Tag: SRO

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.