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

8/23/2016 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 old 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 or 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) 1

8/23/2016 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 ra vis, 2012 ). te nsions (Coon & T  1980s SROs taske d with de te r r ing dr ug r e late d pr oble ms ac r oss 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 oppo, 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 oss 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 oda y 1. SROs use d to ma na g e stude nt misbe ha vior, 2. SROs ina dve r te ntly pr omoting 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. 2

8/23/2016 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 omoting 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 opor 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). 3

8/23/2016 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 4