Effects of school resource officers on school crime and responses to school crime

• Author: Erin L. Bauer,Carol A. Hagen,Angela D. Greene,Zhiqun Tang,Denise C. Gottfredson,Scott Crosse,Michele A. Harmon
• Published date: 01 August 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12512
• Date: 01 August 2020

DOI: ./- .

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH IN POLICE POLICY AND PRACTICE

Effects of school resource officers on school

crime and responses to school crime

Denise C. Gottfredson1Scott Crosse2Zhiqun Tang2

Erin L. Bauer2Michele A. Harmon2Carol A. Hagen2

Angela D. Greene2

University of Maryland

West at

Correspondence

DeniseC. Gottfredson, Department of

Criminology& Criminal Justice, Univer-

sityof Maryland, College Park, MD .

Email:gott@umd.edu

Fundinginformation

NationalInstitute of Justice, Grant/Award

Number:-CK-BX-

Research Summary: We examined the effects of an

increase in school resource officer (SRO) staffing on

schools in a sample of  public schools that enhanced

SRO staffing through funding from the Department of

Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services Hiring

Program and a matched sample of  schools that did not

increase SRO staffing at the same time. In longitudinal

analyses of monthly school-level administrative data, we

compared the treatment and comparison schools on dis-

ciplinary offenses and actions. We found that increased

SROs increased the number of drug- and weapon-related

offenses and exclusionary disciplinary actions for treat-

ment schools relative to comparison schools. These neg-

ative effects were more frequently found for students

without special needs.

Policy Implications: The study findings suggest that

increasing SROs does not improve school safety and that

by increasing exclusionary responsesto school discipline

incidents it increases the criminalization of school disci-

pline. We recommend that educational decision-makers

seeking to enhance school safety consider the many

alternatives to programs that require regularpolice pres-

ence in schools.

KEYWORDS

police in schools, school resource officers, school safety

Criminology & Public Policy. ;:–. ©  American Society of Criminology 905wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp

906 GOTTFREDSON  .

Concern over the safety of students, teachers, and administrators in our nation’sschools continues

to grow.In part, this is due to the widespread media coverage of mass school shootings, such as the

events at Columbine High School in , Sandy Hook Elementary School in , and Stoneman

Douglas High School in . Another reason for concern is that a safe and positive school cli-

mate is essential for effective teaching and learning (U.S. Department of Education, ). Many

initiatives have been established in the recent past to promote a positive learning environment

by enhancing school safety and ensuring fair, nondiscriminatory, and effective discipline policies

and practices (U.S. Department of Education, ), and the current administrationcontinues to

emphasize the importance of school safety.These initiatives often involvepartnerships between

schools and law enforcement agencies to increase school security.

This study assesses the effects of placing school resource officers (SROs) in schools. Despite

widespread use of SROs in U.S. schools, questions remain about their effect on discipline policies

and practices or on school safety more generally. The findings of this study will contribute to the

knowledge base on approaches designed to increase school safety and inform communities about

the effectiveness of the common practice of placing SROs in schools.

1BACKGROUND

1.1 Overview of school crime and safety

School crime includes rare school shootings, other more common acts of violence such as fighting

and bullying, property damage, and the use of illegal drugs. Although school shootings are highly

publicized, violent deaths at schools have, in fact, been rare events over the past two decades.

Less than % of youth homicides occur at school (Musu-Gillette et al., ). Levels of other crime

and victimization, such as bullying, remain unacceptably high. In , for example, % of stu-

dents between  and  years reported being bullied at school, and % of students in grades –

reported they were offered, sold, or given an illegal drug (which excluded tobacco and alcohol)

on school property in the past  months. Overall trends in victimizations between  and 

among students  to  years are encouraging; however,in recent years, rates of violent victimiza-

tions have been consistently higher for students at school than away from school (Musu-Gillette

et al., ). These estimates of crime and victimization in schools raise important questions about

how schools should respond to crime and disorder in fair and nondiscriminatory ways that do not

produce unintended negative consequences.

1.2 School Resource Officers (SROs)

Schools have considered and adopted many approaches designed to increase safety and reduce

crime. Non-security-related approaches include myriad prevention programs and efforts to

improve the social climate to make it less conducive tocrime. Security-related approaches include

controlled access to school buildings, security cameras, and metal detectors, as well as the place-

ment of SROs in schools. SROs are generally sworn law enforcement officers who are deployed

in schools as part of a community policing initiative that encourages collaboration between law

enforcement agencies and the surrounding communities to increase safety (James & McCallion,

).

The practice of placing police officers in schools has skyrocketed over the past  years. Data

from the Safe School Study, a national study of school violence conducted in  by Research

GOTTFREDSON  . 907

Triangle Institutefor the National Institute of Education (NIE), showed that only % of the nation’s

schools had police stationed in them (National Institute of Education, ). By , % of

schools had sworn law enforcement officers present in the school at least once per week, and the

percentage was much higher (%) for secondary schools (Musu-Gillette et al., ). The percent-

age of students between the ages of  and  who reported the presence of security staff, including

police officers, in their schools also rose, from % in  to % in . Most of the increase in

rates occurred before , with rates between  and  hovering between % and %

(Musu-Gillette et al., ). SROs, who receive specialized training for their roles as school-based

police officers, account for most of the law enforcement presence in schools. Forty-twopercent of

all public schools reported having an SROpresent at least once a week during the – school

year. Secondary schools (%) were more likely than primary schools (%) to report having one

or more SROs present at least once a week, and schools with larger enrollments were more likely

to report the presence of SROs. For example, % of secondary schools with enrollments of ,

or more reported SRO presence (Musu-Gillette et al., ).

1.3 What is the role of law enforcement officers in schools?

The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO)developed the Triad Model of SRO

responsibility, which specifies three main roles of SROsin schools: educator, informal counselor,

and law enforcer (Canady,James, & Nease, ). SROs may educate students, faculty,and parents

on a variety of topics such as alcohol and drug awareness and transportation safety (Raymond,

). SROs’ role of “informal counselor” may include activities such as maintaining “open-door”

policies towards students; engaging in counseling sessions; referring students to social services,

legal aid, community services, and public health agencies; and establishing rapport with students

(Canady et al., ). SROs’ responsibilities as law enforcers may include patrolling the school,

handling calls for police services, making arrests, issuing citations, and developing emergency

response plans (Raymond, ).

Reviews of the extent to which SRO duties reflect this model suggest that there is great varia-

tion across schools and districts in terms of the actual roles and responsibilities taken on by SROs

(Nolan, ). Many districts do not have formal agreements about the roles of SROs, increasing

the potential for conflict and confusion. In particular, there has been much concern about lack

of clear boundaries around what types of discipline matters should be handled by law enforce-

ment officers and by school personnel. Concerns about increasing use of harsh responses to stu-

dent behavior that result in exclusion of students from school and increasedinvolvement with the

criminal justice system have recently led many states and districts to institute reforms to soften

their discipline practices (Hirschfield, ). Questions have also been raised about the potential

for role conflict when police officers engage in dual roles as counselor/teacher and law enforcer

(Devlin & Gottfredson, a). Partly in response to these concerns, many school districts have

recently begun to place limits on SRO discretion (Hirschfield, ).

1.4 Funding allocated to placement of SROs in schools

Although the concept of SROs first emerged in the s, as indicated earlier,the widespread adop-

tion of this approach to school safety is relatively recent. The increased use of SROs in schools,

beginning in the s, can partially be attributed to the rising crime rates among juveniles