witness testimony based on their recollections is insufficient to establish an understanding with jurors how those concerns may apply or how they fit into their narratives. For example, not being given detailed information, based on research, on the types of situations were witnesses may not be reliable or credible, or how jurors can be helped evaluate whether the “confident witness” is indeed accurate. Also, directions may be too cursory to be effectively incorporated into their narratives. Jurors too often consider the overall gist, or inferred meaning of the evidence, provided rather than verbatim details. It’s thus necessary to make the evidence and directions regarding it more meaningful to jurors, which will facilitate more informed decision making. Overly simplified directions by a judge that “warns the jury that even a witness who is very confident may be incorrect, but without being told why this might be the case, or being given examples of the types of other cases in which memory has been impaired in this way, it is likely to be difficult for jurors to extract meaning from it appropriately”. Lacking this context may result in either jurors being dismissive of all witness evidence, jurors not attributing meaning to the information at all and disregarding it in decision making, or attributing meaning to the information in a biased way-judging the importance of the warning based on their unrelated conceptions of the case-for example if they feel overall that the defendant seems guilty they might conclude that although confident witnesses can be wrong, the confidence in the case at hand does signal accuracy. A third problem exists if the directions are not provided prior to the presentation of evidence as it will be difficult for jurors to incorporate this new information into a narrative that has already been constructed or they will simply alter the understanding of this new information to fit into the already established narrative.
Helm states to be effective juror instruction about the accuracy and validity of witness testimony should follow these guidelines:
Helm’s recent research sought support for these contentions utilizing 411 participants as mock jurors reading case vignettes. Participants were grouped into no instruction, basic instruction, and detailed training instruction groups and were also asked a series of memory questions rating their agreement with statements regarding 1) Eyewitness testimony about an event often reflects not only what they actually saw but also information they obtained later on, 2) Eyewitnesses sometimes identify as a culprit someone they have seen in another situation or context, and 3) An eyewitness’s confidence can be influenced by factors that are unrelated to identification accuracy. Helm’s results provide support for more in-depth training instruction for jurors. Basic instruction did increase consensus with existing scientific research on false memory compared to no instruction to a small degree. However, the training instruction was clearly more effective at increasing the level of juror belief with the scientific consensus. The training group, but not the basic instruction group, also indicated an influence on case outcomes. In vignettes with weak evidence less guilty verdicts were produced, however in strong evidence cases the training direction did not influence the number of guilty verdicts, which Helm states demonstrated that training directions helped jurors effectively identify an enhanced risk of false memory, rather than just introducing a general skepticism of towards any eyewitness testimony.
While the study did have some limitations it did indicate that more specific detailed instruction can assist jurors in making informed decisions and can be utilized with other juror misconceptions such as witnesses that are inconsistent are lying or mistaken (when they could be influenced by trauma), or in using them to dispel rape myths. Helm states more work needs to be done in research with real life juries, which can lead to policy that can be put into actual practice in the courtroom.
Helm, R. K. (2021). Evaluating witness testimony: Juror knowledge, false memory, and the utility of evidence-based directions. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 25(4), 264-285.
Predicting Rapist Type Based on Crime-Scene Violence, Interpersonal Involvement, and Criminal Sophistication in U.S. Stranger Rape Cases
Mellick, Jeglic, Bogaard, International Journal of Police Science & Management, 2021
The authors contend that in stranger rape cases, physical evidence like DNA and fingerprints may be absent or inconclusive and that in these cases, offender profiling, linking crime scene behavior to an offender, may be useful in resolving those cases. Similarities in crime scene behaviors may point to offenders whose past offenses may have exhibited the same behaviors or suggest a certain type of offender has perpetrated the offenses.
While offender profiling may in some ways be lacking scientific rigor, two assumptions underlie profiling: the consistency assumption and the homology assumption. Consistency assumes that the actions of any offender are consistent across offenses, i.e. there will be a repetition of particular aspects of behavior if the same offender engages in the same type of offense again, such as in serial murder or serial rape. Homology assumes a likeness between the character of an offender and the behavior they engage in at a crime scene, so rather than differentiating between offenders by the presence or absence of singular individual behaviors it examines groups of behaviors across groups of offenders. This “accounts for the possibility that a serial offender may not engage in the exact same behavior across a series of crimes, or likewise, that two different offenders may not engage in the same exact behavior but have rather thematically similar behavior”.
Rapists can be classified based on their behavioral themes by analyzing their crime scene behavior. As these offenders interact with other people in a similar way in non-criminal scenarios, they will interact with victims in a similar way during their offenses. This means it’s possible to link a crime and offender based on their behavioral themes. So a serial offender will exhibit similar behavior across similar offenses, and offender distinctiveness, meaning that two offenders will not behave in the exact same way, makes it possible to distinguish between them.
The authors state that previous research has found different themes explain the differences between rapists; themes of hostility, involvement, and control. Hostility entails overtly aggressive interaction, involvement pertains to physical or verbal attempted contact with the victim such as kissing, complimenting, or reassuring the victim, and control utilizes a surprise attack or weapon to control the victim. Other research suggests similar theme methodology, such as hostility, dominance, and compliance gaining. However, the behaviors tied to these themes may be altered or varied in the offense depending on the context of the situation, namely the victims behavior, making analysis of the factors important in understanding offender behavior. Offenders’ level of initiating violence, victim age, and offender mobility are all factors that will affect the characteristics of the behavioral themes, Offenders will also decide how to act based on the effort, rewards, and costs involved in their course of action which contributes to their profile.
The authors state it’s also important to distinguish between single victim rapists and serial rapists but there has been little research examining the differences between the two. However, research has indicated that single victim rapists are usually known to their victims and use a confidant approach compared to the overwhelming characteristics of serial rapists being strangers to their victims and utilizing surprise attacks. Some research in this area indicates more violence and interpersonal contact (such as inducing the victim to participate) with single victim rapists than serial rapists, however serial rapists show more criminal sophistication (in avoidance of detection and apprehension) in comparison. While stranger rape is more difficult for the police to investigate, their crime scene characteristics can be used to profile offenders. The authors contend that while research has examined serial rapes, single victim rapes, and stranger rapes separately, or comparing serial rapists to single victim rapists, no studies have compared single victim rapes and serial rapes in the stranger rapist context. In the authors’ study, they sought to examine these differences in the stranger rape context hypothesizing that single victim rapists would use more violence and interpersonal contact while serial rapists would show a greater criminal sophistication than there single victim counterparts.
Utilizing the case files of 3,168 male sex offenders they composed a sub-sample of stranger rapes involving 244 single victim rapists (SVR) and 141 serial rapists (SER) (37% White, 47% Black, and 14% Latino) whose victims were 84% female. The violence component examined the amount of physical violence and included offender threats and oral, anal, and digital penetration. The criminal sophistication component involved, the use of weapons, drugs and alcohol, isolation of the offense location, bondage or incapacitation of the victim, and grooming or luring the victim. The interpersonal theme examined whether the offender caressed the victim, performed oral sex on them, induced participation, or introduced pornography into the crime.
Significant differences were found in the demographics of SVR and SER with most SVR being single while SER tended to be divorced. Significant racial differences were also found. While SVR were more evenly represented among White (35%), Black (45%) and Latino (18%), the SER sub-sample demonstrated fewer Latinos were represented (8%) and Whites comprised 40% and Blacks 51%.
Significant differences existed in the three crime scene behaviors between SVR and SER. In the violence theme there were no significant differences between most penetration and actual physical violence between the two groups however, SVR were more likely to use threats of violence and digital penetration compared to SER. Significant differences were also found in different areas of criminal sophistication. Compared to SVR, SER were significantly more likely to use a weapon, more likely to use a gun or knife as a weapon, incapacitate/choke their victims, and groom/meet or lure their victims to a location. However SVR were more likely to have used drugs or alcohol during the crime and commit the crime in an unknown or new location, compared to SER. The only significant difference in the interaction theme was that SER were more likely to induce participation from the victims compared to SVR. The significant characteristics, placed in a logistic regression model for prediction of type of rapist was found to explain 35% of the variance in rapist type and overall correctly classified 75.8 percent of the type of rapist cases.
The authors conclude that “these findings could be used to identify potential suspects in stranger rape cases because the crime scene information could help law enforcement determine whether they are looking for individuals who have committed these types of crimes previously and may already be in the system”. They also suggest that “the crime-scene behaviors associated with serial rapists could also be used to identify unknown offenders as possible serial offenders. This includes individuals who may have committed sexual offenses before, but who have never been caught and cases where offenders have just started their rape career. This allows for law enforcement to narrow down their suspect pool and thus assist the investigation”.
While this study is exploratory the findings can guide future research by testing the predictive power in actual crime scenes as well as more closely examine different regions and cultural groups as well as include more crime scene characteristics not examined here such as developmental factors, triggering behaviors before an attack, or the cognitive processes involved in the offender’s planning before an attack.
Mellink, I. S., Jeglic, E. L., & Bogaard, G. (2021). Predicting rapist type based on crime-scene violence, interpersonal involvement, and criminal sophistication in US stranger rape cases. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 14613557211036564.
Cannabis Use Among Mental Health Professionals: A Qualitative Study of Cannabis-Related Risk Perceptions
Ghelani, Journal of Drug Issues, 2021
The author recognizes that there are potential risks and harms in marijuana use. Research indicates the potential for issues of dependence, cognitive deficits, anxiety, and the risks of driving while intoxicated. These risks may be poorly understood or not attributed to marijuana use if users assume that marijuana is considered to be harmless, specifically considering the current legal status of marijuana in Canada.. The author explores whether mental health professionals who were themselves marijuana users, were cognizant of the risks that do exist in treating individuals who were also marijuana users.
The small qualitative Canadian study consisted of seven professionals (three social workers, two psychotherapists, a nurse, and a nurse practitioner) whose clients worked with marijuana users and explored the extent that study participants were aware of and addressed marijuana use risk with their clients and in their own use.
Overall, all the participants recognized the psychosocial risks involved in marijuana use by their clients and in some cases, when relevant, in their own use. Anxiety, panic, and avoidance behavior was the most prevalent risks mentioned by the participants, especially amongst young and/or inexperienced users, though two participants noted they do experience some anxiety in social situations. Most of the participants noted that marijuana use could also negatively affect interpersonal relationships through anxiety caused by peer pressure or a fear of separation from their peers who used. Some participants noted the effects on clients stemming from tension in parental or spousal relationships from non-users, as well as the social stigma that results when their clients are viewed as “criminal”, a “stoner”, or ” lazy” because of their marijuana use. The participants were also very well aware of the dangers of driving while intoxicated on marijuana and related how chronic use may also affect employment if their clients’ jobs require the operation of a vehicle.
Beyond social issues, the participants also discussed the cognitive and neurological impairments and risks their clients might face or experience. Five of the participants discussed how marijuana use could lead to psychosis and exacerbate symptoms of schizophrenia. The suggestion put forth to their clients was to stop using cannabis because they were experiencing symptoms along the schizophrenic spectrum, with some participants noting that cannabis has the potential to make young people more vulnerable to psychosis or for long term users to be more resistant to anti-psychotic medications. Most of participants discussed how cognitive functioning could be impaired, especially in the brains of adolescents and young adults, cautioning against their use of marijuana. Some participants discussed the possibility of decreased motivation and reduced day to day function with some clients as well as how it may affect memory, attention, and concentration. Two participants themselves noted that it decreases their concentration and smoking too much “allows their mind to wander”. Most of the participants noted that these issues can affect education and employment function and cautioned their clients from using before or during work, or when starting a new position, as memory issues, motivation, and interaction with others can be negatively affected.
Four of the participants noted the potential for cannabis use to lead to a chronic habit or dependence. Unhealthy use patterns like “wake and bake” (starting the morning by getting high) may signal dependence. Two of the participants expressed some concerns about developing a psychological dependence themselves, such as habitual use in a situation where they felt like they should have refrained, or in using to calm themselves or help cope with stressful situations rather than utilizing other methods.
The authors discuss how the framework of rational choice can be utilized to examine these results. While the participants and their clients are aware of the risks or negative outcomes that can be associated with marijuana use, in the cost benefit analysis the benefits such as relaxation, mood enhancement, relief of anxiety, and pain relief outweigh the potential costs for both study participants and their clients as well. Indeed, few of the participants noted any negative outcomes from their use but they all held a comprehensive understanding of the potential risks. Interestingly, while there is some evidence of small physiological risk from marijuana use, only one of the participants mentioned the potential pulmonary or cardiovascular effects. However this may stem from a greater focus from the participants on the psychosocial aspects of use as it relates to their employment field. The study does provide evidence that legalization, acceptance, and use does not preclude mental health professions from recognizing the potential risks involved with marijuana use nor does it inhibit them from sharing that information and treating clients who may be struggling with use, abuse or dependence issues.
Ghelani, A. (2021). Cannabis Use Among Mental Health Professionals: A Qualitative Study of Cannabis-Related Risk Perceptions. Journal of Drug Issues, 51(4), 679-689
The Role of Context in Understanding the Use of Tactical Officers: A Brief Research Note
Jenkins, Semple & Bennell, International Journal of Police Science & Management, 2021
The authors note that the use of tactical officers and services are being utilized more frequently in North America and in more incidents than in what is typically recognized as high risk incidents, like hostage taking, such as in proactive policing and warrant service. Some observers are concerned that these activities are disproportionally focused on minority communities. While the authors do give consideration to the view that the use of tactical police officers and services may not be called for in all instances, where they are used the authors contend that view often doesn’t consider the risk factors in those incidents that suggest the appropriateness and utility of those officers and services. They state that analyses of tactical operations use too often focuses on the type of call rather than the risk factors that may be present in the calls themselves. What might appear to be a relatively benign domestic disturbance type call may not account for risk factors like the violent or resistive history of the subject, situational factors like intoxication, and the presence of weapons. Feedback from tactical officers indicated these risk factors are typically in play in the calls that they respond to but these risk factors are typically not examined in studies of the use of tactical officers. The authors sought to use their current project to analyze more detailed contextual factors in the use of Canadian tactical officers. Using the same Winnipeg Police service data used in a previous study to suggest an increase in the use of tactical officers, the authors broke out the contextual data from the incidents to analyze the risk assessment for these types of situations. A coding scheme was setup and the four contextual risk factors analyzed were the history of the subject, (for example, their propensity of violence toward the police), the state of the individual, (for example, intoxication), the subject making threats to their own or others safety, and the belief that weapons were present, along with other contextual data contained in incident reports. Call type was also hierarchically coded to indicate the level of risk in the type of call.
Analyzing differences in the number of tactical responses between 2013 and 2016 indicated that a significant increase in deployment (from 474 in 2013 to 2757 in 2016) was more of a result in a change in reporting rather than change in their actual use. Data showed tactical officers responded to 78 different types of calls, though the vast majority (81% ) were reactive as opposed to planned operations. The most common calls tactical officers responded to were active warrant arrests, gun and weapons calls, shots fired, breaking and entering, domestics, alarm calls, suspicious persons, and well-being checks.
In regard to weapons believed to be on the scene, despite the variation in calls, on average, 60% of the calls indicated a weapon was involved, with more weapons present in the 2016 data than in 2013. Of the weapons believed to be present firearms were mostly commonly reported in 2013 (42%) and in 2016 (48%). In the cases where additional information reported, call types that indicated a firearm was likely to be present on the scene, such as gun call, shots, fired, and gunshot wound, made up approximately half the calls where guns were thought to be present. However, of the calls in which a firearm was believed to be present, 59% of those calls were not firearm related. The authors state the findings suggest that simply looking at the call type is not a reliable indicator of the presence of weapons and suggests a variability of situations within call categories. It also appears that weapons are frequently believed to be present on seemingly benign calls like domestic disturbances, traffic incidents, and warrant executions, etc. With the concern over the use of tactical officers responding to “routine” calls the authors sought to determine how frequently firearms were believed to be present at some of these reportedly routine calls. The presence of firearms were believed to be present at 45% of suicidal threat and mental well being checks, as well as half of warrant executions and domestic disturbances, suggesting these are not low risk routine calls but actually pose a significant risk to officers and the public.
The other risk factor with enough additional information to be analyzed was the subjects’ history. Less information on the subject was available on reactive calls that tactical officers responded to (28% of tactical officer calls) versus planned operations (like warrant executions). The most frequently reported history risk factors in incidents were possessing weapons (8%), gang affiliations and previous murder or attempted murder charges (slightly greater than 1% for each). However 6% of calls also entailed the individual making explicit threats toward themselves, the public or the police.
The research indicated that the majority of tactical officer responses were utilized in planned operation like warrant executions which entailed a variety of entry approaches from no-knock (approximately 1/3 of warrant executions), to knock and announce, knock and talk, or surround and call out, as well as being involved in subject takes downs and surveillance. Exploratory analysis between the roles of tactical officers and the belief that weapons were present on the scene, utilizing Chi Square, found a significant relationship. Specifically, knock and talk, and knock and announce, were used significantly more when no weapons were believed to be present compared to situations where firearms were believed to be present, while surround and call out and high risk takedowns were used significantly more when weapons were believed to be present. No knock entries were significantly more frequent when the belief that weapons were not present suggesting other factors, such as the likelihood of destroying evidence, contributed to that entry method, supported by the evidence that controlled drug and substance warrants made up nearly all the no knock warrants.
The authors conclude that a view that tactical officers are misused on routine calls, including warrant executions, and should be scaled back, misjudges the seemingly benign nature of these calls. Rather, the belief that weapons were present at the majority of these calls and that call type was generally not of indicative of the risk posed to the public or officers as the belief in weapons being present at supposedly low risk situations prompted the use of tactical officers. Thus the belief that a tactical response is unwarranted in routine calls may be a misguided view when this additional context is included. The authors did recognize that the limited contextual information in some call data prevents them from making policy recommendations but rather illustrates that contextual data is an important consideration in regard to making tactical police utilization and policy decisions. However this does require policing agencies to collect more detailed contextual information more frequently, in a standardized manner, in order to better assess the use of these officers and the policies recommendation affecting their deployment.
Jenkins, B., Semple, T., Bennell, C., & Huey, L. (2021). The role of context in understanding the use of tactical officers: A brief research note. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 23(4), 385-391.
Here’s what going on this month to start off your new year:
Interviews From the Field-Be sure to check out my interview with Steve Baker, a decorated 28 year veteran patrol officer, where he discusses patrol work, policing, the public, and the challenges facing police officers.
Research Briefs-Going back a few years this month with some articles you may have missed including an examination of legal challenges to fingerprint and DNA evidence, a more accurate way of determining the source of blood stains, discussing the development of a school shooter profile, factors contributing to deaths in law enforcement use of chokeholds, and the use of gaze tracking in officer shooting scenarios suggests a new approach to firearms training.
Original Research-Is there a difference between sociopaths, psychopaths, and people with anti-social personality disorder? How can they be recognized? Find out by checking out this academic examination of the issue in Differentiating and Diagnosing Sociopathy, Psychopathy, and Anti-Social Personality Disorder.
Introduction
When I originally approached this literature review, I had in mind an examination of studies that would empirically demonstrate the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of School Resource Officers (SROs) on some different measures of their duties. However, in examining the literature, there has been limited research into measuring the effectiveness of SROs (Cray and Weiler, 2011) and some lack methodological rigor such as relatively few time series studies (pre and post SRO installation), experiments or quasi-experiments, and designs that didn’t address possible confounding variables that might have influenced perceptions, arrests, or reported incidents (James and McCallion, 2013). The following literature review will cover what some of these studies have found, noting the above caveat, as well as examine the criticism of criminalizing students, and what constitutes a good SRO program.
Early Implementation
School resource officers programs have been in existence since the ‘80’s but following well publicized school shootings, from 1995-2002, there was a greater push to get police officers into schools to not only enhance security by providing a quick response to active shooters but to address other student safety and crime issues as well (Stevenson, 2011). The 1999 Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act encouraged partnerships between schools and the police, encouraged new SRO programs, and providing funding for existing programs (Stevenson, 2011) In the 21st century, SRO funding grants were made available through a number of programs like Cops in Schools, Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities, and the Comprehensive School Safety program under the COPS program (James & McCallion, 2013).
Measuring Effectiveness
Studies looking at the effectiveness of SROs tended to examine two different research fronts. One was perceptual, which utilized surveys of students or school administrators to enquire about feelings of school safety, number of SRO contacts, and feelings about the SROs. The other is more number-data driven, examining juvenile court and schools records pertaining to the number and types of complaints, incidents, or arrests.
Earlier research from the late ‘90’s to early ‘00’s demonstrated support from both administrators and students for SROs, feeling that they made schools safer and reduced violent and criminal incidents (Finn & McDevitt, 2005; Stevenson, 2011). When more current research examines the perceptions of students, large percentages of middle and high school students felt that the SROs treated students fairly and did a good job (Theriot, 2016), enhanced school safety (Finn & McDevitt, 2005; Thomas, et al, 2013; Theriot, 2016) improved their perception of police at school, and had a good relationship with students (Theriot, 2016), as well as generating a positive opinion of the SRO with students (Finn & McDevitt, 2005; Theriot, 2016) . Theriot’s 2016 study also examined school connectedness and found that the greater the number of contacts with SROs produced more positive feelings about SROs, more school connectedness and greater feelings of safety at school. However, students who experienced more types or more intense violence at schools tended to have more negative feelings about SROs (Theriot, 2016) as well as feeling less safe (Theriot & Orme, 2016). Finn and McDevitt (2005) also found that the frequency of interactions with the SRO, having a positive opinion of the SRO, and feeling safe at schools were positively associated with being comfortable reporting a crime to the SRO. However, Theriot and Orme’s 2016 study of middle and high schools students found that while interacting with SROs wasn’t related to feeling safe at school, students with more school connectedness and more positive attitudes about SROs felt safer.
The research that explored the perceptions of administrators found some similar support for SROs (Finn and McDevitt, 2005, Thomas et al, 2013), feeling that utilizing a full-time SRO was effective in increasing school safety (Anderson, 2011; Gauthier, 2015) as well as combatting the threat of a school shooting (Gauthier, 2015). They were also viewed as building good relations with teachers and staff (Anderson, 2011). School administrators perceived that when SROs demonstrated procedural fairness with students, they are viewed as more legitimate authority figures and are more effective at improving school safety (Wolfe, et al, 2017)
Other research also focused on records data that compared the numbers of arrests and incidents pre and post SRO, and the number of different offenses SROs responded to. These studies would hypothesize that SROs might either increase the number of arrests as student disciplinary problems are criminalized (or alternatively, that an SRO is handling criminal issues that had previously gone unaddressed) or that arrests and incidents would decrease from a deterrence effect. Incidents that are focused on in the studies typically were associated with drugs, violence, weapons, and disorderly conduct and the results are mixed.
Theriot (2009), found that schools with SROs had a higher arrest rate than schools without an SRO but once accounting for economic disadvantage, there were no differences in the total arrests or arrests for disorderly conduct, assault, weapons, or drug and alcohol possession, nor did they find any bias against low income students as arrests declined as poverty increased in SRO schools. Anderson’s 2018 study discovered that providing matching funds to increase policing, and their training in schools, was not associated with a decrease in reporting school infractions. Noting that school violence was significantly higher in schools with a greater frequency of bullying, racial tensions, student disrespect, and gang crimes. Jennings et al (2011) conducted a study on the presence of SRO and serious violent crime incidents and found that the presence of an SRO was significantly related to a school having a high incidence of crime but was also significantly associated with lower incidence of serious violent crime. Na and Gottfredson (2013) found that as schools utilized more SROs, arrests for weapons and drug increased as well as reporting a higher percentage of non-serious violent crime to law enforcement and Devlin, D. N., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2018), in a longitudinal study, found that a police presence in schools led to an increase in reporting and recording crime. Stevenson’s longitudinal study (2011) found that having an SRO, two years after implementation, did not decrease the total number of school incidents reported however, following an initial increase in reporting assaults, there was a reduction in assault and weapons reports which the author suggest mays be due to a deterrence effect. Zhang (2019) indicated that while the presence of SROs were associated with increased drug related crime reports, whether in a single year or across multiple years, there was a reduction across years for violent crime and disorder incidents when SROs were present in schools, also suggesting a deterrent effect.
Arrests and Criminalizing Students
One of the major criticisms of SRO programs is that officers and school administrations are criminalizing “normal” student behavior, and (by way of the criminological Labeling Theory) that by utilizing a law enforcement response to criminal and disruptive activity in schools, students are introduced to the criminal justice system. This labels them as criminal, stigmatizes them, and causes them to adapt a delinquent role. This prompts more offending as well as leading to worse educational outcomes when exclusionary discipline like suspensions and expulsions are utilized, which also may adversely affect minority students since their number of arrests tend to be higher (Petteruti, 2011; Lynch et al, 2016; Ryan et al, 2018, Courtney, 2019)).
However, the “School to Prison Pipeline” is a narrative forwarded by some academics and the media that is lacking both theoretically and factually. Labeling theory fell out of fashion in the ‘80’s as research found little support for it in the criminology field. This current revisiting of the theory doesn’t fare much better. Much of what has prompted concerns is the zero tolerance stance taken by many schools regarding drugs and weapons (policies which some researchers contend has led to the mass incarceration of adult minorities) and the primarily anecdotal accounts of officers or schools over-reacting to trivial rule or conduct violations. While some of the anecdotes seem excessive, like gum chewing or hat wearing, the data on arrests and incidents tell a different story, suggesting a lack of evidence supporting the ”school to prison pipeline” narrative.
Na and Gottfredson (2013) found that students at schools with SROs, compared to those without, were not any more likely to face harsh discipline for committing any offense that was reported to the police. Johnson’s review of the literature (2016) found that SROs were just as likely as other officers to refer juvenile for processing in serious felonies but less likely to process them for misdemeanors and status offenses. He states he found “no empirical evidence to suggest widespread actions by SROs in the US criminalize the minor behaviors of students in general, or minority students in particular” and that the general pattern is that SROs make arrests under the same circumstances that would cause a school principal to call the police. Fisher and Hennessy (2016) examined two meta-analysis of SROs and exclusionary discipline and while one analysis found a significant relationship between SROs in high school and exclusionary discipline, the other meta-analysis found no relation between the two. May et al (2018) found that SRO juvenile justice referrals were similar to those made by law enforcement outside of schools for status and serious offenses and SROs were less likely to refer juveniles for minor offense compared to police outside of a school setting. Pigott et al (2018) found “zero evidence” that the presence of SROs increased the likelihood of high school students being official processed through the criminal justice system or removed from school.
Different factors may influence SROs decision to arrest. Hall’s study (2015) found that SROs with 10 or more years of experience believed the juvenile justice system could benefit and deter misbehaving students. She also found that females SROs were more likely than males to arrest to calm a student down while males SROs were more likely than females to arrest for reasons of ensuring a misbehaving student received punishment or to maintain control of the school environment. School administration policies and decisions also play a part.in the reporting, and thus the arrest decision. Brown (2006) examined what offenses school administrators typically reported to the police. While the majority reported illegal drugs and weapon incidents, they typically did not report tobacco and alcohol use, or fighting on school grounds. However, May, et al (2018) concluded that schools, not solely police in schools, make a large contribution to the number of juveniles referred to the justice system for less serious offenses.
SRO Multiple Roles
While much of the focus on SROs is their law enforcement role, SRO programs are designed to utilize SROs in teaching and counseling roles (Theriot & Anfara Jr., 2011; Thomas et al, 2013; Lynch et al, 2016; Rhodes, 2017). SROs are in a prime position to present programming related to school connectedness and school safety, to be key stakeholders in setting school policies, and alleviate fear and mistrust of the police (Theriot and Anfara, Jr., 2011). Finn and McDevitt (2005) in their national assessment of SRO programs found on average the SROs spent 20 hours a week on law enforcement, 10 hours on advising or mentoring, 5 hours on teaching, and 6-7 hours on other activities. In over half the programs, SROs advise school staff, students, or families and about half the programs focused on teaching students about drugs, legal issues, safety education, crime awareness, and conflict resolution. However, they did find that many programs were facing many more school safety problems than they were originally established to address and that many SROs were engaging in activities for which they hadn’t been trained including mentoring and teaching. Lynch et al (2016) found that, according to school administrators, SROs in more disadvantaged schools compared to schools with greater social and educational advantage engaged in more law enforcement duties (security enforcement and patrol, maintaining school discipline, coordinating with the police, identifying problems and seeking solutions) than education duties (train teachers in school safety, and teach, train, and mentor students).
Ivey (2016) in a survey of SROs, their supervisors, and school principals, discovered that while the principals, generally agreeing with SROs and supervisors, felt that SROs’ law-related counseling was effective, the principals disagreed with law enforcement, generally feeling that SROs law-related education efforts were ineffective. However, their association with students is likely a factor in SROs being more effective educators and planners of anti-bullying initiatives than other departmental officers (Kudronowicz, 2016). School administrators also found disagreement with SROs (and school mental health professionals) with administrators giving less effective appraisals of crisis response plans and crisis postvention activities.
The views of SROs are informative in regards to the roles they engage in and their interaction with administrators. Rhodes (2017) found that SROs who work in urban schools and high schools engaged in more law enforcement activities and order maintenance, while SROs who were supportive of community-oriented policing engaged in more service, mentoring, and teaching roles. SROs felt establishing rapport with students was important in receiving information, providing guidance, and gaining cooperation, and that they acted as mentors, parental figures advisors, and informal counselors to students. Some officers focused on helping at-risk students. However, they less frequently advised parents, teachers, and school staff and less commonly worked with teachers on addressing student issues but instead worked more in partnership with administrators. While it was apparent that SROs functioned as educators, only about half taught or regularly presented in classes. When Barnes (2016) interviewed SROs in the model North Carolina SRO program he found that they also spent a lot of time in positive interaction with students, attempting to counter negative impressions about the police, alleviate fear of, and create more regard for, law enforcement. Officers felt that their interactions with students provided for an intelligence source and that they enhanced school security and safety, as well as providing a deterrent. However, they cautioned against the administration misusing them, feeling that it was important that the administration used them properly. SROs related that too often teachers and administrators didn’t understand the SRO role and used them as security guards and go-fers, and over-used them to respond to minor issues like bathroom monitoring and classroom control. SROs were also expected by teachers and administrators to deal with discipline issues despite not being authorized to do so and they felt that teachers had abdicated their disciplinary role. SROs related that using them inappropriately will cause the program to lose focus and not meet program goals..
SRO Program Evaluation and Improvement
Research has also evaluated some of the SRO programs and suggestions exist on how these programs might be strengthened or improved. Counts et al (2018) in their review of state policies and recommendations on SRO programs found no state legally required the use of four recommended practices; required certification, required training, the creation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and evidence of data based decision making regarding the need for and effectiveness of SRO programs.
Crucial to meeting program goals, conducting program evaluations, and fostering good relationships with students, faculty, and parents is the utilization of a Memorandum of Understanding (Cray & Weiler, 2011; Weiler and Cray, 2011, James & McCallion, 2013). These documents, produced through the joint effort of the school or school district and law enforcement, sets out the duties and expectations of the SRO in the school. MOUs address issues like appropriateness and guidelines for student and locker searches, under what circumstances arrests will be made, to what degree SROs will be utilized for minor disruption and disciplinary issues, and the roles and extent of those roles for SROs as educators and counselors (Thomas et al, 2013; Courtney, 2019). Having an MOU in place can help schools avoid the inappropriate or excessive actions by SROs in dealing with student incidents and discipline (Ryan et al, 2018). The MOU should also address the goals of the program which will be dependent upon the desired outcomes of both school administrators and the SROs and could include things like, increasing feelings of safety for students, reducing the number of specific types of offense, increasing the likelihood of students reporting a crime, or improving relationships between the police and youth (Thomas et al, 2013). Proper training is also viewed as essential, in that officers should be familiar with techniques and practices like the proactive SARA model, effective counseling approaches, and trauma informed interviewing, as well as insuring that in-service training is available, funded and utilized (Thomas et al, 2013; Courtney, 2019). Because of the importance and necessity of student contact in the roles SROs engage in, the manner in which SROs are chosen for the program also needs attention to ensure that the officers have the right temperament, and be well versed in communication, social skills, and rapport building. The ability to liaison with school and community stakeholders, and to be actively engaged in policy discussion with school administrators will also be crucial to the acceptance and success of the program in reaching its goals (Thomas et al, 2013; Courtney, 2019). Finally, a system of program evaluation should be utilized to ensure that standards are met, guidelines and policies are adhered to, and that goals of the SRO program are being addressed or reached (Thomas et al, 2013; Courtney, 2019).
Implications
While SRO programs seem to be enjoying strong support from law enforcement, school administrators, and students, there is room for improvement, both in SRO programs and the research analyzing them. .Longitudinal studies will be more informative then cross sectional ones in analyzing the effects of SROs in schools as the outcomes variables can be assessed before and after SRO implementation, however these studies also need to account for variables that may have an effect on perceptions of safety, of the SRO, and any increases or decreases in reporting or arrests, which may include school administrative policies and actions, prior student victimization, school conduct records of arrestees, school safety and crime climate, race of students, students’ acceptance of criminal behavior and misconduct in the schools, and the existence of, and adherence to, an MOU. SRO programs would benefit from a revisiting of their stated goals and purposes, with an eye toward establishing good communication, a best practices approach, and a means of evaluating the program.
The majority of students had positive feelings about SROs in school and this majority of students, their well-being, and their connectedness toward school should be paramount rather than focusing on an imagined school to prison pipeline. Violent, delinquent youth in the schools would likely be engaging in this kind of behavior outside of the school, subjecting them already to law enforcement scrutiny, and with the presence of an SRO, those unwanted illegal and disruptive behaviors might be somewhat curtailed through deterrence, or when they occur, properly addressed in the legal system, just as they would be if they occurred on the streets. We shouldn’t expect that schools provide a sanctuary for illegal, violent, and disruptive behavior, especially when these few students have such a negative effect on the much larger student population.
Removing aggressive students from the school may have benefits. Despite claims there is a school to prison pipeline for those put into the juvenile justice system, research has shown that individuals who exhibit bullying behavior (assaults, threatening behavior, school disruptions) are already more prone to engage in criminogenic behaviors including skipping and missing school, and substance abuse. Bullies cause harm both to their victims and bystanders who witness the events. School connectedness is important for more positive life outcomes, yet victims of bullies, and bystanders who witness bullying events, are also more prone to substance abuse and missing school, negatively affecting their school connectedness and reducing feelings of safety. There is an expectation that when dealing with these problematic students in a serious way, that it will support the tenets of deterrence (which is a desired effect of having an SRO in the school) by ensuring that certainty of repercussion takes place and that it is both done quickly, and with appropriately administered severity. Longitudinal studies suggest deterrence is a factor in reducing violent crime and weapons charges in schools. When students witness these no-nonsense responses to disruptive, aggressive, violent, and illegal behavior, we can expect the majority of students to feel safer and more positive about SROs.
It is when SROs are ineffectively or inappropriately used, typically through mismanagement by the school administration or by ignoring the MOU, that less positive impressions of SROs are generated. As a wider disciplinary net is cast, there is less time available for positive interactions with students and officers have less opportunity to engage in the role of educator and policy and plan developer. This means they may be less able to effectively engage in problem solving to address issues of bullying and violence, which will lead to higher levels of victimization, which in turn decreases positive views of SROs and decreases students’ feelings of safety.
References
Anderson, C. R. (2011). The benefits of a school resource officer program to school districts and law enforcement agencies.
Anderson, K. A. (2018). Policing and Middle School: An Evaluation of a Statewide School Resource Officer Policy. Middle Grades Review, 4(2), n2.
Barnes, L. M. (2016). Keeping the peace and controlling crime: What school resource officers want school personnel to know. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(6), 197-201.
Brown, B. (2006). Understanding and assessing school police officers: A conceptual and methodological comment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(6), 591-604.
Counts, J., Randall, K. N., Ryan, J. B., & Katsiyannis, A. (2018). School Resource Officers in Public Schools: A National Review. Education and Treatment of Children, 41(4), 405-430.
Courtney, M. T. (2019). Improving school resource officer programs to address issues posed by school-to-prison pipeline research.
Cray, M., & Weiler, S. C. (2011). Policy to practice: A look at national and state implementation of school resource officer programs. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(4), 164-170.
Devlin, D. N., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2018). The roles of police officers in schools: Effects on the recording and reporting of crime. Youth violence and juvenile justice, 16(2), 208-223.
Eklund, K., Meyer, L., & Bosworth, K. (2018). Examining the role of school resource officers on school safety and crisis response teams. Journal of school violence, 17(2), 139-151.
Finn, P., & McDevitt, J. (2005). National Assessment of School Resource Officer Programs. Final Project Report. Document Number 209273. US Department of Justice.
Fisher, B. W., & Hennessy, E. A. (2016). School resource officers and exclusionary discipline in US high schools: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Adolescent Research Review, 1(3), 217-233.
Gauthier, D. H. (2015). Perspectives of Law Enforcement and Principals in Effectiveness of School Resource Officers and Armed Staff.
Hall, M. S. (2015). Functionality of school resource officer arrests in schools: Influencing factors and circumstances (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).
Ivey, C. A. S. (2017). School Resource Officer Program Evaluation in the United States. Journal of Law and Criminal Justice, 5(2), 43-56.
James, N., & McCallion, G. (2013). School resource officers: Law enforcement officers in schools. 977-1020.
Jennings, W. G., Khey, D. N., Maskaly, J., & Donner, C. M. (2011). Evaluating the relationship between law enforcement and school security measures and violent crime in schools. Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations, 11(2), 109-124.
Johnson, R. R. (2016). What effects do school resource officers have on schools. Dolan Consulting Group, 1-4.
Kudronowicz, K. (2016). The effectiveness of bullying interventions between school resource officers hired by school districts compared to law enforcement agencies.
Lynch, C. G., Gainey, R. R., & Chappell, A. T. (2016). The effects of social and educational disadvantage on the roles and functions of school resource officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39(3), 521-535.
May, D. C., Barranco, R., Stokes, E., Robertson, A. A., & Haynes, S. H. (2018). Do school resource officers really refer juveniles to the juvenile justice system for less serious offenses?. Criminal justice policy review, 29(1), 89-105.
Na, C., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2013). Police officers in schools: Effects on school crime and the processing of offending behaviors. Justice Quarterly, 30(4), 619-650.
Petteruti, A. (2011). Education under arrest: The case against police in schools (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. Ret. from http://www.justicepolicy.org/research/3177
Pigott, C., Stearns, A. E., & Khey, D. N. (2018). School resource officers and the school to prison pipeline: Discovering trends of expulsions in public schools. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 120-138.
Rhodes, T. (2017). School resource officer perceptions and correlates of work roles. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice.
Ryan, J. B., Katsiyannis, A., Counts, J. M., & Shelnut, J. C. (2018). The growing concerns regarding school resource officers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(3), 188-192.
Stevenson, Q. W. (2011). School resource officers and school incidents: A quantitative study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama Libraries).
Theriot, M. T. (2009). School resource officers and the criminalization of student behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 280-287.
Theriot, M. T. (2016). The impact of school resource officer interaction on students’ feelings about school and school police. Crime & Delinquency, 62(4), 446-469.
Theriot, M. T., & Anfara Jr, V. A. (2011). School resource officers in middle grades school communities. Middle School Journal, 42(4), 56-64.
Theriot, M. T., & Orme, J. G. (2016). School resource officers and students’ feelings of safety at school. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 14(2), 130-146.
Thomas, B., Towvim, L., Rosiak, J., & Anderson, K. (2013). School resource officers: Steps to effective school-based law enforcement. National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention, 7.
Weiler, S. C., & Cray, M. (2011). Police at school: A brief history and current status of school resource officers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(4), 160-163.
Wolfe, S. E., Chrusciel, M. M., Rojek, J., Hansen, J. A., & Kaminski, R. J. (2017). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and school principals’ evaluations of school resource officers: Support, perceived effectiveness, trust, and satisfaction. Criminal justice policy review, 28(2), 107-138.
Zhang, G. (2019). The effects of a school policing program on crime, discipline, and disorder: A quasi-experimental evaluation. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(1), 45-62.