On guard but not sworn: The relationship between school security guards, school resource officers, and student behavior, discipline, and arrests

• Published date: 01 May 2024
• Author: Keenen Vernon,F. Chris Curran
• Date: 01 May 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12653

DOI: ./- .

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

On guard but not sworn: The relationship

between school security guards, school resource

officers, and student behavior, discipline, and

arrests

Keenen Vernon F. Chris Curran

Educational Leadership and Policy,

University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida,

USA

Correspondence

F. Chris Curran, University of Florida,

J Norman Hall, Gainesville, FL ,

USA.

Email: chriscurran@coe.ufl.edu

Abstract

Research Summary: The increasing presence of armed

security personnel in schools has led to concerns about

the criminalization of students. While many schools use

sworn law enforcement (e.g. school resource officers

or SROs), many schools also use security guards who

are not sworn law enforcement. Recent policy changes

in a number of states and political pressures resulting

from acts of mass school violence have led policymakers

to face decisions between the use of SROs and secu-

rity guards. This study informs this policy debate by

empirically examining the relationships between secu-

rity guards and SROs with rates of student behavior,

discipline, and arrest using nationally representative

data from the Civil Rights Data Collection. Controlling

for observable covariates and school district fixed effects,

we find that, in contrast to SROs, the use of security

guards in schools is not systematically related to stu-

dent arrest or suspension rates. The findings suggest

that non-sworn security guards may provide a form of

security personnel that minimizes the criminalization of

students relative to SROs.

Policy Implications: As school districts nationwide

grapple with how to respond to school shootings

Criminology & Public Policy. ;:–. ©  American Society of Criminology. 327wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/capp

328 VERNON  CURRAN

and other acts of school violence, policymakers have

frequently turned to the use of school security person-

nel, including SROs and security guards, as a response.

Doing so, however, has been contentious given con-

cerns about the overcriminalization of students. This

study provides evidence to inform these policy debates

by demonstrating the relationships between security

guards and SROs and a number of outcomes. The

results suggest that the use of security guards as a

policy response may minimize arrests and exclusionary

discipline relative to the use of SROs.

KEYWORDS

discipline, school resource officers, schools, security, youth

In the past decade, concerns about school safety have heightened following high-profile school

shootings across the country (PDK, ). However, researchhas shown that in the years leading

up to these recent events, students were no more likely to be threatenedor injured with a weapon

at school compared with students a decade before (Irwin et al., ) and, in fact, were less likely

to experience such threats or victimization when compared with previous decades (Irwin et al.,

; Zhang et al., ). Since the early s, the number of homicides occurring at schools

has generally comprised less than % of total youth homicides (National Center for Education

Statistics, ). Yet,despite the relative safety of schools, policymakers and educators have faced

criticism and more pressure to increase school security measures, even when research evidence

suggests such security measures have unintended consequences or may be unnecessary (Bracy,

; Kupchik, ;). According to a recent federal report,almost all public schools serving

students aged – years reported at least one measure of school security in – (Wang

et al., ).

Despite a growing body of empirical literature that points to negative outcomesassociated with

many school security measures (Fisher & Hennessy, ;Kupchik, ; McKenna & Petrosino,

), the calls for increased security have nevertheless resulted in a rise in the presence and use

of security personnel in schools, particularly sworn law enforcement. Between  and ,

the percentage of schools that reported having one or more school security personnel present at

school increased from  to % (Wang et al., ) and, as of , nearly half of public schools

nationally had sworn law enforcement present at least part time (Musu-Gillette et al., ).

In the wake of the tragic murder of George Floyd in , school officials started to reevaluate

their existing school policing programs, resulting in over  school districts nationwide that

either drastically reduced spending or eliminated them altogether, though a number of these

districts have since reinstated such programs (Riser-Kositskyet al., ). These officers are often

referred to as and implemented under a school resource officer (SRO) model (we use the term

SRO throughout this study to refer to all school-based law enforcement).

While SROs and other types of security personnel are one of the most visible waysfor a school to

purportedly promote students’ safety, therehave been concerns that the increase in SROs has led

VERNON  CURRAN 329

to an increase in student arrests and exclusionary discipline. While some evidence suggests SROs

may decrease behavioral incidents and make schools safer (Jennings et al., ; Sorensen et al.,

a;b;Owens,),the majority of studies have found that schools with SROs report more

behavioral incidents (Curran, ; Gottfredson et al., ) and student arrests (Owens, ;

Sorensen et al., a;b) as well as other punitive outcomes including exclusionary discipline

(Gottfredson et al., ; Fisher & Hennessy, ; McKenna & Petrosino, ; Sorensen et al.,

a;b; Weisburst,) and may disproportionately impact students of color (Crosse et al.,

). For example, Homer and Fisher ()’s descriptive examination of national data found

that schools with police arrested almost twice as many students per year than those without and

that the increase in the number of Black students arrested was approximately three times that of

White students. Analysis of Delaware data by Wolf () found that SROs make the majority of

school arrests, most of which were experienced by Black students and were for fighting and dis-

orderly conduct. In a more causal study, Owens () found that each additional officer funded

through a federal grant program resulted in a % increasein arrests, driven by arrests of children

under  years old. Similarly,Weisburst () found that federally funded grants for school police

increased discipline rates by % with larger increases for Black students while also decreasing high

school graduation rates. Qualitative research and legal analysis have shown how SRO presence

can increase the punitiveness of school environments and contribute to escalation of situations

that result in increases in suspension and arrests (Kupchik, ;;Wolf,). Coupled with

national discourses that are critical of the use of law enforcement in schools, the result has been

a push by advocates and consideration among policymakers for alternatives to SROs in schools.

School security guards (security personnel who are not sworn lawenforcement) are one alterna-

tive that some schools have used to promote school safety. A recent federal report by the National

Center for Education Statistics () indicated that security guards are becoming more preva-

lent in public schools. For example, in the state of Florida, public schools are now required to

have armed personnel on campus, a requirement that can be fulfilled through the presence of

sworn law enforcement, non-sworn security guards, or arming school staff (Fla. Stat. § .,

; Kent & Curran, ). Laws authorizing armed security personnel vary greatly by state and

school district. However, in other states such as New York, Arkansas, and Colorado, only sworn

law enforcement officers may be armed, with some exceptions for school security guards who

meet extensive requirements (RAND Corporation, ). Security guards have similar duties to

SROs with regard to school safety but, given that they are most often school district employees,

may also have roles specific to school discipline and other routine school activities. Importantly,

however,non-sworn security guards do not have the arrest powers of SROs. It is possible then that

security guards who are not sworn law enforcement could help protect schools while minimizing

the unintended consequences of SROs, particularly with regard to student arrests.

From a policy analysis perspective, school security guards may also reduce costs relative to

SROs, the latter of which demand higher salaries. According tothe National Association of School

Resource Officers (NASRO), the cost of armed school lawenforcement averaged between $,

and $, in yearly salary and benefits in  (approximately $, to $, in  dol-

lars; James, ). The average yearly cost of hiring a salaried security guard wasbetween $,

and $, in salary and benefits (approximately $, to $, in  dollars) though

many are employed for lower hourly wages (Curran & Curran, ; Hill, ). Utilizing SROs

may often be more logistically difficult as well since they are often employed by law enforce-

ment agencies rather than directly by schools, thereby requiring memorandums of understanding

and partnerships with another government entity.Furthermore, SROs tend to receive more train-

ing annually than security guards, which while potentially beneficial to their job performance,