School Resource Officers in Public Schools: A National Review.
AbstractSchool Resource Officers (SROs) have become increasingly commonplace in schools across the nation. The role and purpose of SROs in the educational setting have evolved over time, often without formalized policies or guidelines. Increasingly, SROs have been called upon to deal with school discipline issues, which has inadvertently increased the likelihood of student contact with the juvenile justice system, and promoted the school-to-prison pipeline. This has impacted minorities and students with disabilities, especially those with emotional behavioral disorders, who are disproportionately at risk of exposure to adjudication. The purpose of this review is to examine the availability and nature of current state legislation and Department of Education (DOE) recommendations regarding the use and training of SROs. Additionally, recommendations are provided regarding the use of SROs in public schools to provide administrators with assistance on how to develop safe and effective SRO programs.
Keywords: school resource officers, behavioral disorders, state legislation, review
**********
During the 2015-16 academic year, more than 291,100 students were referred or subjected to school-related arrest, 82,800 of whom were students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2018). These numbers indicate an overrepresentation of students with disabilities being referred to law enforcement and arrested. While students with disabilities represent only 12% of the total population, they account for 28% of all arrests and referrals (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2018). Among adolescents involved with the juvenile justice system, the rate of disabilities is much higher than in the overall population, especially for those identified with mental health disorders or emotional disturbances (Mallet, 2014).
Research has found that youth with learning disabilities and emotional disturbances are at an increased risk of placement in juvenile correctional facilities (Quinn, Rutherford, & Leone, 2001; Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005). Consequently, there is a significant percent (28%) of juvenile delinquents who have disabilities and are in need of special education services (Katsiyannis, Ryan, Zhang, & Spann, 2008; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017). Research shows that almost half (45-48%) of youth with disabilities in correctional facilities qualify for special education under emotional disturbance (ED; Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2017; Quinnn et al., 2001; Quinn et al., 2005). Due to the increased risk of students with ED becoming involved in the juvenile justice system, it is important to understand how the increased presence of School Resource Officers (SROs) in schools has inadvertently resulted in an increase in the school-to-prison pipeline for these students (Ryan, Katsiyannis, Counts, & Shelnut, 2018).
History of School Resource Officers
The use of SROs originated in Flint, Michigan, during the 1950s, as a means of community policing to deal with increased levels of gun violence. Since then, their prevalence and purpose within schools has continued to increase in order to address issues including racial tension, drug use, and school violence such as mass shootings (Ryan et al., 2018). While there are no recent statistics on the number or percentage of schools employing SROs, the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO, n.d.) estimates between 14,000 and 20,000 SROs are assigned to approximately one third of our nation's public schools. The largest increases in SROs has occurred within urban high schools, with enrollments of 1,000 or more students (James & McCallion, 2013). Historically, the broader use of SROs may be traced back to the mid-1990s through legislative initiatives such as the Safe Schools Act of 1994, and a 1998 amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (this legislation encouraged partnerships between schools and law enforcement). This legislation significantly increased the number of SROs in schools by providing funding through the U.S. Department of Justice's "COPS in Schools" grant program (Girouard, 2001).
A recent report from the U.S. Department of Education found that over the past decade there has been a significant increase of security within schools with an increase of SROs from 32 to 42 percent (Musu-Gillette, Zhang, Wang, Zhang, & Oudekerk, 2017). During this timeframe, there has also been a dramatic increase in the number of referrals and arrests to juvenile courts made by schools, which has disproportionately affected minority groups and students with disabilities (Mallett, 2016; United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2017).
Definitions of SROs
Throughout the literature and legislation there are multiple titles and definitions for police officers assigned to schools (e.g., school peace officer), but the most common term, which we will use throughout this paper, is School Resource Officer, or SRO. Girouard (2001) found that the definition of an SRO varied by jurisdiction and that there are no strict standards regarding the police function in schools. Coon and Travis (2012) found that over time, SROs became sworn police officers who were assigned to schools, worked under the school administration, and began to represent a merging of law enforcement with schools. The National Center on Education Statistics defines an SRO as a "career law enforcement officer, with sworn authority, deployed in community-oriented policing, and assigned by the employing police department or agency to work in collaboration with school and community-based organizations." NASRO (2012) defines SROs, also known as "school safety liaisons" or "campus police," as appointed law-enforcement officers selected, trained, and assigned to protect and serve education environments.
SROs are uniformed, armed police officers assigned to work directly in schools. Duties generally involve a combination of: (a) law enforcement, (b) teaching, and (c) mentoring. Law enforcement duties typically include patrolling the school and investigating criminal complaints. Teaching duties include running preventative educational programs such as DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) and GREAT (Gang Resistance Education and Training). SROs also serve as mentors to students and as advisors to the educators and administrators within schools. On average, SROs typically spend approximately 20 hours per week conducting law enforcement activities, 10 hours advising and mentoring, 5 hours on teaching drug and gang prevention classes, and another 6 or 7 hours on other activities such as paperwork, neighborhood meetings, and after school activities (Coon, & Travis, 2012; Finn & McDevitt, 2005).
Purpose and Misuse of SROs in School Settings
NASRO is a non-profit membership organization made up of school-based law enforcement officers, school administrators, and school security officers. NASRO's mission is to provide the highest quality of training to school-based law enforcement officers in order to promote safer schools (Thomas, Towvim, Rosiak, & Anderson, 2013). NASRO advocates for and supports the "triad" concept of school-based policing, which includes three roles as educator, informal counselor, and law enforcement officer (Canady, James, & Nease, 2012). Despite the recommended uses of SROs in school settings, many schools continue to misuse this valuable resource. One study found that the improper use of SROs often resulted from a lack of agreement between police organizations and schools regarding the role and function of police in schools (Finn & McDevitt, 2005). Researchers found SROs were increasingly called upon to handle many disciplinary issues within schools, and that SRO programs were rarely being evaluated. Na and Gottfredson (2011) reported that three-quarters (76%) of principals used SROs for maintaining discipline. This contradicts NASRO's (2015) position statement, which states SROs should be prohibited from becoming involved in formal school discipline situations that fall under the responsibility of school administrators (NASRO, 2015).
Recommended Practices
To help ensure SROs are used effectively in schools, we compiled recommendations for their use from the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Education, and NASRO. Recommendations pertain to (a) program evaluation, (b) establishing a memorandum of understanding (MOU), and (c) a need for specialized training. Each of these recommendations is described and resources for additional information are provided.
Program Evaluation
A U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) publication from the office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) strongly recommends that schools understand their safety needs through targeted data collection, prior to developing SRO programs, as one part of an effective school safety improvement plan (Raymond, 2010). Research shows that many SRO programs are implemented for two reasons, including (1) as a response to incidences of school violence (i.e., fear after a publicized mass shooting event at a school), and (2) because of available grant funding to create such a program (Travis & Coon, 2005). When schools properly assess their safety needs they can determine what responses are appropriate and how to most effectively utilize available funds and resources. Additionally, a needs assessment can serve as a basis to evaluate the effectiveness of safety efforts such as SROs once enacted. Program evaluation is one of several recommendations that the DOJ, in partnership with U.S. Department of Education (DOE), has developed in their Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration Understanding and Respect (SECURe) State and Local Policy Rubric. This rubric was developed to assist states and local governments in the effective incorporation of SROs into school learning environments (see Table 1 for explicit models of program evaluations plans).
Memorandum of Understanding
The first two recommendations of SECURe focus on the development of an MOU, which meets constitutional and statutory civil rights requirements. The MOU clarifies roles and responsibilities between school districts, local law enforcement, and other critical stakeholders. Stakeholders include community leaders, business partners, and wrap-around service providers (e.g., mental health, social services). The establishment of this agreement between schools and law enforcement, which limits police involvement in student discipline, can include provisions for specialized training for SROs. This additional training provision to the MOU has been recommended not only by government research on school safety, (e.g., SECURe policy rubric, President's Task force on 21st Century Policing), but also by organizations that represent community policing organizations (e.g., NASRO, COPS; see Table 1 for explicit models of MOU/MOAs).
Specialized Training
The next two SECURe recommendations focus on the recruitment, hiring, and training of SROs. Recommendations that focus specifically on training include mandating school-specific preparation. This is critical given police academies spend less than 1% of total training hours on juvenile justice issues (Strategies for Youth Survey, 2013). Specialized curriculum for SROs should include juvenile justice code and legal issues, child development, communication techniques, and specialized populations including minorities and students with disabilities. Additionally, it is suggested that a minimum duration of training be specified.
NASRO provides nationally recognized training for SROs which meets many state requirements for approved SRO training certification.
NASRO certification includes 40 hours of training in their basic SRO training course. Topics covered within NASRO training include: (a) foundations of school-based law enforcement, (b) ethics and the SRO, teaching, diversity, (c) understanding students with special needs, (d) social media, (e) school law, (f) informal counseling/mentoring, (g) understanding the teen brain, (h) violence and victimization challenges to development, (i) sex trafficking of youth, (j) effects of youth trends and drugs on the school culture and environment, (k) threat response, (1) preventing violence in school settings, (m) school safety and emergency operations plans, and (n) crime prevention through environmental design (see Table 1 for examples of SRO training programs).
Lack of Legislation and Policy Regarding SROs
Although SROs are one of the fastest growing branches of policing (NASRO, 2012), there are no federal guidelines outlining the procedures for training SROs. Few states provide legislation or legal policy regarding certification/training requirements for these specialized officers (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Stakeholders in education, as well as those in community policing, strongly endorse the formation of recommendations for training as part of best practices to improve effective utilization of SROs (NASRO; President's Task force on 21st Century Policing, 2015; US. Department of Education, 2016). Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to: (a) identify states' existing laws and policies for training SROs, (b) provide recommendations for best practice in use of SROs, and (c) provide administrators with resources where they can find exemplary models of best practice and tools for evaluation of existing SRO programs or crime prevention.
Method
Legislative Search
A search was performed to identify state policies and recommendations concerning the use and training of SROs across all fifty states. First, the United States Department of Education Compendium of School Discipline Laws & Regulations by State (https://safesupportive learning.ed.gov) and JUSTIA law (https://www.justia.com) websites were searched for state law regarding SROs. Individual keywords searched separately and in various combinations included: "school resource officer," "school safety officer," "school peace officer," "school marshal," "training," "requirements," "law," "policy," "guidelines," and "recommendations." In this article, we will refer to law enforcement officers employed in an educational setting as SROs.
DOE/DOI Search
Second, a search for contact personnel at each state DOE/DOI was conducted by reviewing state department of education websites. Next, a key staff member from each state's DOE/DOI was contacted through email to gather further information on department recommendations for SROs. Initial staff members contacted fell under the following categorical headings: "Safe Schools," "Safe & Healthy Schools," "School Safety & Security," "Facilities Safety," "Criminal Justice," "Policy and Governmental Services," or "Policy and Legislative Services." Nearly half (25) of the contacted key DOE/DOI personnel responded to emails providing further documentation of state law, departmental policy, guidelines, and recommendations. They also referred us to additional staff with more expertise in the area of regulation of SROs in schools or stated they were in the process of locating the requested information. Follow-up telephone calls were made to the remaining states that had not provided the requested information. Nine additional states provided information via follow-up phone conversation. After two additional attempts to contact the remaining states, researchers performed a thorough search of each nonresponding state's DOE/DOI website. The following search terms were used in the search of these states' DOE/DOIs: "school resource officer," "school safety officer," "school police officer," "school peace officer," or "school marshal." Through the search of nonresponding state's DOE/DOI websites, seven additional state recommendations were located. Researchers via search procedures were not able to definitively determine if the remaining 14 states have specific SRO recommendations.
Coding Procedures
Four recommended practices for the effective use of SROs derived from leading national government and policing organizations were identified. These recommendations included: (1) required state police certification/training, (2) specialized SRO training within educational environments, (3) MOU between local police/sheriff's department and school board, and (4) data-based decision making, used for evaluation of programs as well as to determine the need for SRO programs (Executive Office of the President, 2016; NASRO, 2015; President's Task force on 21st Century Policing, 2015; SECURe). Information found through both the legislation and DOE/DOI search were then coded within a spreadsheet, by two researchers, on recommendations for effective SRO programs. The policies and recommendations were then coded for the following elements: (a) state police training required, (b) SRO law, (c) truancy law, (d) other, (e) MOU, (f) state policy, and (g) state department of education recommendation. Interrater reliability for coding components of legislative and policy provisions regarding SRO best practices was 90% agreement. Disagreements were discussed until a consensus was reached.
Results
Results are presented first by state legislation, and then by state DOE/DOI. Within each division, results are grouped by coded recommendations (e.g., training, MOU).
State Legislation
Certification and Training. Table 2 provides a summary of the legislative components that are addressed by each state's SRO policy. Results show that a total of 32 states have some legislation related to the topic of SROs. Legislation for states ranges from "recommendation of an MOU/MOA" to specific detail regarding type and length of SRO training, MOU/MOA models, and data driven evaluation processes. The majority of states provide very limited guidance regarding SRO programs. Eighteen states (AK, HI, ID, IA, KS, ME, MA, MT, NE, NM, ND, OH, OK, SD, WA, WV, WI, WY) have no laws on SRO certification, use, or training. Nine states (AL, AZ, GA, MI, MN, MS, NV, OR, VA) only require that SROs be certified law enforcement officers. Two additional states (MN, OH) have current legislation pending.
Less than one-third (30%) of states provide legislation specifying training requirements for SROs to work in schools. While 15 states (AR, CA, CO, CT, IN, KY, LA, MO, NJ, NC, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT) do have legislation requiring specialized training for SROs, only six specify the number of hours of training. Specifically, five states require a minimum of 40 hours of initial SRO training (CA, IN, MO, SC, TN), with Tennessee requiring 40 hours of initial training followed by 16 hours of annual training. Texas requires 16 hours of SRO training. The remaining nine states (AR, CT, CO, KY, LA, NJ, NC, RI, UT) require specialized training, but do not designate a specific number of hours.
Memorandum of understanding/Memorandum of agreement.
Only thirteen states (CT, DE, FL, IN, MD, MO, NH, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT) require either an MOU or MOA between education and law enforcement entities. An MOU/MOA is a document that defines the roles, expectations, and responsibilities of all individuals involved for the purposes of maintaining and increasing safety within schools and communities. Two states (IL, VT) have legislation that "encourages" the development of MOU/MOAs written into the law, but no other training or required legislation is provided.
Data-based assessment. Although identified as best practice by government, educational, and police advocates, no states universally require collection of data to determine the need for or evaluation of SRO programs. Two states (AZ, PA) do, however, have legal requirements, specifically for districts that receive government supported grants that subsidize the SRO position, which require them to report their data evaluations annually. The School Safety Program Guidance Manual developed by the Arizona DOE in 2014 outlines the expectations for participation in Arizona's School Safety Program (a program which supports the costs of placing school resource officers on school campuses). As part of the application process, a school needs assessment is conducted including review of relevant crime statistics to evaluate a school's proposal, in addition to observations conducted by the DOE. Once approved for participation in the School Safety Program, the district sends both school leadership and SROs to training on program philosophy, individual stakeholder roles, and school safety related topics. For SROs, the DOE requires a four-day workshop on community-oriented policing, the role of school-based officers, and an introduction to Law Related Education (LRE) as an essential preventative tool for officers new to the position. Further, upon completion of New Officer Training, SROs are required to attend an Advanced LRE Academy through the Arizona Foundation for Legal Services and Education each year thereafter. Additionally, schools must work with SROs to develop a school safety plan and report data regarding the effectiveness of the school safety program. Furthermore, schools are required to work with police departments to establish a "service agreement"/MOU. Pennsylvania requires any school applying for an Office for Safe Schools Targeted Grant for SROs to collect evidentiary data (e.g., school violence statistics, community crime rates, bullying, gang activity, absentee or truancy, expulsion and suspension rates, disciplinary actions) documenting the need for a SRO (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2014). Any school that receives funding to support the SRO position must then provide an officer training plan, demonstrate proof of training, have an MOU, and collect data that can be used to evaluate the success of the SRO program.
DOE/DOI Recommendations
Table 3 provides a summary of DOE/DOI recommendations regarding SROs that exceed their corresponding state's legislation. The majority of states are identified as local control states. This means that decisions regarding SRO roles, responsibilities, qualifications, training, and usage, are determined at the local district level. It is beyond the scope of this paper to identify practices at the district level. In states that have legislation on SROs, most state DOE/DOIs provide recommendations that meet but do not exceed state requirements. West Virginia and Wisconsin don't specify legislation, but do provide recommendations and resources at the state level to support schools in developing best practices regarding the use of SROs.
Certification and training. Some states (DE, NY, WV, WI) specifically define recommended training for SROs. For instance, Delaware recommends officers receive specific training for working with students with disabilities. New York's DOE proposes (within the school safety plan) that SROs receive training in "appropriate prevention and intervention training in de-escalation, nonviolent conflict resolution, peer mediation, youth courts, and extended day and other school safety programs." West Virginia's Prevention Resource Officer (PRO) Program establishes recommendations requiring SROs to
be state certified police officers who have successfully completed PRO certification which is provided by the Division of Justice and Community Services. Furthermore, PROs must complete training in conflict resolution following PRO certification. Wisconsin's DOE advocates for training that includes educating officers regarding school values/ mission, child development, cultural competency, disability, seclusion and restraint, restorative justice, trauma informed care, de-escalation, and mental health issues. Additionally, the DOE suggests training for SROs be done with school staff.
MOU/MOA. Several state policies (CA, GA, NY, WV, and WI) recommend, but do not require, an MOU/MOA. Often, as in the cases of California, Georgia, and New York, this recommendation falls under the School Safety Plan where schools are "encouraged to include clear recommendations for the roles and responsibilities" of SROs or police officers on campus if they are used by the district. Other states, such as West Virginia and Wisconsin, through cooperative efforts between Departments of Justice and Departments of Education, have constructed recommendations around joint development of MOU/ MOAs between schools and law enforcement agencies.
Data based assessment. Only two states (WV, WI) currently provide recommendations regarding the use of a data-based evaluation system. The West Virginia PRO program provides guidance concerning the PRO's need to maintain resources, materials, lesson plans, and attendance for all classes that are facilitated by the SRO. Additionally, the PRO must make available to the public: information on available community support services, updated copies of school blueprints, school crisis plans, and evacuation plans. Individual and group files regarding interactions with students must also be maintained. The PRO is also responsible for presenting information about the PRO program and data collected in response to program goals, to all stakeholders including the Division of Justice and Community Services (DJCS) and a Planning and Evaluation Team made up of key community members. The interagency agreement developed by Wisconsin requires the school to identify how the performance of the SRO program will be evaluated (by what measures/data collected), by whom, and how often. Furthermore, it is recommended that SROs maintain and disseminate physical evidence/documentation of the following: (a) lists of classroom instructional topics, (b) lesson plans for all classes facilitated, and (c) lists of community wrap-around support services available for students and staff. SROs are also encouraged to collect, maintain, and share data on interactions with students and staff including number of arrests and tickets, a detailed account of how SRO time is spent, and the results of community climate survey questions related to the SRO program.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to review the availability and nature of existing state policies and recommendations regarding the use of SROs in public schools, to provide administrators with recommendations on how to develop effective SRO programs. Since no states legally require the use of the four recommendations (i.e., required certification, required training, creation of a MOU/MOA, and evidence of data-based decision making regarding the need for and effectiveness of SRO programs) administrators and law officials must seek to work cooperatively toward building efficacious programs. Although over half of all states have few or no policies regarding SROs, school administrators should be aware of existing regulations and recommendations provided within their state. Administrators should also be encouraged to consider incorporation of the recommendations, jointly developed by education and law enforcement, when developing and maintaining SRO programs in order to avoid the potential misuse of SROs. Some states have established these practices, and we recommend reviewing these materials as a beginning point in developing and/or evaluating programs (see Table 1).
Despite recommendations from experts in both education and law enforcement regarding best practices for the development of effective SRO programs, our research indicated a lack of specific legislation, recommendations, and guidance provided at the state level. These recommendations include specification for certification, training, definition of roles and responsibilities (MOU/MOA), and data-based evaluation of SRO programs. While Pennsylvania is the only state that had legislation addressing all four of the identified criteria, Arizona meets all four recommendations within legislative require merits when federal grant money was attached to funding the SRO positions. Eight states comply with three out of four recommendations (CT, IN, MO, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT), and Mississippi requires three of four elements under the MCOPS grant. Half of the recommendations are met by eight states (AR, CA, CO, FL, MD, NJ, NC, VT), while a dozen states meet only one recommendation (AL, DE, GA, IL, MI, MN, MS, NV, NH, NY, OR, VA). Thirteen states require all schools to have MOU/MOAs between schools and police in the school setting. Mandating the establishment of MOU/MOA may reduce the number of noncriminal misbehaviors that are pushed into the judicial system.
Our research has indicated a significant lack of regulation around the specificity of training that will equip officers with the skills necessary to help students be successful in the educational setting. Only six states provide criteria regarding the amount and type of training all officers need to receive to be effective in SRO programs. The need for more specialized training for officers who work specifically with youth in an educational setting is further supported by highly publicized social media events depicting the handcuffing and arrest of very young elementary students for throwing tantrums and the physical manhandling of students for non-compliant behaviors. Furthermore, improved specificity and definition of training requirements for SROs regarding how to meet the needs of students whose behaviors are atypical due to disability is indicated. Additional training that includes joint participation of administrators and SROs may also provide greater clarity and more synchronous working relationships between school and police student services. This specialized training could help reduce the misuse of SROs in schools and increase the appropriate use of SRO programs to help make schools safer for all students. The least addressed area in both legislation and state recommendation was data-based evaluation.
Recommendations
To ensure SROs are used effectively, we recommend that states: (a) establish policies regarding the use of SROs; (b) establish an MOU/ MOA that clearly identifies specific roles and responsibilities for SROs; (c) increase SRO training to include behavior management, child development, communication techniques, and disability awareness; and (d) develop a data collection and reporting systems that allow programs to be evaluated for effectiveness in reaching goals so that data-driven decisions regarding changes in implementation of SRO programs can be made, including processes that thoroughly evaluate the need for SRO programs within schools (see Table 3 for links to exemplary recommendation components).
Limitations
Policies for SROs were often housed within a number of different departments (e.g., Safe Schools, Criminal Justice, Policy and Governmental Services), hence it is possible that some states may have policies within other organizations that are not directly related to the school setting. Additionally, because there were various titles used to describe SROs across schools (e.g., school resource officer, school peace officer, school marshal, prevention resource officer), it is possible that if similar roles were identified differently, information regarding roles and training may not have been located through searches. Last, the results of our study reflect the most current information available as of the search completed in October of 2017. Therefore, it is possible that more recent legislation has been passed (i.e., MN & OH both had pending legislation at the time of the search) or states have made more current information available by updating recommendations on DOE/DOI websites. Consequently, our results should be interpreted with some caution, as additional guidance may exist other than reflected in our analysis.
Conclusion
Many states do not have requirements regarding the use of SROs. The states that do have requirements vary greatly. When the role and purpose of SROs are not explicit, misuse can occur. This may happen by having SROs deal with discipline issues, instead of their original intent of keeping schools safe. Increases in the number of school arrests for behaviors that were once considered to be under the purview of school administrative discipline have amplified the likelihood that students will experience exclusionary discipline consequences. Greater numbers of school arrests for school behavior/ conduct violations, rather than criminal activity, have exposed students to adjudication through the school-to-prison pipeline. This is despite the lack of research demonstrating the efficacy of exclusionary discipline practices, zero tolerance policies, and adjudication of student behaviors for improving school safety (Colombi & Osher, 2015). Particularly impacted by these practices are at-risk groups who are already disproportionately affected in exclusionary discipline (e.g., special education and minority students). There is agreement among education, policing, and legislation regarding the components that will help outline SRO programs. If SRO programs are going to be effectively used to positively impact school climate, administrators need to be proactive in implementing the recommendations outlined by government, policing, and educational organizations.
Jennifer Counts
Kristina N. Randall
Joseph B. Ryan
Antonis Katsiyannis
Clemson University
References
Advancement Project. (2006). Arresting development: Addressing the school discipline crisis in Florida. NAACP Legal defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Retrieved from http://b.3cdn.net/advance ment/e36dl7097615e7c612_bbm6vub0w.pdf
Arizona Department of Education. (2014). School Safety Program Guidance Manual. Retrieved from http://www.azed.gov/shs /ssp/
Canady, M., James, B., & Nease, J. (2012). To protect and educate: The school resource officer and the prevention of violence in schools. Hoover, AL: National Association of School Resource Officers.
Colombi, G., & Osher, D. (2015). Advancing school discipline reform. National Association of State Boards of Education. Retrieved fromhttp://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report /Advancing-School-Discipline-Reform-Sept-2015.pdf
Coon, J. K., & Travis, L. F. (2012). The role of police in public schools: a comparison of principal and police reports of activities in schools. Police Practice and Research, 13, 15-30. doi: 10.1080 /15614263.2011.589570
Executive Office of the President. (2016). Report: The continuing need to rethink discipline. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com /file/d/0BlFyGQOPS3qPcnZsSWRjdVk20XM/view
Finn, P., & McDevitt, J. (2005). National assessment of school resource officer programs: Final project report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij / grants/209273.pdf
Girouard, C. (2001). OJJDPfact sheet: School resource officer training program. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved from www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/ojjdp/fs200105.pdf
James, N., & McCallion, G. (2013). School resource officers: Law enforcement officers in schools. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43126.pdf
Katsiyannis, A., Ryan, J. B., Zhang, D., & Spann, A. (2008). Juvenile delinquency and recidivism: The impact of academic achievement. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24,177-196.
Mallet, C. A. (2014). Youthful offending and delinquency: The comorbid impact of maltreatment, mental health problems, and learning disabilities. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 31, 369-392.
Mallett, C. A. (2016). The school-to-prison pipeline: A critical review of the punitive paradigm shift. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 33, 15-24.
Musu-Gillette, L., Zhang, A., Wang, K., Zhang, J., & Oudekerk, B. A. (2017). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2016. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017064.pdf
Na, C., & Gottfredson, D. (2011). Police officers in schools: Effects on school crime and the processing of offending behaviors, Justice Quarterly, 30 (4), 619-650. doi:10.1080/07418825.2011.615754
National Association of School Resource Officers, (n.d.). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from https://nasro.org/frequently-asked -questions/
National Association of School Resource Officers. (2012). To protect and educate: The school resource officer and the prevention of violence in schools. Retrieved from https://nasro.org/cms/wp-content /uploads/2013/ll/NASRO-To-Protect-and-Educatenosecurity .pdf
National Association of School Resource Officers. (2015). NASRO Position Statement on Police Involvement in Student Discipline. Retrieved from https://nasro.org/news/nasro-updates/nasro -position-statement-police-involvement-student-discipline/
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Development Services Group, Inc. (2017). Youths with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the juvenile justice system: Literature review. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.ojjdp.gov /mpg/litreview/Intellectual-Developmental-Disabilities.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2014). Office for Safe Schools targeted Grants for School Resource Officer Municipality/Police Department Request for Application 2017-2018. Retrieved from http://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/K-12/Safe%2 0Schools/Safe%20Schools%20Targeted%20Grants /2017-2018/2017-2018%20Safe%20Schools%20Initiative%20 -%20Municipality%20SR07o20-%20RFA.pdf
President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final Report of the President's TaskForceon 21st Century Policing. Retrieved from https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport .pdf
Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., & Leone, P. E. (2001). Students with disabilities in correctional facilities. Arlington, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children, The ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education.
Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. E., Osher, D. M., & Poirier, J. M. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 71, 339-345.
Raymond, B. (2010). Assigning police officers to schools. Response guide No. 10. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/Responses/schooLpolice/print/
Ryan, J. B., Katsiyannis, A., Counts, J., & Shelnut, J. C. (2018). The growing concerns regarding school resource officers. Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(3), 188-192. DOI: 101177/1053451217702108
Strategies for Youth. (2013). If not now, when? A survey of juvenile justice training in Americas police academies. Retrieved from http:// strategiesforyouth.org/sfysite/wp-content/uploads/2013/03 /SF YReport_01-2013_rev.pdf
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. Education Development Center, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/SR0%20 Brief.pdf
Travis, L., & Coon, J. (2005). Role of law enforcement in public school safety: A national survey. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Compendium of School Discipline Laws and Regulatioiisfor the 50 States, District of Columbia and the U.S. Territories. Retrieved from https://safesupportivelearning .ed.gov/sites/default/files/discipline-compendium/School%20 Discipline%20Laws%20and%20Regulations%20Compendium .pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Dear colleague letter: Role of SROs in PK-12 Schools. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov /policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/files/ed-letter-on-sros -in-schools-sept-8-2016.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights [USDOE]. (2017). Data and research: Civil rights data collection (CRDC). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/data.html
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2018). 2015-16 Civil Rights Data Collection: School Climate and Safety. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/school -climate-and-safety.pdf
Correspondence should be addressed to: Joseph Ryan, Clemson University, 227 Holtzendorff Hall, Clemson, SC 29634. Email: jbryan@clemson.edu
Table 1
Exemplary Resources
MOU World Wide Web Link
MOU Guidance http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/
Advancement Project cf357b9f96d8c55ff8 _rdm6ib9js.pdf
U.S. Department of http://www.cops.usdoj.
Justice gov/pdf/2013_MOU-FactSheet_v2_091613.pdf
National School http://www.aswdlaw/
Board Association com/wp-content/uploads/2013 /10/
Council of School 1013_InqAnalysis-FINAL.pdf
Attorneys
Broward Co. FL MOU http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/
Broward%20Co%20Collaborative%20Agreement%
200n%20School%20Discipline%20-%20MOU.pdf
SRO Training
Programs World Wide Web Link
NASRO https://nasro.org/training/nasro-
training-courses/
COPS Fact Sheet https://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2014_CHP-SRO-
FactSheet3_092613.pdf
TN Dept. of Ed. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/
Recommended safety/safe_sch/safe_sch_sro_standards.pdf
Standards for
Eligibility,
Qualifica-tions and
Training of School
Resource Officers
SC Criminal Justice http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/wmbf/pdf/
Academy SRO%20Syllabus%202015.pdf
http://sccja.sc.gov/Pages/default.aspx
http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/wmbf/pdf/
Training%20Courses%20NASRO.pdf
Data-Driven World Wide Web Link
Evaluation
The School Discipline https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/
Consensus Report: uploads/2014/06/The_School_Discipline_
Strategies from the Consensus_Report.pdf
Field to Keep
Students Engaged in
School and Out of the
Juvenile Justice
System
PA DOE http://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/K-12/
Safe%20Schools/Safe%20Schools%20Targeted%
20Grants/2017-2018/2017-2018%20Safe%20
Schools%20Initiative%20-%20Municipality%
20SRO%20-%20RFA.pdf
WV PRO Program http://djcs.wv.gov/grant-programs/pro/
Documents/PRO%20Guidelines%2017-18.pdf
http://www.wvcpd.org/images/schoolpro-
brochuresmall.pdf
WI DPI School https://dpi.wi.gov/sspw/safe-schools/
Resource Officers: school-resource-officers
The Use of School https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/
Resource Officers sspw/pdf/srobes tpractices.pdf
General Resources World Wide Web Link
2016 US DOE Dear https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-
Colleague Letter Role discipline/files/ed-letter-on-sros-in-
of SROs in PK-12 schools-sept-8-2016.pdf
Schools
US DOE/DOJ https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/
SECURe Implementa- secure-policy.pdf
tion Rubrics https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/
secure-implementation.pdf
US DOE School https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-
Climate and discipline/index.html
Discipline
National Center on https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/
Safe Supportive
Learning
Environments
Table 2
State Legislation
Data SRO
Driven Training
State MOU/MOA Evaluation
Requirements
Certified Certified Hours of
Police School SRO
Officer Resource Training
Officer Required
Alabama X
Arizona x
Arizona X X X x 20+
SSP* grant
Arkansas X X NP
California X X 40 hours
Colorado X X NP
Connecticut X X X NP
Delaware X
Florida X X
Georgia X
Illinois Ene
Indiana X X X 40 hours
Kentucky X X NP
Louisiana X X NP
Maryland X X
Michigan X+
Minnesota X
Mississippi X
MS MCOPS grant X X X NP
Missouri X X X 40 hours
Nevada X
New Hampshire X
New Jersey X X NP
New York X
North Carolina X X NP
Oregon X
Pennsylvania X X X NP
Rhode Island X X X NP (de-
escalation
training)
South Carolina X X X 40 hours
Tennessee X X X 40 hours,
plus 16
annually
Texas X X X 16 hours
Utah X X X NP
Vermont Ene X
Virginia X
State World Wide Web Link
Requirements
Alabama https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline
-compend ium /choose-ty pe/Alabama
Arizona https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/2010/titlel5/
15-155 .html
Arizona https://repository.asu.edu/attachments/148279/
SSP* grant content/2011%20School %20Safety%20Guidance%20
Manual.pdf
Arkansas https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline
-compendium/choose-type/Arkansas/
California https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline
-compendium/choose-type/California/
Colorado https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/2016/title-24
/principal-departments/article-31/part-3/section-24
-31-312/
Connecticut https://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2013/title-
17a /chapter-319/section-17a-22bb/ and
https://law.justia.com /codes/connecticut/2015/
title-10/chapter-170/ section-10-233m
Delaware MOU/MOA
https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/
discipline -compendium/choose-type/Delaware
Florida https://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2006/143/
285639.html
Georgia https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline-
compendium/choose-type/Georgia
Illinois https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline
compendium/choose-type/Illinois
Indiana https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline
compendium/choose-type/Indiana
Kentucky https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline
compendium/choose-type/Kentucky
Louisiana https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline
compendium/choose-type/Louisiana
Maryland https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline
compendium/choose-type/Maryland
Michigan https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/
2014/03 /NCSL-School-Police-Brief.pdf
Minnesota https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/
2014/03/NCSL-School-Police-Brief.pdf
Mississippi https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline-
compendium/choose-type/Mississippi
MS MCOPS grant https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2014/
title-37/chapter-3/section-37-3-82/
Missouri https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline-
compendium/choose-type/Missouri
Nevada https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/
2014/03 /NCSL-School-Police-Brief.pdf
New Hampshire https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline-
compendium/choose-type/New%20Hampshire
New Jersey https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline-
compendium/choose-type/New%20Jersey
New York https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/
2014/03/NCSL-School-Police-Brief.pdf
North Carolina https://law.justia.com/codes/north-carolina/2015/
chapter-162/article-3/section-162-26/
Oregon https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/
2014/03/NCSL-School-Police-Brief.pdf
Pennsylvania https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/
2014/03 /NCSL-School-Police-Brief.pdf
http://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/K-12/Safe%20
Schools/Safe%20Schools%20Targeted%20 Grants/
2017-2018/2017-2018%20Safe%20Schools%20
Initiative%20-%20Municipality%20SRO%20-%20RFA.pdf
Rhode Island https://law.justia.com/codes/rhode-island/2012/
title-16 /chapter-16-21.5/chapter-16-21.5-1/
South Carolina https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline-
compendium/choose-type/South%20Carolina
Tennessee https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2016/title-49
/chapter-6/part-42/section-49-6-4217/
Texas https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline-
compendium/choose-type/Texas
Utah https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline-
compendium/choose-type/Utah
Vermont https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline-
compendium/choose-type/Vermont
Virginia https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/discipline-
compendium/choose-type/ Virginia
Note. Ene = "Encouraged". (+) Required for school districts with over
20,000 pupils and city population at least 180,000.
Table 3
State Recommendations
Data
MOU Driven
State /MOA Evaluations SRO Training
Type
Certified School Hours of
Police Resource SRO
Officer Officer Training
California X*
Colorado X* X NP
Delaware X Students
with
Disabilities
Georgia X*
New York X* X NP
West X X X X PRO
Virginia Conflict
Resolution
Training
Wisconsin X X NP
State World Wide Web Link
Type
California https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/vp/documents/school
safetyplanchklist.pdf
Colorado http://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/safeschools/CSSRC%20
Documents/CSSRC%20Comprehensive%20School%20
Safety%20Plan%20Elements%202014.pdf
Delaware http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/titlel4/
600/601.shtml#TopOfPage
Georgia https://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-
Assessment/Curriculum-and-lnstruction/Documents
/School%20Safety%20Assessment.pdf
New York http://www.pl2.nysed.gov/sss/ssae/schoolsafety/save/
docu ments/ProjectSave.pdf
West http://www.wvcpd.org/images/schoolprobrochure.pdf
Virginia
Wisconsin https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sspw/pdf/
srobestpractices.pdf
Note. * Embedded within the School Safety Plan, NP = Not Provided.
 Printer friendly
 Cite/link
 Email
 Feedback
| |
| Author: | Counts, Jennifer; Randall, Kristina N.; Ryan, Joseph B.; Katsiyannis, Antonis |
|---|---|
| Publication: | Education & Treatment of Children |
| Article Type: | Report |
| Date: | Nov 1, 2018 |
| Words: | 6970 |
| Previous Article: | Introduction to the Special Issue: Teacher Educators for Children with Behavior Disorders (TECBD) Conference. |
| Next Article: | Systematic Review of Cultural Adaptations of School-based Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Interventions for Students of Color. |
| Topics: | |