Literature Review
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
History of the School Resource Officer Program
It is foolish to hunt a tiger when there are plenty of sheep to be had.
-Hamas training manual
Throughout history, America's schools have generally been viewed by parents and the general public as safe havens from the many evils of the world. Sheldon Greenberg, the Associate Dean of the Johns Hopkins University, School of Education, describes the tradition of safe schools as providing students with "...a sense of sanctuary" (Keiger, 2002). The tradition of schools as safe havens for the nation's youth has been shattered by incidents of violence, terrorism, and crime. The threat of a Columbine-esque school violence incident has prompted the government and educational institutions to consider the implementation of new security measures (McNicholas, 2008). One of the boldest governmental responses to the violence and crime that has found its way into our nation's schools is the permanent placement of police officers in schools.
The School Resource Officer (SRO) program has become one of the fastest-growing areas of modern law enforcement. The SRO program was born out of the community policing strategy. The goal of the community policing model involves a quest for new and innovative ways to work more closely with the communities the police serve. A major component of the community policing strategy is to identify functions that allow for both maximum interaction between the police and citizens, and provide the ability for both to work together to solve community problems and prevent crime. Community policing has been credited with a great number of unique programs, however, one of the most substantial initiatives of this strategy is the practice of placing police officers inside the nation's schools (Forrest, 2010).
Faced with increasing public pressure, school administrators have been busy taking action to implement programs designed to curb school violence. Such responses have included the use of video surveillance cameras on school campuses, zero-tolerance policy enactment for perpetrators of school violence, curriculum-based programs designed to address the precursors of violence (i.e. programs aimed at stopping bullying and identifying victims of bullying), conflict mediation and resolution, hiring school security personnel, and the addition of police officers to the school system (i.e. School Resource Officers) (Joong & Ridler, 2006).
Historically, the extent of interaction between the police and school system was informal and by request only. The police were utilized only in emergency situations. When the school called upon the police for assistance, it usually meant a student or staff member was in a lot of trouble. Other police officer visits to schools typically involved presentations on such topics as "stranger danger," bicycle safety, child molesters, drug prevention, and traffic safety.
School safety has become a hot topic in the United States during the last three decades. Contrary to popular belief, School Resource Officer (SRO) programs were not created solely as a response to incidents such as the massacre at Columbine High School. The first SRO program is said to have begun during the 1950s in Flint, Michigan, well before the series of high-profile shootings in the 1990s (Center for the Prevention of School Violence, 2001). This marked the first time in the nation's history that police officers were placed in schools as their permanent work assignment (Sherling, 1998).
The mission of the first School Resource Officer (SRO) program was simply to improve the relationship between the police and the community's youth. These school-based police officers served as law-related teachers and counselors to students. According to a survey of this early SRO program, it was regarded as highly successful. This program would serve as a model for future programs across the country (McNicholas, 2008).
There is some discrepancy about the exact origins of school-based policing. According to Mulqueen (1999), the Flint, Michigan School Resource Officer (SRO) program began in 1953. While other sources credit the Flint, Michigan program anywhere between 1950 and 1958. The exact origin of school-based police officers is difficult to ascertain (Brown, 2006). Brown (2006) stated that while the first SRO program is commonly agreed to have originated in Flint, Michigan in 1958, other agencies were utilizing school-based police officers in some capacity much earlier. According to Brown (2006), the Indianapolis Public School Police Department began in 1939, and Los Angeles followed suit in 1948.
Scheffer (1987) traces the origin of school-based police officers, not necessarily School Resource Officers, as far back as the year 1918 in New York. According to Scheffer, police officers were used to implement prevention-based programs such as "supervising playgrounds, maintaining liaison with schools, interviewing with parents, and admonishing predelinquent children" (Scheffer, 1987).
The School Resource Officer (SRO) program was popular during the 1960s and 1970s, predominantly in Florida (Girouard, 2001). Early SRO programs focused on the prevention of criminal activity, particularly those offenses that youth were more likely to participate in, such as drug use, sexual matters, and underage alcohol consumption (Alderson, 1980).
Interest in the School Resource Officer program declined during the 1980s, and did not again regain momentum until the high-profile school shootings in Colorado during the 1990s (Girouard, 2001). The Columbine High School shooting in particular became a major force behind spending public money on police officers in schools (Keiger, 2002).
The School Resource Officer program was dramatically bolstered by President Clinton's $60 million in funding to support the Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, or "COPS" in Schools program. This funding resulted in the addition of 452 officers in schools (Juvonen, 2001). Funding for the program continued, and nearly tripled, under President Bush (Gray, 2003). According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services has awarded more than $753 million to more than 3,000 law enforcement agencies to fund over 6,500 School Resource Officers (U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2005).
According to a survey conducted by the California Department of Justice in the year 2000, 63% percent of California's high schools employed at least one part-time police officer (Lockyer, 2000). Curtis Lavarello, the executive director of the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), reports that there are now approximately 14,000 SROs working in schools nationwide (National Association of School Resource Officers, 2010).
Comparison of School Resource Officer Programs
In the early years of School Resource Officer (SRO) programs, SROs were expected to "promote positive relationships with students and to cope proactively with the advancing spectra of juvenile crime" (Alderson, 1980, p. 227) cited in Gulen, 2010). Brown (2006) defined this new “public servant” role of school-based police officers as “a hybrid of educational, correctional, and law enforcement” oriented community policing which requires “acting as a liaison officer between the school, community, and law enforcement while teaching law related education classes, counseling students, and performing law enforcement duties” (Brown, 2006, p. 593 cited in Gulen, 2010). School-based police officers role as educators, counselors, and law enforcers would later come to be known as the “triad model” (Forrest, 2010).
According to the U.S. Department of Justice (2005), "Communities throughout the nation recognize that trained, sworn law enforcement officers assigned to schools make a difference." The SROs funded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) are trained to teach classes in crime prevention, drug and alcohol abuse awareness, and gang resistance. SROs are also responsible for monitoring and assisting students with difficulties through student mentoring programs and encourage student participation in community service activities (U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2005).
The School Resource Officer (SRO) is responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the school's students and staff. In order to accomplish these tasks, the SRO must identify deficiencies within the schools policies and safety practices and help develop school policies and procedures that address criminal activity and school safety (U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2005). The SRO must be able to communicate effectively with the school administration, staff, and students in order to be successful (McNicholas, 2008).
It should come as no surprise that the School Resource Officer serves as the school's front-line specialist in times of crisis. According to Curt Lavarello, the executive director of the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO, 2003), School Resource Officers are responsible for developing rapport with the students so that students can learn to trust the SRO enough to either inform them about other classmates planning violent attacks or turn to SROs for help when they themselves are in trouble (Mulqueen, 1999). Lavarello indicates the importance of student mentoring as a means for preventing crime and tragedies by identifying and solving problems before they erupt into violence (Mulqueen, 1999). Lavarello indicates that there are three main functions of a SRO:
Armed police officers with the powers of arrest
Counselors of law-related issues, and
Teachers of the law (either classes or presentations)
One of the School Resource Officers (SROs) greatest responsibilities is to increase the physical and psychological safety of students and staff. There are many examples of instances where the SRO has prevented a major crisis. For example, at Granite High School, near San Diego, California, a SRO's presence at the school resulted in the prevention of a shooting becoming a massacre (Juvonen, 2001). This exemplifies the SRO's responsibility of serving as the front-line first responder in times of crisis. This role must also be recognized with the SRO's inclusion on school crisis teams. In this capacity, the SRO serves as a liaison with the various individuals and agencies that could be involved during a crisis situation (McNicholas, 2008).
School Personnel's Perceptions of School Crime and Violence
Guns have no place in the hands of our children or in the hallways and classrooms of their schools. Children should be able to go to school without fearing for their safety. Our schools should be safe havens - places where children escape the violence that engulfs so many of their lives. The time has come to remove guns from the schools of America.
-Senator Diane Feinstein (August 10, 1994)
The American fear that schools can be dangerous places to work is not a new concept (Keiger, 2002). Paul Vance, the Superintendent of the Montgomery School District, stated, “I never thought in my career I would recommend electronic cameras in schools, but we’ve never had anything like this before in America (Schulte, 1999). It should come as no surprise that school personnel remain unsettled these days. Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the Northern Illinois University shootings have left a lasting impression on school personnel. For example, two 10-year olds in Virginia found themselves before a judge facing felony charges after being arrested for pouring soap gel into their teacher's water bottle. Although the teacher was unharmed, he felt threatened enough to report the incident to the police (Cloud, Monroe, & Murphy, 1999).
Misconceptions About the School Resource Officer Program
If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.
-Abraham Maslow
Sheldon Greenberg brings to light a major misconception about the School Resource Officer (SRO) program. Greenberg states, "We've created this idea that everything will be fine once we get cops in the schools." Greenberg states, "They (SROs) will not end disruption, they will not end school crises, they will not end crime." Greenberg is not totally against the practice of placing police officers in schools, however, he is opposed to implementing the SRO program simply for the sake of doing it (Keiger, 2002).
School Resource Officers who participated in the 2001 National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) survey responded that the majority of individuals influencing school safety do not fully understand the role of the SRO. The SROs reported that 44% of school personnel do not fully understand their role at the school (Trump, 2001).
SRO and Student Interactions
We want them (students) to be comfortable coming to us with a problem and realize we're people, not just a uniform.
-Detective Mark Dubois, School Resource Officer, Wayne (NJ) Police Department
One of the primary goals of the SRO program is to establish trust between students and the SRO. Positive interaction with students is one of the most important aspects of the SRO program. SROs interact with students in a variety of ways. For example, by assisting classroom teachers, SROs supplement classroom instruction by teaching students about the law and helping them become better informed citizens. In driver's education classes, SROs can contribute to lessons about the law and offer safe driving tips (Forrest, 2010).
Another role of the SRO is to provide counseling and to serve as a mentor to students. Once the SRO establishes trust with students, the students can confide in the SRO on various school and non-school-related matters that they may not wish to speak to a school staff member or parents about. The SRO also serves as a source of advice and guidance for parents (Forrest, 2010).
The president and founder of the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO), Curt Lavarello, "The main purpose (of the SRO program) is to develop rapport with the students so that students trust them (SROs) enough to either inform them about other classmates planning violent incidences or turn to SROs for help when they themselves are in trouble" (Mulqueen, 1999). According to Lavarello, SROs serve as mentors to students, and this is a proactive measure which can help prevent crime and tragedies by identifying problems before they can morph into violence (Mulqueen, 1999).
Although they don't have as many numbers behind them, SROs have proven to be one of the best community policing tools today, providing students with a trust for law enforcement officials (NASRO, 2003).
Obstacles to the School Resource Officer Program
The reality is that there is no accurate and consistent collection of data on school-based crimes in the United States. ...National statistics grossly underestimate the extent of school crime and violence, public and media perceptions often overstate the extent of school crime and violence, and reality exists somewhere in between.
-Kenneth S. Trump, National Association of School Safety and Security Services
Despite the many successes of the School Resource Officer (SRO) program, there are many obstacles that hinder the success of the program. The first problem up for debate is whether SROs are really needed. According to the National Education Association, the Justice Department's National Criminal Justice Reference Service, and the Surgeon General, the majority of America's schools are relatively safe places (Keiger, 2002).
Another problem is the tradition of schools to handle problems internally. This tradition extends today, where many school administrators are resistant to let outsiders, such as the School Resource Officer (SRO), in on some things. Not everyone is particularly happy with the SRO program. School personnel, such as teachers and administrators, having grown accustomed to an authoritative position in the school, may resist subordinating themselves to the SRO in times of crisis (McNicholas, 2008). Ben Brown states that school administrators may view the SRO as a "new authoritative agent," and this creates negative outcomes for the SRO program (Brown, 2006). Others argue that the SRO program interferes with students' rights and interferes with the traditional school climate as a learning environment. These critics argue that police in schools are a distraction, and may make students unnecessarily afraid (McNicholas, 2008).
The inherent differences between the cultures of schools and policing have also been identified as a source of inevitable conflict for School Resource Officer (SRO) programs. Fundamental differences exist in terms of goals, strategies, and methods. The school culture is referred to as open and complex, consisting of various social relationship networks. This is entirely different from the dominant closed culture of policing (Jackson, 2002). It is argued that the SRO will have difficulty adjusting to this new climate.
Critics of School Resource Officer (SRO) programs argue that the objectives and goals of the program need to be more clearly defined (Girouard, 2001). They argue that the SRO program may harm rather than benefit schools because the police and school cultures inherently oppose each other (Brown, 2006).
Other critics take issue with the School Resource Officer (SRO) program for other reasons. For example, Sheldon Greenberg, a professor at Johns Hopkins University, believes that things have gone way too far in many of the nation's schools. Responding to the growth of SRO programs, Greenberg states that too much public money has been wasted, and many of the programs that have been implemented to make schools safer have backfired and caused students to be more afraid. Greenberg argues that schools were never unsafe to begin with. According to Greenberg, most school disruptions are not criminal offenses, therefore, the role of restoring order remains the school administration's job (Keiger, 2002).
According to author, Cathy Girouard (2001), the police are involved in many school activities and programs, but each of these programs differ in some respects. Girouard maintains that these programs cannot be unified because the School Resource Officer program is not clearly defined (Girouard, 2001).
Funding
I cannot believe the President (Bush) has tried on numerous occasions to gut this highly successful program. I hear the White House constantly tout its homeland security record, well Mr. President, cops in our communities are the foundation of homeland security.
-U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-NJ, 8th )
On September 6, 2000, the Department of Justice announced that $68 million in grants would be awarded to hire 599 SROs in 280 communities across the nation. Congress later appropriated and additional $5 million 2000 and $3 million in 2001 to assist in training the new SROs (Girouard, 2001).
According to the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention - Center for the Prevention of School Violence Annual School Resource Officer Census, from 2007-2008, approximately 50% of all SRO programs were supported by state funds. Approximately 43% of all SRO programs were funded locally (The Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention - Center for the Prevention of School Violence, 2008).
School Violence
I and the public know
What all schoolchildren learn,
Those to whom evil is done
Do evil in return.
-From W.H. Auden's poem "September 1, 1939"
On May 5, 2009, a 17-year-old male student kills himself with a shotgun inside a bathroom at his Canandaigua, New York high school and is found by two classmates. Thirty rounds of ammunition are recovered from the student's locker. On August 21, 2008, a 15-year-old male student is shot in the chest and dies in his Knoxville, Tennessee high school cafeteria. On February 11, 2009, a 14-year-old male student was shot in the leg while riding the school bus. The student brought a gun from home and was showing it to his friend when it discharged. On August 1, 2008, a 16-year-old male student is arrested after police recovered pictures of a mass shooting and a hit list containing names of students and teachers to kill. The student reportedly owned five swords and was attempting to recruit others to assist him in carrying out his plan, which included burning a teacher alive (National School Safety and Security Services, Inc., 2010).
Well before the shootings at Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Northern Illinois University prompted fear and concern in the general public, a 14-year-old honor roll student at Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington, named Barry Loukaitis walked into his algebra class and shot his teacher in the back and two students in the chest. "This sure beats algebra, doesn't it," Barry said, as he stood over the body of a boy who was dying from choking on his own blood (Egan, 1998).
Soon after the shooting at Frontier Middle School, a sign appeared on a nearby school bearing a simple, single question: "Why?" That question remains unanswered today as incidents of school violence appear to be happening with greater frequency, and the number of victims increases with each new occurrence (Egan, 1998).
In the late 1990s, it seemed like an epidemic of violence had hit American schools where students were arming themselves with guns and bombs and heading to school to kill their teachers and classmates (Egan, 1998). The government further fueled this fire by issuing alarming publications such as the FBI's publication, "The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective," and the Department of Education's publication, "Safeguarding Our Children: An Action Guide." The government, along with the general public, panicked and the U.S. Department of Justice opened its wallet in an attempt to make our nation's schools safe once again (Keiger, 2002).
Kids killing kids is nothing new in America, but high-profile cases like Columbine have made the public aware of the horrific consequences of bullying and school violence, and have left educators wondering whether our nation's schools are the safe havens they once were. While it is not exactly clear whether violence in American schools is actually getting worse, it makes sense that the public perceives that it is due to the overwhelming amount of news media coverage that school violence incidents receive (Joong & Ridler, 2006).
According to the Department of Education (2009), approximately 55 million students are enrolled in schools ranging from pre-kindergarten through twelfth grade. Another 15 million are estimated to attend colleges and universities across the country (Department of Education and Justice, 2009). While many consider America's schools to be relatively safe places, and the chances of serious violence remain very low, violent incidents continue to take place every day, and any amount of violence in schools is unacceptable (Joong & Ridler, 2006) (Juvonen, 2001).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2001), school violence is prevalent in both urban and suburban schools. The larger the school, the more propensity there is for violence, and middle school students tend to be the most likely targets of violence (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001).
Parents, teachers, and school administrators still expect schools to remain safe havens of learning. However, acts of violence continue to disrupt the learning process and have a negative effect on students, the school itself, and the community (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008). Perceptions of violence are significant because feeling unsafe is not conducive to learning or teaching (Joong & Ridler, 2006).
Researchers cite two common community responses which are echoed with each high profile case of school violence. These responses are especially problematic for those responsible for the safety and security of schools. The first response is “We never thought it could happen here.” The second response is, “There is nothing you can do to prepare for such incidents” (Sink, 1999).
The nation's fear can also be gauged from the jump in home schooling. Some parents and students have responded to their concerns about the safety of our nation's schools by resorting to home schooling. From 1997-1999, home schooling increased from 700,000 to 1.5 million school-age children (Sink, 1999).
School safety is not just the schools' problem; therefore, neither is the solution (O'Toole, 1999). Schools cannot expect to solve the complex problems associated with school violence on their own. However, schools must take the lead in violence prevention. Violence prevention in schools must be considered a joint effort among students, parents, teachers, administrators, the community, and the police department (Joong & Ridler, 2006).
The Columbine Effect
These are not ordinary kids who played too many video games. These are not ordinary kids who just wanted to be famous. These are simply not ordinary kids. These are kids with serious psychological problems.
-Peter Langman
On April 20, 2009, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado changed the school environment across the nation forever. Klebold and Harris killed 13 people, including themselves, at their high school. This incident ignited a national debate over bullying, put schools on alert over hit-lists made by troubled students, and sparked a quest to "profile" school shooters. Although Columbine was not the first school shooting incident, it was one of the worst, and the first to play out on live television (Toppo, 2009).
The shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado put schools across the country on high alert for "hit lists" made by "troubled" students, and has caused our nation deep scars (Toppo, 2009) (Juvonen, 2001). There is a growing concern that America's schools are not the safe havens they once were and that school violence will forever alter the learning environment. Both teachers and students express concern that they no longer feel safe in America's schools (Schreck, Miller, & Gibson, 2003). In the wake of Columbine, school districts nationwide have re-examined their procedures for ensuring the safety of their students. Since Columbine, and with each new incident of school violence, schools experience increasing concerns about school crisis management issues. The growing presence of weapons, gangs, and other disruptions continue to plague schools nationwide.
Columbine's effect on the nation is extensive. For example, one month prior to the shootings at Columbine High School, the State of Virginia had allocated $1 million to support School Resource Officer (SRO) programs. Twenty days after Columbine, Virginia allocated additional $2.2 million for SRO programs (Keiger, 2002).
Another concept that became quite popular immediately following highly publicized school shootings such as Columbine was the identification and profiling of potentially violent students. This concept is based on the assumption that perpetrators of school violence fit a certain profile, and their behavior can be predicted. The concept lead to public outrage at violent video games, movies, television programming, and music. The most problematic result of this concept involves the unfair labeling of many students who would never go on to commit violence as potentially violent persons (Juvonen, 2001).
According to the polls, American citizens are in favor of "zero tolerance" type policies for school violence (Cloud, Monroe, & Murphy, 1999). Parents also support school's tough stance because the zero-tolerance approach seems to end the guesswork associated with determining what offenses and which students should and should not receive disciplinary action . Zero-tolerance also means that the consequences for violations of school policy are getting tougher. In today's schools, a seemingly harmless prank can land students behind not only a school board, but also a judge (Cloud, Monroe, & Murphy, 1999).
The zero-tolerance concept has also been applied to things students say or write. For example, 18-year-old, Antonius Brown of Atlanta wrote a story about a student who goes on a Columbine-type rampage at his high school. School officials reacted by suspending Brown for 20 days. When Brown returned to school it happened to be the same day as the Columbine shootings. School officials suspended Brown for an additional two days due to fears from the school community. In addition, Brown's writings were interpreted by police as terrorist threats. Brown was arrested and served three days in jail. A judge also ordered Brown to leave town for two months. Welcome to America post-Columbine (Cloud, Monroe, & Murphy, 1999). Measuring Prevention
Research indicates that School Resource Officer programs are successful and have a positive impact on students, staff, and administration (Center for the Prevention of School Violence, 2001). In 2001, a survey of 689 School Resource Officers (SROs) revealed that 99% of the SROs reported that the program has improved school safety and prevented crime and violence. The survey also revealed that 67% of the SROs reported preventing school personnel from being assaulted by a student or other person in the school building (Trump, 2001).
Greenberg finds fault with the results of the aforementioned survey. Greenberg provides a compelling argument that those surveyed, School Resource Officers, may feel obligated to preserve their jobs, therefore, not being totally truthful in their responses. Greenberg also argues that prevention is difficult to measure. Greenberg questions how SROs can know what they prevent. "If I saw two students arguing and told them to knock it off, is that considered preventing a violent act?" Greenberg states (Keiger, 2002). Kenneth S. Trump adds to the debate by stating that the School Resource Officer's "preventative presence" is the reason that schools are safer than elsewhere in the community (Keiger, 2002).
Greenberg states the School Resource Officer is not going to be able to prevent the majority of school violence incidents without they are in the right place at the right time. Greenberg mentions that there was a SRO on duty at Columbine High School on the day of the shooting (Keiger, 2002). The Governor of the State of Colorado, Bill Owens, would appear to agree with this statement. In Owens' report on the Columbine High School shootings, he refers to the SRO program as a failure, because the SRO was unable to stop Klebold and Harris before they could commit their crimes (Owens, 2001).
Other research findings also point to the success of School Resource Officer (SRO) programs in positively impacting students, school staff members, and school administrators, in addition to reducing school violence, drop-out rates, disciplinary problems, and creating role models for students (Center for the Prevention of School Violence, 2001) (Johnson, 1999) (May, Fessel, & Means, 2004) (Scheffer, 1987) cited in Gulen, 2010). However, critics remain unsatisfied with these findings due to a “lack of standardization and clarification of the program’s role and definition, challenges between school versus law enforcement authority, and the legal status of juveniles and their rights under the Fourth Amendment” (Gulen, 2010).
A School Resource Officer is always available to respond to situations that occur in the school or on school property. As a result, SRO's presence in schools provides a sense of security for parents, staff members, and students (Forrest, 2010). According to the National Institute of Justice (1999), School Resource Officers (SROs) act as a visual deterrent to crime. The SRO’s uniform is said to act as a “beacon” to criminals and non-students (National Institute of Justice, 1999). The NIJ (1999) also reported on the “great” deterrent value of a police vehicle parked on campus.
