8/23/2016 Sc hool Sa fe ty: T he Use of Sc hool Re sourc e Offic - - PDF document

8/23/2016 1

Sc hool Sa fe ty: T he Use of Sc hool Re sourc e Offic e rs

Jose ph B. Rya n, Ph.D. Cle mson Unive r sity

Re c e nt Misuse of SROs

 Ke nton County, KY SRO ha ndc uffe d 8 & 9 ye a r

• ld e le me nta r

y stude nts a bove the e lbows on multiple oc c a sions for nonc omplia nc e (S.R. & L

.G. v. Ke nton County She r r iff’s Offic e , 2015)

 Ric hla nd County, SC Hig h sc hool g ir

l se a te d in he r de sk wa s physic a lly a ssa ulte d by SRO for be ing nonc omplia nt, a nd r e fusing to g ive up he r c e ll phone (F

• r

d, Bothe lo, & Conlon, 2015).

Role s & Re sponsibilitie s of SROs

(Natio nal Asso c iatio n o f Sc ho o l Re so urc e Offic e rs, 2012)

• 1. L

a w e nforc e me nt (E nforc ing L a ws & Or dina nc e s)

• 2. T

e a c hing (e .g ., Dr ug & Ga ng Awa re ne ss Cla sse s)

• 3. Me ntoring (e .g ., Advising Sta ff)

8/23/2016 2

Histor y & Pur pose of SROs

 Pe rmane nt plac e me nt of law e nforc e me nt within sc hools originate d during 1950’s in F

lint, Mic higan to de c re ase sc hool viole nc e , partic ularly gun- re late d inc ide nc e s (Johnson, 1999; Ja me s & Mc Ca llion, 2013).

 Changing mission of SROs is ofte n re ac tionary to public outc ry of a pe rc e ive d thre at to our

nation’s youth.  1960’s- 70’s, SROs plac e d in sc hools in Southe r n state s to addr e ss safe ty issue s r e late d to r ac ial te nsions (Coon & T ra vis, 2012).  1980s SROs taske d with de te r r ing dr ug r e late d pr

• ble ms ac r
• ss the nation (Pr

ic e , 2009).

 Re c e nt sur

ge in SROs due to sc hool shootings (e .g., Columbine , Sandy Hook) (Sa ma h, 2015; T

• ppo,

2013).

 Re c e nt e xpansion of SRO role s/ re sponsibilitie s due in part to a lac k of c le a r polic y g uide line s de fining the ir role s (Na & Gottfre yson, 2011).

SROs one of F a ste st Growing Are a s of L a w E nforc e me nt

(National Assoc iation of Sc hool Re sour c e Offic e r s , 2012)

Approxima te ly 19,000 SROs wor

king in sc hools a c r

• ss the

c ountr y

(U.S. De partme nt of Justic e State me nt of Inte re st, 2015).

Ne a rly ha lf of public sc hools now ha ve a polic e pre se nc e

(Offic e of Community Orie nte d Polic ing Se rvic e s, 2010).

Critic a l Issue s re g a rding SROs T

• da y

1. SROs use d to ma na g e stude nt misbe ha vior, 2. SROs ina dve r te ntly pr

• moting the sc hool to pr

ison pipe line 3. SROs la c k of tr a ining 4. L a c k of polic ie s re g ula ting SRO role s a nd re sponsibilitie s, a s we ll a s r e c omme nda tions for be st pr a c tic e s.

8/23/2016 3

Issue 1: SROs Be ing Use d to Ma na g e Stude nt Misbe ha vior



41% of public sc hool te a c he rs c la ime d stude nt misbe ha vior inte rfe re d with the ir te a c hing (Na tiona l Ce nte r for E duc a tiona l Sta tistic s, 2014)



Not surprising g ive n 43% of sc hools re porte d ina de qua te le ve ls of te a c he r tra ining in be ha vior ma na g e me nt (NCE S, 2014).



Inc re a se d le ve ls of misbe ha vior, c ouple d with a la c k te a c he r tra ining in positive be ha viora l inte rve ntions, ha ve re sulte d in sc hools be ing ove rly re lia nt upon inc re a sing ly ha rsh / a ve rsive be ha viora l inte rve ntions (suspe nsion, se c lusion, re stra int) (Na tiona l Disa bilitie s Rig hts Ne twork, 2009)



Punitive a pproa c he s a re ofte n ine ffe c tive for a ddre ssing proble m be ha viors be c a use the y  a re re a c tive in na ture a nd only imple me nte d a fte r the be ha vior oc c urs,  fa il to te a c h a ppropria te a lte rna tive be ha viors to stude nts  ma y ina dve rte ntly re inforc e a proble m be ha vior  ofte n re move stude nts from the e duc a tiona l le a rning e nvironme nt

(Ge or g e , 2012; Rya n, Sa nde r s, Ka tsiya nnis & Ye ll, 2007).

Issue 2: SROs Ina dve r te ntly pr

• moting sc hool to pr

ison pipe line

 T

asking SROs to de al with stude nt misbe havior has inc re asingly c riminalize d traditional sc hool disc iplinary issue s, e xac e rbating the sc hool to prison pipe line (Br ac y, 2010; Mukhe r je e , 2007).

 Offic e for Civil Rights (OCR, 2014) found ove r the c ourse of a re c e nt ac ade mic sc hool ye ar  260,000 stude nts we r

e r e fe r r e d to law e nfor c e me nt

 92,000 stude nts we r

e ar r e ste d

 70,000 we r

e physic ally r e str aine d

 37,000 stude nts we r

e plac e d in se c lusion

 Sc hools with SROs have 5 time s as many ar

r e sts for disor de r ly c onduc t as sc hools without SROs (Justic e Polic y Institute , 2011)

Disc iplina r y Me a sur e s Dispr

• por

tiona te ly Impa c ts Minoritie s & Stude nts with Disa bilitie s

 Public orde r offe nse s (e .g., disorde rly c onduc t, obstruc tion of justic e ) have inc re ase d by

108% from 1985- 2009 (Stra te g ie s for Youth, 2013)

 Populations most adve rse ly affe c te d by this tre nd are stude nts of c olor and those with

disabilitie s (Civil Rig hts Da ta Colle c tion, 2014).

 Ne arly half of stude nts with e motional disturbanc e and 24% of stude nts with le arning

disabilitie s had c ontac t with the juve nile justic e syste m in c omparison to 13% of non- ide ntifie d stude nts (F a be lo e t a l., 2011)

 While blac k stude nts make up only 16% of the ove rall population, the y re pre se nt 27% of

stude nts re fe rre d to law e nforc e me nt, and 31% of stude nts arre ste d at sc hool (F a be lo, e t a l., 2011; L e ibe r, 2002; Ma lle t, 2014).

8/23/2016 4

2014 Offic e of Civil Rig hts Sc hool Disc ipline Re por t Issue 3: SROs la c k of tra ining

 Curre ntly, the re are no national standards outlining training re quire me nts for SROs.  Only 11 state s (AR, CA, CO, IN, MD, MS, MO, NJ, SC, T

N, T X) have e stablishe d spe c ific training/ c e rtific ation re quire me nts for SR Os (U.S. De pt of E duc ation, 2015).

 76% of state s do not mandate juve nile justic e training for law e nforc e me nt be yond

the basic training re c e ive d at the polic e ac ade my (IACP, 2011).

 Unfortunate ly, state polic e ac ade mie s spe nd <1% of total training on juve nile

justic e issue s (Strate gie s for Youth Surve y, 2013).

Issue 4: L a c k of Polic ie s re g ula ting SRO role s a nd re sponsibilitie s  Community Orie nte d Polic ing Se rvic e s (COPS) e nc oura g e s la w e nforc e me nt a g e nc ie s

a nd sc hools to a dopt a Me mora ndum of Unde rsta nding (MOU) to c le a rly doc ume nt the role s, e xpe c ta tions, a nd re sponsibilities of SROs (U.S. De pa rtme nt of Justic e , 2013). MOU Guida nc e World Wide We b L ink__________________________________ Advanc e me nt Proje c t http:/ / b.3c dn.ne t/ a dva nc e me nt/ c f357b9f96d8c 55ff8_rdm6ib9js.pdf NASRO sa mple MOUs https:/ / na sro.org / ?s=me mor a ndum+of+unde r sta nding U.S. De pa rtme nt of Justic e http:/ / www.c ops.usdoj.g ov/ pdf/ 2013_MOU- F a c tShe e t_v2_091613.pdf

8/23/2016 5

Re c omme nda tions for Sc hools

(Ryan, K atsiyannis, Co unts & She lnut, in pre ss)

1. Sc hools should not use SROs to ma na g e stude nt misbe ha vior unle ss c rimina l in na ture 2. Inc re a se SRO tra ining to inc lude be ha vior ma na g e me nt, c hild de ve lopme nt, c ommunic a tion te c hnique s, a nd disa bility a wa re ne ss; 3. E sta blish a Me mora ndum of Unde rsta nding (MOU) to e sta blish spe c ific role s a nd re sponsibilitie s for SROs 4. Inc lude SRO a s a te a m me mbe r of the sc hool wide positive be ha viora l support (SWPBS) te a m to e nha nc e sa fe sc hool pla nning e fforts. 5. Sc hool Administra tors Should Unde rsta nd L e ve l of Pe rmissible F

• rc e (3 Prong T

e st) 6. Inc re a se L e ve ls of Crisis De - e sc a la tion T ra ining for Sta ff & SROs

L e ve l of Pe rmissible F

• rc e by SROs

 L

e ve l of pe rmissible forc e that c an be use d was e stablishe d through the Supre me Court ruling Gr aham v. Connor (1989).

 Graham c ase e stablishe d a 3- prong te st whic h mandate s law e nforc e me nt

• ffic e rs take into ac c ount the :

1. Se ve rity of Crime Committe d, 2. L e ve l of T hre at to the Safe ty of the Public or Offic e r, and 3. L e ve l of Re sistanc e .

Re fe re nc e s

 Br a c y, N. L . (2010). Cir c umve nting the la w: Stude nts’ r ig hts in sc hools with polic e . Jour na l of Conte mpor a r y Cr imina l Justic e , 26(3), 294-315.  F

• r

d, D., Bothe lo, G. & Conlon, K. (2015). Spr ing Va lle y hig h sc hool offic e r suspe nde d a fte r viole nt c la ssr

• om a r

r e st. Cable Ne ws Ne twor

• k. Re tr

ie ve d fr

• m

http:/ / www.c nn.c om/ 2015/ 10/ 27/ us/ south-c ar

• lina -sc hool-a r

r e st-vide o/  Gr aham v. Connor , 490 U.S. 386 (1989)  Inte r na tiona l Assoc ia tion of Chie fs of Polic e . (2011). Juve nile justic e tr aining ne e ds asse ssme nt: A sur ve y of law e nfor c e me nt. Re tr ie ve d fr

• m

http:/ / www.the ia c p.or g / juve nile justic e/ 2011Ne edsAsse ssme nt  Ja me s, N., & Mc Ca llion, G. (2013). Sc hool r e sour c e offic e r s: L a w e nfor c e me nt offic e r s in sc hools. Cong r e ssiona l Re se a r c h Se r vic e . Re tr ie ve d fr

• m

https:/ / www.fa s.or g / sg p/ c r s/ misc / R43126.pdf  Johnson, I. (1999). Sc hool viole nc e: T he e ffe c tive ne ss of a sc hool r e sour c e offic e r pr

• g r

a m in a Southe r n c ity. Jour nal of Cr iminal Justic e , 27(2), 173–192.  Justic e Polic y Institute . (2011). E duc ation unde r ar r e st: T he c ase against polic e in sc hools. Re tr ie ve d fr

• m http:/ / www.justic e polic y.or

g / r e se ar c h/ 3177  Mukhe r je e , E . (2007). Cr iminalizing the c lassr

• om: T

he ove r

• polic ing of Ne w Yor

k City sc hools. Ne w Yor k: Ne w Yor k Civil L ibe r tie s Union.  Sa ma h, A. (2015, Oc tobe r 31). Bla c k a nd L a tino stude nts sa y the y se e ha r sh tr e a tme nt fr

• m sc hool offic e r

s, who a r e g r

• wing in numbe r

. Buzzfe e d. Re tr ie ve d fr

• m http:/ / www.buzzfe e d.c om/ a lbe r

tsa ma ha / bla c k-a nd-la tino-stude nts-sa y-the y-se e -ha r sh-tr e a tme nt-fr

• mS. R. & L

. G. v. Ke nton County She r iff’s Offic e ,  Kor ze nbor n, C. & Sumne r , K. (2015). Compla int for Da ma g e s a nd De c la r a tor y a nd Injunc tive Re lie f a nd Jur y De ma nd. U.S. Distr ic t Cour t for the E a ste r n Distr ic t of Ke ntuc ky Northe rn Division at Covington.

 R yan, J.B., Katsiyannis, A., Counts, J. & She lnut, J. (in pre ss). T he Growing Conc e rns R e garding Sc hool R e sourc e Offic e rs. Inte r ve ntion in Sc hool and Clinic ,  Strate gie s for Youth. (2013). If not now, whe n? A sur ve y of juve nile just tr aining in Ame r ic as polic e ac ade mie s. R e trie ve d from http:/ / www.strate gie sforyouth.org.  Unite d State s. De partme nt of E duc ation Offic e for

Civil Rig hts. (2014, Ma r c h). Civil r ights data c olle c tion data snapshot: Sc hool disc ipline (Issue Br ie f No. 1). Wa shing ton DC: Author  Unite d Sta te s De pa r tme nt of Justic e . (2013). COPS F a c t She e t: Me mor a ndum of Unde r sta nding for F Y 2013 Sc hool-Ba se d Pa r tne r

• ships. Re tr

ie ve d fr

• m

http:/ / www.c ops.usdoj.g ov/ pdf/ 2013_MOU-F a c tShe e t_v2_091613.pdf