A Theoretical Analysis of School Resource Officer Programs

Vincent Warren

Criminal justice agencies compete for funding to help serve the public and protect order. From local and national law enforcement to probation-based prevention programs, various styles are adopted to help keep crime down. The use of school resource officers has been an emerging trend for almost 50 years. School resource officers act as law enforcement agents that also educate and counsel school children on campuses. Their function and effectiveness have been the subject of great curiosity in the past 20 years. Several studies have begun to explain how the various groups (SROs, students, teachers, administrators, and parents) involved in the program are affected and how they perceive the situation. In addition, comparisons of occurrences of crimes have been emerging as well; a few studies show the effectiveness of SROs in the schools. In this essay, I discuss how school resource officers came to be used and their sudden rise in popularity over the last decade. I will then provide a theoretical analysis of the use of SROs.

History and Function of SRO Program

In 1953, schools in Flint, Michigan instituted the first school resource officer in the nation. Forty years later, the program began multiplying at an extraordinary rate. As the program gathered more positive reviews, more states began to implement it (Mulqueen 1999). In 1994, President Clinton proposed and signed into law a bill that initiated a national movement to build a Community Oriented Policing Services department in the United States Department of Justice. In 1998, he initiated a bill that provided money to put in place School Based Partnerships for officers to help prevent violence in schools. In 1999, the Department of Justice adopted the COPS in Schools program and began issuing grants to qualified applying police agencies. The program allowed for the grant to cover $125,000 of the officer’s salary and expenses over a three-year term. The rest of the money in that term and one additional mandatory year following the term must be gathered by the local agency that receives the grant (Kennedy 2001). In total, over 4,500 officers have been employed through the grant. The presence of officers has grown from 35 states in 1997 to all 50 states (Mulqueen 1999).

The most agreed upon issue among school resource officers is that they are not just law enforcers. In addition to this function, they are teachers of law and drug/violence prevention and counselors to those who need an authority other than a school official or teacher to approach. Their main purpose on the campuses is to gain a respectable image in the eyes of the students so the students will be able to approach them if a dangerous or suspicious situation were to occur. This distinction sets them apart from security guards that mainly check for unruly behavior and monitor the doors and hallways (Mulqueen 1999). SROs are touted as an added instrument for the school to better serve the students. This description is the public image portrayed and printed in much of the media. However, some may argue that the officers serve as a surveillance tool of the state to keep students in line. With many teachers requesting help in keeping unruly students behaving correctly, maybe school resource officers are the answer. Most would argue that the officers are mainly in schools for the stated reasons in the newspapers and media images; however, it may not be unreasonable to wonder if the administration and teachers use the officers to gather previously missed information on student activity and misbehavior. In addition, parents may see the implementation of an officer as a positive force for campus safety. Obviously, most agree that the presence of an officer does not guarantee every student’s safety, but some parents may feel safer if they know their son or daughter has an outlet to turn to if needed.

Success of the program has been documented in a few studies conducted on attitudes and opinions of the various groups involved in or affected by the school resource officer program. The National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) conducted a survey at a national conference with a total of 689 respondents included in the sample. The survey questioned SROs on attitudes of the program, demographic information and occurrences in the schools. Overall, the survey indicated that the officers felt the program was successful and achieving the stated goals of reducing violence, counseling students in need, and educating students on prevention. Most reported having good relationships with the students, teachers and administrators, and an average relationship with parents. The officers also reported that the presence of the officer makes reporting of crimes more accessible and accurate. In addition, the officers reported the students feeling more comfortable in approaching the officers due to the increases in reporting crimes and potential dangerous situations; 94% of the officers reported a student coming to them to notify of a possible safety concern resulting in approximately 17 per officer (Trump 2001).

Another study conducted measured the attitudes and activities of SROs, teachers, students and administrators. Ida Johnson conducted the study in a Birmingham, Alabama school district through a survey, focus groups and interviews, and direct observations. The study revealed that all groups felt the program was a positive addition to the school’s safety program. SROs reported gang activity decreased (88.2 percent of SROs), felonies decreased (86.5 percent), and marijuana use and possession decreased (64.7 percent) after the assignment (Johnson 1999). School officials (administrators and teachers) indicated the same decreasing trend in the activity of gangs, crime in general, and drug use. Johnson and school officials concurred that the SROs responded to situations involving danger with students in a very professional manner. 94.1 percent of SROs felt the parents and teachers welcomed the officers in the school setting (Johnson 1999). In Birmingham schools, suspension rates dropped by almost 50 percent from 1994-5 school year to 1996-7 school year. Overall, the students approved of the SRO program as ensuring their safety, and even noted that they felt that trouble-making students were deterred by the presence of the officer (Johnson 1999).

A study conducted by the University of New Hampshire Justiceworks department measured attitudes of students and teachers. Of students who felt unsafe before the SRO implementation, 68 percent reported feeling safe two years later. 71 percent of students who smoked marijuana at school before the arrival of the SRO ceased to do so in the following year. Of the students who held unfavorable opinions of the SRO prior to implementation of the program, 61 percent viewed the officer as favorable. Of teachers who felt unsafe in the schools, 74 percent felt safe after the arrival of the officer. Teachers also reported a higher level of respect from the students after the arrival of the officer. Of teachers reporting a high level of disruptive behavior, 67 percent reported a low level in the two years following the arrival of the SRO. 86 percent of teachers felt their learning environment was improved with the presence of the SRO. 90 percent of teachers felt uncomfortable at first requesting help from the officers, but felt comfortable a year later (Humphrey 2001).

Finally, a study by a research team from Colorado State University measured SRO activity and student, staff and parent attitudes on the partnership program. 70 percent of high-school students indicated that the SRO was a positive force in the school community. Also, 95 percent reported their physical safety being just as secure or safer with 43 percent of them reporting they felt safer as a result of the officer’s presence. 80 percent of junior-high school students who reported an incident to the officer felt safe and comfortable. Of the staff, 82 percent felt the students’ safety had increased as a result of the officer’s presence. 87 percent of parents of high-school students felt the officer was a positive member of the school community (Foster and Vizzard 2000). These studies indicate that the groups affected and involved in the school resource officer program approve of the role and effectiveness of the program and officers in the program. Some respondents indicated improvements that could be made, which will be highlighted later in this essay.

A Theoretical Interpretation of SRO Programs

School resource officers are an interesting model of law enforcement to study since they are intended to serve and protect a more specific population. Theories that shed light on why a school system might need school resource officers include social control theory, social bond theory, and differential association theory.

Social control theory assumes that people are born with inset predispositions toward violence and need to be controlled if they are to law-abiding. Hirschi and Gottfredson argue that people inherently have low-self control and need to be restrained from committing criminal acts. They also point out that low self-control is not the result of socialization or training, rather in the absence of such guidance (Gottfredson and Hirschi in Cullen and Agnew 1999). So, it would seem plausible for the schools to institute an effective means to control young children if they need it. By having an armed and trained officer who possesses the threat of force and punishment if necessary, schools socialize the students to avoid unruly behavior, and the teaching and counseling provides positive means for students to work out differences and avoid negative activity.

Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory suggests that indirect control of the students is key to preventing crime in schools. Through attachment, commitment, involvement and belief, social bond theory assumes that the ties and relationships formed and the strength of those relationships affects the path to crime for many juveniles (Hirschi in Cullen and Agnew 1999). The educational function of SROs enables the students to become attached to the norms of the laws and familiar with what is acceptable and unacceptable. The students become attached to the officer, a representative of state-sanctioned obedience and, thus, become familiar with the laws. The officers also offer a line of commitment that might be otherwise absent. If the student(s) have no source of investment in the system, then they feel they have no reason to obey its rules. By socializing with the students, the officer forms a bond that provides the student with an investment in the safety of the school. Since the students can come to him or her for help, they would not want to violate the trust and reliance by acting unruly or committing a crime. Involvement in conventional activities provides alternatives for juveniles to stay out of criminal activity. The implementation of the school resource officer allows the students to engage in conventional activities by virtue of the officer’s presence. In explanation, the officer’s presence on campus allows the students to not worry so much about their safety and, instead, go about their business. In addition, it also puts the students in the role of assistant to the officer in case anything goes wrong and the officer is not present immediately. The student can assume conventional activities such as reporting suspicious activity and/or discouraging others from criminal or unruly behavior. Also, the presence of the officer altogether discourages the participation in criminal behavior. Finally, belief is instilled in the students by educating the students in the laws about drugs, theft, vandalism, etc. By educating the students on punishments and rationale behind certain laws, the officers foster a belief system that students adopt as a community and share in the values of. If the officers can sell the students on the idea that violating the law and disrupting school activity is wrong, then the school will have a more amicable student body and the students will share in the values that are learned.

Differential association theory holds that criminal behavior is acquired through life experiences and learning in the culture around a person. Sutherland and Cressey argued that criminal behavior was learned through a system of communication – especially interaction with intimate groups. They also felt that the process of learning criminal behavior pattern is the same as the process involved in learning any other behavior. Needs and values are a product of the socialization of the individual in the group (Sutherland and Cressey in Cullen and Agnew 1999). School resource officers provide a mechanism for disallowing the process of a juvenile to enter into a situation of learning criminal behavior. By educating the student in the laws and acceptable behavior and how the student benefits by obeying the laws, the officer can divert the student from the criminal learning process to an acceptable learning pattern. By developing relationships with the students, the officers provide a positive line of communication for the students to learn positive, law-abiding behavior. Also, by providing safety and security to the students, the officers gain a reliable, positive image in the eyes of the students that satisfies for some of the needs and desires of the students. By engaging in friendly and active discussion in informal settings, officers also provide the students with a companion to depend on. These activities by the officer help ensure the students will learn a positive, law-abiding way of behaving and discourage the activity in criminal sub-cultures.

School resource officer programs appear to be effective in the eyes of the students, teachers/administrators, parents and the officers themselves. This effectiveness has different implications for each group. Parents wish to see a school system where they need not worry about drugs or violence and are able to depend on authority in the system to prevent criminal activity. Many students wish to be able to learn in an environment that is stable and free of distractions such as violence and drugs. Teachers wish to be able to have the full attention of the students and do not want to deal with the student who lights up or lays out another student in the classroom. Administrators most likely seek out a safe system that provides an environment that enables students to learn and to display that learning effectively on tests and in the community. The officers wish to add to the order of the community and educate the students to prevent and refrain from drugs and violence so that he/she will not, later in their life, encounter them in the criminal system. The SRO program seems to be an effective tool for the system in working toward a desirable situation for all parties involved in education of children and their safety.

In the light of social control theory, the SRO program seems to be effective. In the presence of school resource officers, students commit less crime, use drugs less, and feel safer. In addition, parents, teachers and administrators feel the schools are safer and note that the students are more comfortable reporting incidences to the officers (Foster and Vizzard 2000; Humphrey 2001; Johnson 1999; Trump 2001). While causation cannot be truly established here, it is reasonable to assume that the presence of the officer/program is related to the decrease in criminal behavior and increase in perception of safety. Social control theory might also hold that the presence of the officer provided a previously absent form of control on the behavior of the students (Gottfredson and Hirschi in Cullen and Agnew 1999). Also, I would note that it would seem as if the students would continue to commit acts of violence and use drugs and, in effect, be caught more. However, with the presence of the authority figure who possesses the ability to control the actions of the students, the studies show students instead refrained from the activity and embraced the officer as legitimate and a person of considerable importance. Gottfredson and Hirschi also noted that traits of low self-control present in children initially and the recognition of caretakers factor into the deviant path of some criminals (Cullen and Agnew 1999). So, if the children exhibit various behaviors that may indicate an inclination toward low self-control, the caretakers (parents, teachers, SROs) should be readily available to counter those behaviors with some modification tactics. SROs perform this function by educating the children on the norms that discourage criminal behavior. They describe what it is like to be victimized and addicted to drugs and explain that there are many positive alternatives to the criminal life. Gottfredson and Hirschi also note that “effective socialization is, however, always possible whatever the configuration of individual traits” (in Cullen and Agnew 1999).

Hirschi’s social control theory assumes that the bond of an individual to society indicates how inclined that individual will be to commit violent acts. The more positive the bond, the less likely to commit acts of crime. If a person’s bond is weak, the person will be more likely to commit criminal acts. Through attachment, commitment, involvement and belief, Hirschi outlines the ways in which a person can be bonded to the larger society and be discouraged from committing criminal acts (in Cullen and Agnew 1999). The studies outlined above indicate that students trusted the authorities more after the arrival of the officer. This may be a result of the relationship informally the officer formed with the students. This relationship may have been a bond that was absent previously. Also, parents approved of the implementation of the officer. Thus, I would conclude that the officer is seen as a valid tool for bonding the students to the norms of society. Through Hirschi’s scheme of attachment, commitment, involvement and belief, students became bonded to the norms that discourage criminal behavior. The studies indicated that the students attached to the officers through the education and counseling services they provided. The students also formed commitments to the norms through education and responsibility for others’ actions. By involving the students in the “criminal watch-out,” the officers gained an extra set of eyes and ears and kept the students from committing criminal acts. The students formed a belief in the rules of law by being educated by the officers in the classroom and forming the relationship with the officer that made his information seem valid to the students. Finally, Hirschi’s theory gives light to the findings in the studies that indicate the student’s perceptions of lower crime and drug use and greater comfort in the school. Social bond theory would assume that the officers were successful in bonding the students to the mainstream values.

Studies outlined earlier indicate the presence of positive attitudes and opinions on various aspects of the SRO program and its effects on the school system. Overall, the students, parents, and administrators/teachers approved of the program, and the officers themselves thought positively about the job they were doing. In the light of social bond theory, one would assume that if every part involved approves of the program and most statistics on delinquent behavior and crime decreased after the arrival of the officer, the officer must have been forming some sort of bond with the students that might be curtailing criminal behavior. I will concede that many other factors not taken account for are the influx/out flux of students through moving, graduation, drop-out, etc. and may cast suspicion on my argument. Also, the theories of social control and social bond theory detail how other forms of socialization can influence juvenile delinquency. For example, parental involvement and other activity outside school walls could influence the students in ways not related to the SRO program. The studies reviewed here also did not indicate whether the crime rates in the city, county, state or nation had gone down at the same time as the decrease in the school. Further, comparison to other schools with similar characteristics but without the SRO program would help us understand how to better interpret the student opinion of safety issues.

Conclusion

Some improvements/criticisms can be raised by the theories and findings. Some teachers felt the property of the students and teachers/staff was not as well protected as desired. This may indicate that the officers are looking out for violence and drugs but not watching property as much. Giving credit to the officers, they cannot lookout for all of the needs of the school. One suggestion could be to implement cameras in areas of high property risk. Also, some parents fear a risk of lack of involvement in students’ disciplinary process. With the addition of formal law enforcement, parents acknowledge that the school and/or SRO may be inclined to ship the student off to jail before calling the parent. A separate school justice agenda would seem to form. Parents feel more comfortable going to the school office and negotiating the punishment; if the law calls for arrest, then the accused should be detained, but at the notice of the parent (in the parents’ line of thinking). Also, social bond theory allows that some crime will slip into the system and some previous pattern of crime may not stop, but the officer can serve at the least as a dam-wall for crime. Thus, he/she can stop some of it and maybe make it harder to commit crime, but not all of it. This is supported by the findings that state that some of the students still did not feel safe and some, but few, did report drugs and crime in the school still after the officer’s presence. Also, officers cited lack of knowledge/understanding of the program as their highest concern for the program. Staff and administration agreed and stated that they felt the program was not as publicized and explained in what its intentions were (Foster and Vizzard 2000; Humphrey 2001; Johnson 1999; Trump 2001). Thus, it may have reduced ability to control crime if everyone is not understood on its purpose. Parents may not be able to adequately identify who the officer is and approach him if they need him. The uniform takes most of this problem away initially, but name identification is the main problem and job duties. The parents may not know whether to approach him for behavioral or just criminal problems. To address these criticisms/suggestions, if the officers can integrate the parents, staff/teachers, and administration into the publicity of the program, provide a more secure form of surveillance of property, and focus more attention on habitual criminals in schools, the program will be serving areas that pose as potential, if not current, obstructions to the success of the program.

My conclusion is that the program serves the function that it has initially stated: enforce law on campuses, educate the students on the laws, and counsel students when needed. The program has enjoyed moderate success while recognizing that it must address some areas. The success is measured through the students’ attitudes and teachers’ perceptions of safety. The findings of the studies have shown that the officers provide sufficient amount of control to reduce crime in the schools, but still do not fully ensure that the officers are the “reason” for the reduction in crime and increase in positive perceptions. The students and teachers have indicated that the officers have been able to form bonds in the schools that enable them to keep a check on criminal behavior. In the end, if the program continues to operate as it has in the past, serving the needs of the students, and adjusts for the current and possible needs for improvement, it will continue to be a beneficial asset to schools across the country.

References

Foster, Ann and Lila Herndon Vizzard. 2000 “School Resource Officer Partnership Evaluation” accessed via Internet: www.colostate.edu/depts/r-center/sroevaluation2000.pdf

Gottfredson, Michael R. and Travis Hirschi in Cullen and Agnew 1999. Criminological Theory: Past to Present “A General Theory of Crime” p. 175-186; Roxbury Publishing, Los Angeles

Hirschi, Travis in Cullen and Agnew 1999. Criminological Theory: Past to Present “Social Bond Theory” p. 167-174; Roxbury Publishing, Los Angeles

Humphrey, John A. 2001 “School Resource Officer Evaluation: Executive Summary” accessed via Internet:

http://www.justiceworks.unh.edu/Research/SRO_Eval/sro_eval.html

Johnson, Ida M. 1999 “School Violence: The Effectiveness of a School Resource Officer Program in a Southern City” Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 27 no. 2: p. 173-92

Kennedy, Mike. 2001 “Teachers with a badge” American School and University, v73 no. 6 p. 36-38

Mulqueen, Connie. 1999 “School resource officers more than security guards.” American School and University v71, no. 11 p. 17

Sutherland, Edwin H and Donald Cressey in Cullen and Agnew 1999. Criminological Theory: Past to Present “A Theory of Differential Association” p. 82-84 Roxbury Publishing, Los Angeles

Trump, Kenneth. 2001 “2001 NASRO School Resource Officer Survey” National School and Safety Services

Obtained via Internet: http://www.schoolsecurity.org/resources/nasro_sro_survey.html

United States Department of Justice. 2001 “U.S. Department of Justice Announces $98.4 Million in Grants to Hire New Police Officers In America’s Schools” obtained via Internet: www.usdoj.gov/cops/news_info/press_releases/pr_9_20_01.html

Vincent Warren is a graduate student on the Department of Sociology at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. His email is: vwarren@siue.edu