Redefining School Safety and Policing: A Transformative Four-Pillar Model 9781032124179, 9781032123219, 9781003224457

Citation preview

Redefining School Safety and Policing

Redefining School Safety and Policing identifies and works to eliminate systemic issues in school policing that negatively impact students of color, LGBTQIA+ students, and other marginalized populations. Focusing on the fundamental goal of creating safe learning environments, Yarbrough lays out the unintended consequences of involving police in the administrative disciplinary process, as agents of school administrators and enforcers of zero-tolerance policies. Behavioral health support is important to students going through social, emotional, and mental health crises. True equity work brings everyone to a safe space in the middle, encouraging open discussion and courageous dialogue and aiming to create positive change. Yarbrough argues that behavioral health and equity are vital to transforming school policing and providing beneficial alternative solutions to school policing that do not lead students to the juvenile or criminal justice system. This book is suitable for colleges and universities, K-12 school administrators, teachers, police and school resource officers, counselors, social workers, and community activists. Jeffrey D. Yarbrough is a public servant with over 28 years of law enforcement experience. He currently serves as Chief of Police for the City of Hutto, Texas. Prior to joining Hutto Police Department, he created and served as the inaugural Police Chief for the Round Rock Independent School District Police Department in Round Rock, Texas, where he was responsible for the safety of over 51,000 students, 7,000 staff members, and visitors to over 70 campuses and facilities. Jeffrey oversaw every level of safety, security, and law enforcement services for the district. Jeffrey previously served as the inaugural Chief of Police for the Bastrop Independent School District. He also served as a sergeant in the Travis County District Attorney’s Office in the Public Integrity Unit. Jeffrey was the former Chief of Police and Assistant City Manager for the City of Tulia, Texas. He served as Senior Investigator for the State Bar of Texas and Sergeant in the Criminal Prosecution Division of the Texas Attorney General’s Office where he investigated numerous murder and capital murder cases. For his work, Jeffrey received the 2022 State of Texas Law Enforcement Achievement Award for Professional Achievement through the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement at the Texas State Capitol House of Representatives. In addition, he received a proclamation from the Texas Senate in recognition of his professional achievements in school safety. Jeffrey received the 2022 Texas A&M University Outstanding Alumni-Early Career Award from the School of Education and Human Development. The award was received

for the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model along with the Community S.A.F.E. Project. The early career award is granted once a year to those who have made outstanding contributions within their chosen fields across their community, state, and the nation through professional service, public service, and/or civic activities in less than 10 years of receiving their degree. Less than 1% of Texas A&M graduates receive the award. Jeffrey is the first police officer and police chief to be bestowed this prestigious honor. Chief Yarbrough possesses a master’s degree in Educational Human Resource Development from Texas A&M University at College Station. He is a graduate of the University of Texas at Brownsville where he received a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice.

Redefining School Safety and Policing

A Transformative Four-Pillar Model

Jeffrey D. Yarbrough

Designed cover image: © Getty Images First published 2024 by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 and by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Jeffrey D. Yarbrough The right of Jeffrey D. Yarbrough to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. ISBN: 978-1-032-12417-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-12321-9 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-22445-7 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457 Typeset in Sabon by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.

Contents

Preface 1 Public Education and the Emergence of Modern Policing in the United States

vi

1

2 Intrinsic Issues in Policing

14

3 Zero-tolerance Policies and the Culture-to-prison Pipeline

25

4 Advent of School Policing

34

5 The Art of School Policing

46

6 Examination and Contributing Factors to School Violence

55

7 Alternatives to School Policing

69

8 Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing

80

9 Safety and Security

90

10 Threat Assessment

99

11 Student Safety through an Equity Lens

108

12 Behavioral Health

117

13 Student Advocacy

130

14 Mindset Shift for Full Implementation

137

Response to Specific Examples Index

146 147

Preface

The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model is a multi-layered, holistic, and transformative approach to enhancing safety and security and school policing. The most effective solution for addressing the social, emotional, behavioral, mental, or immature behavior of juveniles is not to always the criminal justice system. Although policing and crime prevention are vital components in a community’s efforts to improve societal wellbeing, past practices and approaches to school policing led to disproportionate outcomes for marginalized communities and student groups. A natural part of youthful growth and development includes the commission of reckless, irresponsible, and juvenile behavior. The oversaturation, overpolicing, and overinvolvement of law enforcement in addressing juvenile actions can lead to justice system fatigue and communities respond with calls for transformative policing methods that provide safety and security without the creation of a heavily policed society. In policing, tactics are dictated by the environment. Policing practices used in society may not be applicable in a school environment to be applied toward students with impressionable and developing minds. The model is designed to shift the officer and educator mindset from a default criminal justice solution to effective intervention and prevention practices as a more appropriate student-centered approach to comprehensive care and school safety. Calls for police reform are insistent and failures to demonstrate meaningful changes leads to increase in public outcry against police actions. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model is a solution that is the catalyst for postmodern policing, starting in schools and forming a culture and environment built on positive exposure to student centered, transformative safety and policing practices. Students need the opportunity to grow without the fear of zero tolerance and police intervention for minor wrongdoings. The success experienced through the creation and implementation of the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model is found in the innovative safety and security strategies, reductions in the disproportionality of discipline through initiatives that are equitable in meeting the needs of all students, behavioral health intervention, student advocacy, and effective prevention and postvention solutions designed to dramatically improve school safety. The solution provides opportunities for student accountability in a manner that includes reflective, developmental life lessons as alternatives to the criminal justice system. Implementation of the model ensures that threat mitigation and active shooter response are significantly improved, student arrests are reduced, and successful diversionary solutions are utilized to identify underlying issues so that students receive the intervention, prevention, postvention, and long-term assistance to overcome existing challenges. The result is a school environment that successfully improves and maintains safety and security at multiple levels for the benefit of all students.

Chapter 1

Public Education and the Emergence of Modern Policing in the United States

Public Education and the Emergence of Modern Policing in the United States The United States is considered the gold standard and academic elite among countries based on the superior education provided in K-12 school systems. It consistently ranks number one among every nation in the world. The educational model in America has evolved but was originally adopted from historical European educational models rooted deeply in social mores. Educational systems provide an invaluable benefit to every society. It is fundamental to success. As educational systems expand the services provided in response to the needs of society, the types of collaborative partnerships also expand. Safety and security in an educational environment are a priority for virtually every school and solutions to ensure safety is continuously explored. Many effective school safety strategies originated in the United States like the deployment of armed police officers in schools. The partnership between public schools and policing is a school safety that has continued to expand and adapt to the needs of students and communities. The partnership is the convergence of fluctuating social, educational, and community interests designed to meet the academic and safety needs of students. The fundamental purpose for the partnership has remained the same; provide irrevocable assurances that schools will consistently be a place where students can receive the highest level of growth, learning, and development while maintaining the safest learning environment for all. Parents send children to school and expect irrefrangible affirmations that children will be treated fairly, taught equitably, and kept safe. In essence, parents enroll children in school with the understanding that the ultimate trust to ensure the safety of their most valuable assets is placed in the school staff and safety procedures. Parents do not expect their children to be singled out or exposed to harm but demand that students are enriched in the safest and supportive learning environment that cultivates academic excellence. The expectation is for children to be protected from acts that could negatively impact their impressionable minds. A failure by school administrators to accomplish the most basic expectations can call to question and irreparably erode parental trust and confidence in school leadership. Each day, teachers provide the essential building blocks for future contributors to society. Schools regularly partner with local police to meet school safety and security needs. The partnership requires both to work collaboratively to mitigate the potential for negative incidents and situations that result from the actions or inactions of those entrusted to protect the future of society. Educational institutions are guided by the experiences, successes, failures, and outcomes of the past. The fundamental principles of education once rested upon reading, writing, and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-1

2  Public Education and the Emergence of Policing in the United States

arithmetic. The objective during the time was to equip students with basic learning skills to become productive citizens and contributing partners to the advancement of an evolving society. Class-based education systems determined which young adults would serve as traditional laborers and skilled workers and those assigned to serve in professional positions such as lawyers, doctors, scientists, and bankers. The cultivation of students in early America was not without cost. The first tax-supported initiative to fund schools in the United States was created in Dedham, Massachusetts, in 1648. It was a standard funding mechanism for schools around the country. Taxation demonstrated a vested interest in public schools held by communities to influence the outcomes and educational impact on society. It provided taxpayers a right to express concerns and educational expectations using tax dollars. In the early colonial American era, cities were not as complex as in the modern era. Citizens gathered in pockets of sparse and dense communities often separated from other communities by long distances of undeveloped land. Families were typically responsible for their own self-governance and for self-protection of their households and land. Citizens often developed and passed community regulations designed to maintain peace, improve social harmony, and minimize the need for law enforcement or central authority intervention. Schools were historically viewed as safe havens for academic learners and violent acts against students were not a major consideration. Although school safety prioritization has dramatically increased, school administrators are reluctant to make improvements that would cause schools to appear as prison compounds, surrounded by high perimeter fences and barbed wire. Identifying effective preventative actions and mitigation efforts designed to harden soft target schools is a consistent call for action in educational institutions worldwide. Lawmakers and the public recognize the need for resources and funding to improve school safety. The right to free public education is viewed as a Constitutional and fundamental right for every child, despite the United States Supreme Court not expressly ruling it so in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education. However, the Court did hold that if a state elected to provide public education, then the state must ensure that every student had an equal opportunity to education. Access to schools and finding solutions to transport students to a campus forced schools to identify options to accomplish the goals. Options included a variety of strategies including zoning to determine which class of students attended school in certain areas. A major point of contention happens when areas and neighborhoods are zoned in a manner that restricts certain segments in the district relegated to lower-performing schools while maintaining affluence and high-achieving areas in the district. School districts have the flexibility to determine how best to zone districts but boundary alignment practices cannot be based on race, color, or national origin. Contentious debates are a common occurrence during discussions related to redrawing school boundary lines. Tempers flare when citizens feel disenfranchised. Families attend school board meetings in protest when subjected to inequitable exclusion from resources allocated for distribution to all schools within the district. Improper zoning practices have occurred in cities throughout the United States. Citizens are aware of where high-achieving schools are located. Affluent parents desire to provide the best educational opportunities for children and often have the means and influence to do so. There is high interest for families to reside in neighborhoods served by certain high-performing schools. Families purchase homes, rent apartments, and in some instances use the address of relatives in areas with good schools to ensure that their children can attend high-performing schools. Despite the

Public Education and the Emergence of Policing in the United States  3

Brown v. Board of Education ruling to eliminate segregation practices, remnants of segregation have remained and tend to keep communities from commingling certain student groups with students from more affluent families and neighborhoods. Train tracks, bridges, and rivers historically served as school boundary lines in many communities as lines were the borders between wealthy and poorer communities. Bussing practices were designed to keep sections of communities segregated and were used by some districts to enforce school zoning interests. In the early 1970s, bussing strategies in the United States revealed a continuous plan to overtly maintain segregation. Although federal courts ruled in favor of providing bussing, politicians on both sides of the aisle opposed it. The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (1) emerged as a compromise of divided interest. The Equal Education Opportunities Act asserts that all children enrolled in public schools are “entitled to equal educational opportunity without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin; and the neighborhood is the appropriate basis for determining public school assignments.” Additional funds for schools in inner cities that were predominantly attended by minorities but bussing issues remained which kept minority students relegated to failing schools and in zones divided along racial lines. The expectation that equal opportunity would be enforced initially provided reassurances for many minority communities. However, with attendance zones largely drawn based on students attending neighborhood-based schools, disappointment remained among many living in racially segregated neighborhoods. Historical zoning practices prevented minority students from leaving their communities to attend schools of choice in pursuit of better educational opportunities. Zoning restricted students to schools in their neighborhoods which federal law considered to be the school closest to the home in the district where the student lives. The Equal Educational Opportunities Act authorized and gave jurisdiction to school districts and states to limit the options that parents had on deciding which school children could attend. Despite Congress defining a neighborhood school as the school nearest to the student’s place of residence, minority students could be assigned to schools not close to their home if the move did not further segregation. Congress prohibited districts from assigning a minority student to a different school would result in a greater degree of segregation. Today, school districts periodically redraw zoning attendance boundaries and the process can breed conflict across racial and neighborhood boundaries. The redrawing of boundary lines is viewed by some as a school district’s opportunity to discriminate against less affluent communities to benefit those who are. During school boundary discussions, communities may experience a division between the “haves and the have nots.” The challenge that school districts wrestle with is finding an effective resolution that meets the needs of the district and provides the best opportunities for their children. The primary purpose for redrawing school boundaries is to distribute student population across the district in a manner that alleviates overcrowding on campuses. In instances where boundary lines are drawn in a manner that forces affluent students into lower-performing schools, parents attend school board meetings and vigorously advocate on behalf of their children by expressing disapproval and recommendation. Affluent parents and influential community members tend to have a greater impact on the determining school board decisions on where certain children will attend school. Parents from more impoverished communities generally have less of a voice and impact. The Equal Education Opportunities Act does not require school districts to maintain a balance based on race, color, sex, or national origin. It is generally considered acceptable

4  Public Education and the Emergence of Policing in the United States

for a racially imbalanced school to exist if minority students are not assigned to schools beyond acceptable distances from their home. The educational system is an entity that provides equal opportunity for all students, regardless of race and economic status. Despite the goal, the potential for systemic inequities continues to exist in certain areas of educational decision-making. School zoning is an area where parents throughout the United States have argued that the interests of all students are not fully represented as equal when school boundaries are drawn. Chief Justice Warren wrote in Brown v. Board of Education (2) that if a child is denied the opportunity of an education, it is doubtful that the child can be reasonably expected to succeed in life. Despite the Brow ruling, inequitable practices continued to exist in areas where public education was not available to all on equal terms. School boundary and zoning debates in the United States continue to expose examples of children subjected to the unfair banning from quality schools that could be a beneficial pathway of future success. Schools in several states contend that they are open to every student. However, it raises questions about whether a school is truly open to all if students can be denied enrollment based solely on their address. Systemic issues that exist in education further demonstrate that problems are deeply rooted and more complex than adding police in schools. However, creating an environment that recognizes the impact that decisions have on marginalized students provides an opportunity to contribute solutions instead of compounding the hardships that lead to continued disproportionate outcomes. Providing an education is a necessity and several states assert the guarantee of equality of educational opportunities for all. Parents and communities question the guarantees and seek to understand what is the quality level of the education provided if students do not have the opportunity to attend a school of choice and are limited to attending inferior schools? The refusal to allow a student to attend a quality school because a boundary line runs down the middle of the street places an asterisk behind the guarantee. Arguments often draw distinctions between individuals, friendships, and politics in a manner that causes more problems than it solves. School districts are exposed to a variety of public outrage campaigns beyond school boundary debates. Protests are fueled by a variety of motivations such as personal interests, political motivation, or disciplinary action taken against a student. A segment of society is motivated by the attention received when publicly confronting a school board on a contentious topic. Examples include organized disruptions of school board meetings based on a set of topics that are classified as relevant and necessary. Certain groups have purposely perpetuated misinformation campaigns through motivated reasoning. Individual experiences related to popular social movements can contribute to the amplification of actions to promote existing beliefs. The educational system and leaders have evolved to a practice of preparing to address and respond to a variety of community concerns, regardless of relevance or factual support of claims provided. Since the formalization of school boards, public challenges and disputes from citizens have occurred. In the United States, particularly in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, school boards around the country experienced frequent public outrage and disruption at a level rarely experienced in a modern society. Debates over mask mandates, public bathroom and gender designation, critical race theory, and LGBTQ curriculum disputes have produced large levels of division and contention in communities. Actions at some school board meetings reached a level of safety concern or disruption of meetings and led to law

Public Education and the Emergence of Policing in the United States  5

enforcement intervening. In response to some incidents, parents and protestors were arrested for criminal violations or school board meetings were canceled due to public safety concerns. School boards around the United States have hired police to attend the meetings to maintain public safety. School board meetings in the United States have seen the amount of time spent on student outcomes and board governance processes dramatically reduced in response to the number of public speakers gathered to speak on certain topics that are perceived to be of dire public school interest. State laws around the country require that time is set aside for the public to express comments or concerns. School boards hear from a wide range of individuals on both agenda and non-agenda-related topics. The comments and challenges presented to school boards may not always be relevant to student outcomes. Many public speakers seek clarity and a better understanding surrounding the educational decisions a school board makes. Information provided by school districts in response to certain topics may not always be accepted as fact due to political views, social issues, parental expectations, cultural beliefs, and personal experiences that contribute to the development of certain beliefs. As a result, it may be difficult for some, whether school board or members of the public, to concede error when presented with facts to counter personally held assumptions or beliefs about a topic. Responses from some community members can be personal inquiry for independent verification of the information provided. Community groups may combine interests and collectively implement an approach that leads to labor- and resource-intensive problems through strategies that include voluminous open records requests, the filing of grievances, and in some cases filing meritless civil cases. An assumed belief is that not everyone is reachable or convincible. However, the assumption is flawed and it is possible to help every individual to grow and develop in a manner that causes a deeper understanding regarding specific issues. Education has evolved to a point where questions will emerge, verification is needed, and confrontation will occur. It occurs in response to a variety of decisions that school leaders implement, including the use of police in schools. The contention and support of school district decisions may not always be popular but it is important for public education to be aware of the current landscape and to be versatile in its ability to adjust to the changing needs, including school safety and policing. The task may not always be easy but it is achievable with the utilization of effective approaches designed to transition those with misconceptions to the pathway of conceptual change. The onramp of thought and reflection merges onto the speedway of clearer understanding and better alignment to what is expected of school boards, school districts, and police. Many issues in education and school policing have fostered in motivated reasoning outcomes. The result may be a distraction from true solutions for effective school safety and policing but distractions should not lead to deterrence. Education happens at multiple levels, on many topics, and through a variety of avenues. Success ensuring that the school safety mission remains resolute requires a true mindset shift to actual school safety objectives and solutions needed to achieve positive outcomes. The evolution of policing includes informal, transitional, and modern policing types. Informal policing refers to the shared responsibilities held by community members to maintain peace, safety, and order in their communities. As with any society, the germinal shifting of needs and police expectations happens. People move to towns and schools based on a variety of factors including the safety of a community and the quality of schools. Citizen groups in early America typically performed duties such as night watchmen which were relatively ineffective. Self-service over public service was the norm. Night watchmen were

6  Public Education and the Emergence of Policing in the United States

expected to prioritize the detection of criminal activity while providing non-criminal justice assistance. However, many were ill-prepared or equipped to address civil unrest or uprisings that commonly occurred during the latter part of 1700s in England and the Colonial United States. To truly understand the challenges that exist in school policing, the origin which is the grandfather of modern day policing must be examined. During the pre-colonial era in the United States, community safety strategies and needs shaped traditional policing methods that influence contemporary policing practices today. The assumption that order and discipline in early school environments was less challenging than compared to now is not completely accurate. School safety concerns existed in early public education institutions. Unsafe school-related incidents drove communities toward the integration of police into school environments. As community education opportunities transitioned from informal to formal practices, policing seemingly paralleled the needs and expectations of the local community. While school safety expectations increased over the past century, the need for safe learning environments existed prior to the establishment of formal public school systems. Violent school acts occurred at several junctures throughout history. Although the use of firearms is a modern concern, violent acts involving knives, blunt objects, and other weapons existed for generations. Sir Robert Peel (3) is considered the “Father of modern democratic policing.” He established the London Metropolitan Police Department in 1829 and developed several crime prevention and policing methods that continue to be a preferred choice of policing around the world. Several social conflict issues such as the rapid expansion of industry and urbanization in the 1880s prompted the creation of the London Metropolitan Police Department as the first modern police department in the world. Peel developed a revolutionary approach to community safety through policing during his era. His formalization of an organization to specifically address public safety and criminality became a template for cities in the United States during the formation of new police departments. Peel believed that the primary purpose of policing should be to prevent crime rather than post-incident detection. He developed strategies to increase police presence, visibility, and availability to the public as a method for crime deterrence. Essentially, the greater the police presence, the lower the opportunity for criminal activity. Law enforcement agencies apply lessons learned from Peel to modern policing strategies. However, a marginal transition has occurred from Peel’s modern policing to a post-modern transformative policing model.  The approach and policing strategy needed in controlled environments like a school should not be measured solely by an organization’s ability to remain aligned with fundamental and historical policing strategies. Effective policing requires an evaluation of existing policing practices and the evolutional quotient to produce transformative outcomes, particularly when strategies align to meet the needs of the community and society. No one size fits all strategy can fully meet every need. To this end, policing strategies utilized by a law enforcement agency cannot be unilaterally measured against another since community needs vary from city to city, county to county, state to state, and country to country. However, certain components can be identified and built upon to achieve a level of effective post-modern and transformative policing that is sufficient for the communities served. The postmodern approach is applicable to the transformative needs in school policing strategies. Redesigning policing strategies to provide students the best social, emotional, and academic advantage is paramount and attainable. The characterization should encapsulate the definition of postmodern policing which is, “The holistic development and implementation of

Public Education and the Emergence of Policing in the United States  7

innovative and transformative policing practices designed to create a mindset shift and cultural change consistent with the intrinsic needs of society for the benefit of current and future generations.” The London Metropolitan Police Department was considered a legitimate police organization by a vast majority of the public. Peel established common sense methods and practices designed to ensure that the organization built a credible reputation among the communities they served. To achieve this, Peel ensured that the local municipal government assumed authority and control over the department. In addition, he established a centrally located headquarters that was accessible to the public, and a paramilitary structural design for the organization. Peel recognized that to be effective, police officers in a law enforcement organization had to provide a level and quality of service that brought legitimacy to the department and profession. A reasonable temperament and sound decision-making skills were important qualities sought in all police candidates. Officers were required to wear appropriate dress attire and distinguished uniforms that commanded public respect along with badges that allowed them to be properly identified by citizens as police officers. Training was an important requirement for all police officers and Peel ensured that those serving in the organization were trained to respond to many situations. The template created by Peel remains a standard for modern policing and is fundamentally consistent in law enforcement organizations around the world. The United States saw its first modern police department in 1838 in the City of Boston, Massachusetts. Major cities around the country eventually followed Boston and formed their own law enforcement agencies. Police departments focused on enforcing laws, protecting citizens from criminal activity, and maintaining peace and order in their communities. The City of New York created a police department in 1845 and other major cities like Chicago and New Orleans followed. During Reconstruction, many cities across the United States hired Black as police officers. In 1870, approximately 200 Black police officers worked for the New Orleans Police Department. The trend continued through the turn of the century and cities including Houston, Galveston, and Selma, Alabama hired Black police officers. During the early 1900s, Berkeley California Police Chief August Vollmer (4) became known in the United States as the “father of modern American policing.” He developed and implemented new policing strategies and emphasized four primary policing categories of major crimes, vice, traffic, and general services. The categories helped to categorize various crime types, implement sound strategies to protect citizens, and to apprehend criminals. A significant number of police strategies developed by Vollmer continue to be the foundation of law enforcement organizations today. Although little change exists over the past century in the fundamental purpose, duties, and responsibilities of law enforcement, the emphasis and expectations have shifted in some areas. Modern police departments work to ensure that law enforcement efforts are adaptable to meet and serve the needs in their communities. Vollmer explored relevant areas of interest to law enforcement including observable behavioral manifestations and the response needed based on the interpretive act. He sought to identify underlying issues through a deeper evaluation to determine the root causation. The exploration of juvenile delinquency and behavior was an innovative undertaking of Vollmer which examined the need to address juvenile behavior in a manner distinctly different from adults. Policing strategies implemented during the Vollmer era analyzed juvenile development, unmodified behavior, and the correlation to criminal activity. Although multifarious contributing factors to juvenile delinquency and criminality existed, Vollmer elucidated that the

8  Public Education and the Emergence of Policing in the United States

coordinated and concerted efforts of all resources including social services could dramatically reduce juvenile delinquency and criminality. Police officers are expected to respond to a broad range of calls for service which require officers to be proficient in different response strategies and appropriate applications to an infinite number of situations. The subjugation of officers to a diversity of scenarios happens regularly due to public expectations and demands for high level officer preparedness. Mental health concerns in society are not a new phenomenon. Concerns and the need for intervention were recognized at the turn of the 20th century by law enforcement in the United States. Vollmer understood the necessity for proper police training and solutions designed to properly respond to citizens in crisis. Social work, social services, and psychology were identified as important resources for police departments leverage in order to effectively support citizens. Officers are not subject matter experts in predicting the occurrence of mental crisis situations. Effective response requires strong collaboration and partnerships with subject matter experts in the field. The approach by Vollmer in this area was regarded as an innovative solution during his time and has sustained the law enforcement profession through the modern era. The evolution of policing strategies led to better trained and competent police agencies with a fundamental purpose of keeping the peace, maintaining order, and responding to criminal violations within specified jurisdictional boundaries. Public expectation for police officers requires them to be multipurpose, systematic, and perfect in a variety of unpredictable and often chaotic environments. As the needs for police services grow, officers are expected to continuously and properly train to respond to situations including those involving juveniles. Vollmer estimated that during the mid-1930s, around 200,000 children in the United States were sent to juvenile court for delinquent and criminal behavior. During that time, cities like Detroit, Michigan, experienced dramatic year over year increases in the number of juvenile referrals. Not every case was addressed by the courts but the increased number of referrals for juvenile delinquency was not unique to Detroit. Similarly, high referral trends were seen in cities throughout the United States. Courts recognized the massive volume of referrals and responded with early diversionary options to allow violations to be handled unofficially with parental involvement. A large number of cities struggled to find effective solutions to address the increased number of juvenile referrals. Others experienced relatively few juvenile cases referred to juvenile courts. Contributing factors for the low number of referrals were partly due to a lack of formal procedures, police training, and general interest in handling incidents of juvenile delinquency. During the Vollmer era, juveniles engaged in a variety of criminal acts ranging from theft to murder. The levels and types of crimes committed by juveniles presented challenges for law enforcement due to age, public reaction, and the courts’ reluctance to impose meaningful sentences to deter the behavior. Common acts of delinquency include disrespect toward police officers which motivated officers to take swift, often harsh action as an example to others. Heavy-handed tactics by police were on occasion used as a method of sending a strong message to ensure that witnesses to the encounter would be less likely to commit similar acts. On occasion, officers would encounter a highly defensive confrontation from angry parents in response to officer actions. Such responses often emboldened the resolve of many delinquents as parents argued the unfair treatment of their children by police. Parental response oftentimes encouraged the continued negative actions for some juveniles who believed that they could commit virtually any act without fear because of the defensive nature of their parents or guardians. The hardline actions used against juveniles painted a variety of perceptions of police ranging from pro- to anti-police sentiment.

Public Education and the Emergence of Policing in the United States  9

The term “police” has been used to define more than the role of a public servant tasked with providing public safety and security. Terms such as the phrase “police state” are used as derogatory in nature and suggest that pro-police communities are totalitarian state controlled and run by political police forces that clandestinely monitor the activities and behaviors of citizens. Additionally, demands to further limit police powers in the United States are regularly raised by those who consider policing to be pernicious to society. Concerns regarding the need for a stronger government as opposed to less overbearing laws have existed for centuries. Debate over whether police powers should be expanded or restricted are perpetual and contentious. Former United States Supreme Court Justice John Marshall recognized the need to ensure that the government remained aligned with the Constitution. He argued that each state and not the federal government has the authority to ensure that the happiness, prosperity, and safety of its citizens are advanced. He added that the only restraints were those provided by the Constitution of the United States. Throughout the United States, numerous types of law enforcement agencies exist to provide public service at many levels. At the federal level, law enforcement officers include the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Secret Service, Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, Drug Enforcement Agency, U.S. Park rangers, and capitol police. States have law enforcement agencies at the state level which include departments of public safety, game wardens, state attorney general investigators, cattle rangers, transit police, park police, county sheriff’s deputies, constables, municipal police officers, and city marshals. Indian reservations are provided protection by tribal police departments. State law enforcement commissions mandate compliance with training, information reporting requirements, and the accreditation of new agency formation which is different from the compliance mandates at the federal level. The different levels of law enforcement provide separate responses and services but the need to work and communicate collaboratively is essential to public safety. Relationships between state and federal agencies have not historically been cohesive. The communication and information sharing gaps between federal and state agencies during 911 demonstrated a critical lack of cooperation across law enforcement agencies. Federal and state law enforcement entities were comfortable with requesting information from other entities but were less congenial with reciprocating the sharing of information. Critics suggest that the sunsetting or merging of certain law enforcement agencies at the state and federal level is a more beneficial approach to reducing the number of commissioned officers. Some contend that the approach would result in an increased level of efficient services provided. Policing entities at the state level have a variety of purposes and responsibilities. Most state laws classify commissioned law enforcement as police or peace officers. For instance, law enforcement officers working for a state attorney general may have uniquely dissimilar responsibilities from those working for an alcoholic beverage commission where officers are responsible for protecting public health and safety through the regulation of the alcoholic beverage industry. However, questions arise about the need for services such as state level alcoholic beverage law enforcement agents who perform duties in cities or counties where law enforcement presence currently exists. Recommendations have been made to transfer the duties of the commission to local law enforcement and sunset or eliminate the alcoholic beverage commissions by individuals who do not support the redundancy. The volume of police agencies with overlapping jurisdiction in the country raises questions as to the need for an additional layer of policing with the addition of school-based law enforcement. Considering the various types of law enforcement agencies, the services

10  Public Education and the Emergence of Policing in the United States

provided, and the jurisdictional alignments, some question the purpose for an additional policing entity that specifically provides law enforcement services in a school district. It heightens concerns regarding the potential for juvenile incarceration. The sheer number of different police entities provides the basis for critics to surmise that the number of police entities in the United States has a direct correlation to the overcriminalization incidents that exist. With 2020 incarceration numbers exceeding 1.2 million in United States federal and state prisons, the concern cannot be overlooked. Critics contend that by increasing the number of policing entities in the United States, the likelihood of arrest increases despite the need for innovative, transformative, and effective police solutions. As new eras emerge, previous generations rest in hope that future generations will inherit a society that is commended for positive advancements through the efforts made by past contributors to a better society. Law enforcement agencies and the criminal justice system have continuously sought to align the self-interests of individuals with a collective and more prevailing interest for the general good of society. A desire for the highest level of human joy and a positive, peaceful society has been a fundamental objective for policing. Achieving a homogeneous society where the emphasis is placed on public good depends on strong legislative support for law enforcement initiatives designed to recognize the value of every citizen. Additionally, careful consideration must be given to initiatives that concentrate on the expansion of a sense of community partnership and integrative outcomes. Fear-eliciting policing strategies used in communities throughout the United States are not the most effective solution for creating cohesive collaboration between law enforcement and citizens. Such practices create a societal appetite for retribution. The result is a belly of jails and prisons filled with a variety of individuals ranging from minor misdemeanor offenses to major felony offenses. The approach yields negative outcomes for citizens and officers due to the unquenchable appetite for overzealous arrest and conviction practices. The fervid mindset and application impact communities as well as youth living in those communities. It is important for school districts and school-based law enforcement officers to recognize the benefit of possessing the proper temperament, mindset, and training to serve in a school environment. Untrained and unprepared officers entering school policing from communities where aggressive policing practices were expected must enter with a properly recalibrated mindset. The actions of unprepared officers can escalate non-criminal incidents like student code of conduct violations, dress code violations, and disciplinary actions to criminal actions. Society expects a clear distinction between the type of police officers working in a school compared to those who serve full time on SWAT teams. Citizens want highly approachable and highly capable officers serving in a school district. Schools have a responsibility to ensure that the expectations of officers are achieved and clearly communicated to students, staff, and parents. Policing in the United States historically emphasized detecting crime, deterring crime, and dealing with criminals in a dramatic fashion. When a criminal offense was committed, the goal of the criminal justice system was to make the offender pay monetarily and through retribution. In some instances, offenders paid with their lives through the death penalty as an example of and deterrent to would-be criminals. The prevailing winds of change and societal norms shift often and dictate the direction of policing and blow through countries around the world. The war on drugs declared by the United States in the early 1970s resulted in a zero-tolerance response in many countries. The law enforcement response during prohibition and toward the mafia made many feel safer in their communities. Collateral damage and casualty numbers mount because of the pursuit of justice with each declaration

Public Education and the Emergence of Policing in the United States  11

of war. Community groups contend that casualties are most often minority or marginalized citizens in communities and schools who are not afforded equal opportunities to be safe and secure. Policing similarities may coincide in various aspects of informal practices adopted by colonial era community or neighborhood watch groups. Although actions may have been similar, they were not law enforcement officers. True law enforcement duties are not a common or authorized practice for watch groups. Participants regularly performed different duties which included searching for missing children, lighting night lights, and providing various community services. Volunteers who participated in such groups did not distinguish themselves as law enforcement. Duties may be interpreted as an informal policing practice by concerned citizens with the primary purpose of maintaining a watchful eye on events in their communities. Informal policing can be effective in the creation of a homogenous community. Individuals contributed their time to provide security and detect unauthorized activities and violations in their communities. Despite best efforts, communities demanded a higher-quality service from police than the services provided by watch groups. In response, publicly funded police departments were developed in the United States to appropriately address situations that breached the peace. As law enforcement agencies in major cities around the country emerged, they adopted practices and procedures that aligned with modern law enforcement strategies developed by Sir Robert Peel. The authority and policing powers were defined in accordance with the law. Local jurisdictions were responsible for police services and agencies with overlapping jurisdiction commonly shared in law enforcement responsibilities. The fundamental policing roles and responsibilities as developed by Peel and Vollmer still exist today. The true origin of policing in the United States is a strongly debated topic. Some contend that modern policing is deeply rooted in slave patrols and are inspired by the fundamental actions of such patrols when dealing with Black citizens. Slave patrols in the United States existed as a type of informal policing system. Patrol tasks required private citizens to perform specific duties on behalf of private slave owners. Duties were different from the legally mandated responsibilities of sheriffs and constables who served local communities. The scope of slave patrol functions was narrow and focused primarily on issues related to slaves and the slave trade. Duties also included maintaining control over White indentured servants. The continuity of procedures between informal systems like slave patrols that followed Slave Codes and formal policing systems that follow state and federal law shared some similarities but were not coactive. The underlying reasoning suggests that the inherent purpose of policing has not changed and is evident in acts of brutality and mistreatment against minorities at the hands of police. Incidents of police brutality against minorities are a recurring theme that occurs year after year, decade after decade. Acts of police brutality that happened during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s through the 1960s were like the brutality committed by police against Rodney King on March 3, 1991, and against George Floyd on May 25, 2020. Slave patrol members were known to commit acts of violence against runaway slaves. The practices used by patrolmen to track down and capture escaped slaves are fundamentally similar in practices used by modern-day police to capture wanted persons. Even though many slave patrol activities resembled police actions, a distinction between the two fundamental functions remains. Slave patrol practices were not commissioned as formal law enforcement or policing functions. Historical policing practices were defined by a specific set of responsibilities, limited by the constraints of laws and legislative mandates.

12  Public Education and the Emergence of Policing in the United States

Similarly, security guards, community watch groups, and bounty hunters provide a type of patrol, security, or apprehension service, but the duties and positions are not defined as police or law enforcement functions. The earliest documented slave patrols in the United States were in South Carolina, in the early 1700s and the practice continued through the mid-19th century (5). A massacre in 1729 prompted New Orleans to create its first slave patrols. The massacre occurred after members of the Natchez Tribe convinced French settlers to provide them firearms to hunt for food. The Natchez Tribe agreed to provide food in exchange for the borrowed guns. Several slaves joined the Natchez Tribe to demand their liberation. Once the guns were provided, the Natchez tribe and several runaway slaves shot and killed approximately 237 settlers, including women and children. Slave owners considered slave patrols to be necessary to the need of recapturing so-called fugitives. By the end of the 1770s, virtually all states in the United States had slave patrols in some form. Slave patrols in early Colonial America originated from watch groups that typically consisted of White male citizen volunteers. In 1863, the Louisiana city of St. Landry Parish (6) passed city ordinances which required every free White male citizen between the ages of 16 and 60 years old to serve on patrol in the districts where he lived. The ordinance sought to maintain control over slaves within the jurisdiction of the city. Slave patrol tasks were not managed by commissioned police officers hired by the local jurisdiction. The duties were performed as an informal system organized and managed by citizen groups. Patrol duties did not include criminal investigations or the enforcement of criminal laws despite some patrols being sponsored by governments with a limited scope of duties. Slave patrols functions were more consistent with the duties of modern-day bounty hunters or bond enforcement agents than modern police officers. Several states passed laws to allow slave patrols to enter the residences of slaves or White sympathizers, without a warrant, for the purpose of searching for runaway slaves. Additional duties included a limited range of tasks such as entering slave quarters to conduct searches, patrolling wooded areas and roadways to locate traveling slaves, and breaking up secretly organized slave gatherings. Patrols sought to capture escaped slaves for rewards paid by slave owners. Patrol members worked to quell slave revolts and were hired to discipline slaves who violated plantation rules. Although narrow in scope, slave patrol responsibilities were aimed at addressing issues specifically related to slavery, slaves, and their benefactors. Further comparisons are made between slave patrols and policing strategies used in early Colonial America when policing duties were performed on a voluntary basis. During that time, few strategies and police tactics proved to be effective. The expectations of unorganized and untrained citizen groups to provide effective coverage were limited. The law of quality service revealed extensive gaps between what was needed to effectively police a civilized community and what was provided. Police officers must meet specific requirements to perform the duties of the position. Officers are specially trained to address criminal activity while slave patrols and neighborhood watch groups were not. Although former members of slave patrols joined police departments, the informal policing system is an indirect link to modern-day policing. Remnants of relatively obscure policing practices and tactics used by slave patrols are visible in certain practices used by modern-day police such as racial profiling which targeted certain individuals primarily based on race. Drug enforcement tactics which result in police having probable cause to believe that a wanted or suspected individual with contraband is at a certain location and police breach the door open and

Public Education and the Emergence of Policing in the United States  13

search for the wanted individual. No-knock search warrants are viewed as a police strategy that was consistent with practices used by slave patrols. Policing in the United States is a profession and a public service. Formal policing practices evolved over the years to meet the changing needs of society. As cities grew, so did the expectations of police officers. Police in the United States experienced continuous evolution and adapted in various ways through the development of effective policing initiatives designed to mitigate crime and increase the quality of life for citizens in their communities. Amid social issues and somewhat inconsistent policing practices seen throughout the country, a recurring demand from citizens of police officers is to honor the core values of the profession and equally protect the communities they serve. Law enforcement experienced both progression and regression in its efforts to meet the needs of a whole society. Progressive policing demanded high-quality tactics and proficiencies and an end to regressive mindsets, aggressive strategies, and inconsistent tactics. The fundamental mindset of policing in America has focused on detecting, deterring, and solving crimes. In essence, if crime can be prevented, communities are deemed safe and the outcome is peace and security. A community-oriented policing approach includes help from citizens. This includes reporting crimes to police and identifying those who engage in criminal activity that disrupts the peace and safety of a community. Citations 1. H.R.40 - 93rd Congress (1973-1974): Equal Educational Opportunities Act. 2. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955). 3. Gaunt, R. A. (2010). Sir Robert Peel: The life and legacy. I.B. Tauris. 4. Vollmer, A. (1936). The police and modern society. University of California Press, 1936. 5. Reichel, P. (1988). Southern slave patrols as a transitional police type? American Journal of Police, 7(2), 51–77. 6. The Black Code of St. Landry’s Parish, Louisiana (1865). U.S. Congress, Senate executive document no. 2, 39th congress, 1st session, (Washington, D.C.: G.P.O., 1865), 93–94.

Chapter 2

Intrinsic Issues in Policing

Intrinsic Issues in Policing The expectation of citizens in every community is a safe and secure society. The expectations exist from the national to local level and for neighborhoods, businesses, places of worship, and schools. Parents want police to provide a service that keeps communities and schools safe for children to play without fear. To meet the needs of society, law enforcement continuously seeks strategies to meet the expectations of the communities they serve. Each community is unique as are the needs and expectations. Success is experienced in communities where law enforcement and citizens communicate and work collaboratively to maintain a safe environment. A federal initiative designed to improve community safety incentivized police officers to live in high crime areas. Federal housing authorities around the country provided rent-free apartments and homes to officers in exchange for officers agreeing to live in high crime communities. In fact, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) created a Good Neighbor Next Door Program which allowed law enforcement officers to purchase a home in a U.S. Department of HUD revitalization area by offering qualified officers a 50% discount off the list price of homes available from HUD’s inventory (1). The strategy increased officer visibility in areas that were in desperate need of intervention and assistance. The program is helpful in improving law enforcement and community relations which helps to change the perspective that some have of police. The approach sends a message that law enforcement are willing to live in the same community that they protect. The added interest in community safety is demonstrated by the investment that officers make by shopping and attending various events in the community. Officers commonly participate in student activities like coaching and mentoring. A variety of methods for improving community and school safety have emerged in the United States. Certain strategies have proven to be very beneficial. However, some have produced unintended consequences that have negatively impacted communities and, in some situations, compounded existing problems. Despite the challenges, police continue to explore solutions and implement initiatives designed to deter crime. Strategies have included programs and collaborative partnerships with the public that provide information and tips about criminal activity that may have otherwise remained unknown to law enforcement. Law enforcement agencies understand that to keep communities and schools safe, citizens must be included in the effort. Many effective strategies have been identified and implemented. Many include incentivizing a community for valuable assistance that directly helps to improve community safety.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-2

Intrinsic Issues in Policing  15

Crime Stoppers is a community-based partnership that includes law enforcement, citizens, and the media working together to deter crime, arrest, and convict criminals. Texas created its Crime Stoppers program in 1981. Since that time, it has expanded into public schools and universities to reduce crime on campuses. Campus Crime Stoppers is a program that helps to address dangerous and criminal activity occurring on campuses. In addition, it provides a platform for the anonymous reporting of suicide concerns, bullying and cyberbullying, and a variety of criminal offenses. In addition to Crime Stoppers, law enforcement commonly uses paid confidential informants to assist with the detection of and obtaining information related to criminal activity. Confidential informants were used during prohibition and compensated to help police fight the war on drugs. It was an effective practice during the 1980s at the height of the crack cocaine epidemic. Programs built on the collaborative partnerships between law enforcement and citizens can be highly effective in helping to identify crimes that otherwise may have remained unknown. Laws in many states in the United States were written to allow police to use asset forfeiture funds, weapons, and vehicles seized from criminals to fight the war on drugs. Officers were allowed to pay citizens to help keep communities free of drugs, drug users, and crime. Many law enforcement agencies displayed messages on vehicles purchased or seized from drug dealers and drove them through communities. The objective was to remind citizens that the proceeds from ill-gotten gains would be used in the very communities harmed to fight crime and to reduce criminal activity. The sentiment of some citizens in high crime areas was conflicted. On the one hand, efforts to make communities safe were appreciated and the fact that criminal activity was being targeted by police was a valiant effort. Conversely, the targets of drug stings were the sons, daughters, and relatives of citizens in the community. Youth in high crime areas grew up on the very streets where the war on drugs was fought. Children were exposed to the crime and police drug raids at homes where they resided. The experiences created a conflicted perception of police. The war on drugs produced tremendous casualties and some were the result of collateral damage. Many families were unjustly uprooted and hopes for any reconciliation were delayed for years due to incarceration, especially in situations where the drug amounts were relatively low. In instances where the charges were questionable or completely fabricated, many lives were destroyed. In 1999, Tom Coleman was hired by the sheriff of Swisher County to investigate reported drug activity in the city of Tulia, Texas. Coleman was a “gypsy cop” which is a commissioned police officer who may have had a substantial amount of negative baggage and transfers from department to department. Coleman arrested approximately 10% of the Black population in Tulia after claiming that he bought drugs from them in his undercover capacity. The city had a population of about 5,000 but had less than 400 Black citizens. Coleman obtained arrest warrants for approximately 40 citizens of Tulia and the Panhandle Regional Task Force out of Amarillo, Texas, executed the warrants. The city was pleased about the arrests and harsh sentences were handed down to those charged with selling drugs to Coleman. The operation was initially considered a success and the local newspaper reported that the raid cleared the “garbage” from the streets of Tulia. Although no drugs, weapons, or paraphernalia were found, the accused were pulled from their homes. Several were partially clothed as media covered the event. It was later discovered that many of the individuals Coleman claimed to have purchased cocaine from had indisputable evidence to refute the allegations. In fact, one defendant who reportedly sold Coleman drugs on a specific date

16  Intrinsic Issues in Policing

and time had a bank receipt showing that she was almost 300 miles away at the time Coleman claimed the drugs were purchased. Several were sentenced to prison and served time before the charges against each defendant were dropped. Coleman went from being officer of the year to a convicted criminal for aggravated perjury. Monetary settlements were reached but the residue and racial divide created from the actions of Tom Coleman and the war on drugs in Tulia remain today. Additionally, the traumatic impact it had on the lives of families and the children who witnessed homes raided is not easily erased from the maturing minds. The limited perspective related to the impact that negative police interactions have on juveniles has led to generations of youth growing up with a poor perception of police. Historically, opportunities where law enforcement had the chance to advocate for students were missed more frequently than seen in recent years. Since the beginning of policing in the United States, law enforcement has responded to situations involving juvenile delinquency and juvenile-related criminal behavior. During the modern policing era, police were trained to refer juvenile criminal offenses to juvenile services and juvenile courts for legal intervention. Law enforcement typically received limited training that focused on how to process basic procedures related to juveniles. The average police officer understands basic juvenile laws related to delinquent conduct and children in need of supervision responses. Those who committed major crimes often received extensive criminal sanctions instead of intervention. Historical incidents document instances when some juvenile offenders were housed with adult inmates. Advocacy was limited and little emphasis was placed on the long-term implications of certain practices. Police officers have encountered juvenile delinquents who were repeat offenders but had not yet reached the legal age of accountability and could not be charged criminally. Some officers frustrated with the persistent behavioral issues would often wait for the day the juvenile reached the age of criminal responsibility so that when a criminal act was committed, the juvenile could be charged with a criminal offense and jailed. An unfortunate reality is that most criminal behavior committed by juveniles is the result of immaturity or a manifestation of underlying social, emotional, or mental issues which are acts that are not resolved through a criminal justice approach. Expedient resolution was a common objective of law enforcement when dealing with juveniles. Officers considered the convenience of turning juveniles over to a parent or transporting the child to juvenile services an effective option since it allowed them to return to performing regular police duties expeditiously. The practice, in some instances, resulted in the overcriminalization of adolescent behavior. Such actions can usher juveniles into the courtroom at disproportionate rates and can increase the need for systemic reform to minimize the impact of court-involved juvenile-related offenses entering the criminal justice system. Policing disorderly behavior is a common practice of street officers and school-based law enforcement. The duty and responsibility are one but the misapplication of the practice can create unnecessary challenges. In certain instances, school-based law enforcement must detain, question, and search students. The practice is legally permissible and required at times depending on the nature of the circumstances. In a school environment, school-based law enforcement may conduct searches independently or in conjunction with school staff. Campus-based arrests for major and minor offenses cause many to challenge the relevancy of police officers on campus and argue that the rights of students are not truly protected during police interaction. Coalitions around the country question the true need for police in schools. The apprehension is, in part, that the introduction of police in schools subjects students to unfair and

Intrinsic Issues in Policing  17

statistic-driven targeting in order to justify the existence of a police presence. Furthermore, the supposition is that police actions in schools mimic police actions used on the streets such as tasering students or slamming unarmed female students to the ground. Law enforcement officers are trained to be hyperobservant and hypervigilant to maximize safety. Unsubstantiated observations can yield poor police responses to incidents and individuals. For example, students identified as gang member “wannabes” are of higher interest to police than a student who is fascinated with science. Despite the reality that some students are less affiliated and more enamored with the thought of being in a gang, students may find themselves the subject of regular searches, interrogation, or documented as “gang affiliated.” School police officers must regularly evaluate the approach to school policing to assure proper alignment with best practices. Officers must ensure that the practices and strategies are congruent with the expectations in a school environment and not simply tactics transplanted from street-level policing strategies. Careful discussions must transpire with respect to what is in the best interest of students. Minor schoolyard behavior may resemble actions committed by adults on the street but the culpable mental state may not be the same. The brain development and level of understanding are distinctly different. Simple responses such as the issuance of citations for minor offenses could have a negative impact on students if effective alternatives existed but were not utilized. Student interpretation of police actions, regardless of how minor, may instill a level of fear that may escalate the situation and trigger an inconsistent response. The problem is intensified when police are called to intervene and act in non-law enforcement situations such as disruptive or disrespectful behavior, skipping class, trespassing on campus, or student code of conduct violations. School-based law enforcement officers are not approved designees selected to assume the duties and responsibilities that belong to campus administrators. The blurred line between the roles, expectations, and responsibilities of officers and administrators must be highlighted so that the line is not crossed in a manner that causes unnecessary damage to student progress. Negative student behavior should never be dismissed. However, responses should be developed and implemented in a manner that demands student accountability while achieving the most beneficial outcomes. Incidents that lead to suspension and expulsion must be evaluated for long-term impact and methods to minimize learning loss. Additionally, the overall impact of exclusionary and discretionary discipline practices should be examined to ensure that discipline is fair, consistent, and productive. Certain disciplinary practices tend to increase student interaction with law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Students should not be exempt from disciplinary action, but the solutions must be developed to maximize the deterrent effect without creating additional hardships that can increase opportunities to engage in future criminal activity. Expulsions, for example, impact both students and families. Students sent home are more likely to be unsupervised due to the employment responsibilities of the family. The lack of supervision that results from forced school absences diminishes student interest in meeting academic requirements. Furthermore, it decreases the likelihood of a student participating in extracurricular activities that could provide support, mentorship, advocacy, and supervision. Effective policing practices in schools should be built on a policing style that is distinctly different from policing adults in a fluid environment. School-based law enforcement can transform the perception students have once officers transform any existing and flawed perceptions of students. Transformation is a process and the process includes a method to

18  Intrinsic Issues in Policing

understand the “why” behind certain behaviors. It seeks effective intervention options designed to divert students from a negative path. Students often times engage in activities and commit offenses that require a law enforcement response. Certain acts may not be criminal if the same act is committed by an adult. Incidents such as runaway, minor in possession of alcohol, or truancy are specific to juveniles. Police are authorized to detain students for statutorily approved amounts of time at the scene of a crime or at an approved juvenile detention facility. However, a concern is that the experience of police detention may negatively impact juveniles in various ways, including the resulting physical, emotional, and mental anguish caused by the encounter. Proper intervention can increase the likelihood of recidivism and the stigma associated with being viewed as a delinquent by peers and adults. When student interaction occurs in communities or schools, the proper approach by police toward students should be less adversarial in nature. A non-adversarial interaction can produce an environment that allows for better detection of students struggling with social, emotional, mental, and behavioral issues. Officers can properly intervene and provide students with resources that are most needed as an alternative to a criminal justice solution. A core function of policing is the enforcement of laws at the local, state, and federal levels. Duties and responsibilities may vary by law enforcement agency, but the most basic functions are the same. Considering the many different law enforcement roles that exist, an analysis of common policing practices and the consequences must be explored. A highly scrutinized and sometimes problematic function of policing is the use of force. Law enforcement training and use of force encounters have been a decade long grievance. Encounters with students have the potential of developing into a situation that requires a police use of force. The interpretation and understanding of those circumstances are multifaceted with far-reaching implications if addressed inappropriately. Use of force police training and strategies is primarily designed to protect officers and to prevent injury to others. Mitigating injury of the aggressor in a use of force encounter is secondary. It is essentially built on the priority of life mindset to protect the innocent, protect police, and then protect the suspect. Police agencies implement introductory, intermediate, and advanced training in use of force including pressure point control tactics and ground fighting as part of their training programs to prepare officers for physical encounters. Not only does the specialized training prepares police to survive physical encounters, but it also equips officers mentally with a survival mindset. Training in weapons retention, weapons use, and use of force receives a great amount of emphasis due to the direct correlation to officer survivability. Situations in real-world environments are more fluid than in controlled environments such as a school campus. A survival mindset is important but in a school setting and when students are involved, use of force should be focused more on de-escalation and mitigation rather than ending an encounter through physical tactics. Police can mitigate public outcry through a tempered response to incidents and the development of strong community, strong partnerships, and positive student relationships. Police officers in school districts are in a unique position to build positive relationships with students. School environments are distinctive from fluid environments and communities where students live. Although environments dictate police officer tactics, schools are not viewed as environment where police should engage in use of force against students. Regardless of the circumstances, a use of force incident against a student will bring extreme scrutiny of an officer and the decisions behind the actions. Less lethal options such as electromagnetic devices or pepper spray may not be the best solution to resolve issues in

Intrinsic Issues in Policing  19

a school environment. Although exigent circumstances drive the response, the implementation of sound policing practice will provide officers with more effective tools related to deescalation and resources for proper intervention. School-based law enforcement officers interact with diverse student populations with vast social and cultural experiences. The various social, emotional, and economic needs found in a school environment are considerable. Officers should apply policing practices consistent with the environment served to mitigate marginalization or disproportionalities that can intensify negative police experiences. Juveniles are generally less culpable for their behaviors and actions than adults because of the immature and developing youthful mind. Although juveniles can benefit from redirection and positive interaction more than a criminal justice resolution, the tendency to engage in zero-tolerance policing of juvenile actions in some communities is pervasive. It can be a point of contention since youth are in a continuous state of growth, development, and exploration. Factoring these considerations in a criminal justice response provides a level of understanding that promotes advocacy and a reliance on parents and non-criminal justice options to address minor student concerns. The approach provides students the opportunity to learn, develop, and mature without the added weight of a criminal charge. Historically, policing included handling juvenile criminal actions in a similar manner that aligned with procedures used for adults. Police street tactics and practices trickled into public schools and in some situations applied on students. School-based law enforcement officers relied on their training and experience from the streets as a foundational approach to serving in a school environment. Effective policing in any capacity that includes interaction with students must ensure that the priorities are rehabilitative more than retributive. With the proper response, successful intervention in response to negative student action can be highly successful. An appropriate response to issues that contribute to negative student can provide opportunities at multiple levels that benefit the students, families, and communities. A failure to intervene when an opportunity exists can potentially set students on a path toward the criminal justice system rather than a path toward success. Policing strategies differ throughout the world. Distinctions in approaches to policing also exist between schools and communities. Exposure to a variety of strategies is nothing new in policing. Wealthier communities have historically experienced different police styles than poorer communities. Policing in wealthier communities commonly highlights the protection of property and preservation of lifestyles. Ensuring that lifestyles can enjoy prosperity without the influence of unruly, intemperate, and criminal behavior is priority. The emphasis on fulfilling the perpetual expectations of the wealthy exists regardless of the circumstances. In August 2005, New Orleans, Louisiana, was devastated by hurricane Katrina. Wealthy communities hired police officers to patrol neighborhoods with the primary purpose of preventing looting and the loss of property. Certain instances resulted in suspected looters being shot and killed while attempting to burglarize homes and businesses. A point of contention was that similar police resources were not allocated to poorer neighborhoods in New Orleans. Private security contractors, law enforcement from other states, National Guard troops, and active duty soldiers went to New Orleans to rescue citizens but to also help thwart burglaries, theft, and looting. During the event, New Orleans police ordered the confiscation of all firearms in the possession of civilians. Only law enforcement and those hired to protect property and businesses from looting were allowed to possess firearms. The use of police resources in a manner that placed the lives and property of the wealthy over others in the city resulted in a host of questions about decisions made by local

20  Intrinsic Issues in Policing

governments and politicians. Objections were raised about the matrix used to determine how some citizens and neighborhoods were considered more valuable than others. Wealthy Americans are generally more politically connected and active at levels much higher than the average citizen. Crisis situations are a good indicator of the priority matrix used by politicians and police to determine community value. School districts share similar priority considerations when deciding the best use for police services. Interests should not mimic general practices used in society at large but should seek a solution that prioritizes services in a manner that is in the equitable interests of all. Communities around the United States have used police to protect affluent neighborhoods from the criminal elements in less fortunate neighboring communities nearby. During the 1990s in St. Louis, Missouri, neighborhoods agreed to pay for supplemental police services through a special tax created to protect specific areas in the city (2). Politicians and citizens supported the creation of taxing districts to provide extra security patrols independent of the St. Louis Police Department. The project was implemented during a time when certain areas of the city experienced gentrification. Wealthier citizens moved to communities under development and found themselves frequently exposed to a variety of criminal activity along with panhandlers, loiterers, and other nuisances. Redevelopment in those areas appealed to more affluent residents but the desire for safety and security became a central priority. Citizens sought to obtain police protection for new and wealthier residents and to prevent the infiltration of criminals from the poorer areas nearby. In Texas, municipal utility districts, also called MUDs, and homeowner associations use annual dues to hire police officers to patrol neighborhoods in the MUD. Contracts are approved between the MUD and county commissioners to provide extra law enforcement patrols and security. Several MUDs pay hundreds of thousands of dollars annually for the added comfort and assurance acquired through additional police services provided to their communities. An inequity identified with the practice asserts that poorer communities do not have the resources to hire law enforcement services for proactive policing to reduce crime. Officers hired to patrol affluent neighborhoods or communities generally experience few issues during patrol shifts. Residents observed walking the neighborhood streets at night raise no concerns or suspicions. However, individuals identified and suspected of not belonging in the area often trigger a rapid police response and further inquiry. It is a proactive policing method that is consistent with the basic expectation of most communities. High crime areas could certainly benefit from a robust policing option that is available to more affluent communities. Unfortunately, police actions in high crime communities are typically reactive in response to an existing criminal event, rather than proactive and preventative. Patrol practices generally focus on crime detection and deterrence. Fundamental police services are implemented with fidelity but often lead to public frustration when citizens and innocent activities are viewed through a suspicious police lens. Concerns regarding the mistreatment of citizens by police linger in minority communities and aspects of those concerns exist in schools. As in many communities in the United States, Black males in public schools are often overrepresented in areas such as incarceration and negative police interaction. Although public schools are intended to provide beneficial education and learning opportunities to students, there is a tremendous need to usher in a new approach to learning for adults. School districts must seize the opportunity to develop culturally relevant schools of thought for the benefit of students, staff, and school-based law enforcement officers. Transformative learning strategies can reverse systemic issues that have plagued society and school systems. Strategies such as self-directed learning can help school-based law

Intrinsic Issues in Policing  21

enforcement officers become more reflective and responsive to the social needs of students. It can also reverse the negative trends of policing that have contributed to disproportionality. Officers on street patrol often develop a mindset that does not always assimilate effectively into a school environment. Individuals engaging in criminal behavior are known to police and members of the communities where the criminal activity occurs. Selling drugs, committing robberies and thefts, and other crimes are the regular focus of police actions and investigations. Interactions designed to eradicate criminal activity focus on reducing crime by increasing the risk over reward, disrupting opportunity, and eliminating incentives. In high drug areas, the law enforcement objective is to restore peace through crime eradication. Officers working those areas may operate under the expectation that a deterrent to crime is to instill fear into those engaged in criminal activity. As a result, little advocacy opportunity or interest exists. Police are less interested in assisting those engaged in criminal behavior regardless of the underlying contributing factors related to social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health challenges. Through effective conceptual change practices, old habits and preconceived conceptions can be reversed in a manner that helps officers to better recognize challenges and underlying issues that exist in the lives of those encountered. Identifying and utilizing effective adult learning principles can improve officer development and refine the approach to school policing. Historically, the law enforcement perspective of adult learning was less effective when strategies used to train police in schools were modeled by similar training methods designed to prepare officers for the streets. Accepting the different needs and embracing solutions to foster positive change can produce outcomes that mitigate police intervention in non-criminal incidents like student discipline. Furthermore, it can lead to a reduction in disciplinary disproportionality incidents by separating law enforcement involvement, thus disrupting the introduction of students into the criminal justice system. A change of mindset and embracing a new approach to adult learning can yield endless possibilities for growth and development of the adult learner in policing. Outcomes can directly improve the educational experience of marginalized students and improve the learning environment for all students. The message that police control the streets may be appropriate in certain situations on the streets but it is incongruent to the expectations of officers in schools. It is a badge of honor for some officers to survive the indoctrination process of being trained in a high crime area. After transitioning from high crime areas to different assignments, those ingrained concepts, ideas, and experiences typically remain. The “us against them” mentality produces conceptual bias and creates a heavy-handed policing approach that is arguably utilized more frequently in minority communities. Repetitive negative actions and unacceptable police behaviors may be deemed acceptable to officers who subscribe to the “us against them” mindset. To be an effective public servant, negative habits, concepts, and mindsets must be shifted and realigned to the environment served to achieve consistently positive outcomes. It is achievable through training strategies designed to promote a deeper understanding of diversity, cultural differences, and comprehensive training to provoke mindset shifts and effective conceptual change. The outcome provides a deeper understanding and motivations behind individuals and actions. It can encourage officers to explore alternative solutions beyond the criminal justice system to help individuals overcome challenges that manifest in criminal behavior. The resulting mindset shift provides beneficial police reactions to situations whether the environment is on the streets or in a school. School-based law enforcement officers can develop in the same manner. Officers deal with students for a variety of reasons, including disrespectful or non-compliant student actions.

22  Intrinsic Issues in Policing

Street police officers operate with the expectation that when a lawful directive is given to a non-compliant citizen, compliance after the directive is mandatory. A failure to comply can lead to escalated police response to gain compliance. The same mindset enters a school in the minds of some officers. The actions of a student that refuses to comply with a lawful directive or command from an officer may be interpreted as non-compliant. The officer’s response is to address the incident in a manner to gain compliance. An option could be to detain the student through physical restraint. Any struggle in response to the detention could be perceived as resisting which could result in a criminal charge. A minor infraction such as non-compliance has the potential to escalate to a larger situation ending in a student’s arrest. Police response to a minor offense that leads to arrest raises the concerns regarding the overcriminalization of reckless, irresponsible behavior. Student actions toward police in schools are often verbal and can be interpreted as disrespect. The immature student behavior might prompt untrained officers to try and save face by responding under the color of law in a manner that “makes right the perceived wrong.” Officers face challenges that may cause them to question the true impact that they have on student outcomes. Challenges will inevitably arise to make students, parents, and administrators unsatisfied with the outcomes of police decisions. The internalization of decisionmaking and the external negative response from individuals can increasingly cause officers to develop thoughts and biases that are not constructive. A lack of support and the assumption that officers fail to prioritize the safety of all can create resentment. School-based law enforcement officers will be tested in a variety of ways by students and parents. It is important for officers to understand that although a school is a controlled environment, the level of diversity in a school provides a large variation of thoughts, ideas, perceptions, and interpretations. School-based law enforcement must be trained to acknowledge and correct individual biases that inhibit the ability to provide the best outcome for students. In addition to internal challenges, school-based law enforcement officers also face noncriminal, external challenges. Constitutional audits are a social movement that has become popular in the United States. Constitutional audits have been conducted on school property around the country. Private citizens perform audits to determine whether police officers understand the First and Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Individuals participating in the audit typically video record in public places or inside police vehicles found in public areas. The objective is to trigger an encounter with police to assess their knowledge of the Constitutions and laws that protect their activity. Audits have captured incidents involving officers detaining and forcing individuals to identify themselves while engaged in constitutionally protected activities. Power struggles and ego-driven arguments have occurred between police and auditors. Despite articulable laws provided by auditors to support their actions, officers have been recorded violating the rights of citizens. Although there are exemptions on school property to certain activities that are acceptable in other public places, it is imperative that school-based law enforcement and administrators understand what is legally permissible and what is not on school property. School-based law enforcement officers must be trained seekers of the truth and emissaries of justice. It is easier for many to believe some or all of what they consider factual, despite the presentation of new and often irrefutable evidence to the contrary. In situations where a conflict in the understanding of law exists, officers must be willing to abandon misconceptions in exchange for new and accurate information.

Intrinsic Issues in Policing  23

Individuals often refuse to acknowledge existing inconsistencies between new information received and prior beliefs. This is not to say that the information will not be accepted after reflection but as new information is presented and challenges prior beliefs, the simultaneous housing of inconsistent ideas in long-term memory occurs. The activation of existing knowledge will come with challenges for officers particularly when the expectation is for officers to be fair and objective which includes acknowledging facts when presented. Knowledge and information continuously flow and when new information contradicts previously held beliefs, inquiry must occur to determine the most factual information and a willingness to abandon previously acquired beliefs when handling future situations of similar nature. To mitigate power struggles related to conceptual change, officers must be trained and recalibrated in a manner that makes mindset shifts and embracing change as a badge of honor rather than an opportunity for ridicule and shame. Value should be identified when higher knowledge is obtained and misconceptions corrected. Human nature is reluctant to embrace correction; however, school policing is an environment that provides officers with the opportunity to learn with students in a manner that embraces deeper levels of understanding so that the application of knowledge, practices, and procedures is effective. Confirmation bias is an inhibitor to conceptual understanding and effective change. It exists at all age levels, professions, and experiences. Individuals tend to seek information that aligns with their beliefs and ignores evidence that discredits or contradicts with prior beliefs. Beliefs are formed through a variety of experiences including internalized thoughts, individual inquiry, and suppositions. Erroneous beliefs can have a negative impact on officer development and school safety, particularly when assumptions are based upon misconceptions and a refusal to reevaluate prior knowledge. Sound practices and procedures based on the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model will provide officers with a solid foundation, depth, and the consistency to navigate through multiple challenges. Situational awareness is important. It is imperative that officers involved in school policing understand that the environment dictates tactics. For this reason, policing tactics used on disruptive sixth grade students must be completely different from tactics used in the entertainment district on Sixth Street in Austin, Texas. In the current climate, an unfavorable societal view of police actions and responses to situations involving citizen actions has contributed to an exodus of police officers from the profession. In February 2022, the Travis County District Attorney in Austin, Texas, indicted 19 Austin Police Department officers for actions taken against groups of protestors over the 2020 death of George Floyd. Officers used less lethal munitions such as tear gas and bean bag rounds, some of which injured several protestors. It was later suggested that some of the rounds used were expired and caused greater injury to the protestors as a result. The indictments of the officers were viewed as a politically motivated response to fulfill a campaign promise to hold police accountable. Activists and protest groups point to incidents such as these to highlight systemic problems and issues that exist in law enforcement. It is one of the reasons for a push to reduce the number of policing entities, including school district police. The argument for or against expanded police powers creates a contentious tug of war in the war on crime. Police argue that to be effective, the number of officers must increase. The justification is that officers must be prepared to respond effectively to critical incidents in a manner that yields the safest outcome for communities and officers. However, critics argue that the outcomes have not resulted in the safest resolutions due to actions taken by police against unarmed citizens.

24  Intrinsic Issues in Policing

The call for police and a criminal justice system deterrent in an educational environment has become increasingly contentious. Discussions lead to questions about the reliance of educators in a school environment. School police reform is encompassed in calls for defunding. Considering the disproportionate outcomes that exist in many schools with marginalized student groups as the highest number of student disciplinary referrals, critics question the quality of the officers, effectiveness of the training practices, and the benefits of having police in daily interaction with students. Certain officers with years of experience policing outside schools are trained to respond in specific ways to situations that might dramatically impact public safety. School districts recruit candidates who are very capable of performing spectacularly to prevent public harm. The non-school-based police training and experience school police officers receive may be dormant but alive as officers carry out their duties and functions on school campuses. The street policing mindset is ingrained but suppressed to align with school policing objectives. School district police departments issue to officers the same specialized equipment used by officers on the streets. Equipment options include assault rifles, tasers, pepper spray, and drug K-9 dogs. An uneasiness related to the equipment option availability is that more tools and equipment made available to officers, the more likely those tools will be used. Schools should proceed with caution when introducing certain hardware into a school environment, especially since a rapid proliferation of less lethal equipment use incidents might occur. Critics infer that school police intimidate students or by mere presence create situations that result in negative interaction and outcomes. The reality is that a large majority of schoolbased law enforcement duties consist of being a visible deterrent to outside criminal activity, conducting security checks, and having positive interaction with students, teachers, and staff. School-based law enforcement provides the support needed to maintain campus safety and security. It is important that schools and school-based law enforcement ensure that mindset shifts occur. Thoughts and approaches should shift to a position that maximizes the fundamentals of school safety and minimizes the unsupported targeted suspicion of student behavior. A driving justification is to create a safe environment for all and to ensure that criminal activity is mitigated. It is a core function of crime prevention within a school setting. Creating safe learning environments does not mean that officers post up in the hallways as tactical scarecrows monitoring student movement during passing periods. It means in part to provide quality officers who are trained to identify behavioral and situational indicators that might compromise the safety in a school environment. Strategies may include conducting internal and external building patrol and security duties or engaging in positive interactions with students to foster the sharing of information. The functions and expectations of school-based law enforcement may vary by school districts. The visibility component was often the minimum safety expectation of school police officers. Any resulting positive interaction with students or successful criminal deterrence was deemed an added benefit. As the expectation of post-modern policing strategies become the norm, the proliferation of officers with specialized training in areas beyond criminal justice provides added value. Citations 1. HUD Good Neighbor Next Door Program | HUD.gov/U.S. 2. Downs. (1994). Extra police - only for the wealthy. The St. Louis Journalism Review, 23(169), 1.

Chapter 3

Zero-tolerance Policies and the Culture-to-prison Pipeline

Zero-tolerance Policies and the Culture-to-prison Pipeline The criminal justice system is used as an option by police to address unruly students and minor offenses in a school environment. Depending on the student’s behavior, minor criminal offenses that might normally be overlooked can be used as justifications for detention or arrest. The debate around the school-to-prison pipeline has been a point of contention in schools around the United States. Although school is a place where students might engage in criminal behavior, the school environment is typically not a major facilitator of the conduct. An examination of criminal behavior committed by students in school may reveal that underlying and manifested negative behavior derives more from culture than classroom. Culture is the passed down beliefs, values, ideas, and institutions of a population from generation to generation. Understanding diverse cultures that make up the student population of a school can help staff and officers identify proper approaches to effectively address student needs. Culture is not based on race and schools are not the primary avenue for the introduction of juveniles to the criminal justice system, particularly since juvenile behavior that results in police interaction happens at a higher rate off campus and during non-school hours. The exploration toward greater understanding of juvenile introduction to the criminal justice system must include actions and interactions with law enforcement outside of school. This is not to suggest that crime does not occur at school but opportunities for juveniles to engage in criminal behavior and activity at school are generally lower when compared to opportunities for negative and criminal behavior outside of school. The controlled environment of a school setting provides a relatively small amount of unmonitored time for unabated criminal activity compared to the time and opportunities available to students to engage in negative and criminal behavior away from school. The introduction of police in schools is not a negative safety and security solution. Concerns may arise when police officers are subjected to engaging in non-criminal justice duties that may lead to negative student interaction. School districts routinely rely on police officers for a variety of tasks such as conducting random vehicle and classroom searches with drug K-9 dogs to detect narcotics and contraband on campus. An objection to partnerships between school districts and police is the propagation of the school-to-prison pipeline theory for groups seeking to limit officer presence and interaction around students. The school-to-prison pipeline theory is considered a collaborative by-product of school and police partnerships and practices that align with zero-tolerance policies in a manner that disproportionately impacts marginalized student populations, leading those groups to the criminal justice system at a higher rate. The pipeline is characterized as a conduit that

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-3

26  Zero-tolerance Policies and the Culture-to-prison Pipeline

derives from the transformation of school environments into places where juvenile behavior and actions are viewed through a lens of criminalization. The school to prison pipeline considers in part that public school environments operate as institutions designed to maintain social control by prioritizing the disciplinary actions against the negative behavior of marginalized student populations over positive educational outcomes and experiences. The phrase school-to-prison pipeline refers to a concept which implies that the combined actions or inactions of schools can lead juveniles from the school block to the cell block. The theory maintains that numerous schools fail to meet the educational, social, and emotional needs of a large segment of the student population due to systemic issues that exist in educational systems that dismantle pathways of student success. The school-to-prison pipeline theory suggests that although a quality public education is vital to student success, systemic issues and inequities exist that contribute to the introduction of marginalization of students to the criminal justice system at a higher rate (1). Criminalization is precipitated by minor infractions and the negative traumatic experience increases the probability that the impacted segment of the student population will reoffend and ultimately enter prison. Many identifiable factors are believed to contribute to the phenomenon. The introduction of police in a school setting is regarded as a major factor by opponents to the practice. The contention is that police presence exacerbates the likelihood that students from marginalized groups will enter the criminal justice system. Other issues identified are inadequately available resources in high-poverty and racial-isolated districts. Under-resourced districts often have inadequate curriculum resources, a limited amount of early intervention programs, and a lack of highly qualified teachers to prepare students for college. Poorly equipped and unsafe schools are contributing factors that tend to lower the sense of safety for students which increases the risk of academic failure. Although the challenges to excel in under-resourced schools appear to be higher with regard to academics and school safety, genuine attempts to address the underlying issues might ultimately prove to be ineffective. The lack of intervention resources in certain communities may call to question the level of accountability over practices designed to systematically usher out the neediest students to increase overall outcomes. The practices observed in many schools to address non-disciplinary issues like the unenrollment of chronically truant students from high school, expulsion, and discretionary placement can create a less safe and unwelcoming school culture for marginalized student groups. A reliance on student arrests and court referrals as a primary method to address disruptive or repeat offenders is not always the best solution. Although the initial result may appear effective, it does not improve behavior in the long term and simply delays or relocates the disruptive component to a peaceful learning environment. More effective solutions are available through the investment of resources in effective educational solutions that prevent re-offenses. Positive educational opportunities have the potential to significantly reduce the likelihood of juvenile arrest and incarceration. Furthermore, it can have a direct and positive economic impact on society. Exposure to academic growth opportunities in school is essentially a disruption to any pipeline to prison that juveniles may encounter. The premise that punishment equals incarceration can be mitigated by increasing opportunities for students to receive an education not burdened by the weight of the outcomes from negative police interactions. Providing positive educational opportunities can deter the decisions juveniles make to engage in criminal behavior by directly altering motivations for committing negative acts. Negative juvenile behavior can result from a variety of factors including past cultural experiences, peer pressure, and individual curiosity. However, educational opportunities

Zero-tolerance Policies and the Culture-to-prison Pipeline  27

can serve as beacons of light to guide juveniles past cultural pitfalls that may have hindered others who share similar beliefs or ways of life. Irrespective of cultural norms and expectations, students are exposed to greater levels of knowledge, understanding, and growth potential that can increase academic opportunity at a level above negative cultural inspiration. In addition, students are more likely to use the academic acumen gained through education to delineate between positive and negative cultural influences and embrace all experiences as a catalyst toward personal achievement and future success. The definitions of behavioral-related actions that lead to student discipline are not always clearly defined. For example, fighting is a behavioral action that leads to discipline but what if the reason a juvenile fights another is in self-defense to prevent serious bodily injury? What if fighting is an acceptable response to aggression based on cultural beliefs, attitudes, and expectations? The response to certain juvenile behaviors in a school environment produce inconsistent consequences and inequitable outcomes related to the discretionary applications of disciplinary policies and practices. Inexperienced teachers and staff are more likely to improperly apply impulsive disciplinary measures to address student behavior due in part to a lack of adequate classroom management skills. Consequently, an ineffective disciplinary response may produce an escalated behavioral encounter with a student. Inconsistent responses can be attributed to an interest to restore immediate order in the classroom, to make an example of the juvenile offender, poorly defined teacher classroom etiquette expectations, and zero-tolerance practices applied inappropriately. A key component that school districts fail to include in disciplinary procedures is a culturally relevant evaluation matrix that is designed to determine the existing procedures, how those procedures directly contribute to improved school safety and student behavior, and how cultural considerations are factored into the disciplinary outcomes. The inclusion of social workers in school district and police department disciplinary decision-making and response to incidents on a school campus can be highly beneficial to mitigating inequitable disciplinary applications. It provides an opportunity for review and the development of valuable recommendations that can enhance incident response and overall student outcomes. Absent adequate data related to disciplinary procedure implementation, cultural influences on behavior, and the resources required to address student-related issues, there is no practical way to determine whether disciplinary actions implemented equitably decrease the rate of negative juvenile behavior on a campus. Substantial emphasis is placed on the school-to-prison pipeline theory. The notion that the partnership between schools and police contributes to a progression of students from schools to prison requires further exploration, discussion, and validation. Students spend a significant amount of time at school. The number of police officers assigned to a school campus is less than the number of officers assigned to patrol the streets of a given community. The amount of time and likelihood of student and police interaction during the school day is significantly lower than the possibility of student and police interaction outside of a controlled school environment. Students spend several hours during the week at school but at the end of the school day, they return to their respective communities. Evenings, nights, weekends, summers, and holidays are spent away from school, therefore the prevailing opportunity for increased delinquency and less supervision exists to a higher degree in student homes and communities. School environments are generally spaces primed to provide student advocacy from a perspective that incorporates a variety of intervention strategies that are not conduits to the criminal justice system. Corrective action strategies such as detention or in school suspension are student accountability practices that address negative behavior

28  Zero-tolerance Policies and the Culture-to-prison Pipeline

purely from an administrative perspective. The partnership between schools and schoolbased law enforcement is designed to expand collaborative student advocacy at levels that are typically not available outside of a school environment. Cultural influences are an important contributor to student behavior and actions that should be fully analyzed regarding student perspectives on life, critical thinking, and decisionmaking. Observations, experiences, and incidents that occur outside school can be significant contributing factors that directly lead students to or away from the criminal justice system. Youth are influenced by individuals and acts based on several factors including cultural experiences. Students bring experiences into a school environment filled with diverse student populations and cultures. Certain actions, behaviors, and practices are considered cultural norms by family and student group. Cultural influences impact families ranging from the most impoverished to the wealthiest. As a result, some actions, behaviors, or norms are considered a way of life for individuals within or sympathetic to specific cultural circles. Segments of society consider certain cultural norms as incongruent with societal expectations which can result in some juvenile behaviors resulting in incarceration. Throughout history, children have grown up in families that embrace or promote cultural practices that does not align with commonly accepted social norms. During prohibition, children were used to help conceal and distribute contraband. Organized crime cultures embraced by members of the mafia paid children to run errands, serve as lookouts, and even commit high crimes and misdemeanors. Juveniles regularly drop out of school and join street gangs to participate in and fully devote their lives to the perpetuation of cultural expectations and desires of the gang. In traditional families, youth are exposed to positive and negative expectations that have a dramatic impact on the determining factors that influence on future direction. According to the Department of Justice Juvenile Justice Statistics, an estimated 696,620 youth under the age of 18 years old were arrested in the United States in 2019 (2). The arrests included a wide range of offenses like violent crime, property crime, assault, forgery, vandalism, drug, drunkenness, vagrancy, and curfew violations. It is evident based on the offense types that a significant proportion of arrests and behaviors occurred outside schools with essentially no involvement of school district staff or campus police officers. Although similar statistics are commingled with data provided by school-based law enforcement and external law enforcement agencies that handle juvenile offenses and arrests, the inference that schools are a primary contributor to the criminal justice pipeline is inconclusive. Procedures exist in many schools around the United States that effectively disrupt practices that maximize the arrests of students for minor offenses. Strategies include requiring minor criminal offenses to be handled by administrators, prohibiting the issuance of citations to students for non-traffic violations, and abandoning zero-tolerance enforcement practices. Texas allows for progressive sanctions to be used in schools before a police officer can issue a misdemeanor citation to a student. Hiring full-time police officers in schools can lead to an increase in the criminalization of certain types of student behavior and misconduct when schools incorporate police in the disciplinary process. Student arrest data are commonly used to suggest that marginalized student populations are impacted at a disproportionately higher rate. Statistics from school districts around the United States have been used to indicate that although Black youth represent a small percentage of the overall juvenile population, the number of school-related referrals for delinquency represents roughly half of student referrals (3). Certain school districts and jurisdictions around the country tend to produce higher numbers of marginalized student population arrests and students of color experience an increased likelihood of being arrested than other student groups that commit the same offenses (4).

Zero-tolerance Policies and the Culture-to-prison Pipeline  29

An effective alternative solution found in the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model is to abstain from the use of law enforcement for in-school student arrests in response to minor offenses. Certain victimless criminal offenses such as disorderly or disruptive conduct are issues that can be handled administratively rather than by law enforcement. Student arrests and negative interaction between police and students can have a devastating psychological impact on the social, emotional, behavioral, and mental well-being of students. The dropout rate of those arrested nearly doubles that of students with little to no negative interaction with police (5). In instances that lead to a student making a court appearance, the likelihood of dropping out of school increases substantially. Moreover, the resulting negative impact extends far beyond academic outcomes. The experience can also result in a higher likelihood that the student would reoffend and face more exposure to the criminal justice system. It can also lead to diminished future employment opportunities and the development of deep distrust of law enforcement and the criminal justice system. Negative interaction between police and juveniles who embrace cultures that are the anthesis of majority social norms can lead to a self-fulfilling prophesy and belief that the outcome is a natural expectation and plight of the culture. Student arrests that occur during the school day result in a degree of public shaming. The ensuing stigma can lead to social withdrawal and decline in normal student interaction. Classmates who hear about a student’s arrest or encounter with police may share information about the incident with others. Depending on the traumatic level of the experience, a student may be subjected to a verbal, mental, and emotional requested play by play review of the encounter with each ensuing classmate interrogation about the incident. Student arrests may lead to a withdrawal from activities, events, and can cause strained friendships. Minor offenses are a common pretext for police involvement. In some situations, students may feel targeted and presume that the involvement of police in minor violations is an unnecessary overreach since minor incidents could be handled by campus administrators. The escalation of minor offenses to law enforcement can create lasting student resentment and confusion regarding the response level selected by adults to address juvenile behavior. Although the referral of minor student violations to police may serve as a deterrent to other students and discourage similar behavior, the damage caused to the student experiencing the negative interaction is often much more devastating. Each school environment is exceptionally different. For example, elementary schools are dramatically different from middle and high schools as they relate to the application of student discipline. As conceded by many, the influence of police presence at schools in reference to student-related referrals to law enforcement decreases when the analysis is limited to elementary schools. A contributing factor might be the relatively low rate and need for disciplinary response regarding the number of criminal disciplinary incidents that occur at the elementary academic level. The interaction between police and students in elementary schools is overwhelmingly positive. Police typically visit elementary school campuses not for response to student behavior or criminal activity but in the capacity of a role model, mentor, and to create positive experiences for students. Although more critical research related to school-to-prison pipeline theory is needed, the impact of police as contributors to students entering the criminal justice system from actions occurring in schools could benefit from individual student level data related to those referred to law enforcement and actionable outcomes of the referrals. Parental and school administrator involvement in student discipline lessens the complexity and likelihood of a criminal justice options regarding certain actions or behaviors. However, certain actions

30  Zero-tolerance Policies and the Culture-to-prison Pipeline

legally require staff to report certain criminal offenses and student behaviors to law enforcement. The nuance of police interaction can vary between school districts and law enforcement agencies; however, the impact of law enforcement involvement can vary as well. For this reason, recognizing and implementing effective solutions that no longer prioritize law enforcement intervention for minor incidents can enhance student outcomes in a manner that benefits all student, regardless of cultures, demographics, and experiences. The beneficial presence of police in schools far outweighs perceived assumptions that a negative interaction may occur. It is important that school districts and school-based law enforcement remain cognizant that schools are distinctly unique and controlled environments, unlike the fluid society beyond the school walls. Law enforcement officers understand that the environment dictates the tactics. The approach that school police officers take when dealing with students and situations in a school heavily depend on the type of officer and the familiarity with the school environment. In Austin, Texas, the entertainment district is called Sixth Street. Austin police officers are highly visible in the area throughout the nights and weekends, particularly when there are large crowds and gatherings. Sixth Street is known for fights on the weekend and has experienced mass shooting incidents involving random gun violence. Officers are highly trained to use a variety of tactics and tools to ensure officer and public safety. The integration of traditional police officers into schools often introduces acceptable street tactics used against disruptive adults that are applied against students in an unacceptable manner. For instance, less lethal weapons like pepper spray is used in the course of the daily duties of many law enforcement officers. However, tactics used to address situations on the streets are inconsistent with the policing strategies recommended and expected for a school environment. Police adhere to strict tactical and policing protocols when addressing a myriad of critical incidents. A common misconception is that officers always operate and function at moderate-to-high alert in anticipation of potentially dangerous circumstances that might occur. In response to training and experience, officers remain vigilant and are acutely aware of their surroundings. It is a practice that many officers call, “keeping your third eye open.” Police must be prepared to transition in an instance from interacting with an elderly citizen who ran a stop sign to a deranged motorist intentionally driving through a large crowd of innocent people. While officers are trained to be tactically minded, regardless of their location, police officers should not police sixth grade the same way officers police Sixth Street. Employees working in educational environments are exposed to a wide range of student behaviors and actions. Tolerance and temperament levels will inevitably be tested. It is important to make certain that the response to every student action and behavior remains consistent and beneficial. Policies that measure the level of tolerance in response to student behavior must be carefully examined. Maintaining appropriate tolerance levels in response to a variety of circumstances is a critical component for law enforcement. When dealing with students, tolerance levels must be more than zero. Zero-tolerance policing in schools emerged in the early 1990s as an extension of the 1980 Ronald Regan era War on Drugs campaign. Policies and practices emphasized mandatory sanctions for certain offenses. With zero tolerance, mandatory consequences are applied regardless of the magnitude of behavior, mitigating factors, or circumstances surrounding the acts. A zero-tolerance policy in schools seeks to provide immediate relief to a victim and those offended in response to the negative behavior or criminal activity of another. School officials viewed the practice as an effective option for mitigating, reducing, and eradicating criminal activity in schools. The philosophy behind a school-based zero-tolerance approach

Zero-tolerance Policies and the Culture-to-prison Pipeline  31

is to discourage student misbehavior. It seeks to deter potential and future criminal activity and to serve as a warning to those who might consider committing similar acts. Although many public schools in the United States transitioned from a full-service zero-tolerance policy, residual practices remain, particularly in school districts where criminal activity is high. The impact of zero-tolerance practices in schools can yield negative student outcomes and can compromise overall safety in a school. Students suspended from school have a higher likelihood of being arrested than students allowed to remain in schools to serve out the punishment. Furthermore, practices that result in exclusionary school responses correspond with a decreased graduation rate and academic underachievement. A direct correlation exists between zero-tolerance practices in schools and student dropout rates and an increased likelihood of criminal justice system involvement as a juvenile and an adult. Individuals exposed to the criminal justice system at a young age have a higher likelihood of being subjected to negative experiences and consequences that result from having a criminal record. Certain student groups have experienced zero-tolerance practices applied to members who share similar cultural experiences. The practice in many ways produces unintended outcomes considering that individuals subjected to harsh law enforcement practices find that the resolve shared with others within the same culture is strengthened and worn as a badge of honor when individuals feel unfairly target. Despite state laws and changes in K-12 discretionary placement guidelines designed to address this phenomenon, inequitable disciplinary practices continue to force marginalized students into situations that result in school or police actions that produce disproportionate outcomes. Students committing offenses that result in an automatic referral to law enforcement creates an environment where students may feel under constant surveillance or targeted by school staff, administrators, and police. Zero-tolerance and aggressive policing practices create an oppressive environment and insensitive approach to student management. The anticipation of a student infraction can precipitate action taken by school staff to address the issue. Zero-tolerance policing affords little consideration to underlying issues that contribute to student actions and behavior. Disciplinary response and law enforcement action are often automatic and triggered by prohibited behavior committed by a student. School districts consistently apply zero-tolerance policies to weapons possession and high-level criminal incidents on a school campus. Educators have a responsibility and shared interest that students are held accountable for improper actions and behavior committed at schools. Purposeful action is required to maintain the highest levels of safety and systems that deter potential acts of violence. Procedures implemented and designed to create a culture of safety must be sensible, reasonable, and logical. Zero-tolerance responses to weapons in some instances have included the possession of toy guns, water pistols, and toy action figure accessories. Schools generally adhere to strict weapons related zero-tolerance policies; however, sensible actions must be taken. In February 2022, a Florida student was arrested after committing a prank where he drove around a high school campus and randomly shot at students with a non-lethal splatter gun which shoots water or gels (6). The student was arrested despite it being a nonlethal device. In the absence of criminal offenses that require law enforcement intervention, schools generally take a zero-tolerance approach to infractions such as fighting, possession of tobacco products, alcoholic beverages, and dress code violations. Many violations remove students from the classroom and place them in alternative learning environments. A beneficial alternative is to appropriately address the infraction while allowing the student to remain in an academic learning environment where learning is not disrupted.

32  Zero-tolerance Policies and the Culture-to-prison Pipeline

Zero-tolerance policies are applied to certain disciplinary actions including students engaged in bullying, verbal threats, or other undesirable behavior. The widespread use of such practices were once commonplace but many districts have moved from a blanketed, relatively ineffective, and disproportionately punitive practice to addressing student issues. The American Psychological Association created a task force and concluded in 2008 that zero-tolerance policies yielded no scientific evidence to suggest that the practice improved school safety (7). Zero-tolerance policies can temporarily halt certain behaviors and in some situations, the approach might be effective. However, there are instances where the practice is strictly applied and results in the over-discipline of student behavior. The punishment often exceeded the actions that caused the disciplinary response. A zero-tolerance or “tough on crime” approach to addressing student issues raises concerns about the disproportionate outcomes and inequitable handling of the most marginalized student groups. During eras of high crime in the United States, society was more inclined to support laws like mandatory minimum prison sentences for violent or habitual offenders. Such practices were viewed as effective tools for crime deterrent and for establishing a modicum of peace and safety in society. Violent crime rates among juveniles escalated between the mid-1980s and 1990s as courts and justice systems focused on punishment and retribution rather than the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. The perceived success of such actions facilitated the approach to public safety and crime eradication toward juveniles through the criminal justice system. Certain police practices that were once considered to be problematic on the streets became concerns for using police in schools. Profiling practices are believed to have increased in schools under zero-tolerance policies. Profiling is a practice used to identify students who seem to “fit a pattern” or “appear” likely to engage in criminal behavior. Profiling can be based on many factors including race, culture, clothing, music interests, and types of vehicles driven. Students who fit “the profile” are compared to others who have committed certain bad acts in the past and unfair conclusions develop that lead to a student being unfairly targeted and labeled. The use of profiling as a school safety tool is largely unreliable. It has the tendency to over identify students from marginalized student groups as individuals with the propensity to engage in negative or violent and dangerous behavior. Students racially profiled are often prime candidates for zero-tolerance criminal sanctions. Profiling causes some to view Black or Brown students as a more violent group in a school setting, even though the groups represent a lower percentage of school shooters in the United States than White students. Policies must be weighed carefully as the misuse can crush the inspiration of students. It can tilt the delicate balance between the juvenile justice system and the long-term impact on student success in a variety of ways. In a zero-tolerance school environment, staff are more likely to be driven to produce results, so statistics show that actions taken to discourage criminal and disruptive behavior are swift, decisive, and effective. The outcome is an increased reliance on severe disciplinary action in response to negative student behavior. It commonly equates to an increased number of students referred to the juvenile justice system for minor infractions that could be handled at the campus or parent level. The contemporary use of school police officers and the juvenile justice system to address student infractions that would have not previously been considered dangerous, disruptive, or threatening has increased the number of suspensions, expulsions, and actions that introduce students to the criminal justice system. Concerns regarding the impact of zero-tolerance practices, particularly in schools, are valid. The negative emotional and mental outcomes have produced student anxiety,

Zero-tolerance Policies and the Culture-to-prison Pipeline  33

alienation, disruptive relationships, and rejection. Additional concerns question the cost/ benefit of the practice and a heavy reliance on the juvenile justice system to address student misbehavior. Alternatives related to effective intervention, prevention, and postvention strategies are more effective and provide beneficial solutions for decreasing delinquent behavior. It is more cost-effective than the legal burdens families and the justice system incur through the handling of reckless, adolescent, and juvenile behavior as a criminal offense. Zero-tolerance practices suppress the valuable option of discretion that school administrators and law enforcement use daily. The liberty to use discretion in situations allows for the consideration of all information related to the incident to determine the best resolution. Like police officers, school administrators have a wide range of discretion, and it is a fact that discretion can positively or negatively impact student outcomes. Both can assess a situation and circumstances to determine how to best proceed with disciplinary action. Certain student behavior requires police officers to be contacted by school administrators. School discretionary options are limited in situations such as felony offenses, drugs, or situations that reveal evidentiary contraband that must be turned over to law enforcement. However, for non-criminal incidents occurring on campus, school administrators are better prepared to resolve situations at the lowest administrative level. Although discretion is an important tool available to officers, its application in a school setting should not be used to punish or level the authoritative playing field as a consequence to adolescent or disruptive behavior. A best practice for addressing non-criminal incidents occurring in a classroom is to “assess before you address.” Whenever possible, minor, non-criminal incidents should be addressed at the classroom level. Situations should only be escalated to the administrative level when necessary. Teachers, school administrators, and parents must always be the primary interventionists in non-criminal student actions. Law enforcement intervention should be limited to school safety and crime-related incidents. Collaborative interaction between parents and staff regarding positive or negative student behavior provides an opportunity to build constructive relationships. Citations 1. Heise, M., & Nance, J.P. (2021). “Defund the (school) police?” Bringing data to key school-toprison pipeline claims. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 111(3), 717–772. 2. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2019). National Report Series Bulletin. “Juvenile Arrests, 2019.” https://www.ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/media/document/ 253179.pdf 3. Marchbanks, M., & Blake, J. (n.d). Assessing the role of school discipline in disproportionate minority contact with the juvenile justice system. Final Technical Report. 4. Hirschfield, P. (2018). The role of schools in sustaining juvenile justice system inequality. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1179204.pdf 5. Dupéré, V., Dion, E., Leventhal, T., Crosnoe, R., Goulet, M., & Archambault, I. (2019). Circumstances preceding dropout among rural high school students: A comparison with urban peers. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 35(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.26209/jrre3503 6. Leslie, L. (2022, March 18). Teen arrested for shooting woman in the face with Orbeez. WINK News. https://winknews.com/2022/03/17/teen-arrested-for-shooting-woman-in-the-face-with-orbeez/ 7. Leslie, L. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools?: An evidentiary review and recommendations? The American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862.

Chapter 4

Advent of School Policing

Advent of School Policing The historical introduction of school-based law enforcement officers was not primarily based on a response to increased school violence. In fact, school-based law enforcement officers have been around for decades. In the late 1950s, Flint, Michigan, was the first city in the United States to assign contracted school police officers to a school environment. The purpose was not solely to reduce the likelihood of school shootings but to create a PoliceSchool Liaison program which was later known as the school resource officer or SRO program. The program allowed law enforcement to partner with schools and to collaborate in the establishment of safe and secure schools for students, staff, and visitors. The approach was proactive and effective in identifying, mitigating, and deterring criminal activity on school campuses. The program experienced positive outcomes and became a blueprint for schools in other states to adopt similar proactive school policing strategies. Over the years, the program evolved into a standard safety and security solution that has consistently produced successful results. Although Flint, Michigan, created the first SRO program, the 1990s saw the beginning of a trend toward hundreds of schools from around the country adding full-time police officers to school campuses. The fundamental duties of SROs are to create and maintain the safest learning environment where law and order is upheld on campus. A rise in the number of school police officers and school district police departments was partially due to an increase in the number of school shootings that occurred around the country. Communities recognized the need to identify effective solutions to ensure that students were provided a safe learning environment without having to fear lethal violent acts occurring on campus. As school safety concerns grew in the United States due to increased violence, school districts shifted to hiring contracted SROs. Schools partnered with law enforcement agencies, typically those with overlapping jurisdiction, to acquire police services. Many states adopt school policing standards, descriptions, and clear definitions of the role of a contracted SRO. Originally, Texas classified officers working in schools as SROs. School based law enforcement officers provide a variety of services to schools. Services include increased visibility to deter crime, foot and vehicle patrol, assistance with campus visitors, and investigating criminal offenses. The legal responsibility for school-based law enforcement officers generally aligns with the legal authority and duties granted to every peace officer in their respective states. Challenges come when officers are requested to serve outside their roles to address non-criminal offenses such as student code of conduct violations, minor offenses, or disruptive behavior incidents.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-4

Advent of School Policing  35

The role of police in situations where administrative and law enforcement responsibilities intersect must be clearly delineated. Many state laws, including Texas, prohibit schoolbased law enforcement officers from involvement in student discipline. However, fights which are a violation of student code of conduct and a state law violation can be addressed either criminally or administratively, depending on the expectations of the organization. A misconception is that school-based law enforcement officers are agents of school discipline which is inaccurate since non-criminal acts are generally beyond the scope of authority granted to school-based police officers. School based law enforcement officers are experts in maintaining peace and safety for students and staff at a level that exceeds the capability of a typical security guard. Officers serving in a school environment can initiate positive interactions and intervention at levels that have the potential of improving police and community relations. Intelligent and welltrained officers are essential to ensuring the most appropriate response to criminal juvenile behavior. The mishandling of juveniles can have lasting negative implications that may lead to emotional issues, mental scarring, and a disdain for police. This is especially relevant in school-based law enforcement. Students are not able to grasp the long-term implications, ramifications, and consequences of their actions with consistency. The minds of students are highly impressionable and each interaction provides an opportunity to positively or negatively impact lives. Involvement in negative, impulsive, and reckless acts can be the result of immaturity but it can also be the result of underlying behavioral, social, and emotional issues. An important skill for officers and school staff to develop is the ability to recognize key indicators that reveal underlying causes and motivations for student misbehavior. Furthermore, school-based law enforcement officers and school staff must be prepared to properly address behavioral concerns in a manner that seeks to understand the “why” behind negative behavior in order to find effective solutions to address underlying contributing factors. During the 1990s, school-based law enforcement and school district partnerships through SRO programs rapidly expanded throughout the United States. By the end of 2022, there were more than 20,000 contracted police officers in the United States (1). Contracted school police officers are hired with the highest expectation of providing safety and protection for students, staff, and campus visitors. The number of new school district police departments in the United States has steadily increased. School districts made decisions to form their own school district police departments to obtain better control over the quality, training, and duties of police officers serving students and the schools. As of January 2022, there were 1,029 public school districts in Texas (2). Of those, just over 300 were school district police departments (3). The sustained growth of police presence in schools has caused uncertainty regarding the actual costs and benefits the presence provides to schools, students, families, and the community. Additionally, critics argue that the presence of police around students is an irrefutable conduit to the “school to prison pipeline.” Contracted SROs working in a school district are licensed peace officers and typically work for a law enforcement agency with overlapping jurisdiction. The officers are not employees of the school district but serve through a contract agreement and partnership with the district. The contracted services agreement allows a law enforcement entity to provide safety and security police services to a school district. School districts enter into interlocal agreements with law enforcement agencies to assign a contracted number of SROs to provide services.

36  Advent of School Policing

Contracted SROs may work for a county sheriff’s department or a municipal police department. Officers must also meet and maintain the same training requirements of officers within the contracted law enforcement agency. Contracted SROs are experienced in many areas including patrol officers, detectives, and law enforcement supervisory experience. However, officers may serve school districts through a request to serve or as an agency assigned job duty. School districts consider contracted SROs to be an acceptable solution for providing a level of safety and security with minimal disruption to the educational objectives of a school district. School districts seeking to employ law enforcement services in a school-based law enforcement capacity have several options when selecting the most effective solution. Options include hiring contracted SROs, creating a school district police department, or in some states, using school marshals or guardians. School districts typically assign SROs to middle, elementary, high schools, disciplinary alternative education programs, and school-related activities. Expectations, duties, and responsibilities of contracted SROs vary depending upon the type of law enforcement agency providing the service. A reason is that contracted SROs are provided by outside agencies and each has a different mission, vision, objective, and policing style. Schools without a district police department and decide to outsource the duties of policing generally contract with local law enforcement agencies to provide safety and security services. Depending on the school district boundaries, officers from multiple agencies may provide services to eliminate jurisdictional and prosecutorial issues. The Round Rock Independent School District (ISD) in Round Rock, Texas, used three law enforcement agencies to provide safety and security services prior to creating their own police department in 2020. The uniqueness of the expansive school jurisdictional boundaries was a primary reason. The district boundaries expanded within multiple cities and two counties. Round Rock ISD has campuses in the City of Round Rock, the City of Austin, a portion of Cedar Park, and extends into both Travis and Williamson counties. To meet the police services needs for the multiple jurisdictions, the Round Rock ISD contracted police services with Round Rock Police Department, Williamson County Sheriff’s Department, and Austin Community College. The community college had jurisdiction in the entire Round Rock ISD school district but had a limited number of officers available to provide services. Municipal, county, and college police agencies have specialized duties and responsibilities, each with leadership teams independent of the other. The policies and objectives for each law enforcement agency differ, as does training emphasis and expectations. A variety of challenges surfaced for the district due to the patchwork solution for police services. The different leadership styles and separate expectations added to the challenges. The solution acquired officers from outside agencies to serve the district but created inconsistencies in the quality, availability, and approach to school policing. Hiring contracted SRO services from outside law enforcement agencies provides a level of safety and security to the district. Officers can prioritize active shooter response, threat mitigation, and crime deterrence on campus. With contracted SROs, duties beyond safety and security are encouraged but not required. Contracted officers are not mandated to train alongside school staff to achieve alignment and synergy to ensure the most beneficial student outcomes. Officers utilize department policies and training strategies that do not always align in a manner that provides high-level student advocacy. Certain approaches to school policing used by contract SROs have contributed to disproportionate outcomes for marginalized student groups in K-12 schools. This is especially true when police response is

Advent of School Policing  37

based on outdated zero-tolerance policies. School districts have commonly positioned police officers to serve as role-players in the disciplinary process. In part, the outcome resulted in marginalized student populations facing higher suspension, disciplinary placement, and referrals to the court system. The priority of contracted SROs is to the law enforcement agency they serve and then to the school campus. Interlocal agreements between many school districts and law enforcement agencies articulate the exception. In instances when critical incidents occur off campus and require immediate response, contracted SROs may be required to respond. The result is a gap in coverage created at the campus. Contracted SRO training creates an additional challenge particularly when training is scheduled on days when school is in session. Training is scheduled with what best aligns with the needs of the contracted law enforcement agency and is scheduled during times that are convenient for the agency and not the district. As a result, officer training may require officers to leave a school during the school day which creates gaps in coverage. Temporarily transferring officers from the street with little to no SRO experience happens but is not considered to be a best practice. Using untrained officers to provide coverage in the absence of a trained SRO creates challenges for the campus since the temporarily assigned officer might be unfamiliar with the campus or the safety and security drill procedures. Moreover, the officer likely has no relationships or no connection to the students and staff in a way that would be beneficial. Providing an officer as simply “a body” to respond to a critical incident or threat meets the bare minimum requirements of having an officer on campus. However, the temporary solution does not provide much more than that. The uncertainty of the officer’s level of training, temperament, or motivation may not align with the needs of the students and the campus which is an important component needed for quality police services. The selection process for officers to serve in schools is critical in ensuring that students are served by officers who have the appropriate temperament, mindset, and skill sets to serve in a school environment. Police interactions with students that result in uses of force will always be points of contention. Questions surface about the need to use similar types of force against students that were designed to use against violent and aggressive adults. Many officers have the proficiencies needed to allow an environment to dictate the best tactics and approach to resolve a situation. Officers that struggle with the delineation of tactics should be identified through a careful officer selection process for the position. A failure to select proper officers can place students in a situation that is inconsistent with the expectations of student interactions and subject them to unacceptable tactics for the situation and the environment. In 2013, a 17-year-old Texas high school student was tasered by a contracted school resource from a local sheriff’s department. The incident was in response to a fight between two students. During the incident, a third male student reportedly intervened. Officers asked the male student to leave the area and he allegedly responded aggressively toward officers. Officers attempted to physically detain the student multiple times but were unsuccessful. During the encounter, an officer deployed a taser on the student, causing the student to fall and hit his head on the concrete floor. The male student suffered severe brain damage. The family of the male student maintained that the student’s involvement was limited to being a peacemaker. They assert that the male student attempted to break up the fight between two female students when the deputies approached him. Video of the incident depicts the male student backing away from the contracted SROs when one of the officers tasered the student. The fall to the concrete floor caused the

38  Advent of School Policing

student serious head injuries and brain damage. The student spent over two months in a medically induced coma due to his injuries. Contrary to the police report, the video reportedly showed that the student never approached the officers and never took a swing at the officers. The two contracted SROs were experienced officers and both reportedly weighed over 250 lbs. The student weighed approximately 125 lbs. The officer who tasered the student reported that he and the other officer attempted to go “hands on” with the student but the student “spinned out” and took a fighting stance. The officer explained that the decision was made to taser the student after he feared that by attempting another physical detainment, the student would possibly hurt the officer or his partner. Similar incidents have occurred in schools throughout the United States and have led to higher scrutiny of the quality and training of officers assigned to schools. A point of contention is made regarding the historical selection process for contracted SROs assigned to schools. A historically held belief is that the best officers from an agency were not offered to schools. The chief or sheriff of a law enforcement agency would generally not assign the best patrol officer or detective in the department to serve a school. The argument suggests that the quality of some officers assigned to schools is substandard or the officers have a history of negative disciplinary action and are the ones that a department can “spare” to place in a school. As a result, instances of negative interactions and outcomes related to actions such as use of force encounters are inappropriate or unnecessarily high. Use of force options against students must be carefully weighed and evaluated to determine appropriateness in a school environment. Although officers should have less lethal weapon options available, the use of tasers by school-based law enforcement brings an intense level of scrutiny. Detainment techniques such as chokeholds used against students raise serious concerns and are wholly inappropriate use of force options. The expectation of parents and students is that they should be made to feel more and not less safe at the hands of police. Instead, students in some school environments are fearful and concerned about their wellbeing during a law enforcement interaction. Students have developed a concern that actions like disrespect or running away from an officer may be interpreted as provocative and criminal when it is simply a reaction of fear by a frightened student who is undeveloped in effective problem-solving or the development of critical thinking skills. School policing is a specialized field and requires a unique level of training. Many states in the United States require school-based law enforcement officers to attend specific mandated training courses if assigned full-time to work in a campus. Texas requires officers to obtain basic school-based law enforcement training within six months of being assigned to a campus. Continuous ongoing training specific to school-based law enforcement is available, up to and including a masters level school-based law enforcement training program. However, there is no requirement for officers from contracted police agencies to be trained prior to an assignment to fill in temporarily at a school campus in the absence of the trained school-based law enforcement officer. The process of assimilating untrained officers untrained in school-based law enforcement can take time. The criticism is that the training and experience street officers bring with them into the schools is specific to the tools needed for responding to incidents involving adults and not students. Contracted police agencies that temporarily assign officers from the streets to fill in at a school make sure that the officer understands that the assignment is temporary and the expectations are limited to keeping students and staff safe. There are limited expectations of the officer to interact, engage, mentor, or build relationships since the officer will be returning to their primary duty assignment. The assumption of many school districts and

Advent of School Policing  39

contracted police agencies is that simply having a body on the campus fulfills the need and meets the minimum requirements and objectives of the contract. It meets the minimum needs but there are questions as to whether it meets student needs, specifically when students are facing a criminal charge and need help. Student advocacy is vital and contracted SROs regularly engage in the practice of advocating for students. Although informal, establishing student advocacy as a priority by the law enforcement agency and the school district can pay huge long-term dividends in student behavior. Student advocacy is an effective approach that mitigates the prioritization of criminal justice options as a primary solution. The disadvantage that some law enforcement agencies have with the implementation of effective student advocacy is that it does not align with traditional statistically driven contacts. Law enforcement agencies around the country are statistically driven and with high arrest numbers, drug seizures, and citations, agencies have leverage to request increased funding and personnel. Traditionally, student arrests provided statistics that can be used as justifications for increased funding requests. High arrests in many agencies equate to high productivity and effectiveness in mitigating criminal behavior. Contracted SROs from agencies with a zero-tolerance mindset are less likely to foster an environment where marginalized students truly feel comfortable. A student advocacy mindset utilizes alternatives to criminal justice intervention which is counter to statistically driven outcomes based on arrests or citations. Contracted SROs receive training from the law enforcement agency they were hired to serve. Officers are neither mandated nor expected to participate in training provided by a school district. Police officer training does not generally include areas like restorative practices, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Limited training in these areas can contribute to inequitable outcomes for marginalized student groups. It can lead to the escalation of disrespectful, immature, and adolescent student behavior to a criminal act as punitive practice. Agencies that provide contracted police services are generally motivated to perform certain duties that justify the need for police. In instances where a student commits a crime and contracted SROs are involved, there are few intervention opportunities for administrators. Criminalizing adolescent behavior and preventing administration intervention on behalf of the student does little to prepare students for long-term success. It increases a perception of police that leads to a lifetime of distrust and fear by those most impacted. Community support for contracted SRO services can depend on whether there is genuine trust in the law enforcement agency hired to serve a school district. Anti-police groups typically prefer to have no police in schools partly due to negative actions of police that led to distrust. However, communities that largely support police have less concern about police presence in schools and around their children. Considerable benefits exist to having contracted SROs in schools. Officers are trained to respond and react to critical incidents and address criminal activity. Response time to critical incidents is greatly diminished with police presence on campus. The use of contracted police services eliminates the need for school districts to maintain state requirements for operating a law enforcement agency. Moreover, there is no need for the establishment of a police headquarters or training facilities. School districts that use contracted police services do not have the responsibility of meeting the human resource demands to hire police in compliance with state guidelines. The tradeoff is that school districts have no input in the quality, type, or training of officers provided. Contracted SROs typically react and respond to incidents based on the training guidelines of the agency they were hired to serve.

40  Advent of School Policing

The rules of police engagement related to violent or aggressive incidents in schools vary little from the actions, practices, and policing styles used by officers working city streets. The use of tasers, defensive tactics, and other less lethal solutions are a use of force options in schools throughout the United States. Tactical-minded officers inside schools are like those in communities outside schools. The fragmentation and inconsistencies of school policing practices present a difference of expectations, tactics, mindsets, and strategies. Poor police practices can negatively impact students and can prevent those most in need from entering a school environment due to suspensions, expulsions, or police interaction in response to negative behaviors. Critics maintain that a continuous presence of law enforcement in schools potentially places in jeopardy the constitutional rights of some students. The view that marginalized student groups are disproportionately subjected to police searches or questioning only exacerbates the argument for less contentious alternatives for school safety. An increased number of school-based law enforcement officers deal with a relatively low number of criminal incidents inside a school compared to events outside of schools.  Consequently, school-based law enforcement officers are solicited by school administrators and staff to intervene in minor situations that are outside the scope of police duties. Requests include incidents of juvenile non-compliance, refusals to go to class, student code of conduct violations, or wearing a hoodie inside of a building. An uncertainty about the advantages of police in schools is partly due to the possibility that student referrals to police increase with the presence of officers on campus, regardless of the misbehavior. Incidents have occurred in schools around the country where student disciplinary matters were reclassified as criminal justice matters so that police could intervene and take strict action. Incidents as minor as a student disrupting a class and refusing to leave class as directed by a teacher have resulted in police intervention. A situation in a South Carolina classroom resulted in a student being pulled from her chair and slammed to the floor by a police officer after refusing repeated requests to leave the classroom (4). The incident was recorded on a cellphone as it happened in front of her peers. Similar incidents have transpired where school staff and police viewed student actions as non-compliant when in fact, the behavior was a manifestation of a social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health concern. The failure to delineate between the two has potentially contributed to an increased number of student referrals to law enforcement or arrests. The presence of law enforcement in schools increases the likelihood that school officials will report student behavior infractions to police at a higher rate. The rate of reporting criminal and behavioral incidents to school-based law enforcement will continue to raise questions about the need for officers in schools. Furthermore, arguments can be made that the increased reporting of actions requiring a disciplinary response to police can disproportionately impact marginalized student groups. The nascent argument suggests that school districts have an evolving negative posture toward student discipline that potentially spillovers onto students. The contention is that the progression and evolution of police in schools resulted in the outsourcing of student discipline duties to police officers. The increased role and involvement of police, particularly in minor or non-criminal situations like student code of conduct violations traditionally handled by campus staff, exposes students to negative police interactions. The result deleteriously impacts students by escalating minor actions to criminal offenses. Despite claims that the mere presence of police in schools increases the number of students introduced into the criminal justice system, there are counterarguments to contend

Advent of School Policing  41

that the presence of police reduces the number of referrals to law enforcement. An assumption is that the negative impact and increased likelihood of students introduced to the criminal justice system is higher than reported. The presence of law enforcement has an inherent deterrent benefit. Officers on campus may reduce the likelihood of negative or criminal behavior that might otherwise occur if officers were not present. School districts in the United States obtain and utilize police services in a variety of ways. Some schools use contracted SRO services while others create their own school district police departments. There are exclusive benefits to having a school district police department completely dedicated to providing police services to a school district. A school district police department adds an exceptional level of stability and consistency. School district police officers are a constant that can build strong and lasting relationships with students, staff, and parents. They have the opportunity and ability to remove barriers that have historically limited true collaboration between school district administrators and police. The solution provides an alignment that includes police officers in the organizational chart as employees. The school district police chief typically reports to the superintendent and police department services are supported by the various departments within the school district. School district police departments provide a greater level of rapid response efficiency. Officers are more familiar with the safety protocols and campus layouts. Additionally, they train alongside school staff so that the response to critical incidents is efficient. Building relationships with parents allows district police officers a greater opportunity for student advocacy and to involve parents to a greater degree in the resolution of studentrelated concerns. The roles and responsibilities of school-based law enforcement officers extend beyond active shooter response, arrest, and criminal intervention. School based law enforcement officers are a critical component to school safety and a resource in areas such as student advocacy, equity, and behavioral health. Officers who are school district police officers or long-tenured contracted SROs are invaluable subject matter experts. The institutional knowledge possessed provides a higher level of familiarity between officers, students, parents, and staff. Officers are involved daily in mentoring, advocacy, encouragement, and mitigating challenges in a manner that removes barriers. The depth and impact set students up for long-term success. The art of policing is an evolving process that should emphasize meeting the needs of an evolving society. There is a state of constant improvement within the law enforcement profession. The decisions and care placed in the development of many historical responses to policing were pragmatic solutions designed to obtain a certain outcome. However, the emphasis on theoretical or progressive solutions was rarely applied. As a result, the use of antiquated practices is still seen in certain practices today because the method seems to provide an immediate resolution to a given situation. School policing is an area of law enforcement that requires a unique set of skills designed to prepare those in the field to serve in a manner that supports successful outcomes of students. The long-term implications of antiquated solutions remain weighty in the minds of communities negatively impacted by outdated policing solutions and practices. Certain schools in the United States allow school-based law enforcement to teach instruction on various topics including career and technology education courses like criminal justice. Students who attended schools in classroom instruction led by school-based law enforcement generally have more positive attitudes toward officers. Interestingly, the impact that school-based law enforcement has on students during the interactions is beneficial to

42  Advent of School Policing

shaping student attitudes and feelings. Among students who interact with school-based law enforcement officers, the interactions positively impact student attitudes and perceptions about the officers. However, students with low interactions during the school year experience the smallest impact on school connectedness. Students with more frequent interactions with school-based law enforcement officers have more positive attitudes when compared to those with little to no interaction with school-based law enforcement. The more students interact with school-based law enforcement officers, the more positive their attitudes and perceptions become toward officers. Additionally, interactions can increase positive attitudes from officers’ perspectives toward students in a way that corrects misperceptions. As the number of interactions increases, the attitudes and beliefs about officer fairness and competence can increase. School safety and achieving the wellbeing of all students are critical. School districts working with police to create the safest possible learning environments must be an unwavering priority. There are effective options available to create safe environments but some strategies have produced unintended and often unacknowledged outcomes. For example, zero-tolerance policies in school districts were a strategy schools used to reduce and deter crime and to punish juvenile offenders. The increased number of arrests for drug possession, assaults, and weapons offenses were seen as victories in communities and schools around the country. In response, additional police officers were added to departments to further eradicate criminal activity occurring in communities and on campuses. Increased numbers of officers resulted in a higher number of student arrests and in the overcriminalization of student behavior among marginalized student populations. A zero-tolerance approach also criminalized immature, emotional, mental, and adolescent behavior in ways that increased negative encounters between marginalized students and school police. The impact from the encounters can affect students into adulthood and creates challenges for how they cope and respond with real life issues. The past few decades have demonstrated a tightened intersectionality between schools and the criminal justice system. A variety of contributing factors may be the result of an increased dependency on law enforcement. Criminal justice-related interventions might include a variety of solutions including those designed to increase in person and video camera student monitoring as a deterrence to violence or criminal activity. School violence and unauthorized personnel concerns have increased the amount of access control systems added to school facilities to control movement around campus. For this reason, there is little denial that school districts have increased their reliance on police to monitor student activity and to deter criminal behavior. Critics suggest that the reliance has increased to a level that caused many schools to look and feel like a quasiprison community. Additionally, some contend that negative outcomes from the tightened intersections between schools and the criminal justice system have resulted in an increased number of students introduced to the criminal justice system.   An argument is made that the volume of crime in schools does not occur in elementary schools and only exists at middle and high school levels. However, two of the most tragic school shootings in the United States occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton, Connecticut, and Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. The suggestion is not that police officers should be placed in elementary schools for the sole purpose of responding to an active shooter event. However, police presence through random patrols and campus visits throughout the school day could provide a level of deterrence and a reduced response time benefit in event of a critical incident. Questions about the impact and influence that police

Advent of School Policing  43

have in elementary schools arise regarding the differential impact of police in middle schools and high schools and the proclivity to refer student actions to law enforcement. School based law enforcement officers report that elementary school students typically look at police as superheroes and any negative interaction is relatively low. The counterargument is that because there are so few criminal offenses that occur in elementary school within the age range of accountability, law enforcement typically has no standing to act in most instances. Although school districts create their own police departments, many districts around the country are reluctant to do so in part due to financial constraints or a lack of public support for hiring full-time school district police officers. Some communities have expressed a reluctance to add another policing entity, particularly inside a school. Critics acknowledge that although school safety is a priority, an equal concern is the potential impact the safety solution of additional officers brings to a school environment. There are certainly pros and cons to creating a school district police department with the duties and responsibilities of serving the school community. Creating a school district police department provides a district with greater input in the type and quality of officers hired, the type of training they receive, the vision and mission of the department, and style of policing. Trade-offs include initial startup costs that a district will occur and civil liability shifts to the district for officer actions and inactions. Lastly, community disapproval may increase due to the uncertainties that come with creating a police department, particularly within a school district. A proven certainty that has been seen in school district police departments is that departments are built on a more solid foundation that creates a safer learning environment. It ensures that all students are served in a manner that considers the whole child and produces the best long-term outcomes. Officers can engage in mentorship and student advocacy, provide presentations, and build relationship at a level greater than other alternatives. Contracted SROs are trained to respond in a certain way based on the needs of their actual law enforcement agency. Creating a school district police department allows districts to identify needs, set expectations, and create the department in a manner that best serves the interests of the students, district, and community. It allows districts to develop police functions and practices that prohibit a police response to non-criminal students’ actions. Effective and comprehensive police training is key to ensuring that the safest learning environment is created and maintained. Officers trained to engage in student advocacy understand that there are often underlying issues such as social, emotional, and behavioral challenges that produce negative student behavior. Criminalizing those issues does not help the students. Officers in a district police department are on campus and interact with students, staff, and specialized resources in a way that closes a variety of safety gaps. District police officers can be trained to recognize signs and behaviors that require specific resources such as social workers, counselors, or other staff to address situations where law enforcement should not be involved. Training plans that remove officers from the disciplinary process can effectively reduce negative police actions in non-criminal-related situations. Additionally, it creates student advocacy-rich environments that utilize alternative resources to address student behavior instead of opting for the juvenile or criminal justice system as the first choice. District police officers work with students who commit minor crimes by seeking to understand and recognize triggers that lead to the behavior and seek alternative solutions to help students. School district police departments increase equitable and positive student outcomes. Districts can establish training requirements for departments that include equity, diversity,

44  Advent of School Policing

inclusion, restorative practices, de-escalation, and other student-focused initiatives to help meet student needs. Community support for school district police departments can be mixed, particularly in today’s society. Although many recognize the value of having officers on campus to provide safety and security, greater concerns exist with decisions to add officers in schools. However, building a department on transformative and student-centered policing yields positive outcomes that can change perspectives and increase police support. Creating a school district police department allows a district to build a department that meets the unique and specific needs of the students, staff, district, and community. It allows for the implementation of an effective school policing model like the Four Pillars of School Policing that provides innovative and transformative school policing. The model promotes safety and security, student advocacy, equity, and behavioral health. The vision, mission, values, and direction of the police department can be developed to align with principles that are equitable, student-centered, and structured to serve the whole child. Officers can be trained as student advocates and mentors selected to serve with the purpose of preparing students for long-term success rather than failure through the criminalization of immature decisions and poor choices. For example, officers can advocate for students facing criminal charges and identify alternative solutions by utilizing alternative resources to divert students from the criminal justice system for minor criminal violations. Creating a diverse school police department is extremely important, not only in race or ethnicity, but also in experience, culture, and life experiences. Most school districts serve highly diverse student populations and the need to have diverse, trained, and experienced officers is vital to the success of the organization. A training program that focuses on inclusion, diversity, and equity training and exceeds minimum state requirements will prepare officers to ensure that the human rights of all are recognized. It also provides fair, equitable treatment, and equal chances at success. Training in areas such as restorative practices, mental health first aid, crisis prevention CPI, trust-based relational intervention, de-escalation, threat mitigation, and active shooter response prepares officers to appropriately respond to many scenarios in an educational environment. Behavioral health services are an important resource that is highly beneficial to student and officer development, specifically when it includes social workers housed within a police department. Social workers respond to situations when students are in crisis due to social, emotional, behavioral, or mental health needs. Social workers provide case management and wrap around services to families to ensure that students and families have the resources and ongoing support that they need to be successful. Additionally, they can work alongside officers to ensure that officers have access to alternative solutions to provide the proper intervention support. Students who normally fall through the cracks because of race, ethnic, economic, mental, and/or behavioral issues can be helped in a manner that produces noncriminal, positive outcomes.  School police departments can train K-9s for therapy resources instead of drug detection. Therapy dogs have shown to help calm students in crisis to de-escalate, refocus, and be more amenable to receive services to process through and overcome the crisis. Therapy dogs over drug dogs is a preferred option in schools since students engaging in drug use should be considered students in crisis. Students turn to drugs for a variety of reasons such as self-medication due to underlying issues. Although school administrators can take administrative action or criminal action to address students engaging in the sale of drugs for profit, criminalizing drug possession due to drug use should not be the goal of police

Advent of School Policing  45

officers in schools. The goal should focus on connecting students with the resources needed to identify, address, and overcome drug use and addiction. The role of an equity officer or liaison is an important component of creating an effective school police department. An equity officer focuses on ensuring that decisions made by a department positively affect student outcomes and officer development. An additional benefit of the equity officer role is that it provides policy assessments to ensure that procedures and practices of a school district police department are viewed through an equity lens. Specialized officer training is provided by the equity office in areas of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Community engagement is an important practice that school police departments can develop with more consistency than what is provided by contracted police services. Hosting regular meetings with stakeholders, including those with concerns about police in schools, can provide spaces for meaningful discussions and clarity. School police departments should also regularly invite guest speakers to department meetings to discuss topics such as racial equity, LGBTQIA+ inclusion, as well as members from different cultures to raise the cultural awareness of officers serving the district. School police departments have a unique opportunity to positively influence the lives of students in an impactful way. As with long-term contracted SROs, district police officers can become role models, mentors, and advocates for students and build relationships that may last well into adulthood. The addition of police officers in schools has arguably tightened the intersectionality between police in schools and the criminal justice system. Districts with school-based law enforcement use officers to monitor student behavior, patrol campuses, and help to maintain a peaceful and safe environment. The increased number of school-based law enforcement officers in schools is in response to additional funding initiatives from state and federal governments. Tragic incidents such as Columbine High School, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Santa Fe High School, and Robb Elementary School demonstrate a pattern of priority for legislators to refocus resources and seek effective strategies to prevent future tragedies. Tragic events of school violence shine a light on existing issues in school safety and policing. It refocuses the world’s attention on identifying existing gaps and underlying issues that must be addressed through effective and innovative solutions. School safety and policing should be under a perpetual state of evaluation before, during, and after a critical incident to ensure that proper action is taken to mitigate future incidents. Citations 1. Youth and the Juvenile Justice System: 2022 National Report. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/publications/ 2022-national-report.pdf 2. www.tea.texas.gov 3. www.tcole.texas.gov 4. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/afternoonupdate/deputy-who-tossed-a-sc-high-schoolstudent-wont-be-charged.html

Chapter 5

The Art of School Policing

Art of School Policing There is an old saying within policing that states, “Police policy comes from the nightshift.” The meaning behind the message has a semblance of truth. Actions that are unsupervised go uncorrected particularly when the actions occur under the cover of darkness. Improper actions committed by officers transpire when there is little oversight or deficient supervision to illuminate the fundamental flaws in police practices. For years, certain actions have left communities in a continuous state of frustration when improper policing practices have gone unchanged. However, in the new age of technology where body cameras and cell phone cameras record incidents of concern, many actions by police officers that would have normally been ignored are visible in real time to the world on social media and the news. Policing is an art that requires the practice to be redesigned and portrayed on a canvas of peace which is the fundamental calling of officers. Communities must be shown that the basic definition of a police officer is a “peace” officer, as defined by the laws of many states around the country. The actions of officers should not lead to a pseudo-definition of a “rest in peace” officer as demonstrated by the actions of officers like Derek Chauvin. The law enforcement profession devotes tremendous effort to painting a true reflection of who the actual officers are within the profession. Peace officers represent an incalculable amount of positive and selfless acts performed by thousands of men and women each day. Officers are mindful that the countless examples that reflect the positive actions by dedicated professionals can be blurred by the negative actions of one. Nonetheless, policing strategies must continue to build a stockpile of positive actions, interactions, and trust with communities so that when a negative circumstance occurs, communities recognize the situations for what they are and have proven confidence in officers to know that the outcomes were unavoidable. When considering the art of school policing, the goal should be to prioritize advocacy over arrest. Many organizations can articulate a purpose and a commitment to protect and serve the motto. However, critics tend to question the selection of certain officers when the actions do not reflect a high and equal level of protection and service afforded to marginalized student groups.  Not all students feel protected in a school environment; however, students who are considered compliant, academically successful, or influential seem to feel more protected than others. Critics consider there to be a lesser level of protection and service provided to students that fall outside the scope of the “good student” parameters. The art of school policing requires those within the profession to recognize what students can and cannot do without.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-5

Art of School Policing  47

The development of effective solutions designed to meet the needs of those served must be provided at a level that is transformational, recognizable, achievable, and sustainable. The art of policing must be viewed as a careful and deliberate approach to providing the services that a school district needs in a manner that is equitable and constructive. Although every situation and student are different, the emphasis behind the delivery of services officers provide must remain student-centered and focused. It must be viewed from a perspective that seeks to provide the best long-term outcomes for students while creating an environment where students feel safe walking past a police officer without the ire of suspicion. The art of school policing cannot be narrowly focused on inquiry, investigation, and incarceration as a demonstration of progress. It should flow from advocacy, assessment, and assistance by ensuring that the most appropriate resources are allocated to meet student needs. It is easy to lose sight of the fundamental objectives when dealing with disruptive students. A simple resolution strategy used is the removal or arrest of a student to restore peace. However, the restoration of peace in a learning environment must be co-prioritized with restoring peace inside of a disruptive student. Alternative resolution techniques should be considered when addressing underlying issues to ensure that the response is appropriate and beneficial. The art of school policing requires officers and school leaders to consider multiple perspectives so that a variety of solutions can be evaluated with the best solutions implemented to ensure peaceful and impactful resolutions. A sincere dedication and devotion to the art properly applied can change negative views that students may have about police. The art, when applied correctly, can produce a masterpiece that allows students to see beyond the gun and gadgets. It provides a clear view of the person behind the badge who possesses a student advocacy mindset and temperament that is committed to protecting and serving the best interests of all students. When the art of school policing is practiced by undisciplined officers, the revelation of officer deficiencies in practice is manifested. Officers enter the policing profession for a variety of reasons. Many for the purpose of helping others and others want to be part of a historic and honorable profession. Unfortunately, some enter the profession for the glamor and authority bestowed upon them as police officers. Although it is rarely revealed except after a negative police incident, some officers have a problem for every solution. Problem officers often engage in behavior that creates distrust and frustration in society. Typically, problematic officers do not seek to study the art of policing but use the position to paint a picture of power, authority, and a “take no prisoners” policing approach. Officers in the problem category typically create toxic environments within a policing organization and are often reassigned to different divisions over the course of a career due to problematic antics and behavior. Some have been assigned to schools with the hope that the change of environment would provide limited opportunities for problematic behavior which rarely becomes a reality. As a result, it is imperative that the art of policing includes an eraser that is securely placed in the hands of effective leaders. School-based law enforcement leadership has a responsibility to identify problematic officers and remove them from assignments that consist of primary interaction with students before they create a permanent stain on the department and profession. In the art of school policing, students understand that you do not have to get hit to feel pain and you do not have to see the impact for an action to be traumatic. Recognizing that certain actions can trigger regressed traumatic experiences is an art and the practice must be implemented with care so that the proper conclusions are drawn. The art of school policing can be something beautiful to the observer and recipient. There is a basic belief

48  Art of School Policing

among innocent youth that police are protectors. Many want to become police officers and admire officers as super-heroes or super-sheros. Although innocent youth find excitement in the lights, sirens, and tools on an officers’ belts, they also feel safe and comfortable around police. A similar response is what officers should want from students and adults. Students, adults, and even officers have experienced traumatic situations. Officers who are students of the art realize that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can be developed by an individual and delivered to others through the causation of traumatic experiences. The outcome should not be to add to the invisible wounds that some carry and conceal, rather to respond to situations in a manner that helps to heal wounds. A student’s wounds caused by a police officer can make trust, security, and healing harder to occur when the true art and purpose of policing are lost. Understanding the proper skills needed to be effective in the art of school policing is important for police officers to develop. Not only should officers be lifelong practitioners with a full understanding and immersion in the art, but they must also be willing to model it to those in the profession. Officers applying the art form must understand how to properly apply it and those in the profession must develop an understanding of why certain strategies are applied differently in a school environment. Police academies in the United States graduate thousands of cadets each year. School districts around the country contract with local law enforcement agencies for police services. However, police academies do not provide specialized training modules specific to school policing. School districts are left with few options but to hire officers trained to respond to fluid and often high stress police situations occurring in society outside of a school environment. The absence of a dedicated school police training academy limits the options for school districts and leaves much of the training to on-the-job experience or specialized training programs once the officer is assigned to a school. Officers coming from the streets to school campuses tend to use the exact policing methods and tactics in schools that are used on the streets or in high crime areas. In a school environment, using police tactics that are not designed for schools tend to negatively impact many students including those from underserved families and marginalized communities. School-based law enforcement officers attend state-approved police academies and mandated training designed to meet minimum state requirements to become a police officer. Despite misperceptions regarding the qualifications of school-based law enforcement officers, licensing requirements are the same for any other state certified peace officer. With the progression and advancement of school police duties, the school-based law enforcement officer role as a law enforcement area of specialization emerged as a new standard. Law enforcement agencies and school districts must consider many factors when vetting officers for potential positions in a school environment. Inexperienced and untrained officers are less likely to properly interpret actual student needs. Additionally, there is a lack of sensitivity needed to help them effectively respond to existing challenges. Although crimes committed by students have reportedly decreased over the past two decades, student suspensions and expulsions dramatically increased, with Black students at closer to three times higher than White students. Regardless of a student’s background or life experiences, each student needs to be protected from the effects of social and environmental influences that are potential pathways to the criminal justice system. Officers trained to identify existing student challenges and behaviors will be more effective at addressing specific needs through resources designed to reduce the impulses that lead to negative acts. Juveniles are in a constant state of development. Everyone has a basic human need to be treated equitably. The Four Pillars of School

Art of School Policing  49

Safety and Policing model prepares school-based law enforcement officers to operate at a level that provides effective engagement specific to the unique sets of needs for each student. Properly trained police officers could serve as advocates and beacons of hope to guide students toward opportunities of success. Although mandated training varies throughout the country for school-based law enforcement, there is little to no mandatory training for the executive leadership of any law enforcement agency to receive school-based law enforcement training. As a result, the tactics and procedures used in non-school-based law enforcement agencies often follow officers to their assignment in a school district. Tactics include those aligned with zero-tolerance practices used in a “real world” environment which leaves educators with little or no intervention and advocacy opportunities once a student is caught violating the law. Additionally, students identified as problematic are often subjected to increased surveillance by police. When presented with an opportunity to apply criminal justice remedies to address a problematic student, officers might take advantage of the opportunity to arrest and provide relief to the school environment. “The unaware leader is the most dangerous leader” is a phrase that resonates throughout many professions. With limited knowledge and awareness, the understanding of expectations is limited. Law enforcement leaders must realize that nuances will exist in an environment made up of students with developing minds and regularly engage in reckless and juvenile behavior. The response by leaders cannot be based upon an interpretation of actions consistent with experiences with handling adults. The response to student actions is not always equitable and there tends to be a police response that is consistent with what is commonly seen on the streets. Training requirements for school-based law enforcement should be required for executive leadership of law enforcement organizations providing contracted police services. The outcome allows executives to better recognize the cognitive differences between handling adults and youth in a way that highlights the need for a different approach to policing. Actions considered acceptable responses to aggressive police behavior in situations on the streets will be viewed from a different lens and measured on a different matrix when students are the subject of violent and aggressive acts. Law enforcement executives are highly capable subject matter experts. However, as with every profession, there are unique differences and specialized areas that cannot be applied in schools in the same manner as traditional policing practices. Similarly, the needs and expectations for school-based law enforcement are different because it is a unique area of law enforcement. The art of school policing should include the development of an alignment strategy by law enforcement executives between stakeholders that will establish collaborative goals designed to meet the needs of the students served. The goals of the police department should be compared to and aligned with the goals of the school district and community. This objective can be accomplished in several ways, including developing a list of the top ten goals for the department that will improve the quality of service provided to students. Take advantage of available opportunities provided to expand and explain with fidelity how each goal will be accomplished. A list of desired goals should be obtained from school staff and community members. Once the data is collected, a comparison should be done to identify the number of shared goals, the alignment of each, what goals could be combined, and what goals can be replaced and reprioritized on the list. The approach provides input from different perspectives and allows the department and the stakeholders the chance to affect positive change.

50  Art of School Policing

Leadership in school-based law enforcement must be built upon the understanding that students have developing minds and long-term consequences are not fully measured or considered like adults. Executive leaders should ensure that officers hired are immersed in the unique differences and recognize the specialized area and have the right temperament to serve students with a tolerance level much higher than zero. In addition, leaders should hire officers that have the mindset of service over self and have a strong conviction to place the needs of the students as a priority. As an infant should not be penalized for their inability to walk, a student should not be penalized for their inability to act as a mature adult. They are in the development phases of their life and have not reached the point where maturity is complete in high school. School-based law enforcement leaders are the key decision-makers in ensuring that the partnership between the two should be equal in practice and application of practice. The interest must be a transformative approach to emphasizing what is in the best interests of vulnerable students. Leaders must be sensitive to the differences of perspectives to ensure that power struggles and discourse between those who are working on behalf of students are minimized. The conflicts and challenging facets cannot be ignored or minimized. Working together can result in a legitimate integration of services that can positively impact students and their families due to the new policing practice. As the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing paves the way toward the postmodern era of policing, there must be a healthy scrutiny of the police and social worker partnership. It is necessary to work critically through the challenges to truly comprehend the importance of the partnership which is much more than implementing a successful model. The importance is related to ensuring that all students experience the safest learning environment while being served by a team of professionals who provide the greatest benefit to those who depend on the services they provide. Contracted police leadership may have some experience in serving as school-based law enforcement officers; however, the daily functions and responsibilities of the duties are relegated to a supervisor of the school resource officer (SRO) program. Department expectations are implemented through the program leader and often the program leader has limited school-based law enforcement experience and has to grow in the understanding of the unique role of school policing. Until the development of the specialized policing practices that are required to be successful in school policing, the supervisors rely on their previous training and experience that is not rooted in school-based law enforcement. As the leadership matures in the practice of school-based policing, the approach might change. However, practices and expectations put in place for officers in the program may have been allowed to solidify and changing the policing styles might be more difficult. Developing leadership expectations and understanding prior to engaging in contracted policing could be a much more effective option with tremendously beneficial outcomes for students. Attitude reflects leadership and if the understanding of school-based law enforcement exists at the highest levels of a law enforcement organization, the attitudes and policing practices can be effectively established for those entering school-based law enforcement. The importance of law enforcement leadership should not be limited to only agencies that provide services to schools. It can be an effective training solution for every executive leader in law enforcement and the various agencies that exist. Virtually every law enforcement agency interacts with youth whose actions and behaviors are consistently and uniquely different from the actions and behaviors of adults. Negative youthful behavior occurs both inside and outside schools which, depending on the time and location, can require a response

Art of School Policing  51

from non-school-based law enforcement entities. The response to juvenile violations must be measured from a different approach than the approach for addressing and handling adult violations. The depth of leadership required to ensure that student needs are appropriately addressed in a manner that does not result in inequitable outcomes has to be comprehensive and multidimensional, not linear. Possessing a depth of knowledge that includes a true understanding of effective schoolbased law enforcement practices not only helps students and the educational community but it also helps the police profession. Leaders are able to recognize and acknowledge the true differences in policing styles needed for handling students that are not simply based on policing in a fluid environment but using the penal code and juvenile law. It includes recognizing that youth have developing minds and although their immature actions often mimic criminal behavior that is seen daily among adults in their communities, the underlying issues that cause juveniles to engage in negative behavior need to be addressed by solutions other than the criminal justice system. Leaders must develop a willingness to promote and encourage a mindset shift from the “letter of the law” approach to policing juveniles and consider the “spirit of the law approach” to policing. The resulting benefits would provide law enforcement a level of mental growth and development in a manner that could ultimately help adults in their communities. Just as students face challenges, adults have underlying issues that lead to negative outcomes that can be helped by resources other than the criminal justice systems. When providing contracted school-based police services, law enforcement executives should recognize that the statistical outcomes of the services provided should not be based solely on the number of juveniles arrested as a positive indicator of law enforcement effectiveness. Using this as a statistical goal can incentivize officers to be more focused on arrests and less focused on student advocacy and helping students in the long term. Although the number of student arrests is important in identifying what types of crimes and activities occur at a school or in a district, it should not be the motivator for measuring success or a justification for additional department resources. Law enforcement leaders must always ensure that there is a sincerity of practice. They are responsible for creating law enforcement agencies that are filled with practicing law enforcement professionals who understand the need to adjust and adapt with the needs of the community they serve. This is especially important when dealing with juveniles because the approach to policing that might be effective in certain areas of society is incongruent in policing juveniles in a school district. Identifying the best officers for the duty of serving as school police officers must be prioritized based on the most effective needs of the students and not based on the convenience of the department. The selection process for identifying officers to serve as school-based law enforcement in many ways should be more stringent than the selection process for officers going into other specialized areas of law enforcement within the department. There needs to be a comprehensive selection process designed to identify the temperament of officers going into a school, the disciplinary history of the officers, the psychological well-being of an officer assigned to a school, the mindset, and motivation of wanting to serve. Seeking to leave the streets for a day schedule is not an acceptable reason for seeking to serve in a school district just as placing an officer in a school because the officer is not as effective on the streets or is the subject of repeated disciplinary actions. Leaders should identify and select officers that have a genuine interest in helping students by removing barriers and meeting the needs that will help them achieve their fullest potential.

52  Art of School Policing

It is important to recognize that success in school policing is much more than shooting basketball with a group of kids, eating lunch with them, or dancing with them. It requires officers to help remove barriers that can prevent students from accomplishing things they have never done. In order to accomplish things they have never done, officers must be willing to adapt to a style of policing that has never been done with collective fidelity. Although executive leadership in policing focuses on many areas to improve the overall organization, there is little to no approach to school policing practices incorporated into the training. As a result, career officers who were once SWAT commanders and now police chiefs in contracted police departments have never been truly exposed to or fully exposed to the specialized needs that exist when policing schools. The professional experience of law enforcement leaders should be based on eclecticism where the approach is not rigid or focuses on a single style or strategy of officer development. The more exposure to different experiences, strategies, styles, and situations in law enforcement, the more adaptable and even empathetic strategies become. Law enforcement leaders are responsible for the quality of officers provided to serve in schools. Officers must have a dedication and commitment to serving students and meeting their needs without inhibiting them through barriers that become detours into the criminal justice system. Service above self is an important component that officers must have when working with students. There is a difference between earning a living and earning respect. Building relationships based on trust and mutual respect is key to establishing and maintaining a productive and positive educational environment. Law enforcement leaders should ensure that there is a continuum of cultural competency embedded in the sincerity of practices and strategies used by officers assigned to school-based law enforcement service. The equity component plays an important role in ensuring that the needs of all students are met. Leaders must understand that equity in education is not simply about race. It is about meeting the needs of all students to empower and transfer the ownership of success to the individual. Recognizing what is needed can highlight what is not, which is an overreliance on the criminal justice system as a solution to resolving juvenile offenses and negative behavior. Law enforcement officers have a great privilege to influence the pathways of students in a manner that can help or hinder them longer term. School police officers should be identified as law enforcement practitioners. It is important since those in the profession are in a perpetual state of growth and development. It is a style of life rather than a job to simply earn a paycheck. An inaccurate characterization of school-based law enforcement officers is that their role and responsibilities are the same as security guards. A school police officer is a law enforcement practitioner who seeks to master the art of school policing. Areas of mastery in addition to the comprehensive knowledge possessed as a commissioned peace officer include juvenile justice, de-escalation practices, conflict resolution, and restorative practices. As officers grow and develop in the art, there must be a continuous demonstration of the nuances within the profession that allow them to remain aligned with the needs of those served. Challenges exist among officers who believe that they have mastered the art before truly understanding what is required. The failure to understand that policing is a style of life can limit the ability to become a proficient practitioner. School-based law enforcement officers must be deliberate in reflecting and developing their strengths and weaknesses in a manner that produces the most effective outcomes for students. Actions contrary to what is expected of the police practitioner practicing the art of policing such as over-criminalizing minor student behavior can produce a picture that is not appealing and can lead to legislative intervention to correct imperfections.

Art of School Policing  53

In Texas, Senate Bill 393 (1) and SB1114 (2) were passed in 2015 to reduce the number of misdemeanor citations that students received for various offenses like disruption of class, disruption of transportation, and truancy. School districts issued citations to students for wearing too much perfume and arrested students for theft after taking a chicken nugget meal from school valued at less than three dollars. School districts and police fail to realize that even minor police interactions such as writing students citations and arrests for minor offenses can contribute to the overcriminalization of student behaviors and actions. Despite changes in state laws, inequitable disciplinary practices increase the chances of marginalized student groups entering the criminal justice system at a rate much higher than their peers. A linear approach to school safety often misses this important consideration. As a result, students often find themselves referred to school police or faced with expulsion from school based on practices designed to remove disruptive students from school to maintain control and safety. School districts are under such intense pressure to improve academic performance to the degree that it might lead to the justification of increased punitive practices and measures related to discipline. Removing disruptive students seems to be a practice based on an assumption that it is an effective way to maintain peace and harmonious learning environment. Officers entering the law enforcement profession do so with passions and beliefs about certain issues. The same holds true with those entering school policing. Zero-tolerance policing and viewing arrests as the most effective means of deterring crime is an option that introduces students to the criminal justice system, but it is not the most effective crime deterrent or solution to prevent future bad acts. In fact, the strategy can have the opposite effect. Identifying processes designed to convince both the analytical and non-analytical minds that alternative approaches are more effective is an objective of conceptual change. Despite alternatives, certain officers will continue to embrace developed personal beliefs despite considerable evidence to overwhelmingly contradict existing suppositions. As a result, tension develops and produces an erosion of trust. Furthermore, it can lead to a total breakdown of relationships and partnerships between police and the community. Working in a school environment requires officers to be malleable and not resistant to change in areas where practices are clearly counterproductive to community needs and expectations. It must be a deliberate effort to implement meaningful change. Pre-existing ideas and beliefs can impede the introduction of new knowledge and information. Through effective conceptual change practices, school-based law enforcement officers can facilitate positive change and learning in a manner that can motivate, prepare, and inspire individuals to interpret and receive new ideas. Additionally, it increases a willingness to abandon misconceptions and past beliefs with the replacement of new and accurate information related to safety and security. Departments have recognized the importance of attracting educated officers. To invest in that effort, several states provide educational incentives. Many departments offer tuition reimbursement, and some states provide free tuition to officers attending public universities in their state. Additionally, departments provide additional stipends to officers on a graduated pay scale for the level of degree and education obtained. Law enforcement agencies may require a minimum number of college credit hours to enter a police academy with the goal of recruiting and retaining a more educated workforce. It was during the 1980s that law enforcement agencies began to see an increase in the number of officers with college degrees or college experience. Although police departments sought officers that specifically had college degrees in the field of criminal justice, departments also recruited officers with

54  Art of School Policing

degrees in other areas of specialization such as psychology and emergency management. The practice was mandated at the federal level for many years but became a standard for municipal, county, and state law enforcement agencies. California State University at Fullerton and the Police Foundation released a report in November 2017 which indicated that approximately 51.8% of police officers in the United States had at least a two-year degree (3). Approximately 30.2% had at least a four-year degree and 5.4% had graduate degrees. Despite the increase in the number of educated police officers across the country, an erosion of public confidence in police continues to occur based on police response to different incidents. The actions of police officers, as with the George Floyd tragedy, raise many questions about the application and impact of training practices. The assumption is that educated and highly trained officers should understand that there is a duty to intervene in unlawful acts committed by police officers. There are continued concerns about police practices such as the use of no-knock warrants. The mindset and training of officers on the streets has the potential to infiltrate schools where officers use tasers and slam unarmed students to the ground. The actions further highlight the need to ensure that public confidence is rebuilt through demonstrative actions related to how officers handle situations involving students. The tactics used in schools should not be like the tactics used when dealing with aggressive adults in society. Situations occur where more aggressive tactics may be needed to handle extreme circumstances involving students, but playgrounds are not battlegrounds. The approach to policing in schools should not be identical to the approach used to policing a fluent, unpredictable environment. School policing is an art and the practitioners who practice the art in a school environment must recognize the delicacy of those who make up the environment where school policing is displayed. Citations 1. Texas (2013). Senate Bill No. 393. Texas Legislature. 2. Texas (2013). Senate Bill No. 1114. Texas Legislature. 3. https://www.policinginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PF-Report-Policing-Around-theNation_10-2017_Final.pdf

Chapter 6

Examination and Contributing Factors to School Violence

School Violence – An International Phenomenon School-based law enforcement presence in schools is a sensible choice to mitigate school violence. In addition to providing mentorship and serving as supportive role models for students, officers are highly trained to detect, respond to, and deter criminal activity. School shootings are a concern for every student, staff member, officer, parent, and stakeholder. Each tragic and violent incidents reignite demands for transformative, effective, and sustainable school safety solutions. Although modern school shooting tragedies receive widespread media coverage, nonfirearm related school violence is not a contemporary phenomenon. School shootings and acts of school shootings were recorded before the turn of the 20th century. The earliest tragic school violence incident in the United States occurred on July 26, 1764, near Greencastle, Pennsylvania. The incident was known as the Pontiac’s Rebellion school massacre. During the incident, several Lenape Native Americans entered a school and killed the occupants inside, with only two students surviving. The first known mass school shooting reportedly occurred at St. Mary’s Parochial School in April 1891, in Newburgh, New York. A 70-year-old man reportedly used a shotgun and fired the weapon at a group of students on the playground. No motive was mentioned in the incident but fortunately there were no deaths, only minor injuries to several students. Violent school tragedies committed by students occurred in the United States throughout the growth and development of the country. In March 1884, Boston, Massachusetts, recorded a school shooting incident involving a group of young men. The young men learned of Jesse James and were fascinated with the stories about his antics. They entered a school building during the night and were on the property when several officers arrived to investigate the reported trespassing. The young men ran from the building as police arrived and one fired a revolver at the officers. A 14-year-old and a 12-year-old were captured. The incident was reportedly the result of a fascination with a desire to create a gang like Jesse James. Louisville, Kentucky, in November 1853, experienced a school shooting incident. A Louisville High School student brought a concealed pistol to school and shot his professor in retaliation for what he perceived to be excessive punishment administered by the professor to his brother the previous day. The student demanded an apology from the professor who refused. A physical altercation ensued and the student shot the professor at point blank range in front of other students. The student was from a wealthy family and his father hired highly experienced attorneys to represent him. Despite multiple witnesses to the incident,

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-6

56  Examination and Contributing Factors

the shooter was acquitted at trial. The Louisville incident was the first known school shooting in the country that was committed by a student. A school shooting occurred in June 1867 at a public school in New York City when a 13-year-old boy brought a gun to school. He shot and wounded a classmate. The offender’s parents and teachers were unaware that the student had a weapon. Gun restrictions during that time were not stringent and similar gun accessibility challenges exist today. Concerns surrounding early school shootings continue to exist. With the incident discussed, there are additional identified focus areas such as access to weapons, fascination and fantasy, and mental illness. Schools are considered places where children can learn, grow, and experience social interaction with peers without fear for their safety or security. It is a place that allows adults to foster student development and cultivate each student’s ability to grow into productive citizens in society. It is vitally important to ensure that internal and external environmental factors that could potentially infringe on their safety are mitigated. Tragic school shooting incidents continue to be a threat to the public. A recurring theme tends to be the use of higher capacity weapons as the preferred weapon of choice which often injures a higher number of victims. Several school shootings have occurred since the formalization of public school systems in the United States. The 1970s were considered a violent period for school shootings. Incidents included a shooting in December 1974 in Olean, New York, where a 17-year-old student brought a rifle and a shotgun to his high school. The student killed 3 adults and wounded 11 others. Reports identified the student as a loner who kept a diary of his plans to attack the school. The incident highlights the need to ensure that school safety and security protocols are in place and are effective enough to always maintain safety and secure facilities. Additionally, effective threat assessment solutions can provide an added layer of detection of patterns and behavior that might lead to investigative inquiry and mitigation. A school shooting incident occurred in February 1978 in Lansing, Michigan, where a 15-year-old student was reportedly taunted and harassed for being a self-proclaimed Nazi. The student responded by bringing a pistol to the school. A student was killed and a second student was wounded. In January 1979, a female student in San Diego, California, committed a school shooting. The 16-year-old student used a rifle that she received as a gift from her father to open fire at Grover Cleveland Elementary School. Tragically, she killed two and wounded nine during the incident. The use of guns in school violence incidents increased significantly during the late 1980s through the early 1990s. In May 1992 in Olivehurst, California, a 20-year-old former student used a shotgun and a modified .22 caliber rifle to kill three students, one teacher, and injured ten others. The student reportedly held a grudge against the school and a civics teacher after receiving failing grades when he attended the school. The student ultimately received a general education degree (GED) and lost his job but blamed the school for his life failures. The act was considered a form of retribution. By 1993, some of the most violent school shooting incidents were experienced in the United States. Another incident in October 1995, involved a student in Blackville, South Carolina, who was suspended from school but later brought a firearm and used it to shoot two teachers. Methods and strategies used by shooters to maximize the number of victims have evolved. In March 1988, two students in Jonesboro, Arkansas, shot and killed a teacher and four students at Westside Middle School. Ten others were also wounded during the tragic incident. The shooting happened outside the school building during a false fire alarm activation. The two shooters fired weapons from a wooded area near the school. A similar incident occurred in December 1997 in Stamps, Arkansas, where a 14-year-old

Examination and Contributing Factors  57

student hid in the woods and fired on students standing in a parking lot. Two students were wounded during the tragic incident. A 16-year-old student who was reportedly part of a group of Satan worshippers committed a school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi, in October 1997. The student killed two and wounded seven. Later that same year, in December 1997, a 14-year-old student at Heath High School in West Paducah, Kentucky, killed three students and wounded five others as he opened fire on students who were in a prayer circle. Various motivations claimed by attackers and discovered in post incident investigations lead shooters to commit school shootings. The 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Columbine, Colorado, provided a different perspective on the motivation and mental health of the shooters in the Columbine tragedy. The incident revealed that school attacks are not always motivated by retaliation or vindication. The Columbine shooters planned the act for over a year and hoped to accomplish an act so terrifying that it reached a scale never seen. The shooters sought to shatter the assumption that schools were safe havens for students. The Columbine attack was a deliberate, planned school shooting and bombing incident with the hope of achieving a casualty scale larger than the Oklahoma City bombing. Although a bomb built for use during the incident failed to deploy, the plan included igniting a homemade bomb and shooting students as they fled the explosion. Additionally, bombs were placed in the vehicles of the shooters and set to injure or kill survivors, first responders, and individuals entering the property. Contrary to the motivations of many school shooters, the Columbine tragedy was not motivated by specific resentment toward students or teachers killed. The impetus was to inflict the most deaths in U.S. history and to have the entire incident televised. The ultimate enticement was to become the most notorious school shooters in history. Random and unpredictable school shootings are situations that have forced officers to be more attentive to subtle indicators once overlooked. Random school shootings are much more difficult to predict. As a result, police officers and school districts must ensure that standardized response protocols and proactive school safety initiatives are effective in mitigating potential active shooter events. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) studied the Columbine tragedy and identified the several causes for the attack (1). The study concluded that many school shootings are impulsive acts specifically directed toward students and faculty as the targets of a shooter’s rage. However, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did not engage in an act of revenge to kill those who made the school experience less enjoyable. Both were defined as thrill-seeking psychopaths and artful manipulators who knew how to demonstrate false empathy, regret, and remorse for their actions when it served them. The investigation determined that the mastermind and leader behind the Columbine attack was Harris. He is described as a psychopath killer who craved violence. Although he was inspired by acting out a violent event, he was successful at restraining himself and adapting to a situation as needed. Subsequent school shooters sought to emulate the carnage at Columbine. Law enforcement learned valuable lessons from the tragic attack and used the information to enhance strategies to avert future attacks. Although school shootings were once considered to be an anomaly in the United States, shooting incidents and weapons offenses are increasingly compromising school safety. Contributing factors include campuses continuing to be soft targets and the level of firearm availability. Most attackers plan, evaluate, and observe school environments to recognize patterns of movement and to plan for attacks. Law enforcement must train to be proactive and prepared to prevent, mitigate, and respond appropriately to any potential threats. The school shooting phenomenon is not limited to the United States but is a global concern. With each event, discussions about school safety prioritization reignite. A tragic

58  Examination and Contributing Factors

school shooting occurred in Russia on September 26, 2022, when an attacker who was a former student entered a school and killed 15 people, 11 were children. The shooter wore a swastika t-shirt and killed two security guards before killing teachers and students. Prior to being captured by police, the shooter committed suicide. Incidents involving weapons other than firearms occur at higher rates, particularly in countries like China which has strict gun laws and limited access to firearms. In November 2018, a 39-year-old woman in China went onto a Chongqing kindergarten playground with a knife and attacked and injured 14 students before being restrained by nearby adults. To mitigate school violence, China implemented an initiative in 2022 to allow Chinese police officers to serve as school deputy principals as a measure to improve school safety. Italy has a unique experience concerning school safety. While there are almost 60 million people and approximately nine million guns in the country, no documented school shootings have happened in its history. Italy’s strict gun control policies and the mindset of the country are considered the two primary reasons for the difference. Since 1970, over 2,100 school shootings have occurred in the United States, leaving over 600 dead (2). The year 2022 was considered the worst year on record for school shootings in the United States with over 275 school shooting incidents. Unlike the United States, Italy has no laws like the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that allows its citizens the right to bear arms. Gun laws and ownership is vastly different than gun laws in the United States. Italy has a set of criteria that provides a higher level federal oversight of gun ownership. Although the legal age of gun ownership in Italy is 18 years of age, no gun owner can have a criminal record. Additionally, gun owners must complete a firearms safety course and obtain a certified letter from a physician attesting that the licensee does not suffer from mental health issues or drug addiction. Gun ownership requires the owner to register a firearm with police within 72 hours of receiving the weapon. During the transfer of a firearm, the owner must inform police within 72 hours of transferring the firearm to another individual. Legally owned firearms can be carried outside of a residence only if the owner has a hunting or sporting license. Concealed carry permits are limited to individuals who can provide proof that risk exists to justify the carrying of a concealed weapon and the license is renewed annually. Italy does not allow for the possession of assault style or fully automatic rifles and handguns. It is illegal for a citizen to possess police or military grade firearms. Italy has national health care and provides free medical health care and services to its citizens. The social welfare programs in Italy are considered relevant contributors to the decreased incidences of violence. Basic human needs are met through a comprehensive national health care system which, when needs are fulfilled, decreases the propensity toward violence results. It also reduces the likelihood that those suffering from social, emotional, mental health, and substance abuse issues will be denied needed services and have easy access to firearms. The May 24, 2022, Robb Elementary school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, raised many concerns about the need for stricter gun laws and effective school safety solutions. It also raised questions about the effectiveness of police response to school shootings after officers failed to engage the shooter in a classroom for over an hour. After his 18th birthday, the shooter legally purchased the semi-automatic rifle a few days before the attack that killed 19 students and 2 teachers. The shooter entered the campus and remained inside a pair of classrooms where students and teachers were injured, killed, and trapped. Several victims were believed to have succumbed to the injuries sustained due to the delay by police officers to neutralize the shooter and render medical assistance in a timely manner. During the active

Examination and Contributing Factors  59

event, approximately 376 officers were on the scene. Critical failures in the response were identified that contributed to a flawed response. Outrage surfaced after learning that the shooter was able to legally purchase the semiautomatic rifle. In school, he was reportedly considered “at risk” but never received special education services in school. Many concerns were identified as missed warnings including the approximately 100 absences he had each year since 2018. Additional missed warnings were related to his slow withdrawal and isolation from others. After dropping out of school, he became more isolated and became immersed in online interaction. The shooter is the sole person responsible for the killing of children and teachers at Robb Elementary but there are many gaps in safety, security, and response that could have mitigated the number of lives lost (3). A critical failure was the breakdown in the activation of incident command procedures. The Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District chief of police was the incident commander. The incident commander is in command and should not be actively involved in the on-site response. The incident commander maintains command until there is a transfer of command or through the implementation of unified command when the role is shared. The position is responsible for many tasks including assessing the scene and situation and providing guidance to those at potential risk to take appropriate actions to ensure safety. In the incident commander position, the commander determines the strategies and incident objectives, appoints others to incident command positions, and coordinates with crisis communications teams. In direct contradiction to standard incident command procedures, the incident commander was inside the school making tactical, strategic, and critical decisions that could have been more effectively performed off site and from a unified command approach. Additionally, the information communicated to first responders at the school was flawed and shaped the tactical response to a barricaded subject instead of the appropriate response needed for an active shooter event. The tactical approach was not revised to appropriately address the threat despite updated information provided to the emergency communications center and to on-scene law enforcement. At one point during the incident, the emergency communications center received calls from students and a wounded teacher inside one of the classrooms where the shooting occurred and advised them that the shooter was inside the classroom. The communications center provided the updated information to several officers at the scene but those receiving the information failed to transition to the appropriate tactical response needed to effectively stop the killing and stop the dying. School policing requires officers to be prepared, deliberate, and committed to respond to all acts of violence. Despite the relatively rare occurrence of school shootings, the incidents are devastating to a community. The importance of ensuring that the mindset shift toward truly prioritizing school safety is needed to ensure holistic and effective outcomes. When developing and implementing school safety plans, school-based law enforcement officers should be involved so that a plan can be developed to include effective strategies to deter and avert school shootings. Critics of police in schools use the police response to the Robb Elementary tragedy as an illustration of police ineffectiveness to prevent school shootings. It is used to assert that no evidence exists to support that police in schools have prevented a school shooting. However, irrefutable evidence of police response to school shooting incidents proves just the opposite. School-based law enforcement contends that the mere presence of police provides an inherent deterrence to crime. The level of deterrence is not quantifiable any more than

60  Examination and Contributing Factors

attempting to quantify the deterrence level provided by the presence of police in a police department building prevents criminals from breaking into a police evidence room where large amounts of drugs, weapons, and currency are stored. The police presence as a natural deterrent argument aligns with the optimal foraging theory regarding risk versus reward. School-based law enforcement officers assert that the increased presence of police officers in schools decreases the number of weapons, drugs, fights, theft, and major criminal offenses. Critics counter that no evidence exists to support such claims despite police pointing out that reliable constraints are measurable when the presence of police is identified as a contributing prevention factor that inhibits the act from ever occurring. No measurement exists to calculate the crime deterrence impact if the criminal refuses to commit a crime due to the presence of an officer. School districts in the United States create school district police departments as an essential safety measure to mitigate school violence, school shootings, and criminal activity. An example of the presence of a police officer intervening and averting a school shooting occurred in Dixon, Illinois, in May 2018 (4). Officer Mark Dallas with the Dixon Police Department was a school resource officer at a local high school. Students were in a high school gym on campus rehearsing for upcoming graduation. Officer Dallas heard gunshots and ran to the area to confront the shooter. The shooter ran from the scene but was pursued by Officer Dallas. The shooter fired a weapon at Officer Dallas but missed. Officer Dallas returned fire and struck the shooter, wounded him before taking him into custody. The actions of Officer Dallas and his intervention efforts due to being present on campus averted a potential school tragedy. In contrast, flawed responses by police exist such as Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas. The flawed responses to school shootings by law enforcement are low compared to the successful responses and outcomes achieved in averting or intervening in an active attack. School shooting after action reviews is conducted to identify contributing factors to the incident. Law enforcement leaders attempt to identify what safety practices worked, what response failures exist, and how can strategies be improved to avert or mitigate future incidents. As school policing transitions into the postmodern era, it is imperative that law enforcement and school leaders work collaboratively to identify, assess, and develop effective response strategies to mitigate violent acts and behaviors. Several key contributing factors are identified as possible motivators for mass rampage or school shooting events. The psychological state and psychoanalytic perspective of school shootings are important to critically analyze and should include a broader focus on the social context of parenting and family history. Acts of school violence and school shootings are motivated by a variety of influences including a response to the bystander-bully-victim perspective. In situations when students are subjected to continuous acts of assault, harassment, and humiliation, peers may observe the acts and choose sides. The resulting outcome may lead to a shift in existing power dynamics with bystanders taking a position of a passive participant in the pathological system. Volatile school environments can materialize in response to a student subjected to sustained bullying and having access to weapons. The means for individuals to search for creative ways to obtain less detectable weaponry, bullying or harassment can lead a student to acquire such means to respond in a manner to stop the further subjection to harassment or bullying. The outcome can produce a higher risk for school violence or attacks. The safety concern is compounded when schools fail to properly address behaviors of bullying, teasing, and ostracism. This is particularly true when bullying is committed by

Examination and Contributing Factors  61

popular or respected students since the influence to perpetuate the negative behavior is broad. Students generally seek acceptance, respect, and a desire to build value among their peers. Unchallenged and sustained attacks on the self-confidence of another can lead to varying degrees of psychosis, trauma, or underlying sense of shame. The consequence can be manifested in crisis behavior by a targeted student. In addition, students may feel that the issues faced are inherent due to the repetitive, unrelenting attacks, and persistent rejection by peers. When students are bullied, a sense of shame, lack of self-worth, and self-hate can develop. Once an individual conceives a plan to commit violent acts, realities inevitably collide with a sense of empowerment through a desperate desire to no longer be recognized as a victim. Shame and rejection are two emotions that students can experience in schools that may lead to a decline in value and self-worth. The emotion of shame is linked to the very existence of human nature. Unaddressed emotional abuse can produce trauma that makes it difficult for students to resolve alone. Recognizing this fact provides an opportunity to better understand why targets of bullying experience a decline in self-worth and some reach a point of self-harm manifestation. Incidents of unresolved internalized abuse may be expressed in a variety of abusive, harmful, and tragic responses. Self-awareness and shame emerge between the ages of 12 and 18 months. Triggers for self-awareness may include the failure of caregivers to identify explorative achievements when there is a physical and psychological developmental need for approval. During explorative achievement events where there is developmental need, the resulting triggers for shame can manifest in the form of anger, impatience, irritation, or lack of concern. Repeated triggers may lead a child to feel undervalued, defective, unloved, and often subhuman. A correlation exists between the disproportionate number of male school shooters and females and the fragile masculinity that develops from male on male bullying (5). As youth develop and mature, the effects of bullying, rejection, and alienation may lead to intolerable shame. Additionally, it has the tendency to develop deep-seated jealousy and resentment of those accepted by the bully. As adolescent boys mature into manhood, self-esteem issues arise particularly when situations occur that challenge their manhood. A failure to act or respond as expected may result in more persistent challenges that result in public shame. The violent level of carnage and destruction caused by young male school shooters is partially contributed to revenge seeking against those who caused harm and to make a statement. Repeated exposure to bullying can skew the psychological perspective of some young males and the resulting outcome is seen along a spectrum of outcry responses. School-based law enforcement officers are in a unique position and have a distinct opportunity to measure the impression, disposition, and wellbeing of students. Law enforcement interactions that fail to consider a student’s feelings and assist in a positive way may further exacerbate the shame and embarrassment students experiencing bullying may feel. Shame is not only linked to developed trauma students might have in response to bullying, but it can also develop from the continuous subjection to verbal abuse and public humiliation. The impact that juveniles experience in response to the unmitigated attacks does not dissipate quickly. The internalization of the experiences results in an ineffective ability to process the underlying causes of harmful acts. It also impedes the exploration of alternative options that can avoid future humiliation. The actual effects of bullying can be suppressed for a time in hopes that the negative actions will cease, or effective intervention will occur. The sustained subjection to bullying can lead to deep self-hatred, the questioning of self-worth, and suicidal ideation.

62  Examination and Contributing Factors

The emergence of school-based law enforcement in a postmodern policing era must incorporate training designed to detect the hypersensitivities of students struggling with impulsivity such as substance abuse, restrictive eating, violent outburst, or suicidal and homicidal ideations. The identification of underlying issues may help to identify contributing factors to school violence. Concerning pathological implications are common in individuals who resort to planned violent attacks on schools. Repeated subjection to bullying and public attacks can impact the pathological state of an individual which may result in the individual experiencing a greater level of dissociation and personality hardening. The social and psychological internalization of the trauma by students subjected to repeated emotional abuse can also lead to a self-sympathetic withdrawal and the development of coping strategies where retribution might be internalized as a justified response. As an individual feels little to no self-worth, a perceived resurgence of power and control during the planning of a vengeful and violent attack may lead to a resurgence of personal value. A sense of power, triumph, and omnipotence interwoven in their phases of justification and planning may add to the motivation to commit an act that reverses the feeling of self-hatred. From a psychoanalytical perspective, school shooters may view every act of disrespect, bullying, or harassment as justification to retaliate with vengeance.  The suggestion that a linear relationship between the frequency that males play firstperson shooter video games compared to females can be an indicator of the male propensity toward violence. The mapping of school shooter characteristics is not 100% accurate and further research is warranted since profile variations are based on several factors. Statistics support the assumption that most school shooters are male. According to FBI active shooter data collected between 2000 and 2018 (6), only 12 of the 282 shooters identified during that period were female. Different mass shooting databases contend that most recorded mass shootings are committed by males. As a result, threat assessments related to reports of planned school violence by males might be considered more credible than incidents reported about females. This does not suggest that less consideration should be given to threats involving females but based on existing statistical data, threat credibility generally increases with the involvement of a male subject. Questions arise regarding media depictions and reports of school shootings and the likelihood that the information influences males more than females, despite both being exposed to the same amount of media coverage. The difference can be studied by evaluating the interpretive manner by which school shooting events are processed by males compared to females and whether the information has a more profound effect on males than females. Although there is some indication that television violence has a greater effect on males, contrary findings from other studies suggest that no gender-specific effects of violent media content exist. The assertion that males seek the media glamorization of their horrific acts more than females requires more analysis. Valid indicators maintain that males are more likely to externalize and blame others for their problems and act out on perceived or actual wrongdoing. A positive correlation exists between the frequency of violent media consumption and aggression. The use of violent or aggressive video games, even moderately, potentially increases the propensity for violent behavior. The behavior lessens an individual’s connection to reality and weakens relationships. There is a causal connection between viewing violent video games, media content, and aggressive behavior. Males are more likely to become immersed in violent or aggressive media and video games and manifest the experience in outward actions or behaviors. An

Examination and Contributing Factors  63

additional consideration is that some individuals achieve a level of addiction to video games that alters the reality and impact of committing violent acts. The addiction may result in diminished fear of reprisal and a lack of empathy toward potential victims. The contention is that video games are a contributing factor for school shootings. However, there is insufficient evidence to date to definitively confirm that those who commit school shootings have a higher than average fixation on violent video games or media. School shooters tend to devote an excessive amount of time to consuming violent movies, news reports, chat rooms, websites, and attention to topics related to weapons, violence, and death. Some school shooters left written artifacts that confirmed an interest and intent to commit violence. Artifacts are typically found in texts, gaming chats, private chat sites, drawings, essays, diaries, or poems. Evaluating contributing factors regarding why individuals commit violent acts against schools in conjunction with past behavioral patterns is useful. However, limited research data are available to effectively delineate between a potential school shooter and the average non-deviant adolescent with no violent tendencies but is overly fascinated with weapons. Trait aggressiveness assessments are helpful in providing a clearer distinction. Individuals with a high level of trait aggressiveness have an increased tendency toward exhibiting an aggressive reaction to violent media content compared to those with a low levels of trait aggressiveness. Additionally, those with high levels of aggressiveness tend to consume violent media more often. Studies of past school shooters provide several indicators that suggest prior aggressive behavior and actions. Pre-incident and personality indicators of potential school shooters may be used to further determine predictive validity, irrespective of previous manifested acts of violent or criminal behavior. Prior indicators of aggressiveness include school fights, weapons possession at school, drawings, and writings about “hypothetical’’ mass violence events, and a fascination with mass casualty weapons and explosives. Regarding female mass shooters, the inclination to use a firearm to commit the act is lower. In fact, women shooters make up less than 10% of firearm-related homicides in the United States (7). School shootings are rare but tragic events. The potential influence of the media on school shootings creates apprehension about the level of detail provided in the coverage. Vast amounts of information regarding past school shooters and the personal motivations, selfglorification, and desired impact are available online to the inquisitive. Media coverage of past school shootings and violent incidents may provide blueprints of successes and failures that can be modified and perfected by future shooters. As a result, the fine line between publicly relevant information and sensitive, public safety compromising information is very thin. Certain considerations related to information sharing should be factored when examining school shootings. Online fan clubs cater to students and young adults and include chat rooms where they can discuss a variety of issues related to school shootings, types of weapons, and violent video game selections. Chat rooms can provide discrete discussions around news media reports related to mass shootings. Subsequent school shooting tragedies and media coverage have the potential to magnify the internalization of the perceived justifications for committing such acts. It can influence a potential shooter to develop a sympathetic connection to what previous school shooters represented, felt, or experienced. Many school shooters assume that tragic events, committed or not, would receive instant media coverage. School shooters often desire to make a dramatic statement using a school attack as the fast-track to extensive media coverage. It is a tactic used to leverage media interest as an opportunity to bring horrific acts to the public eye. It is not to suggest that

64  Examination and Contributing Factors

public sympathy would emerge from the plight of a school shooter; however, the pursuit of infamous ambition by causing havoc and public torment is an aspiration of many shooters. The greater the carnage, the greater the coverage is a mindset of some who seek martyrdom. Despite the relatively uncommon occurrence of school shootings, there is a plethora of information on the internet and social media about past school shooters, averted acts, and the methods of mayhem deployed by previous shooters. Patterns of persistent dissociation with reality can manifest actions and behaviors that are zombie-like or void of emotion. A consistent trait seen in school shooters is the propensity to withdraw or isolate from everyone prior to carrying out an act of violence. The behavior may be an indicator of a declining progression toward a violent or criminal act. School shootings have a devastating and long-term psychological impact on students, staff, parents, and communities. The lingering trauma can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) particularly among those who experience or witness the act. Studying school shootings and the level of similarities between historical and potential school shootings can help to improve assessment solutions and identify future predictive indicators. Past school shooting events may provide markers to help mitigate future attacks. It is important that school districts and law enforcement expand training to better identify indicators that may require intervention leading to the prevention and averting of school shootings. School safety experts and law enforcement recognize that individuals who want to commit a school shooting can access predefined performative scripts online based on past school shooting reports. The information may be studied by shooters as a method to increase carnage. Media coverage of school shootings in the United States is substantial during an active event and information is accessible through multiple platforms. Depending on the reporting technique, information presented by the media can shape public opinion, influence a political response, and increase the interest of copycat behavior. Public demand for real-time information during an active school shooting is high, particularly since virtually every segment of society is interconnected to schools. All stakeholders have a compelling interest in the safety and wellbeing of students. School shooting tragedies spark immediate debate and outrage at a local, state, national, and international level. The eagerness of media outlets to be the first to report breaking news provides platforms for the emergence of both accurate and unverifiable information. The hastiness to report can potentially escalate public concern and confusion. It is a byproduct of the modern age of instant gratification. Collaboration between media and schools during a critical incident is a necessary procedure that requires a delicate balancing act. Media and community demand for real-time updates concurrent with first responders and school administrators may add to the stress of resolving the situation. Although large amounts of information are shared during the critical moments between individuals on scene and first responders, updates provided to the media are generally preliminary and limited in scope. Media update briefings are held by law enforcement public information officers at strategic times during the day. The coverage of school shooting events by the media may be viewed as an extra portal that exposes violent media content to society. Personalities may respond differently when exposed to violent media reports and several indicators highlight the negative effects of active shooter event media coverage. Information related to family members of the victims may be cross-referenced and used to obtain exclusive inside information. Additionally, the surfacing of copycats or retaliatory attacks against family members of the individuals who committed the act is a concern. Media outlets typically race to the scene of a critical incident

Examination and Contributing Factors  65

to provide onsite reporting of the event as it unfolds. However, unintended consequences emerge that may impact first responder efficiency when the media responds to the scene. The additional media vehicles may add to an already congested traffic area, impede first responder mobility, and compromise law enforcement safety.  There is a tremendous public outcry in response to critical incidents. The media has an objective to cover as many relevant stories and leads as possible to keep the public informed. The information can be helpful in illuminating the horrific impact, it may also be useful information for potential school shooters to measure the impact and fame potential that could emerge if they engaged in similar acts. Media seeks a wide range of information related to the identity of the suspect and victims, the cause, weapons used, connections, contributing factors, and impact on the victims and survivors that can be used to arm future shooters with additional knowledge. In addition to information provided by first responders, the media conducts investigations to obtain as much material as possible from alternative sources like parents, students, or school staff members so that instant updates can be provided to the public. Challenges develop in the competing interests between media outlets during a critical incident. The pursuit of breaking news increases the likelihood of potential for unverified commentary through so-called expert analysis of the event. Media outlets are quick to pivot from misinformation obtained to a realignment of factual reporting based on accurate and current information. The public demand and anticipation produced from the trickling of information can increase public anxiety. In response, media outlets will provide filler commentary as a bridge between known information and a series of possible scenarios. The volume of information reported during a school shooting is a phenomenon called media saturation. Modern society has an insatiable appetite for information. News outlets are highly effective at communicating in a manner that captures and maintains public attention. The nuggets of information provided by the media in high-profile cases like active school shooting incidents only increase the craving and increase the desire for consumption. The profession is both an integrated fixture in society and an outlet for shining a light in real time on incidents and situations as they occur. The effective cues for providing notices and periodic updates keep viewers locked in on the news outlet. The public allots considerable credibility to the media reports and information provided. It is important for the public to have credible information about a critical event, particularly a school shooting. In addition to releasing information quickly, there is a deliberate effort to spark public interest on certain topics to increase viewership. An unfortunate byproduct surrounding the coverage of school shootings is incidents of mediatized violence and sensationalized reporting practices. Critical situations like school shootings peak public interest and motivate news outlets to provide information as expeditiously as possible. Not only do concerned viewers watch events unfold in real time but so do copycats and potential school shooters. Most of the United States and countries around the world learn of school shootings through various media outlets. Some suggest that school shooters commit violent acts as an outcry or a way to send a message about a real or perceived harm experienced. Others have committed shootings for self-aggrandizement.  The devastating impact on society is inveterate. It is difficult to accept the motivation of a school shooter as a release of trauma particularly when the act through violence magnifies the victimization of an entire society. The lifelong and societal impact leaves lasting wounds that do not heal. Media outlets are an informational conduit and mechanism of expression for many school shooters. In certain situations, the media can be an effective platform for shooters

66  Examination and Contributing Factors

to showcase their psychotic skills before the entire world. The obligation to report newsworthy information leaves little recourse but to cover tragic events. The dilemma provides a pathway for school shooters to have the shock value of their actions measured based on the devastation of the horrific acts. To mitigate a shooter’s attempt to be immortalized, law enforcement adopted a practice of refusing to mention a shooter’s name. The approach is designed to eliminate the publicity that some school shooters hope to receive in response to the carnage caused. The media often creates social profiles for school shooters. Certain types of profiles have inaccurately become standards for potential school shooters. Social factors used by the media to shape public perception about school shooter characteristics are generally consistent between outlets. Research related to school shootings is limited to after-action analyses of the incidents and some have attempted to provide a pre-detection of causal risk factors related to shooting incidents. Prospective evaluations of school shooters and individual profile information are somewhat difficult to quantify since relevant data is difficult to obtain. Factors related to the desires of high-risk youth, bullying, social emotional and behavioral issues, and cultural differences are considerations used to identify potential school shooters. However, the uncertainty based on a varying combination of contributing factors, unidentified triggers, and internalized harm creates challenges for identifying true profiling predictors of future school shooters. The identification of comprehensive risk factors for juveniles most likely to engage in school shootings is difficult to ascertain due in part to the relatively small number of students who commit such acts. Additional assessments are needed to determine the proportion of nonviolent students in the entire student population who are excluded from intervention because identified risk factors are so common among the general population that predictors identified are not beneficial. Three relevant contributing factors for school shootings are an immersion in violent media, exposure to acts of bullying, and the contemplation of suicidal or homicidal ideation. Although school shootings occurred before the creation of violent video games, there is a correlation between violent fantasization and males. Males play violent video games at a rate significantly higher than girls worldwide. Many males contemplate suicide or discuss it with friends ideations at a higher rate. A high number of single risk factors exist among adolescents. The agglomeration of the risk factors, however, does not provide a significant number of factors to distinguish between students who have committed school shootings and those students who have not. The existence of non-specific risk factors is likely to yield false positives when factored as a tool to develop a school shooter profile. The approach could potentially lead to the subjugation of students to inapplicable threat assessments and intervention that could leave them stigmatized. A recurring theme with many major school violence incidents is the use of firearms. Past incidents have been committed by students who were authorized to be on campus. Absent metal detectors or other weapons detection solutions, incidents involving current students attending a school makes the detection of a firearm difficult. Predicting a school shooting is challenging. Absent pre-incident discussion, detection, or discovery of artifacts combined with credible confirmation information, actual foreknowledge rests solely in the mind of the potential school shooter. The unfortunate reality is not a new phenomenon. School violence incidents are an issue in a modern society as they were in the 1800s. The admiration of the gunfighter and esteeming them as legends existed in the days of the wild American west. Heroes emerge

Examination and Contributing Factors  67

from various categories including athletes, entrepreneurs, educators, and western cowboys. Outlaws like Jesse James and Billy the Kid fascinated the minds of many because of the reckless abandonment of the laws and the willingness to live life on the edge. Al Capone and others changed the mindset of a segment of society, including young adults who sought to emulate them. Mass shootings and homicidal actions by students are the highest school safety concern in the United States. School safety plans should include strategies designed to mitigate school shooting incidents committed by students and non-connected individuals. Incidents of school violence have occurred for centuries and have been carried out by both students and adults. Early acts of school violence stain the history books of the United States and have bled onto the pages of modern society. In March 1873, a teacher in Salisbury, Maryland, walked with four students after school. A man approached and shot the teacher in front of the students, killing her instantly. The shooter was an adult male who later committed suicide by throwing himself under a train. Effective safety and security measures require solutions to specifically address both internal and external threats to school safety. Schools around the United States have taken steps to close existing gaps but concerns remain in some schools worldwide. Though students are considered relatively secure in classrooms during instructional time, particularly when doors are closed and movement is limited, safety gaps are ever-present and must be assessed and addressed. Heightened safety concerns are found in schools, specifically during transition times when large numbers of students are moving in multiple directions, in and around a campus. Safety challenges also exist before and at dismissal. Morning arrival of students often occurs before school doors are open. Parents regularly drop students off before the arrival of school staff and students congregate in groups until the doors open for them to enter the building. At dismissal, students are released to catch a bus, walk home, or be picked up. Most of the student population is outside along with staff who assist with arrival or dismissal. Doors and facilities are generally not prepared and staff are not fully trained to conduct reverse evacuations. In the event of an active event, challenges exist that limit the effectiveness of absorbing students back into a secured environment for transition to the appropriate response protocol. Major school violence incidents gain national attention. In response, legislators establish committees to conduct action reviews to better understand what occurred, to determine why it occurred, and what can be done to mitigate future events and improve response. Reviews of an incident help politicians identify the need for more effective legislation and appropriate resources for schools to improve safety. To satisfy constituents’ demands for a tough response on criminal activity, a resurgence of zero-tolerance practices pushed by school boards and administrators resurfaces as a method to deter potential offenders. Immediate post-tragedy responses can be more emotionally symbolic than effective. Communities demand that something is done and strategies such as increasing the number of officers at a school immediately after a school shooting incident are implemented as a gesture of commitment to the public. In response to the 2022 Robb Elementary tragedy in Uvalde, Texas, the Texas Department of Public Safety added more than 30 DPS officers to patrol all school campuses in the city. The post-incident police response was reactive but provided a semblance of comfort to the community. Critics argued that the approach would have been more effective before the tragedy than after. Preventive solutions and resources must be leveraged in a manner that creates the safest learning environments for students and staff prior to a critical incident.

68  Examination and Contributing Factors

Citizens demand strong, stern, and severe actions against offenders. The demand is equally strong for innovative and holistic safety initiatives to maximize school safety. Parents and communities consistently urge school authorities and lawmakers to take school safety seriously. In the aftermath of school shootings, legislators at the state and federal level respond by increasing school funding. Implementing effective solutions for school safety can increase community confidence to truly make a positive impact on school safety. Additional funding allocations provide schools with the resources needed to improve building hardening, enhance safety technology solutions, and increase the number of school police officers. School districts react in a variety of ways to provide safety assurances including adding surveillance cameras, fencing, ballistic resistant film, and other external building hardening measures designed to increase security. Building hardening is an effective approach to improving school safety but it must be developed as part of a holistic approach to create a truly safe learning environment. Effective school safety solutions must be multi-layered, holistic, and transformative in shifting the mindset toward true school safety. Solutions are ineffective if practices implemented can disproportionately impact students. Students have a variety of challenges that should not be compounded by reactive solutions that negatively impact marginalized students. Citations 1. Columbine High School. (2003). Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2. Shooting incidents at k-12 schools (Jan 1970-Jun 2022). (n.d.). CHDS School Shooting Safety Compendium. Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://www.chds.us/sssc/data-map/ 3. https://house.texas.gov/_media/pdf/committees/reports/87interim/Robb-Elementary-InvestigativeCommittee-Report.pdf 4. Watts, E. G., & Amanda. (2018, May 17). This officer stopped a school shooter before anyone got hurt. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/16/us/illinois-dixon-high-school-shooting/index.html 5. Skiba, R., Arredondo, M., & Williams, N. (2014). More than a metaphor: The contribution of  Exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline? Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(4), 546–564. 6. Active shooter incidents: Topical one-pagers, 2000 - 2018. (n.d.). [File]. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-onepage-summaries-2000-2018.pdf/view 7. Preliminary report. (n.d.). FBI. Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-theu.s/2019/preliminary-report

Chapter 7

Alternatives to School Policing

Alternatives to School Policing Incidents related to criminal activity and violent crime occurring on a school campus create anxiety and concern for students, staff, and campus visitors. It is important for schools to connect to as many resources as possible to ensure that students and schools remain safe. School districts partner with outside law enforcement agencies primarily for intervention in school safety or criminal activity concerns. Though hybrid police and school safety solutions exist, school districts generally contract with outside law enforcement agencies, create school district police departments, or operate with no police in schools and rely on local law enforcement to respond when necessary. Hybrid or alternative solutions to school policing are used to provide a level of safety and security without creating a law enforcement intensive environment. Parent watch groups in some school districts patrol campuses and hallways in lieu of police officer presence. The groups provide positive student interaction and hall monitoring. Additionally, they check doors and perimeters to ensure security. Participating parents are volunteers who observe and report situations of concern. The parental involvement and volunteerism are valuable and the service is mostly provided at elementary schools. However, the safety solution alone is much less effective than the use of police services. The level of training and equipment available to volunteers for an effective response to a critical incident is wholly inadequate. Certain school districts view the absence of a police presence as a better safety alternative, irrespective of the minimum deterrent that parent watch groups offer to potential criminal activity. Cities around the United States moved to defund police and sought alternative solutions for providing school safety. Solutions included services that were not typically used by school districts with police officers such as the addition of social workers to deal with students with social, emotional, and behavioral health issues. Restorative practices and unarmed security teams trained in de-escalation were used to address minor incidents. Situations in society can cause the pendulum to swing in an instance from supporting police to defunding police. September 11, 2001, saw the pendulum swing in full support of police after the terrorist attack struck the City of New York. On May 25, 2020, the pendulum swung in the direction of defund (1). It swung with such fervor that it caused a global shift toward a worldwide defunding of the police movement. On that day, George Floyd was killed by a police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, during an arrest. The tragedy was compounded after officers failed to intervene to save his life.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-7

70  Alternatives to School Policing

George Floyd was arrested on the suspicion of passing fictitious currency. He was handcuffed and unsuccessful attempts were made to place him in a patrol car. Floyd was placed face down on the pavement with his neck and back under the knee of Police Officer Derek Chauvin as Floyd pleaded for his life. Nine minutes and 29 seconds later, George Floyd died. Communities around the country sought to defund police in protest of police actions. A movement to remove police in schools gained momentum to prevent similar issues from occurring to students on school campuses. Minneapolis eliminated Minneapolis Police Department officers from all Minneapolis schools and created an alternative non-law enforcement security solution. Citizens protested around the United States and called for police defunding at all levels, including school districts. The response was from a place of hurt and outrage more than from a place of violence and anger. The protest was essentially that if the taxes paid were allocated to funding law enforcement organizations and individuals deliberately committing violent and deadly acts against unarmed men, women, and children, then the citizens would rather keep their tax dollars. Groups around the country expressed fear that the hostile actions and behaviors demonstrated by certain officers might migrate into a school environment. The world witnessed the mindsets and attitudes of officers who demonstrated a wanton disregard for the protection of life. A concern regarding certain officers that transitioned from the streets and into a school environment was that learning and unlearning must occur. The learning mandate requires officers to understand the true purpose and role of why officers are in schools. The purpose is not to profile students to classify criminals from non-criminals. Certain tactics used on the streets are incompatible in a controlled environment among young adults with impressionable minds. The unlearning is the lack of sympathy for human life exhibited by the actions of the officers in the George Floyd tragedy. The impact of a negative interaction can be devastating. Officer actions inside a school that mimic the behavior of officers like Derrick Chauvin cause those who need police to forgo trust and support for officers on the streets and in schools. Several school districts around the United States have cultural climates with the expectation that school-based law enforcement officers can be involved in non-criminal student disciplinary matters. The attitude highlights a practice that must be repealed. Officer involvement in non-criminal matters must be extremely limited in scope. The Supreme Court ruled that in certain situations an officer hired by a school district is considered a school official which provides some latitude in officer actions. However, a best practice should be to only allow school-based law enforcement officers the authority to address criminal violations. The expectation that school-based law enforcement officers should handle non-criminal disciplinary incidents creates an environment where police are busy as disciplinarians with disciplinary intervention which is not a core duty of law enforcement. The approach diminishes the ability of officers to create strong and effective student partnerships once the job description of school-based law enforcement expands to include the disciplinarian. Additionally, no legal obligation exists requiring officers to enforce noncriminal-related disciplinary violations. School-based law enforcement officers can be immersed in crime prevention while ensuring that they are visible, available, and approachable. Officer presence is a key crime deterrent. It provides a key opportunity to serve as role models for students. Increased visibility allows officers to connect with and encourage students as they face situations that determine their overall success. For officers to be approachable, they must also look approachable. Many school districts allow officers to wear uniforms that are tactical in appearance.

Alternatives to School Policing  71

The wearing of battle dress uniforms (BDUs) should be reconsidered, particularly since BDU stands for “battle dress uniform.” Outer carriers commonly contain tasers, ammo pouches, and handcuffs, all of which may give the appearance that the officer is prepared for battle more than dialogue. Critics of school policing raise issues related to officer uniforms and officers being armed. A few school districts consider a less traditional uniform to be more appropriate for policing in a school environment. Districts like DelValle Independent School District in Texas made concessions in the manner of officer uniform and opted for a less intimidating option of wearing polo shirts and khaki pants. Police in the United States have experienced a dramatic decline in public perception and support. Although certain situations produce pro-police sentiment, other incidents create anti-police sentiment. The growing demand for innovative and transformational change in police practices has been the clarion call for decades. The need for the police profession to reevaluate current practices and change in a manner that aligns with an evolving society is dire. The cause and effect of modern police practices can either build or erode the image of the essential purpose of policing. Agencies throughout the United States have heeded community demands to listen and sought meaningful solutions to meet community needs and expectations. Amid a demand for change, many cities implemented limitations so restrictive that law enforcement agencies were unable to effectively perform their duties. In June 2020, hundreds of protestors in response to the George Floyd tragedy seized several city blocks in Seattle, Washington. The area was called “Chaz” which stood for the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone. Aggressive encounters between police and protestors escalated to a level of danger that eventually forced police to vacate the east precinct. Those involved in overtaking the area declared it a police-free zone. City leaders supported the actions of protestors and the mayor described the actions as, “First Amendment activities.” Protestors attempted to transform the area into a utopian-style community to show how life could be. Unfortunately, a few days after seizing control of the area, a shooting occurred which left two individuals dead. In response to the frustrations with police actions in the George Floyd tragedy, school boards, city leaders, and politicians took positions to publicly support the defund police movement. Meetings were commonly racially and emotionally charged. Leaders around the country responded to public outcry, moved to cut police funding, and eliminated many law enforcement initiatives. The level of intolerance in the United States in response to police actions against minority members of society reached a fever pitch during that time. Without alternative solutions to serve citizens respectfully and with dignity, communities pushed for alternate solutions including the defunding of police and increasing the number of social workers to serve communities and schools. The behavior of police officers like Derrick Chauvin, Amber Guyger, Jason Van Dyke, and Michael Slager leaves lasting scars on communities because of the negative actions that create negative perceptions of police. Officers tend to behave their way into situations, it is imperative that officers find effective ways to behave their way out. Recognizing and acknowledging that issues in policing exist is a first and important step. Engaging in critical dialogue with communities and collaborating with communities on joint assessments of incidents can lead to heightened analysis, multi-perspective dialogue, and potential outcomes that can mitigate future negative acts. The same holds true for school districts. It is imperative that school-based law enforcement and school districts partner with communities to hear concerns. The partnership can be used to develop collaborative solutions specific to

72  Alternatives to School Policing

improving the quality of services provided to students. Police and school districts should engage in meaningful dialogue about potential solutions that can reduce the negative interactions that can force students into the criminal justice system. Following the death of George Floyd, school districts like Minneapolis Public Schools, Denver Public Schools, and Portland Public Schools ended contacts for police services with local police departments and eliminated the use of school resource officers (SROs) (2). Many argued that the impact of law enforcement referrals of marginalized student populations was disproportionately high, despite the population of Black and minority students being the lowest demographic in most of the school districts around the country. Communities argued that interactions with Black and minority students were more likely to result in a negative interaction and lead to an introduction to the criminal justice system for minor offenses. School districts in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in response to the George Floyd tragedy, opted to defund and remove police from schools. However, it was reported that police were called over 200 times in the first 2 months of the school year after the decision to remove police. Pomona, California, made the decision to defund and remove police from their schools but brought officers back approximately 4 months later, in response to a shooting near a school. Little doubt exists about the level of school safety provided by police. The quality is not easily duplicated. Those in opposition to police in schools acknowledge that police have a role in addressing major criminal acts and school shootings but restate concerns that student exposure to police increases the exposure to the criminal justice system. A push toward no police in Texas schools ensued after George Floyd’s death but received very little traction. An overlooked fact is that certain laws require police to enter schools for a variety of situations. In Texas, police will be in schools at some level, whether they are wanted or not. The Texas Education Code, 37.015, which states: “The principal of a public or private primary or secondary school, or a person designated by the principal under a Subsection of the law, shall notify any school district police department and the police department of the municipality in which the school is located or, if the school is not in a municipality, the sheriff of the county in which the school is located if the principal has reasonable grounds to believe that” certain “activities occur in school, on school property, or at a school-sponsored or school-related activity on or off school property, whether or not the activity is investigated by school security officers” (3). School policies and several state laws around the country are similar to the Texas Education Code and require a principal or a person designated by the principal to contact police for certain criminal offenses and some behaviors that can result in student expulsion from school. Texas law requires school administrators to contact law enforcement if a student commits major crimes and violent acts such as aggravated assault and sexual assault. It also requires officers to be contacted if a student is found to be in possession of marijuana or drug paraphernalia. Practices designed to criminalize certain student behaviors that can be viewed as adolescent, irresponsible, delinquent acts can increase the likelihood of a student interacting with law enforcement. Incidents like the disruption of class and disruption of transportation resulted in dramatic changes in the way law enforcement in the State of Texas interacts with juveniles for minor offenses. The overcriminalization of common juvenile, adolescent,

Alternatives to School Policing  73

immature behavior is not advantageous and can have a dramatically negative impact on students and families. Specific acts by students in school, on school property, or at a school-sponsored or school-related activity on or off-school property require a school principal to contact police. Behaviors include deadly conduct, terrorist threat, and the use, sale, or possession of a controlled substance, drug paraphernalia, or marijuana. It also includes the possession of certain weapons like a nightstick, explosive weapons, firearms, armor-piercing ammunition, and certain knives. The law also requires police to be notified for offenses committed under the organized criminal activity statutes and conduct that may constitute a criminal offense for which a student may be expelled. Criminal offenses for which police officers shall be contacted vary from minor misdemeanor offenses like possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia to the most egregious offenses and first-degree felonies like murder. In Texas, drug paraphernalia is a class C misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine only but school districts must report the crime to police. The primary reason is because drug paraphernalia is considered a contraband that cannot be kept in the possession of campus staff. If staff fail to turn over contraband or drugs to police, the staff member could be considered in violation of state drug possession laws. The argument that no police should be in schools fails to account for situations that legally mandate police officers to be called to schools. Administrators have no choice but to legally comply. The counter concern is that if no requirement to notify police of certain offenses existed, campus administrators could potentially take possession of or destroy contraband without notifying police. Incidents have occurred in Texas where principals seized marijuana and other contraband from students, kept the items in their desks or office, and failed to report the information to law enforcement. Once officers were made aware of the existence of the contraband, staff members faced the threat of arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia or possession of marijuana. For this reason, school administrators in Texas have a responsibility to work closely with law enforcement in any situation that might be a violation of the law. The push to defund school police and to achieve a true no police in school environment gained traction over recent years in response to several citizen encounters with police that had tragic outcomes. The movement was in part fueled by concerned parents of students who feel that officers in schools increased the likelihood that marginalized students would be subjected to negative police interaction. The assertion that schools should not be operated as or resemble a prison is valid. Schools are classified as “soft targets” like churches, daycare centers, and movie theaters. For that reason, all safety measures considered and implemented must be holistic and capable of mitigating threats and responding to critical incidents. Every safety and security advantage should be invested in a school where the most valuable resources in society regularly congregate. Police presence is an inherent deterrent. Individuals who have a desire to engage in nefarious activity recognize the challenge that police have to their plan. The potential reward for the planned actions is not worth the risk. The situation is consistent with the optimal foraging theory which contends that attackers are like predators. Potential attackers consider risk versus reward in their decision to engage in a certain activity or behavior. Targets that raise the level of risk, effort, or harm for the attacker compared to the potential reward are not optimal. The resulting outcome is a diminished motivation to engage or commit the act. Assigning police officers to campus can improve relationships between police officers, students, and parents. It also leads to an increased sense of comfort in having an officer

74  Alternatives to School Policing

and patrol vehicle present and visible on a campus. Officers are trained to address many non-student situations such as parent issues related to child custody, suspicious activity events on or around campus, and facilitating and debriefing with campus staff about safety concerns and response protocols. Incidents regularly occur in schools that do not require police intervention. However, many violent and threatening incidents occur inside schools where seconds matter and response time is critical. Removing officers from schools instantly increases police response times and reduces the level of effectiveness. Institutional knowledge is a valuable tool and without officers on campus, the disconnect severely diminishes safety and security advantages on campus. In past school shootings, officers have responded to campuses without any historical reference of the campus layout, critical entrance points, or existing safety measures. The disadvantage creates a litany of challenges. It further reduces the effectiveness of the response compared to having officers on the campus who know the layout, the specific points and locations with tactical advantages, and blind spots. School-based law enforcement officers build strong and consistent relationships with students, staff, and parents. Students understand that they have advocates who can provide guidance and direction in many areas. Additionally, officers identify safety and security concerns and work to resolve gaps that compromise campus safety. The elimination of officers removes a student’s benefit of having an officer as an advocate and mentor in a variety of circumstances. Furthermore, it severely limits the opportunity for administrators, social workers, and parents to effectively advocate for students charged with a criminal offense. Non-school-based law enforcement officers have limited student advocacy resources compared to a campus police officer. Student relationships are generally nonexistent and are not a high priority for non-school-based police officers. The resulting advocacy role is assumed by a defense attorney who advocates on behalf of the student while negotiating case resolution options with a juvenile prosecutor. In schools where no police officers are assigned, law enforcement responds when requested but the responding officer brings randomness and unpredictability. A non-schoolbased police officer responding to a call on campus typically possesses minimal knowledge about the facility, campus layout, or staff. Unpredictability exists because the determination on who responds depends on who the officer is on duty and who is assigned to the sector in which the school is located. It leaves little control over the type of officer that responds. Responding officers are typically assigned multiple calls throughout the day that can range from traffic stops to homicides which raises concerns about the officer’s temperament. Schools with no police officers assigned have no control over the level of training and experience of the responding officer. Non-school-based law enforcement has a wide range of training specific to the needs and objectives of the community they serve. Focus areas include traffic enforcement where officers patrol streets to ensure that traffic violations are mitigated and strategies are implemented to improve public safety. There is an emphasis on comprehending the penal code to ensure that officers can properly identify criminal violations and arrestable offenses. Officers understand the difference between misdemeanor and felony offenses and how to properly apply laws through state codes of criminal procedures. Non-school-based police officers study drug laws to ensure that they can distinguish between certain controlled substance penalty groups and the applicable offense codes. Drug interdiction is a focus of many departments. The goal is to reduce the number of drugs introduced into communities. Dangerous drugs like fentanyl require officers to take

Alternatives to School Policing  75

increased safety precautions and to expand their knowledge of responding to the presence of drugs. Officers must take appropriate precautions to prevent contamination by the found drugs. Special equipment including specialized gloves and Narcan are deployed with officers to ensure that if cross-contamination occurs, there are effective remedies to reduce the dangers of exposure. Officers focus on understanding Fourth Amendment search and seizure, guidelines of probable cause that allows the search of vehicles, and search warrants needed to search residences and properties. It is important for officers to understand the proper response required to the various situations that officers may encounter daily. The frequency requires there to be a higher level of competency to ensure that the ensuing actions of addressing the criminal offenses do not result in cases being dismissed. The actions of police should be applied in a manner to ensure that citizen rights are not violated in pursuit of keeping communities safe. For this reason, officers receive increased training in search and seizure. Several states, including Texas, mandate search and seizure training for officers as a prerequisite to obtain different levels of law enforcement certification. The need for officer training in the areas where strong emphasis exists on the need to improve and maintain community safety is important. Officers receive training in areas of family violence, sexual assault, diversity training, less than lethal weapons, and patrol tactics because officers recognize the importance of additional training in many areas. However, training provided in handling juvenile matters is not as comprehensive in many law enforcement agencies. The basic processes for addressing juvenile matters are understood and officers recognize how to identify criminal violations committed and whether the act is delinquent conduct or a child in need of supervision. School districts with no school-based law enforcement officers assigned to campuses must call police when there is a need for police services. The handling of juveniles has historically been perceived as an unwanted inconvenience for officers. Dealing with issues involving juveniles on the streets is something that most police officers feel should be handled by schools and not police. Officer response to juvenile offenders outside of schools uses the most expedient processes to complete the task. It often includes taking possession of any evidence and the juvenile offender, then transporting them to juvenile detention and resume their normal police duties. The option to have no police in schools is not as unique a demand as some may consider. The outcome results in virtually no regular police interactions, whether positive or negative, with students. No police in schools are a campaign aimed at reducing police interaction with marginalized student groups and to reduce the likelihood of students entering the criminal justice system at an early age. The projected outcome of the alternative virtually eliminates all police student advocacy. Officers only respond when there is a criminal action or situation requiring law enforcement presence. When an officer arrives, the situation is handled like a call for service in the community. If an arrest is justified, the student is arrested, transported to a detention facility, and the officer returns to his or her jurisdiction to answer calls. Responding officers are completely random and no true assessment of whether officer discretion results in equitable outcomes exists. The officers’ training, experience, and understanding of equitable practices are factors applied to their decision to arrest or not arrest certain students. Community support depends heavily on the level of trust for police irrespective of the interactions with school districts. Community distrust of police creates greater scrutiny of the officer and department. However, support might be greater if the community has confidence in the department.

76  Alternatives to School Policing

Ending contracts with law enforcement agencies has an articulable set of outcomes. It effectively removes officers from campuses and shifts police services to agencies with overlapping jurisdiction as a part of their regular duties and calls for service. It also reduces and mitigates concerns of negative interactions that are believed to exist with on-campus officers. However, in times of crisis or in response to on-campus critical incidents, police response time would increase because no officers are onsite to respond immediately. Police respond only when requested. The approach limits the amount of positive and negative interaction between students and officers. The cost benefits to a school district are dramatically reduced since there is no longer a need for onsite police services. No police in schools requires no startup costs, thus there is no impact to the school budget since no police are hired by the district. In districts where officers are hired to provide police services, law enforcement departments require school districts to pay for equipment, gas, dispatching services, training, and other associated costs. The primary responsibility of being first responders to critical incidents also shifts to campus staff and administrators. School staff are trained to properly address minor incidents; however, they are often severely ill-equipped to handle situations that involve major violence or weapons. Eliminating school-based law enforcement dramatically increases police response time when seconds can be a matter of life and death. Responding officers not assigned to a campus must respond from locations that could potentially be miles and several minutes away. No police in schools creates the impression that officers are only on a campus when an incident occurs. It creates a level of concern when a police vehicle is seen by students, staff, or the community at a campus based on an assumption that something catastrophic happened. School policing is specialized and unique from other areas of law enforcement. The training standards for school-based law enforcement must be set at the highest academic and practical levels. Officers are specifically trained to serve in a school environment. The alignment of school-based law enforcement training with the needs of students exemplifies a unique safety solution that is invaluable to school districts. School-based law enforcement officers around the United States receive specialized training in many areas. One of the original school safety training programs is provided by the National Association of School Resource Officers or NASRO. School-based law enforcement officers receive basic and advanced training certification from the organization. Founded in 1991, NASRO was formed specifically for “school based law enforcement officers, school administrators, and school security and/or safety professionals who work as partners to protect schools and their students, faculty, and staff members” (4). NASRO’s approach is to standardize school policing so that school-based law enforcement officers are able to educate, counsel, and protect school communities and promote a positive image of police. According to NASRO, the organization includes over 3,000 members worldwide. It provides training and collaborates with a host of stakeholders to create safe learning environments, provide resources to campus staff, and create positive student/officer relationships while developing strategies to address issues that affect youth. The basic NASRO course is a 40-hour block of instruction designed for law enforcement officers and school safety professionals working in educational environments. The course provides tools for officers to build positive relationships with students and staff. It has benefits for educational professionals dedicated to providing a safe learning environment. The training is based on the NASRO triad concept of school-based policing which divides the SRO responsibilities into three areas: law enforcement, informal counselor/mentor, and

Alternatives to School Policing  77

teacher/educator. The training covers the history of school-based law enforcement and the duties and responsibilities of officers serving in the SRO capacity. It focuses on strategies for establishing and maintaining an ethical SRO program with the objective to build mutual respect and trust between students, parents, school staff, and SROs. The model has strategies designed to train officers to react to situations appropriately and proactively when dealing with students with disabilities. Furthermore, SROs are exposed to examples of disruptive behavior and introduced to various methods of de-escalation. Finally, they review examples of an adult’s responses to students with challenging behaviors and provide recommendations for behavioral methodologies through roleplay and written questions. Certain school districts in the United States opted to add security guards over police as a safety and security solution. It is a less expensive alternative to armed police officers and security guards are viewed as less zealous contributors to the “school-to-prison pipeline.” In states like Texas, state law prohibits armed security guards from working at a K-12 school campus. To be armed, the individual must be a commissioned peace officer, school marshal, or guardian. Some school districts around the country employ unarmed security guards with the understanding that the level of response to critical incidents or criminal activity is incomparable to the response capabilities and options available to school-based law enforcement officers. Security guards can deal with non-criminal matters like student code of conduct violations, skipping class, dress code violations, and other minor non-criminal offenses. Certain schools use security guards for various duties such as patrolling hallways and parking lots. Security guards receive limited training and are typically trained to observe and report criminal, concerning, or disruptive behavior. Additionally, they serve as a level of deterrence in some situations when activities that are not appropriate in a school setting occur. Hiring unarmed security guards is not a new phenomenon in school safety. In the 1990s, many guards were hired to perform limited security duties related to supervising lunches and to provide a uniformed presence at after hour events. The role of observe and report has been a fundamental responsibility of security guards which makes their presence for many students less intimidating. Most school officials, staff, students, and parents report that they feel safer with police in schools. However, school districts that prefer a non-law enforcement presence in schools can select what is a less intimidating armed security presence. Initially, Texas only allowed licensed Texas police officers to be armed personnel in schools. However, after the 2018 school shooting at Santa Fe High School in Santa Fe, Texas, the state passed legislation to allow guardians and school marshals to carry weapons without being licensed Texas peace officers. For security guards in Texas to be armed, the guards had to be licensed Texas peace officers. The Guardian program allows educators to possess firearms to defend against active shooters. Weapons cannot be carried on the person of the Guardian but are required to be locked and secured in a classroom. The training requirements for the Guardian program in Texas consists of 16 hours of classroom course work. Classroom training covers use of force, mental preparedness, crime deterrence and prevention, law enforcement interaction, and post-event recovery. Guardians also undergo firearms proficiency training that includes scenario-based training. The 83rd Texas legislature in 2013 passed laws to allow public school districts and charter schools to establish School Marshal programs. The role of a school marshal has one primary function which is to intervene and prevent acts of murder or serious bodily injury

78  Alternatives to School Policing

on campuses. In subsequent legislative sessions, 2-year junior colleges and private schools were authorized to use school marshals. The school marshal program is an 80-hour training program provided by an approved law enforcement academy that specializes in providing training on the school marshal curriculum. The program includes active shooter response, weapons proficiency, use of force, and campus security strategies. The school marshal program allows educators to serve in the role of armed security. In the absence of police officers, school marshals act as pseudo peace officers. Active shooter response is critical to school safety. School districts must understand that active shooter response is only one component of school safety. Effective school safety is a multilayered and holistic approach that should include solutions beyond active shooter mitigation. Schools throughout the United States constantly seek effective solutions for improving school safety and creating the safest learning environments. As new and innovative strategies emerge, school districts adopt those strategies that fit the needs of their campuses. School safety is not only a high priority in the United States but the utilization of effective school security measures to keep students safe is a priority in countries around the world. School safety concerns in France have increased in response to tragic mass casualty incidents that occurred in the country over the past decade. In 2015, Paris, France, experienced major deadly terrorist attacks by Islamic extremists which resulted in over 130 civilians killed (5). The following year, almost 90 deaths occurred after an Islamic extremist used a truck to drive through crowds of people celebrating Bastille Day. In December 2022, an incident described as a possible racist attack happened at a Kurdish community center, restaurant, and hair salon in central Paris which left three people dead. Continued concerns over violence in France caused the country to take proactive steps to prevent similar violent acts from spilling over into schools. In 2016, France adopted a series of safety measures to improve school safety. Many of the measures used were currently in use by schools throughout the United States. The country increased police and school administrator collaboration to close existing safety gaps. Police increased patrol in and around schools and procedures were implemented for inspecting bags brought into school facilities. Schools also increased the level of screening for anyone seeking to enter a school. Schools in France adopted mandatory safety drills which require schools to conduct three safety drills each year, including one active shooter drill. Students are trained to respond through strategies like the run, hide, or fight method taught in United States schools. France implemented a specialized first aid training program that trains certain student age groups how to perform basic lifesaving skills. The training solution is invaluable and equips students with first aid training that is beneficial beyond a school campus in the event of a critical incident. Schools also provide training for toddlers using games and activities to help train them to hide and remain quiet during an active event. International schools are handled differently and provided protection that is like the protection provided to embassies. Armed soldiers and military vehicles are onsite and prepared to respond to a variety of threats and circumstances to ensure the safety of people and property. Israel is a country that has experienced ongoing conflict for generations. Protecting all citizens and visitors is a style of life. Schools are no exception. In Israel, most schools are provided protection by armed security guards. Schools without armed security are equipped with internal and external building hardening solutions and security systems. Only those authorized to be inside schools are allowed and visitors are questioned by guards, thoroughly screened, and scanned with metal detectors before entering.

Alternatives to School Policing  79

Despite the number of attacks and constant tension in the region, Israeli schools are relatively safe. In fact, the last school shooting that happened in Israel was in 1974 when three terrorists killed 22 children in a school (6). No school shooting has happened in Israel since that time due to the proactive response taken by the country. Israel changed the mindset of the country by creating an environment where Israeli police are seen as the “good guys.” Systems currently in place provide a police response time of 1 minute or less if there is a critical incident. The country implemented safety measures that fortified all schools that had at least 100 students. Perimeter security with high fences and guarded entrances were established. Israel assigns highly trained armed guards at the entrances of most schools with a direct communication system to police and school administration. Entrance to schools is highly restricted and limited to those who have a permissible purpose to be there. School guards are viewed by students as the good guys who are there to protect them. Prior to the start of school, guards conduct perimeter searches of campus property and buildings to ensure that no unauthorized individuals are on the premises. Israel requires students and staff to conduct safety drills related to active shooter response and use a variation of run, hide, and fight. Police provide training of the guards and also provide close patrol around schools during the school day. School shootings in the United States consistently far exceed the number of incidents in any other country in the world. Countries like Mexico, where cartel violence is high, have a low number of annual school shooting incidents. Citations 1. Reny, & Newman, B. J. (2021). The opinion-mobilizing effect of social protest against police violence: Evidence from the 2020 George Floyd protests. The American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1499–1507. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055421000460 2. Heise, M., & Nance, J. P. (2021). “Defund the (school) police?” Bringing data to key school-toprison pipeline claims? The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 111(3), 717–772. 3. Education code chapter 37. Discipline; law and order. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.37.htm 4. National Association of School Resource Officers. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https:// www.nasro.org/ 5. Paris attacks of 2015 | Timeline, events, & aftermath | Britannica. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://www.britannica.com/event/Paris-attacks-of-2015 6. Congress, W. J. (n.d.). World Jewish Congress [Community]. World Jewish Congress. Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/this-week-in-jewish-history– palestinian-terrorists-kills-25-hostages-in-maalot-massacre

Chapter 8

Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing

Four Pillars School and public safety are priorities for every law enforcement agency in the world. School safety is vitally important since every person is a stakeholder in the interests of students. Societal changes call for changes in expectations and perspectives. As individuals adapt and adjust to situations in society, organizations have a responsibility to achieve the same adaptability so that existing systems and practices are relevant to the ever-changing demands. Tragic school violence incidents in the United States have forced school districts to pivot from an unobservant to a hypervigilant mindset in response to school safety. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model raises an important question, “When it comes to school safety, where do you want to be?” Minimum standards are acceptable to some and highest standards exist for others. Times have changed. So have needs and expectations regarding innovative and transformative school safety. Environments that were once free, open, and inviting are now secure, closed, and restricted. School safety is now the priority and creating the safest learning environment is the prime objective. The collaboration between school districts and police requires an evolution of thought and policing practices. Both must align with school environments to ensure that the approach is cohesive and consistent with the needs of every student. School-based law enforcement has evolved into a specialized field of expertise that is distinctive from modern policing and practices used in traditional police departments. However, society has progressed to a new age of expectations. It is an age that demands reform. The plea for police reform has resonated at multiple levels of society. Societal expectations exceed the limitations of modern policing and school safety initiatives. The demand calls for a new model that effectively transitions from modern to innovative and transformational postmodern solutions. The public outcry for police reform includes school policing. The transformation of a new model must be holistic and include mutually dependent postmodern policing and school safety solutions. Postmodernism originating in school policing provides a unique opportunity for the model to develop and foster in an environment for students who will be future leaders and beneficiaries of a postmodern school safety and policing era. School-based law enforcement officers are entrusted with protecting the most valuable assets in society. Officers are much more than an armed law enforcement security detail. School policing must not be considered a retirement job, it is a specialized area of law enforcement. An effective officer must have the proper temperament to work in a school

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-8

Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing  81

setting and around students. The responsibility requires officers to be caring and supportive and to know how to effectively set the tone in all areas of relationship building. Effective school policing succeeds through positive engagement with stakeholders including students and parents, staff, community leaders, businesses, and law enforcement partners. It is important to earn and maintain the public’s respect through the quality of police behavior and actions while policing and protecting schools. Reducing crime comes in part from partnerships with the community and the students served. It is important to empower the community to work collectively with law enforcement while improving school safety. This approach allows the public to see police as people, and it makes it easier for the public to relate to law enforcement. By forming positive relationships and strong community partnerships to resolve problems of mutual concern, stakeholders become successful in creating safer schools and maintaining safe learning environments. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model was originally developed and implemented by Jeffrey Yarbrough for the Bastrop Independent School District in Bastrop, Texas, in 2015 as a school policing model. It prioritized areas such as school safety, relationships and partnerships, emotional and behavioral management, and active shooter response training. The original model was established with the approach of creating elite district school police officers. The E.L.I.T.E model was created to establish a baseline for essential training and experience levels that school district police officers must attain in order to serve in the specialized field of school-based law enforcement. The training program established a set of training standards for officers to obtain to be considered ELITE. The model identified five major training areas to complete to obtain ELITE status. The first “E” focused on Emotional and Behavioral Management Training. Officers were required to complete training in the areas of mental health and de-escalation. The “L” focused on Law Enforcement Specialized Training including in areas of juvenile investigations, drug recognition expert certification, and disruptive student management. The “I” focused on Instructor certification. The objective was to ensure that every officer was a state-licensed law enforcement instructor. The training in this area raised the standard and capabilities of officers in their knowledge and abilities to train others in the school policing profession. The “T” focused on tactical training related to active shooter response. It required officers to receive Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training and basic SWAT certifications. The objective was to ensure that officers received standardized training in areas that would allow them to be tactically sound and able to respond effectively to a variety of situations with various law enforcement partners. The final “E” focused on Emergency Management Training. The purpose of the training was to ensure that officers had a comprehensive and working knowledge of Incident Command and National Incident Management Systems. In a critical incident, officers would be prepared to take command or assume various duties as assigned in the command system. The E.L.I.T.E model was implemented with astounding success. The training resulted in a high level of confidence in school police services from the community and school district. Jeffrey Yarbrough was hired as the Safety and Security Executive Director for the Round Rock Independent School District and later became the inaugural police chief and created the Round Rock ISD Police Department. Round Rock ISD is one of the top 20 largest school districts in Texas, located near Austin, Texas. In 2019, Jeffrey Yarbrough developed the Four Pillars of School Policing model which was an expansion of the E.L.I.T.E model created in 2015. The E.L.I.T.E model evolved into the Four Pillars of School Safety and

82  Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing

Policing model and became a blueprint for school safety and school policing. The model is the capstone of the Texas School Safety Center’s state-mandated master’s level school-based law enforcement training. The Texas School Safety Center is an official university-level research center at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas. The Center, by Texas law and the Governor’s Homeland Security Strategic Plan, implements key school safety initiatives and mandates. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing brings an integrated, school-appropriate approach to safety and security and policing. The approach ensures that school safety and security remain a perpetual priority for the protection of students. The model provides a dramatically different pathway to ultimate school safety and student success. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing enable success and achievement of the critical goal of safety and security by responding to students with an interconnected set of services and solutions designed to address root causes and keep students out of the criminal justice system. Transforming school and school policing strategies provides true value for entire school districts and law enforcement agencies. The expansion of learning beyond the classroom ensures that students view officers as the “good guys,” friends, protectors, and advocates. The innovative approach to school safety and police in schools produces shared responsibilities and shared success. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model provides an opportunity for a true multi-layered approach to school safety and policing to be fully actualized. It can be accomplished when the true understanding of who students is and the identification of their true needs occur. School policing has slowly evolved to a point where nonlinear approaches to meet the needs of students in schools are considered. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model emphasizes the reality that school-based policing is a specialized area of law enforcement and requires a dramatically different approach from traditional policing practices. Schools with no police have no predictor of the training, experience, mindset, or temperament of a responding officer. Additionally, no indicator exists for the types of calls the officer received prior to responding to a school that might influence student interaction. Non-school-based police officers generally receive limited training in student interaction but know the basics of arresting a student and taking possession of any evidence connected to an incident. Since the process of arresting, transporting, and booking a juvenile is relatively simple, most non-school-based police officers make an arrest for a criminal violation to expedite the return to performing regular shift assignments in their respective jurisdiction. This approach is encouraged by supervisors so that an officer can return to answering calls as quickly as possible. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model is built on the following principles (see Figure 8.1): Safety and security - The internal and external building hardening solutions designed to improve the overall safety of facilities and campuses. It includes time barrier solutions such as fences, locked doors, video intercom entrance systems, and vestibules. It also includes standard response protocols, standard reunification strategies, visitor management systems, mass notifications, and emergency communication technology designed to improve safety. Behavioral health - The use of social workers in a school district police department to better serve students with social, emotional, behavioral, mental health, and substance abuse challenges that might manifest in crisis. It refers to using social workers to lead threat assessment teams so that crisis situations are not always viewed as a criminal offense.

Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing  83

Figure 8.1  The four pillars of school safety and policing model.

Equity- The practice of valuing all students and not one group over another. It is recognizing that every student is unique and different. Each has different needs that must be met to be successful. Every student has cultural capital and infinite value. Schools and police must ensure that every student has a fair and equitable chance to succeed, regardless of race, disability, or sexual orientation. Student advocacy- The practice of school staff and police officers developing a mindset focused on advocating for students instead of relying on the criminal justice system as a primary response to address minor criminal offenses and negative student behavior. Situations commonly occur on school campuses that are considered minor criminal offenses. Incidents often include a discretionary option for campus staff that can be pivotal in student impact and outcomes. Incidents that result in negative police interaction but do not result in incarceration or conviction can still produce an emotionally traumatic experience for students. The stigma that results from negative interaction with police, particularly when it occurs in the presence of other students, is long lasting. The embarrassment can lead to students feeling less welcome in a school setting which reduces student success potential or graduation. Effective school safety and security identifies knowledge development as an important key to successful outcomes. An acceptable range of knowledge related to school safety and policing solutions is important to understanding the significance of simplistic versus complex concerns and beliefs. Although there are two belief dimensions regarding the nature of knowing, individuals can learn through many different approaches including visual or observational. Regarding school safety and policing, officers and school administrators must develop a mindset that is non-rigid, malleable, and capable of absorbing information that can contribute to positive change. The mindset of officers and school administrators needs to be like the mindset of the students served; ever learning while ever learning. Entering the school safety arena with preconceived ideas and notions creates unnecessary barriers to relationship building because misconceptions create confusion and a reluctance to explore below the surface to better understand a student. The reality of this perspective

84  Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing

will equip staff with the knowledge needed to better understand the importance of encouraging students to learn extensively. It can be achieved with students developing an open mind without preconceived negative perceptions of officers protecting them. Breaking down barriers to build bridges between students, staff, and officers is attainable. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model recognizes the importance of data and the need for collecting relevant information to improve school safety. Criminal activity occurs almost daily on school campuses. Although crime-related data and statistics are important, there should be some hesitation around viewing student-related arrests and citations as indicators of success regarding crime eradication. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model prohibits the highlighting of statistics related to the number of students arrested as positive performance. The model highlights statistics and objectives based on the number of students successfully diverted from the criminal justice system. In policing, it is simple to carry preconceived notions about certain people, places, and behaviors. When specific perceptions remain unchallenged, the misconceptions can become ingrained. The result is that the actions of officers and school administrators become predicated on ideas based on past experiences. A common practice in law enforcement is to expose officers to a variety of training and scenarios based on various situations they might encounter. A common approach used is called total immersion or indoctrination. Law enforcement agencies use high stress incidents as opportunities to immerse officers into situations and environments to evaluate response and potential for longevity in the department. Officers are commonly assigned to high crime neighborhoods and evaluated on their ability to infiltrate, assimilate, and then dominate. Field training officers may test officers by exposing them to dangerous situations alone to assess officer grit and determination to survive. New officers are exposed to situations where citizens are at their most vulnerable and facing the difficult times of their lives. Responding to fights, family violence, robbery, and the range of calls provides an opportunity for officers to learn how to respond appropriately to those situations. Criminal elements in a community push new officers to the limit to see if the officer has the will to survive or if the officer would break under the pressure. Sensing fear in an officer is frowned upon by other officers which causes officers to establish dominance, take command, and always control the situation. Officers observed panicking or intimidated during criminal encounters are viewed as unable to adequately adapt to the expectations of the department. Those that passed the initiation through field training are brothers or sisters in blue and are fully welcomed to the family. Continuous exposure can also cause an officer to develop a distorted view about individuals and situations. Postmodern school safety and policing concentrates on shifting the mindset of officers so that they properly identify actual student needs and appropriate resources available to meet those needs. An important connection exists between adult transformative learning practices and disciplinary disproportionality in schools. Transformative learning involves a critical reflection of a set of assumptions that can occur individually or collectively. In school policing, it is important to ensure that the learner engages and becomes critically self-reflective. School-based law enforcement leaders must help the officers develop insight, skills, and dispositions that are vital to the practitioner. Changing habits of mind to align with student advocacy in schools has been a challenge in school policing. Officers are often reluctant to become less cop-like for fear that they might lose the advantage edge. As a result, there is constant pushback against any teaching principles in modern law enforcement that attempts to move school police toward student advocacy. Transformative learning can reconstruct individual beliefs and make them more open to transformative learning.

Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing  85

Law enforcement leaders must implement a mindset shift toward a postmodern approach to policing. Law enforcement has essentially reached the end of the modern age of policing practices. The development of postmodern policing practices can be uniquely characterized. The emergence of innovative and transformative policing strategies must be more than philosophical. The term should not be viewed as fashionable but as foundational. The uncompromising direction must be a deliberate ascension up the stairway to the door of postmodernism. The description of what postmodernism looks like and the strategies designed to progress the organization into the postmodern period are clearly defined in the context of the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model. There must be a transformative approach that addresses critical issues that exist in school policing and school safety. Furthermore, it should create a postmodern pathway for contemporary policing that is effective in a contemporary society. Success requires commitment and conceptual changes in mindset, approach, and practice. Numerous areas of enlightenment exist in policing practices, recruiting, and training. The challenges that exist in the modern age of policing must be identified, acknowledged, and objectively evaluated. The findings should be used as foundational guidelines toward postmodern solutions to elevate the profession into the new age of policing. The need is critically important in school-based law enforcement and the progression toward a postmodern policing model should be emphasized and utilized in schools with a greater sense of exigency. The implementation of effective postmodern policing solutions in a school setting can be the driver for positive change and increase student opportunities that have not been experienced previously. A transition from antiquated, systemic, and misaligned policing strategies in a school that mimic traditional policing practices is long overdue. Several school safety and policing practices are incompatible with the true safety needs of students. Although there are various political reactions, explanations, and periodization related to the current approach to school policing, a full transition into a post-modern policing era will take time. The goal is not to completely abandon all modern policing practices but to identify relevant and effective existing strategies and use relevant components that lead to positive outcomes for the future of policing and school safety. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model is the pathway to postmodernity. Change requires an empathetic and intellectual conceptualization of community needs and an effective demonstration of school safety and policing practices deployed with consistency of application. Results should be measurable changes that trickle down from the law enforcement profession to policing practices seen in schools. In policing, one size does not fit all. Tactics and practices used to address adults on the streets are often incongruent strategies for a school environment. An abdication of absolutes must occur to recognize the appropriate strategies needed to align with the expectations of society. Systems and strategies used in the 1950s and 1960s are still used today in police agencies around the country. Aggressive directives and commands given by police officers to citizens with the expectation that citizens will comply without retort are unrealistic in a contemporary society. Additionally, citizens are more aware of the U.S. Constitution and will test officers while video recording the encounters if a violation or infringement on their rights occurs. Regarding a school environment, Constitutional rights are not relinquished at the steps of a school building and students have rights that cannot be infringed upon. As a result, there is a need for policing strategies to be refreshed to be applied as foundational principles. The need is particularly important if postmodern policing solutions are expected to create cohesive alignment between law enforcement and student success.

86  Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing

Success is measured in a variety of ways. Maintaining a peaceful school environment is viewed as a success and different strategies are used to meet the objective. Arrests are a strategy that can remove disruptive students and those committing criminal acts from the learning environment. However, little emphasis is placed on the resulting and lasting impact that permanently hinders future opportunities for the student. It may also disrupt the future ease of transition into the labor force and reduce income and job opportunities to improve social class structure. The outcomes demonstrate a need for change in policing styles that heavily contribute to student achievement. In a postmodern policing era, all students become more significant and the once fragmented relationships are aligned in a manner where the statistically driven data reveal true outcomes of student successes. Questions often arise regarding the relevance of postmodern policing. The ambivalence of police change can hinder the success of transformative development within the profession. Unpacking the logical justification for the need for a new era of policing can provide key insights into the benefits that impact learning and student success. Postmodern policing is not an unattainable prospect of emancipatory potential. Recent incidents have occurred around the world between police and communities that demonstrate a breakdown in the progression to move into a new area of policing. The reluctance threatens the credibility of the profession and will continue to disproportionately impact the most marginalized student groups. The implications for the prospective success of future transformative policing strategies can restore the legitimacy of the profession. The efforts take on a new level of irreplaceable value that is seen in other professions like firefighters or medical professionals. The confidence that communities once held in police has eroded over time. What has emerged is a succession of competing agendas seeking substantial reform. In the late 1970s and into the early 1980s, the debate regarding police reform became increasingly polarized. There has been a constant and radical rejection of actions and behaviors of police. The frustrations regarding police interactions in minority communities have been exceedingly heated. The concerns are echoed in certain incidents and related practices seen in school policing. Over the past 50 years, policing has fundamentally remained consistent. As a result, the lack of committed change required to usher in a new postmodern era of policing has caused societal frustration and fatigue. The postmodern solution for school policing is a catalyst for societal change that will introduce an era of renewal and confidence in police practices. The political winds of policing needs change rapidly and billow through the hallways of schools around the world. A tragic school shooting can be the catalyst for lawmakers to increase school safety and policing funding with the purpose of adding more officers and improving building hardening strategies. It can also be the clarion call for legislative changes to improve school safety at a wide range of levels. However, when prevailing winds subside, critics argue that the foundational policing practices that are statistically driven attempts to prove relevancy remain. For this reason, police leaders must work collectively to implement postmodern school policing practices that are so transformational that the practices spillover into the streets and become strategies adopted by policing organizations worldwide. Postmodern policing strategies must be implemented in conjunction with innovations in management styles which have an emphasis on professional management techniques. The style of contemporary police leadership must correspondingly change from incarcerationist to interventionist. A push for postmodern policing creates a segment of the profession that possesses a middleof-the-road opinion. It might be difficult for some to resist the unfamiliar tones regarding a

Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing  87

new philosophy of school and community policing. Failing to embrace change allows critics of school policing to continue criticism with the pursuit to abolish traditional policing practices and replace them with civilians to serve police purposes. In April 2022, the City of Baltimore, Maryland, announced the plan to hire civilians to replace investigators (1). The plan included eliminating 30 unfilled sworn police officer positions. The mayor and the city council considered the plan to be an important step toward modernizing law enforcement. Critics of policing contend that with the accumulation of new ideas and police reform strategies, the desired end products might not be achieved despite buy-in from law enforcement leadership. Some may contend that with a transition to an advocacy role, the potential for increased crime, renewed public disorder, and plummeting public confidence in the police might be the only outcome due to a “soft on crime” approach in schools. The lack of accountability might create a climate that is void of personal responsibility. Postmodern policing is not designed to eliminate accountability. It is a practice that focuses on the consideration of all available solutions and resources before resorting to a criminal justice response. The approach requires officers to determine the best courses of action and outcomes that most benefit a victim, the public, and the offender from the perspective of mitigating future offenses. The process requires transformational change at levels beyond just school policing. Success requires a commitment and collaboration between school districts and police. School-based law enforcement practices must include a variety of essential changes to improve the quality of services delivered. The approach is key to changing police culture to elevate the quality of service provided and improve student opportunities for success. More than changing strategies, a change in the approach to school policing should occur that is prominently reflected in the mission statements, code of conduct and ethics, and vision statements of the organization. Postmodern policing is not considered an ideological relative of modern policing. It is a new, data-proven, and emergent approach. The emergence of postmodernism recognizes the existence of modern policing in the rear view while moving toward a mindset shift of new policing practices that provide a new level of policing. The solution is to build community confidence so that postmodern policing practices are viewed as a standard practice of assisting over arresting. Postmodern policing strategies recognize the benefits of a non-rigid approach to student interaction. Although there are times when authoritative and dictatorial approaches might be needed, it should not be an option that officers wear on their duty belt to use in daily practices. Teachers and administrators assume the role of protectors of student interests. Today, many are reluctant to seek law enforcement assistance with certain students for fear that the involvement of law enforcement would expose students to a negative police encounter and the criminal justice system. The result is a clandestine action utilized by a few educators who feel the need to circumvent the criminal justice system as an attempt to help students in the long term. Much of the distrust comes from the negative historical partnerships that have existed between police and educators. Situations that involve law enforcement in schools often result in educators being excluded from discussions and decision-making when actions are considered a law enforcement matter. The approach effectively eliminates advocacy and considerations of underlying issues that may have contributed to the acts and behaviors. Additionally, long-term implications from the police action might result in negative views of police by students and families. Determining predictive outcomes is an important process used to identify the likelihood of future outcomes when implementing the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing

88  Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing

model. The model is designed to identify existing alternatives to the criminal justice system for students. The implementation of alternative solutions provides data that help to measure the effectiveness of those solutions and the long-term impacts on student success. Officers working in schools must understand that immature mistakes made by students should not result in a lifetime of consequences if reasonable alternatives and solutions to resolve an issue exist. Those in the school policing profession have a responsibility to ensure that new officers entering the field of specialization must understand that in a school environment, the criminal justice system is not the great equalizer for handling all student-related violations. Training in police academies must expand to include training components related to schoolbased law enforcement and the transformational approach to utilizing meaningful alternatives to the criminal justice system. Police departments and school districts can work with community partners and organizations to ensure that solutions are identified, available, and implemented in a manner that helps students overcome existing challenges that may exist. There is not a one-size-fits-all solution for implementing the transformational and postmodern policing model. However, effective methods provided through the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model provide a solid foundation that allows strategies to be consistent and scalable to fit the needs of the school and community. The modern era of policing has reached its conclusion due to outdated approaches to policing. The practice of equipping new officers in the profession with old ways of thinking and policing is incompatible with the expectations of a postmodern society. Certain school districts and policing agencies have achieved success in improving student outcomes by recognizing a need to change their approach and mindset. However, when it comes to addressing behavioral health, school safety, school-based law enforcement, and equity, many organizations cope with each issue independent of the other. Combined training is not generally provided among services groups like social workers, counselors, and police officers. School districts can increase effectiveness through combined training that teaches the collaborative roles and strategies for efficient outcomes between police and other subject matter experts like social workers. Officers are accustomed to operating in a silo and staying in their lane while working under the assumption that any requested resources will address issues outside the scope of policing. There is generally no significant training conducted alongside those organizations which limits the knowledge base and expansion of collective value of understanding. If developed correctly, the value of combined knowledge within specialized areas that provide student services can be highly beneficial to student outcomes. Areas such as school policing, behavioral health, and academics require high levels of expertise. Society is reluctant to relent on the call for police reform due to the lack of transformational change. The movement toward defunding the police and search for effective alternatives will continue unless a viable solution is presented. During the last decade, the cry for postmodern policing has escalated. The opportunity to shift from outdated policing strategies has improved and some communities are prepared to have meaningful discussions with law enforcement to identify effective options. Law enforcement agencies implement fundamental changes that are often bifurcated between a transition from certain traditional policing practices and incremental change options. Several strategies must be implemented by school policing agencies and the policing profession, if there is to be any legitimacy given to the practices during transition into the postmodern period. Many progressive police leaders recognize a need for change and

Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing  89

welcome it. The struggle is defining what the change should look like. Additionally, there is a requirement to determine how best to implement practices with fidelity that will be consistent and attainable in a postmodern policing era. Police leaders acknowledge that the chimeric dream of compliance through dominance, force, and zero tolerance is an antiquated and ineffective approach to policing. Proof of this reality is regularly seen on television, demonstrated by certain tactics police officers use to gain compliance of unruly or disruptive individuals. Outdated tactics have the potential to infiltrate the walls of schools to be applied inappropriately when dealing with students. School-based law enforcement has the capability of truly reflecting diverse staffing that is necessary to connect with the diversity of a postmodern society. The proportionality of women and minorities should exist throughout an organizational structure to ensure that the expanse of connect ability with students from multiple perspectives is available. With increased diversity in leadership comes diversity of thought and perspective. School-based law enforcement has the potential to be the leader of transformational change by adjusting essential priorities and the cultures in a diverse society. Disaggregation of policy making is an approach to leading reform. Internal and external feedback is vitally important. It is imperative that leaders recognize the inevitable need to transition from modern to postmodern policing. The transition must ensure constant community engagement. An important outcome is a clearer understanding of needs, improvement in the approach of information sharing, and clarification of misinformation and misunderstandings regarding the expectations of the community as they align with the objectives of the organization. Citation 1. Mayor Scott adds new civilian positions in BPD to build staffing capacity, better utilize police resources. (2022, April 17). Mayor Brandon M. Scott. https://mayor.baltimorecity.gov/news/ press-releases/2022-04-17-mayor-scott-adds-new-civilian-positions-bpd-build-staffing-capacity

Chapter 9

Safety and Security

Safety and Security The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model are the four vertical structures used to support the transition from the modern era of school safety and policing to the postmodern policing era. The pillars are foundational to the innovative and transformative processes required to build effective solutions designed to support the safety, security, and successful initiatives to produce positive student outcomes. Parents, schools, and communities purchase a service when police are hired to protect their children. The expectation is that highest quality officers, service, and solutions are provided to create and maintain the safest learning environment. Failing to meet the expectations compels them to seek alternative solutions. The model is designed to continuously explore the true value of procedures, practices, outcomes, and solutions on methods for reinvention. The model establishes essential partnerships between schools, police departments, and communities. It extends beyond the parameters of individual organizations or departments to collaborate and support the needs of all students. A reality exists in the greater the level of education a person gains, the greater the earning potential a person may have over their lifetime. The application of zero-tolerance policies can be an impediment to the growth and earning potential of future adults. It tends to unnecessarily introduce them to the criminal justice system for incidents that may not require police intervention. Minor offenses turned over to police can reduce the full educational experience. In many situations, discretion is the pivot point. Discretion is an option that schools and law enforcement possess when determining the reasonableness of a response to student behavior or actions. Suspension or incarceration can cost a student much more than a few days out of school. It can also cost opportunities for future growth in a manner that limits future success potential. The Safety and Security Pillar refers to a variety of internal and external building hardening solutions, innovative technology, standard response protocols, standard reunification methods, and other strategies designed to improve safety. It includes advanced training that school-based law enforcement officers receive in areas such as threat mitigation, active shooter response, mental health first aid, Trust Based Relational Intervention, LGBTQIA+, Restorative Practices, de-escalation, and other beneficial training opportunities that exceed state requirements. Safety and security are considered vastly more complex than protecting them from critical incidents. It is also designed to protect students from self-harm. No basic police academy in the United States exists to exclusively prepare cadets for schoolbased law enforcement. Future officers are provided basic police officer training designed to

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-9

Safety and Security  91

teach state laws, methods to detect and deter crime, and how to stay alive. Officers are assigned to patrol during field training and typically go from call to call and deal with people during times of high stress and crisis. Officers hired to serve as school resource officers (SROs) in a school district rely on the training and experiences received from the agency they were hired to serve. The training and experience of an officer is not always the best fit for a school environment. The training strategy under the Safety and Security Pillar specifically provides officers and school administrators many effective safety and security options to properly align in a manner that reaches a new level of postmodernism in serving students. School districts spend millions of grant and bond dollars on building hardening and technology to create safe learning environments. Although the approach is effective in creating time barriers, identifying breaches, and keeping threats out, it does not fully mitigate threats from students authorized to be inside the facilities. The approach is to ensure that the safety of students must be deliberate, sustainable, and effective. With new technology, schools are finding effective ways to improve building safety and security. Architects and engineers have worked diligently to design buildings that include enhanced security solutions that were not previously considered for buildings and facilities. Creating areas inside buildings that have the capability to lockdown certain areas of a school to restrict movement of threats is a solution seen more frequently. Additionally, ballistic resistant film, lockdown lights, and smoke screen technology to prevent and disrupt the efficiency of threats moving through a building are safety solutions. Internal and external building hardening solutions can be a tremendously effective approach to creating time barriers and improved security. Ballistic resistant film is a solution that many school districts have sought to add to exterior doors and windows to prevent rapid breaches to school buildings by unauthorized personnel. Although there are several layers of protection, the most effective layer can stop smaller caliber handgun rounds. Although the film is not designed to prevent the penetration of high caliber rifle rounds, the safety solution can remain intact to delay breaches and entry, despite the glass shattering when fired at. Since 2010, an increasing number of schools in Texas moved to creating security vestibules at the entrance ways of campuses. The solution was designed to create time barriers to delay potential attackers and to prevent unauthorized personnel from entering a campus. Security vestibules included a secure space inside the main entrance of a campus that restricted entrance until an individual could be identified and verified before entering the building. A security gap discovered from the installation of security vestibules was the potential for unauthorized individuals to shadow or follow an authorized person into the building. School districts expanded time barriers by installing video intercom systems that required visitors to campuses to identify themselves and state their purpose for the campus visit prior to being allowed inside. An effective solution that can enhance school safety is to select specific personnel assigned to the sole responsibility of real-time surveillance camera monitoring and access control. Many schools require office staff to monitor surveillance cameras and oversee access control, in addition to handling receptionist and office duties. The attention to detail when it comes to monitoring surveillance cameras for unusual or suspicious activities on campus is vital. The single purpose use of safety and security personnel to ensure that those allowed on campus have authorized access and any unauthorized personnel detected and addressed is literally lifesaving. School districts should embrace opportunities to enhance campus safety at levels that truly make safety and security the highest priority so that students are safe from both internal and external threats. Safety and security personnel assigned to monitor access control and surveillance cameras can also be

92  Safety and Security

responsible for emergency mass notifications so that campuses are notified immediately during a critical incident and can respond rapidly to mitigate any threat. The Four Pillars of School Safety model utilizes several effective solutions to improving building safety and security. A method used is called Core Security Prioritization or “Secure the Core” Approach. The strategy considers each classroom a core area that must be capable of being secured in seconds. The core security emphasis is critical to confirming that if all else fails, securing the core response provides valuable protections until first responder response arrives and intervention occurs. If every safety and security solution fails, the approach to securing students and staff in a classroom must remain comprehensive enough to ensure that the core is extensively secured and protected with sufficient time barriers. In a bank, the most valuable assets of individuals are kept in a vault that is secure with a time barrier design and additional systems to delay and prevent intrusion. Although no vault is breach proof, the effectiveness of a vault is determined by the time it would take for someone to break in. The longer it takes, the longer the valuable assets are secured and protected from loss and law enforcement can intervene. Like a bank vault, the approach creates specific locations within the school building where students who are the most valuable assets can be shifted to more fortified locations. The purpose is to increase time barrier layers and reduce student vulnerability. In the core security areas, whether it is a classroom or predesignated alternative location, students should be able to immediately transition from being in an open environment to a highly secure environment. The core should be secure and equipped to provide mass notification and first responder communication. The Secure the Core Approach is designed to provide the same haven for students, staff, and visitors. School districts around throughout the United States actively engage in practices to ensure that they create and maintain the safest learning environments so that students can reach their fullest academic potential. A wide range of strategies, procedures, and protocols have been used to achieve this objective. Strategies ranging from zero-tolerance to restorative practices have been implemented in search for the best approach to achieve safe environments and positive educational experiences. Despite best efforts, school districts continue to see an increase in behavioral health concerns and disproportionate outcomes that introduce the most marginalized students to the criminal justice system at a higher rate. School safety is not simply processes and procedures aligned with building hardening solutions, safety plans, and technology. There must be an unwavering commitment, cultural and mindset shift, and embedding of safety and security into the mental, physical, and cultural approach to ensuring effective school safety outcomes. That is a primary catalyst and effective solution found in the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing. It is a holistic approach shifting the culture and mindset of school safety from a check-the-box approach to an embraced and true alignment of thoughts, ideas, mindsets, and procedures designed to address safety at multiple levels. The field of law enforcement attracts those with many interests and motivations for entering school policing. The opportunity to serve as a school-based law enforcement officer allows students to be mentored and redirected from pathways that may result in negative experiences and outcomes. Many officers seek the opportunity to be true role models to students and to advocate for students in a way that inspires them while changing the negative misperception of officers. There are, however, those who prefer to work in school districts because of the day shifts, weekends off, and less crime compared to policing in other areas like cities or counties.

Safety and Security  93

Working in a school district requires a unique set of skills that are not comprehensively provided to officers in basic police academies. It requires the development of an officer from a different perspective. Not every police officer is capable of being successful in a school environment. The ideal officer must have the proper temperament and sincere motivation to be in a school environment. School policing can be both highly rewarding and demanding. Officers must be trained and capable of putting on kid gloves when handling kids but capable to take them off to address a threat in protection of the kids. Important connections between adult learning principles and disciplinary disproportionality provide opportunities for adult learning options to address the problem. Training and preparing police require an andragogical approach to learning and implementing the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model. Experience is relevant since the learner’s experiences are a valuable resource for learning. Adults generally rely on previous experiences when learning. In school policing, the previous experiences of an officer may come from working in a different environment than a school. As a result, there tends to be an assumption that the tactics that worked on the streets might work in schools. Since the two environments are not symbiotic, operating under previous experiences that are crime-focused rather than student-focused does not produce the best outcomes for students. An important assumption is that there is a readiness to learn. Policing practices are everchanging and constantly evolve to meet the needs of the situation. An effective andragogical approach to learning will help officers improve in their problem-solving and critical thinking skills while eliminating the robotic, militaristic mindset that has existed in police training. There are important components that police need to recognize when it comes to school policing that differ from policing in a municipality or county agency. As a result, officers must be prepared to learn what they need to know to be successful in their area of specialization. Another assumption is the need to know. Adult learners must understand the importance of learning and why it is important that they need to learn. Historically, police training is designed to be reactive and responsive to a variety of situations while following the law. Training for police service has historically been built on a platform of not asking questions and simply following orders. Group discussion was not encouraged during training as educators considered it a distraction and deviation from the lesson plan. The importance of helping adults realize the value of learning and why they need to learn cannot be overstated. Raising the level of understanding of adult learners can increase motivation and inspire them to better perform their tasks. In the field of school policing, it is especially important for the learner to know why it is important to learn, particularly when it comes to the disproportionality and systemic racism that exists in policing. Officers who understand the “why” will recognize the experiences of marginalized student groups and work to mitigate negative experiences including racial profiling, isolation, and targeting. An effective connection between adult learning and disciplinary disproportionality in schools is self-directed learning. Self-directed learning is a solid pillar that supports adult learning. Working with children requires a different approach just as teaching adults who work with children requires a different approach. As learners mature, they become more self-directed in their approach to learning. Police officers working in school settings must be able to align with the goals of self-directed learning, one of which is to promote emancipatory learning and social action. Those working in a school environment must understand that external social issues that exist and create disproportionality are embedded in procedures and practices internally. The identification and eradication of such systems in a school

94  Safety and Security

environment is an approach that officers and school leaders must collaboratively work to eliminate. Liberated thought and seeking to learn in ways that can mitigate disproportionality aligns with experts who contend that self-directed learning is less focused on individual learning and more aligned with political and social actions. Disproportionality is a social issue that adult learners can be taught to address in a manner that transforms thought, practices, and outcomes in a manner that best serves the needs of students. Andragogy is not a teaching technique but a philosophy that the adult educator looks to for guidance. Utilizing the theories and effective strategies of andragogy can have a positive impact on reversing the disciplinary outcomes and referrals to law enforcement. An important aspect of school policing is to ensure that all students are served in a manner that ensures the best long-term outcomes and in a way that serves the whole child. Taking an andragogical approach to school policing helps officers to better recognize what strategies best help them learn, retain, and utilize the training they received in a manner that best serves the needs of students. Working in a school district is a microcosm of the world around. There is a myriad of events that occur inside a school that mirror bigger society. Drugs, fights, thefts, social, emotional, and behavioral issues occur regularly on campuses throughout this country. Since schools consist of a unique population, unique emphasis must be placed on the types of training and adult learning that occurs. Utilizing outdated training and learning strategies have contributed to the disproportionate disciplinary outcomes for minority groups in schools. Much of the training is based on antiquated zero-tolerance policies. The 1990s produced implementation strategies that resulted in school police officers being used as role-players in the disciplinary process. As a result, marginalized students were subjected to suspension, disciplinary placement, or law enforcement referrals at a much higher rate. The quality and emphasis areas of training contributed to the disproportionality. The emphasis on transformative learning is limited. The process for adult learning is distinctly different when compared to the pedagogical approach to learning. Community policing, for example, requires officers to be self-starters. For this reason, police academies and cadet training should emphasize self-directed learning. When an issue needs to be addressed, officers must identify the issue and work with stakeholders to address it. This self-directed approach should be part of training practices.  Effective training options can mitigate the disproportionate outcomes that result from the implementation of ineffective policing strategies. Police can engage in self-directed group discussions to create a platform for adults to share different viewpoints. It allows the classroom to reflect the community containing various perspectives and the instructor serving as the facilitator. Learning must be transformative for it to be beneficial and it can lead to a different way of viewing attitudes, behaviors, and actions. Transformative learning along with adult learning theory can be effective approaches for preparing programs to produce change. The Texas School Safety Center at Texas State University is legislatively required to provide extensive school-based law enforcement training to every school-based law enforcement officer in Texas (1). Introductory training through master school-based law enforcement training is available to school-based police officers and those in law enforcement who have a connection with school safety. Training includes child adolescent and development psychology, mental health crisis intervention and cultural competency, de-escalation, behavioral health needs for children with disabilities, positive based interventions and support, and restorative justice.

Safety and Security  95

The re-defining of school-based law enforcement from the historical perspective of being a segment of policing made up of officers who were unsuccessful on the streets or those that agencies could “spare” has experienced tremendous success in the emphasis placed on school-based law enforcement as a specialized field within policing. Officers perform duties above and beyond those of a typical street police officer particularly since in addition to handling common calls for service involving adults, school-based law enforcement officers deal with students in crisis. The specialized field of school-based law enforcement requires a different approach and response than what is commonly seen by street police officers. In addition, school-based law enforcement officers are required to understand the laws enforced by officers on the street and a comprehensive understanding of juvenile law, trust-based relational intervention, restorative practices, de-escalation, disruptive student management, and numerous strategies specifically designed to address student issues. However, the specialization does not erase the common responsibilities of officers to address adult and criminal situations that occur on and or around campuses. The expectation for school-based law enforcement officers is to focus beyond the enforcement of criminal violations. School-based law enforcement leadership comes from many different experiences and pathways through the law enforcement profession. With contracted police services, school districts contract with local law enforcement to provide safety and security coverage in schools. The contracted services are typically provided by entities such as municipalities, county law enforcement, or from off-duty police from agencies with overlapping jurisdiction. The leadership of each agency and entity is calibrated to the specific needs of the organization. The priorities are specific while the general functions are somewhat standardized. However, when serving in a school district, the leadership typically resorts to ensuring that the most basic functions of detecting and deterring crime are accomplished. In the aftermath of school shootings, solutions for improving school safety rise to the list of priorities for politicians, police, school leaders, and a wide range of stakeholders. Internal and external building hardening options are typically the primary emphasis with an intensive focus on creating time barriers, deterrence, and deterrence solutions. To detect and deter criminal activity, schools increase the number of surveillance cameras in and around campuses to identify suspicious activity, behavior, and potential threats. Law enforcement and school safety technology are vital in the mitigation efforts needed to appropriately address criminal activity in schools. Although these are important to school safety, true school safety requires much more than technology and additional police officers. The most effective approach to maximizing safety in a school environment is found in the quality of an organization’s comprehensive and multi-layered approach. Camera systems are an effective solution for detection but without a monitoring system or solution to identify concerns and notify the appropriate authorities, the system is inept. Solutions that are designed to provide prevention, intervention, and postvention solutions can result in an approach to school safety that is holistic resulting in truly beneficial outcomes. The Safety and Security pillar emphasizes next level and holistic school safety technology solutions that are capable of immediate notification to the largest number of people, over many platforms, in the least amount of time. Mass notification and emergency communication is key when seconds matter. Solutions used around the country have many benefits. Students and staff are notified in real-time of critical incidents and provided the time needed to respond appropriately to maximize safety. Solutions like the iNEMSOFT ClassOne iCAS (2) for campus emergency and dispatch operation enable emergency

96  Safety and Security

management and police to leverage the existing school network infrastructure to implement radio interoperability, emergency call taking, and radio dispatch. Campus managers and public safety personnel can link radio channels with the campus unified communications and contact centers applications and sites, including emergency response, notifications, information technology (IT) support, facilities, and other school-related events. During a critical incident such as an active shooter event or tornadoes, 911 call centers may be quickly overwhelmed by the high volume of calls received from concerned family and community members, radio-dependent first responders, law enforcement on scene, and the media. The high volume of external requests for information during a critical incident creates significant delays in providing accurate, clear, and timely information to the officers on scene who need it most. The iNEMSOFT system provides an effectively linked communication solution during a critical incident that unites two-way Land Mobile Radios with telephones, cellular, and mobile devices. It allows emergency communication to go directly to responding law enforcement, officers on the scene, or members in the emergency operations center. The solution facilitates direct conversation between radio-dependent personnel and those using a phone of any kind, without the need for both parties to have a dedicated radio. A unified voice structure eliminates interoperability conflicts, increases the speed of decision-making, shortens response times, and seamlessly links vital partners, organizations, and processes to maximize efficiency and communication. The solution also provides first responders to activate a landline phone in a room or building where a critical incident is occurring and listen in real time to events occurring. An additional multi-layered solution under the Safety and Security pillar is a visitor management system developed by Raptor Technologies (3). It provides visitor tracking and screening to ensure student wellbeing. The visitor management solution allows campuses to verify the identity of individuals entering a school building to ensure that registered sex offenders are identified. This safety and security technology allows administrators to be notified immediately to respond appropriately. The pillar recognizes the value of a reunification and StudentSafe early intervention software developed by Raptor Technologies. The reunification software provides a truly effective solution for ensuring the accountability of students. When critical incidents occur, schools must account for every student so that reunification with parents and guardians can be accomplished. The solution tracks student location through the entire reunification process until reunited with an authorized parent or guardian. The StudentSafe software is the first-of-its-kind platform to help schools recognize, document, support, and manage the wellbeing of individual students. The technology emphasizes cataloging low-level concerns so teams can see a student in need of support at the very earliest signs of distress. An important component that sits on the Safety and Security Pillar is recruitment and training. Recruiting and training officers to be effective and measuring the resulting outcomes is an important practice that all school policing agencies should perform. The importance of ensuring that proper strategies for recruitment and training for officers assigned to schools cannot be understated. Whether officers are contracted, school district police officers or in schools that have no police, it is vital that officers selected are evaluated in areas related to how they would handle and address juvenile delinquency. This is something that is missing in police academies around the country as the priority and emphasis placed on juvenile interaction, intervention, and advocacy is not highlighted.

Safety and Security  97

The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing is designed to increase the quality of officers hired by the department. A primary recruitment tool of the policing model focuses on strategies to inspire and motivate officers to join the department. The selection process for officers is considered a critical part of ensuring the quality of service that schools receive and students deserve is the highest level possible. During the recruiting process, officers should be assessed and evaluated on many levels including experience, educational experience, motivations, personality, their “why,” reasons for wanting to serve in a school district, and personal inspirations and aspirations. Officers should be measured against the vision, mission, and vision of the department and the responses provided by the candidates help determine if the officers have the demonstrated ability to convey the desires for being part of the organization. In traditional policing, recruits often are incentivized to write citations and make arrests as it has historically been an indicator of an effective officer. Officers may be encouraged to build respect and credibility among their peers on the number of arrests, drugs found, and citations written. Even the most insignificant instances that might yield arrests for minor infractions that increase their statistical count are not ignored. The mindset however effective in high crime areas in the most challenging areas of a community may not be the best solutions for policing in an elementary, middle, or high school. Adolescent youth have not had the full opportunity to experience social, emotional, behavioral, or mental maturity and are not fully aware of the impact of actions on future life opportunities. Law enforcement leaders embrace the chance to report reductions in crime in a community. The statistical data are presented as an indicator of police success and commitment to crime deterrence. Much of the justification resulting from arrests or police interactions yield the discovery of drugs and weapons found before they are distributed or used in the commission of a crime. The motivation is addictive for some officers and the same motivations can transfer into the controlled environment of a school. The implications can result in an unfair air of suspicion and targeting of certain students. Those who engage in suspicious behavior or activities that mimic the behavior that officers dealt with on the streets may be inappropriately subjected to more aggressive actions in a misguided attempt to mitigate future crimes. The expectations and requirements for officers working in a school environment must be specifically different from the expectations and requirements for officers working on the streets. It is difficult to argue that past trends do not correspond with increased public concern regarding the recruitment and training of officers. Furthermore, there is a valid assumption that the police effectiveness and efficiency of modern policing is waning. Furthermore, a decline in police confidence has been seen in controversial tactics used by law enforcement to maintain peace and to gain compliance of aggressive or disruptive persons. Communities and cities seek a qualitative approach to the development of contemporary policing that aligns with the needs of society. In addition to recruitment and training, disciplinary solutions for problematic officers must never consider schools as a reassignment option. A fundamental element that erodes the legitimacy of a police agency is inefficient disciplinary procedures that result from problematic officers being placed in schools to “keep them out of sight, out of mind, and out of trouble.” In some situations, schools that requested SROs often received, “Subpar Remedial Officers.” The quality of standards for entry into the training academy and department must keep pace with the needs, expectations, and educational improvements related to social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs of students. Failure to do so can

98  Safety and Security

produce disproportionate outcomes that negatively impact society and officers who are often ill-equipped with the knowledge and tools needed to respond appropriately. Society has an expectation of law enforcement to engage in a constant state of improvement to raise police standards. However, over the past 50 years, training has been heavily focused on tactical response, the use of modern tactical gear and weapons, less lethal options, and a more militaristic approach to policing. The priority for interacting and properly dealing with juveniles through training and educational awareness has been low among most law enforcement agencies. Recognizing that a school environment requires different policing methods to properly respond to the developing minds of youth is important. A large number of school-based law enforcement agencies have yet to incorporate alternative resources to meet student’s needs. For example, social workers are used by policing agencies around the country to address citizens in mental health crises, but the solution has been slow to enter school policing. In fact, in 2020, Round Rock ISD Police Department in Round Rock, Texas, was the first school district in the United States to employ social workers to work inside the police department with the purpose of assisting students in a range of crisis situations. Citations 1. Education code chapter 37. Discipline; law and order. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/ED/htm/ED.37.htm#37.201 2. Cavve, T. (2021, December 8). Classone radio gateway | inemsoft. https://inemsoft.com/solutions/ ip-radio/ 3. Integrated school safety software | raptor technologies. (n.d.). Raptor Technologies®. Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://raptortech.com/

Chapter 10

Threat Assessment

Threat Assessments Threat assessments are a necessary strategy included on the Safety and Security Pillar that school districts should consider incorporating in safety protocols. Effective school safety strategies are paramount and are foundational to achieving and maintaining a safe school environment for all students, staff, and visitors. Identifying past actions and learning from them provides a tremendous opportunity to develop mitigation strategies that help avert future school shootings and violent events. An accurate profile for a school shooter does not exist. Potential perpetrators exist across multiple spectrums including those at various levels of academic achievement. Shooters come from different groups with wholesome friendships and those who are loners. The absence of a clear and consistent profile of what a school shooter might fit suggests that any combination of potential risk factors could be a pathway to a school shooting. Single risk factors including micro-variables like gender, age, and race have a lower predictive value and low predictive power for the propensity of an individual to commit a school shooting. Micro-variables apply to the larger student populations and society in a manner that makes the data not truly practical risk factors for consideration when attempting to determine a profile. This does not suggest that school threat assessment practices are ineffective. Social workers and law enforcement can recognize single risk factors as a need for effective assessment, prevention, mitigation, and treatment solutions. It ensures that resources are properly allocated to achieve effective intervention and to avert potential school shootings or violent acts. For example, a student verbalizing the thought of killing all the male teachers in a hall raises or creates a chain of effective responses. It would be a single indicator that requires intervention and threat assessment teams can explore various risk factors and observable behaviors as warning signs that could potentially result from a school shooting. Improving school climate is a prevention strategy that can potentially reduce the likelihood of school shootings. Many opportunities are available to create climates that mitigate the propensity for students to develop frustrations that might create school shooters. In addition to steps that law enforcement can take, educators can contribute to implementing effective measures to assist with effective intervention. Reducing the academic pressure that students face is an option that can reduce stress and increase confidence. Increasing equity, diversity, and inclusion measures is another effective approach. Students have a variety of experiences that are much more comprehensive than race or ethnicity. The cultural capital that students possess can be truly valuable in helping to remove barriers and misunderstandings.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-10

100  Threat Assessment

Students crave a supportive and inclusive school environment that fosters cooperation between all. Helping students to advocate for themselves and having others advocate for them is vitally important. The approach can help reduce conflict and encourage both constructive and positive communication about many things including safety concerns. Schools must work to become environments that are able to have unashamed conversations about mental health, personal struggles, including suicidal and homicidal ideations. Environments such as this help to build confidence in students to come forward with concerns about violence, abuse, and self-harm. An effective threat assessment process includes a team leader and is often a person who has the authority over campus safety and student discipline. This can be a campus principal or assistant principal. A triage evaluation is often the first step in the assessment process. The goal is to determine the seriousness and severity of the threat, along with credibility and actions needed to effectively resolve it. With transient threats, the action needed to address it might be limited to disciplinary sanctions such as detention, contacting the parent to allow them to address it, or in school suspension. With substantive threats, the response needed is comprehensive and requires a robust assessment and intervention. Activating the team is the responsibility of the team leader. In situations where a substantive threat exists, an effective approach would be to simultaneously conduct a mental health evaluation through social workers, psychologists, or mental health professionals. The purpose is to determine existing mental health-related issues that require immediate intervention which could be homicidal or suicidal ideations and to identify the “why” regarding the reason for the threats made. The objective is also to identify the most effective solutions for resolving the issue in a manner that results in no harm to self or others. Students in crisis often experience flawed self-coping mechanisms and are unsuccessful in seeking or getting the help they need. As a result, they turn to making threats out of frustration over situations they cannot control or solve. Understanding the why allows threat assessment teams to address the pain point with appropriate resources that can help with unresolved and underlying issues. School districts around the country utilize both internal and external mental health services for students. The Round Rock Independent School District created mental health clinics at each of its five high schools where students were able to go to receive services if needed. The clinics were created and operated in partnership with a community-based external mental health services center. As schools move toward developing threat assessment teams to ensure the potential threats, effective intervention strategies are increasingly developing to assist students who have the propensity to engage in behavior that threatens a school. The question and preferred approach to identifying potential threats have varied greatly over the years. The emerging approach to determining violent or threatening individuals is by threat assessments. In schools, students may be exposed to different situations that could potentially put them at risk. When considering potential threats to schools and students, staff have a responsibility to ensure that any perceived or actual threats are identified, assessed, and appropriately addressed in a manner that ensures safety. School-based threat assessment is not profiling or considered to be an accurate solution for predicting future problematic, threatening, or concerning behavior. School threat assessment teams generally look at incidents once they occur through words or actions and determine what approach should be taken to mitigate harm while directing services and resources to the student who made the threat. Although there are many threat assessment

Threat Assessment  101

options that exist, the solutions are often low base rate with base rate bias and are not effective at identifying students most likely to commit school shootings. Social workers, law enforcement, campus counselors, and district staff all play a critical role in working to assess potential and actual threats affecting a school environment. School districts are often placed in situations where they must weigh the circumstances surrounding each situation and when to involve parents or guardians. However, parents or guardians can be invaluable to the success outcomes of a threat assessment. Unless extenuating circumstances prevent doing so, parents or guardians should be immediately notified and involved in the threat assessment process. Parents or guardians can provide a level of perspective that can be helpful to the team’s evaluation of the current situation. It is important that a student receives a multi-level approach of support and assistance. Many risk factors can be selected to determine credibility, but care must be taken to ensure that false warning signs are not documented as legitimate and result in non-threatening students being categorized as threatening. Actions such as abusive language, open anger manifestation, drug use, hoodie hiding, and antisocial personalities may suggest that there might be questionable observations that could cause a student to be selected as candidate for being classified as a school threat. However, there might be underlying issues that contribute to the manifestation of those behaviors such as social or emotional factors. A variety of threat assessment solutions have been used to assess predictors of adolescent violence or behaviors. The Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) is an assessment tool that utilizes 24 predictors designed as a forecaster of adolescent violence (1). The assessment is not designed to use a scoring matrix to determine threat validity but recommends that those conducting the assessment review all the information gathered and make a clinical judgment of the risk factors. The SAVRY assessment results provide good predictive validity in long-term outcomes that range from 5 to 10 years. However, shortterm predictions have not demonstrated impressive results. The reason could partly be that students committing school shootings typically do not have a criminal history of related offenses. Additionally, the populations represented may be different than those assessed through SAVRY. Student behavior assessments in schools that seek to measure existing risks are often based on research obtained based on actions committed by a broader population than the youth group needed to be assessed. Many school threat assessments seek to predict long range and future bad acts. Dallas Independent School District developed a threat assessment to evaluate students making verbal or written threats. The Dallas Threat of Violence Risk Assessment (DTVRA) uses 19 risk factors scored on a scale from 1 to 3 to assess including inadequate parental supervision, low academic achievement, exposure to violence during their life, and disciplinary issues (2). Although the DTVRA has been used by many school districts around the United States, the accuracy of the assessment is questionable due to a lack of empirical research and findings. It is a balancing act to determine what is an actual threat and what is reckless, irresponsible, juvenile behavior. When analyzing threatening student words, actions, and behaviors and the ability and means to carry out the threat, the events must be weighed carefully. The incident responses must be implemented in a manner to ensure the safety of all while and appropriately addressing the individual or individuals who made the threat. It can include the school disciplinary process, parent involvement, social worker intervention, or law enforcement response. Several contributing factors exist that contribute to an increased probability of students engaging in violent acts. It can include bullying, harassment, social,

102  Threat Assessment

emotional, behavioral, substance abuse, distress, and mental health influences. Threat assessment instruments should be structured, robust, and effective in measuring sources of information and determining the appropriate intervention strategies. However, the response should not be rigid to the degree that it inhibits actuarial decision-making of professionals involved and allows them to consider additional factors and observations made related to the incident. The primary goal of threat assessment should be prevention of school violence. However, a predictive matrix should not necessarily be the objective. Many situations can be averted through effective safety and security measures as well as anonymous alert systems and some situations cannot be predicted. For example, effective solutions can be implemented to mitigate gun violence in a school but an emphasis on gun detection and mitigation may be insufficient in averting acts of violence with a knife or blunt objects. As a result, the accuracy of predicting homicidal tendencies and incidents should not be the sole driver of threat assessment as there are many behavioral concerns that should be evaluated and assessed. Students who are withdrawn due to the consistent and perpetual victimization of bullying often display behaviors that should raise concerns. The behavior may indicate tendencies that demonstrate a frustration and anger with society, disapproval of their inadequacies, and anger toward the school environment that they walk into daily and causes them to be subjected to the mistreatment. Those who demonstrate threatening, aggressive, or violent tendencies should not be excluded. Students with social, emotional, behavioral, adjustment issues, or other troubling behaviors should be identified and assessed to determine the most appropriate intervention options. The assessment seeks to identify expressed intent to cause harm whether expressed to the intended victim or other individuals. It provides a formal level of risk management designed to respond to threatening acts, statements, and behaviors. The assessment and intervention strategies utilized are designed to mitigate violence and associated risks. When assessing school violence prevention, it is important to understand that mitigation strategies do not require a school to be experts at predicting threats. Behaviors such as depression, societal withdrawal, emotionally disturbed behavior, or substance abuse can be indicators used to determine violent tendencies but may not necessarily be predictors. There are many variables to consider that include factors that are not necessarily predictors of homicidal tendencies but are concerns related to specific behaviors that manifest as aggressive, disruptive, violent, or threatening. Utilizing a behavioral health response to intervention for such acts and behaviors may reduce the likelihood of negative outcomes and result in better outcomes for struggling students. Threat assessment teams are an important component in evaluating leaking behavior, particularly behavior that is ongoing. Findings can be evaluated and designated as high importance for the threat assessment team. Leaking is the result of internal thoughts, desires, and fascinations with previous school shooting incidents. It includes intentions or evidence a student might have that indicates a plan to commit a violent act against a school. Leaking can manifest in words, writings, observable behaviors, acts or communication. Artifacts of leaking can be found in songs a student listens to, drawings, video games, social media posts, and chat room communication. It can also be information that the student shares with a sibling or friend which can include inquiries and attempts to purchase weapons or explosive materials. A unique approach to handling leaking originated out of Berlin. The Berlin Leaking Project and NETWASS or Networks Against School Shooting Project were developed in

Threat Assessment  103

response to over a dozen serious incidents of school violence in Germany since 1999 (3). Both projects were created to bridge the existing gap to improve response and prevention of school violence incidents. The Berlin Leaking Project was designed to assess the effectiveness of prevention efforts through the early assessment of leaking behavior and indicators that may be identified prior to an individual committing a violent act. NETWASS tests intervention strategies and existing training programs to determine the effectiveness and usefulness of the threat assessment practices to mitigate and prevent school violence. The project focused on training teachers in Berlin and other German schools to recognize, report, and address leaking incidents by notifying school threat assessment teams. Teams include mental health services and often law enforcement who evaluate the information and assess psychological risk factors. Leaking is an indicator that has yet to be fully realized in schools around the United States. Teachers are often uncertain about their response to leaking should be and the varying practices and standards between schools can lead to uncertainty and a dismissive response to shared information. Considering the continuity of care needed to assess and address potential violent desires and thoughts against a school, law enforcement and behavioral health services must be included in assessments of the leaked information. Training teachers to properly respond to leaking can increase the attentiveness and sensitivity to indications of possible planned violent acts. It allows them to be trained in a manner that reduces response confusion by designating an on-campus prevention appointee to report concerns. The appointee provides the information to the threat assessment team which typically includes the campus principal, social workers, campus staff preferably who know the student, and often law enforcement in severe cases. Police in Germany are only included in serious situations because discretion is limited and they must file criminal charges in situations where a violation of the law exists. Germany also includes school psychologists on their threat assessment teams whenever available. However, the limited number of school psychologists available does not always provide the opportunity. Schools must prepare to address threats that occur outside the school day, including those involving students that occur on nights and weekends at home. Although historically situations related to threats that occurred outside of school were relegated to the jurisdiction where the child resides, the continuity of care and effective response component must be considered when determining how to properly address threats off-campus. Germany created anonymous hotlines to allow individuals to report concerns related to threats or at-risk youth. The United States uses similar anonymous reporting platforms to allow students to report concerns 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. An effective best practice is to establish a team in the school district to be available after hours to provide support and, if necessary, respond to the reported threats or concern. Although all threats are not credible, certain concerns are and response should not be delayed. Valuable solutions exist that enhance the response to threats and increase response effectiveness in a manner that allocates support to students in need. Raptor Technologies created an innovative threat assessment solution called StudentSafe (4). The solution is designed to help schools recognize, document, support, and manage the wellbeing of individual students. StudentSafe provides a robust behavioral threat assessment (BTA) workflow and case management features that includes the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines (CSTAG) methodology and the Federal or National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) model, in addition to custom configurations since the approach and response to threat assessment consist of many variables.

104  Threat Assessment

StudentSafe is effective in that it empowers campus staff to catalog low-level concerns so staff can help students at the earliest possible when existing challenges are more manageable. Staff can document their concerns and share the responsibility so that counselors and support teams have the most relevant and valuable information to ensure the proper treatment and assistance to help improve student outcomes. When school staff have a full picture, there is better collaboration with the student and caregivers to make decisions in the student’s best interest. Helping students thrive ensures that transfer rates are low and completion rates are high while also drastically reducing threats of harm to self and others to help ensure processes are conducted with fidelity and documented securely. The StudentSafe solution allows staff to identify, document, support, and manage all facets of the student’s wellbeing in one connected system. School staff members or administrators enter a low-level concern by providing basic information. Schools establish categories of concerns at the district level. When staff log in, they select the student, a category, and write a few notes. Additionally, the StudentSafe dashboard will provide a quick view for authorized staff to easily identify students that may need early help and support. If the concern for the student’s safety warrants a BTA, the situation is escalated within StudentSafe and your team follows the designated workflow and case management process. The student’s chronology is accessible to the BTA team to help inform and streamline the process. Campus staff and educators are in an effective position to recognize when something is not right with a student’s actions or behavior. Bus drivers, teachers, lunchroom staff, and school district police officers interact with students on a regular basis and can recognize even the most subtle changes in behaviors. They can recognize both major and minor concerns from the student exhibiting isolation tendencies to suicidal and homicidal ideations. The events on the entire range are detectable and may require some level of intervention since the root causes and underlying issues that trigger the responses can vary. In addition, the manifestations of concerning behavior can vary by grade level. Utilizing threat assessment solutions allows campuses to conduct proper evaluations related to concerning or problematic statements or behavior and to determine the most appropriate intervention to mitigate the threat of self-harm or harm to others. Threat assessment is invaluable regardless of whether a student has verbally expressed the intent or has demonstrated it in actions such as animal mutilation, written poems, concerning comments made to others that are dismissed as jokes, violent video game obsession, violent or aggressive music choices, substance abuse, or self-harm tendencies. Although some comments and behaviors are explicit or more ambiguous, many actions can conceivably be actual “dry runs” designed to gauge the reactions and response of target sites and individuals. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) uses a threat assessment phrase called “leakage” to explain various ways students might inadvertently reveal planned acts of violence or attacks. Leakage can occur in many ways such as expressing their actual intentions. They can include posts on social media, diary writings, boasting about their capabilities and weapons, and other methods of self-expression that can be defended by the actor as joking or playful behavior. Contrary to popular assumption, there is no profile solution that is completely accurate particularly since students who commit violent attacks vary by motivation, experiences, and backgrounds. Threats can be made by anyone and the act or behavior can be a perceived or real manifestation resulting from anger, frustration, or an outcry for help. The goal is to determine the seriousness of the threat or if the behavior is an indicator of progression toward the commission of a violent act. The threat assessment process provides team members the

Threat Assessment  105

opportunity to evaluate the facts and environmental circumstances surrounding the threat that may provoke a violent response and to determine resources and strategies to intervene, mitigate, and effectively address the situation. The Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines is a threat assessment solution that school systems use to evaluate threat assessments (5). The threat assessment teams typically include mental health professionals, school police, and school administrators. The process initially seeks to determine whether a report received is a transient threat or a substantive threat. Transient threats are classified as generally harmless but reckless threats such as jokes, angry outbursts, or figures of speech that might subjectively be interpreted as concerning or threatening. When dealing with a transient threat, campus staff intervene and seek to obtain a positive response from the student and resolution of the incident. Most threats that schools experience and investigate are not serious and administrators handle the incidents at the lowest level needed for resolution. In situations when initial intervention fails to produce the expected outcome or resolution and the assessment team believes that the student continues to manifest an intent or potential to commit a violent act, the threat is classified and handled as substantive. The motivation of the individual seeking to carry out a threat is important to determine because eliminating the motivation could potentially resolve the situation and prevent the occurrence of a violent act. Substantive threats require threat assessment teams to conduct progressively extensive evaluations that include concurrent investigations conducted by law enforcement and mental health professionals to identify underlying issues that contribute to the negative behavior. Additionally, the law enforcement investigation does not necessarily mean that the outcome is to place the student into the criminal justice system, rather to identify important information that could help mitigate and better understand the causation of the behavior and potential manifestation of existing disabilities. Criminal behavior in students can result in threats due to several triggers such as relationship issues, bullying, anger, or depression. Identifying the motivation can help to allocate the most appropriate resources to assist the student through an incident and result in an overall positive outcome. Substantive threats can often be classified as criminal offenses; however, arrest does not always lead to resolution. A collaborative effort of the threat assessment team must be maintained. Team member specialized areas of expertise can greatly increase a positive resolution that is beneficial to the school environment and the student making the threat. Mental health services ranging from in-school services to involuntary commitment into a treatment center are options to consider when identifying the most effective approach to resolution and long-term student success. The response to addressing potential threats must also include plans of action to inform and protect potential victims. Texas and other states in the United States mandate the formation of threat assessment teams. Texas created the Texas Safe and Supportive Schools Program (SSSP) and in accordance with the Texas Education Code 37.115 requires SSSP teams to conduct campus threat assessments to determine the level of risk and provide intervention strategies to support the assessed individual of the threat assessment and the victim of the threat (6). Challenges exist in school districts that can impact the effectiveness of the threat assessment teams. Many school districts do not have social workers or may have an insufficient number of them to provide the level of support needed, including participating on a threat assessment team. Additionally, all schools do not have law enforcement or partnerships. As a result, existing solutions must be adaptable and capable to best serve the district and students.

106  Threat Assessment

Alternatives such as external threat assessment resources and teams are an option used by schools. There are benefits to this approach for certain schools because an external provider can ensure that psychologists, social workers, and other professionals that may not be available to the school district are included in the assessment process. A point of uneasiness is that the approach is not effective because those on the team may not know the students involved. The reality is that staff on threat assessment teams in many schools may not know the specific student or students subject to the assessment for a variety of reasons. A solution to consider is during the assessment meeting, a representative from the school who knows the student can participate in the threat assessment meeting. A recommended option is an internal threat assessment team. The approach increases the likelihood that multiple individuals on the team may have knowledge of the student which provides a beneficial perspective. Additionally, they understand the school culture at a level that someone from outside may not. Schools without social workers, psychologists, or other resources that would improve the effectiveness of the team could consider contracting with an external social worker or psychologist to participate in the assessment. A limitation of an outside team is that most school threats are minor and make an outside team unnecessary. The use of an external team would more likely escalate minor incidents in a manner that is unnecessary. Law enforcement has a vital role in the success of the assessment team but their involvement should not typically be involved in transient threats. Although law enforcement officers undergo the same state-mandated basic training, the roles are distinctly different in many areas. School-based law enforcement is a specialized area of law enforcement which includes a higher level of juvenile specific training and practices. When dealing with any school-related threat, law enforcement can provide threat assessment teams a determination of whether the actions or behavior is a criminal offense. Recognizing that a criminal nexus exists can also help to determine the most effective approach to ensuring that the actions of the student in question are addressed at multiple levels, including the criminal justice system, if needed. In situations where law enforcement must act, an investigation is conducted independent of the threat assessment team and school district. Every situation does not require an arrest and it should be the practice of schools and police to resolve every situation, particularly those involving a student with a behavioral health concern, in the most effective manner. Certain threats made do not require law enforcement intervention. In situations where it is required, school-based law enforcement should leverage the partnerships with juvenile services and the courts. It can ensure that ongoing support and wrap-around services are available for students and families. The outcome provides students with the resources needed to overcome the crisis and underlying issues they face. Law enforcement agencies should partner locally so that students get the help they need when in crisis. In situations where non-school district police officers encounter students that are in social, emotional, behavioral, mental, or substance abuse crisis, systems should be notified of the encounter and interaction. Effective threat assessments often result in students being able to return to school and receive continued education. Historically, the response from schools was to impose long-term suspensions to students who were identified as violent, aggressive, or were a potential danger to others. The most effective approach is not to increase suspensions from school but to increase the counseling services while remaining in a school environment. The outcome of increasing safety and security through this approach can improve the overall school climate

Threat Assessment  107

and provides a safe space where students can comfortably share concerning and sensitive information with campus staff regarding potential violent acts. Citations 1. Muir, N. M., Viljoen, J. L., Jonnson, M. R., Cochrane, D. M., & Rogers, B. J. (2020). Predictive validity of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) with indigenous and Caucasian female and male adolescents on probation. Psychological Assessment, 32(6), 594–607. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000816 2. Ryan-Arredondo, K., Renouf, K., Egyad, C., Doxey, M., Dobbins, M., Sanchez, S., & Rakowitz, B. (2001). Threats of violence in schools: The Dallas independent school district’s response? Psychology in the Schools, 38(2), 185–196. 3. Leuschner, V., Bondü, R., Schroer-Hippel, M., Panno, J., Neumetzler, K., Fisch, S., Scholl, J., & Scheithauer, H. (2011). Prevention of homicidal violence in schools in Germany: The Berlin Leaking Project and the Networks against School Shootings Project (NETWASS). New Directions for Youth Development, 2011(129), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.387 4. Integrated school safety software | raptor technologies. (n.d.). Raptor Technologies®. Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://raptortech.com/ 5. Cornell, & Allen, K. (2011). Development, evaluation, and future directions of the Virginia student threat assessment guidelines. Journal of School Violence, 10(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/15388220.2010.519432 6. Education code chapter 37. Discipline; law and order. (n.d.). Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.37.htm

Chapter 11

Student Safety through an Equity Lens

Equity School districts around the United States have been exposed to a variety of policing styles and school disciplinary practices. Campuses in affluent communities typically experience fewer arrests and negative police interactions than schools in high crime and high poverty communities (1). The concern is that school districts that serve a student population largely populated by minority and marginalized student populations experience higher arrests and negative interactions. This, however, does not mean that students in affluent schools engage in fewer criminal offenses. The argument contends that referrals and strategies used to address student infractions in affluent schools are designed to benefit students more than schools that are socio-economically disadvantaged. Critics contend that the same strategies are not applied in less affluent schools. Much discussion has occurred over the past decade regarding equity and inequities related to race and disproportionality. Some contend that the equity argument is used as an attempt to reverse the disproportionality by creating inequitable outcomes for those who are not in marginalized classes, races, or cultures. Additionally, there are instances where the equity argument seems to have been used to cast a shadow of victimization over certain student groups. Practices that some school districts consider to be acceptable are adopting strategies like lowering academic standards of marginalized student groups to benefit some students over others. Additionally, many school districts have lowered the academic standards for minorities to meet pre-set academic standards. The motivation for many school districts is to level the playing field and for other districts to make changes designed to right the wrongs that resulted from systemic issues that perpetuated unfair advantages. Equity in the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model subscribes to no strategies that place any student group over another because doing so would be inequitable. Equity under this model is viewed as meeting student needs through equitable opportunities in education. There is a distinct difference between equality and equity. Equality can be viewed as giving every student a pair of shoes and equity can be viewed as giving every student a pair of shoes that fits. The equity approach values all students and embraces the fact that each student has cultural capital, individual needs, and unique value. The approach is instrumental in building relationships through mutual respect and understanding of the differences and experiences of different groups, races, cultures, and individuals. Exposure to different cultures, lifestyles, and experiences increases the accuracy of understanding, acceptance, and compassion for those who are different. The misunderstanding of individual differences is a common occurrence. Absent relevant facts and experience, most

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-11

Student Safety through an Equity Lens  109

individuals are left to assumptions which can be fundamentally flawed. Emphasis should be placed on specialized training that promotes conceptual change to develop a greater depth of understanding for different cultures beyond traditional training programs that focus on diversity based on skin color. Although training related to different cultures is available, the true impact of the training is limited when one group is given more value over another. The experiences of the Jewish people should never be forgotten. The experiences of Black people should never be disregarded. The experiences of White people should never be lessened. Every group possesses cultural capital and placing equal value on every group is an approach that promotes equality and equity outcomes. Solutions that have effective longevity are those that are supported by evidence-based practices and procedures. Emotional investments in certain beliefs occur but should not be the driver or a substitute for facts and evidence. When individuals are committed to embracing certain concepts, ideas, or beliefs, they may also be inclined to defend those assumptions despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. For example, a portion of society contends that police in schools increase the chances of students entering the criminal justice system. However, the argument is not supported by facts. Although outliers exist, more evidence suggests that children engage in a greater level of criminal behavior outside school and in their communities than in school. The evidence increases when a lack of adult supervision, oversight, and accountability exist. The impact of school-based law enforcement officers on the racially disproportionate outcomes must be analyzed. African American students tend to receive a more severe disciplinary response for less serious infractions. Teacher preparation and classroom management effectiveness can be a contributing factor in disproportionate disciplinary actions. When the practice of profiling or postjudice is factored into the equation, the most marginalized student groups may experience a higher level of scrutiny and an increased risk of being charged with a criminal offense. Profiling can occur when a student of any ethnic, racial or social background is suspected or targeted on the basis of characteristics or behavior identified in students who have similar physical characteristics or have a common socioeconomic status. This can result in the most marginalized students who are not violent or disruptive to be erroneously labeled while a potentially violent and disruptive student who does not present the same or similar behavior or characteristics goes unnoticed and unobserved. School districts historically sought to address student disciplinary issues by focusing on punishment through punitive means to maintain order rather than rehabilitation or identifying and addressing the underlying issues that caused the behaviors. A zero-tolerance approach to school safety was the result of critical and tragic events at Columbine, Parkland High School, and Robb Elementary in Uvalde, Texas. The emphasis was to ensure that students were handled sternly for weapons violations and threats. Recently, particularly in response to tragic events like Uvalde, the focus shifted more to behavioral health prevention and intervention practices. Many juvenile court systems primarily focus on the rehabilitation of juveniles. As a result, a greater emphasis is placed on recognizing the biological, psychological, physiological, and cultural factors contributing to a child’s delinquency to determine the appropriate disposition of the case. In essence, a decision is made by a court or agency under the court’s authority to either punish the juvenile, use state and community-funded resources to rehabilitate the juvenile, or use a hybrid option to punish and rehabilitate simultaneously. Rehabilitation allows for an opportunity to optimize the ability of a child to function within the law

110  Student Safety through an Equity Lens

and reduce the likelihood of reoffending. When a school district approaches violations from a position of prevention and intervention, it is implementing steps geared toward rehabilitating the student. In return, the likelihood of the student, his peers, and staff having a more pleasant and disciplined school experience is much greater. Students who have positive opinions of experiences at school are more likely to attend and complete school. In addition, those students are less likely to have negative encounters with the juvenile or criminal justice systems than students whose conduct is disciplined with suspension or expulsion. A poor education is a contributing prohibitor to upward mobility (2). It is seen at a higher rate particularly in areas of persistent poverty. A good education, however, is a strong determinant and predictor of wealth over a lifetime. Educational opportunity is a strong predictor of academic achievement. The disciplinary removal of students from school can negatively impact future school engagement and educational opportunity. Suspensions often lead to subsequent suspensions and other negative outcomes that increase a student’s likelihood of being incarcerated. Suspensions and removal of students for minor incidents such as student code of conduct or dress code violations can have lasting negative impacts on students, particularly when the incident involves Black and Hispanic students. In the 1990s, many school districts across the United States shifted toward partnering with law enforcement agencies to provide trained school resource officers to provide police services. The purpose of the school resource officer was to ensure that order and school safety was maintained at a level beyond what was provided by security guards. In addition, it presented an opportunity for officers to positively interact with students, staff, and parents in a manner that humanized police in the eyes of youth. The outcome produced a dramatic improvement of police and community relations. During that time, many school districts opted to create their own police departments. The partnerships did not fully consider the potential for inequitable disciplinary disparities in public education and why marginalized student populations were consistently overrepresented in the school disciplinary process. Race, gender, disability status, sexual orientation, or gender identity have been the basis and contributing factors for placing students at higher risk of disciplinary and exclusion actions. Students who have been identified with a disability are provided with an Individualized Education Program that is specific to their needs. This is commonly referred to as an IEP. This program was borne out of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). IDEA is found in Title 20 U.S. Code Chapter 33. IDEA is “a law that makes available a free appropriate public education to eligible children with disabilities throughout the nation and ensures special education and related services to those children” (https://sites.ed.gov/idea/about-idea/). Students with an IEP function within a wide range of physical, psychological, emotional and behavioral disabilities and are provided education accommodations. Students with an IEP represent the largest population of students referred to the criminal justice system for behavior exhibited during school. By the nature of their disability status, they appear to be less tolerated by law enforcement which results in them having a higher probability of being profiled and referred to the legal system because they are expected to engage in delinquent behavior. Statistics show consistently from elementary school through high school that males and females who are Black and who also have an IEP are more likely to be referred to the criminal justice system than their White or Non-White counterparts (https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/ multiple-perspectives-analysis-influences-school-prison-pipeline-virginia-1). Effective police training and procedures in schools are key components for ensuring that the safest school environment is established and maintained. Campuses use different

Student Safety through an Equity Lens  111

methods to gain compliance and to hold students accountable for negative behavior. The disciplinary process in schools and the contribution that police make to the overrepresentation of marginalized students in the disciplinary actions, suspension, or discretionary placement remains problematic. Law enforcement can benefit from training and directives that prevent officers from participating in non-criminal disciplinary processes. Additionally, the outcome may foster the development of an educational environment built on true student advocacy designed to utilize alternative and non-criminal justice resources to address student behavior. There has to be a clear delineation between the duties of a law enforcement officer and the responsibilities of school administrators and staff. To gain clarity, training and directives must also be provided for the administrators and staff so they can learn how to distinguish a disciplinary matter that should be addressed solely by school administrators and exclusive of any law enforcement involvement from delinquent conduct that requires law enforcement and court intervention. Law enforcement officers assigned to school districts often express concern when they are called to engage in disciplinary actions at the request of school administrators because the requested action is outside the purview of their sworn duties. Training school administrators and staff need to understand the responsibilities and legal limitations of law enforcement in a school setting to further reduce students’ contact and negative experiences with law enforcement for minor conduct that does not rise to the level of delinquency. It is also worth noting that the protections of immunity that are afforded to law enforcement while carrying out their statutory duties could be lost when performing tasks outside those proscribed duties. A proper andragogical approach to developing adult learners will prepare officers and school staff to be effective in their work. The purpose of adult learning and development is essentially to increase one’s level of understanding by expanding awareness and ability to critically reflect and respond to different situations, actions, and experiences. It is important to understand how adult learning occurs. Adult learning occurs in four basic ways. Learning frames of references, elaborating on frames of reference that exist, transforming habits of mind, and transforming points of view. Learning accomplished in these ways provides an effective and expanded awareness, reflection, and transformation which could reduce the number of overrepresented marginalized students in the disciplinary process. Essential core issues designed to reduce disproportionate outcomes in schools must be implemented with fidelity, particularly when police are involved. Establishing basic police functions as the objective is wholly insufficient in a modern, complex society where many students enter the school environment from chaotic and volatile home environments. Although the law enforcement profession may demonstrate a reluctance to transition beyond the core functions of the profession, the demand for transition to the post-modern policing practices is the current clarion call from communities around the United States. Equity is the fair and recognized value of the experiences, voice, and humanity of every student and every individual. When students are defined in this manner, then all students are viewed as valuable. The cultural capital that students possess allows them to make tremendous contributions and investments in the lives of those around them. The purpose is to ensure equitable outcomes. The Equity Pillar emphasizes the work of staff specially trained to ensure that equity is not about race. It is about ensuring that every student has a fair chance at success by having their needs met. Each decision made in schools that impact student outcomes should be viewed through an equity lens. The standard must be to make sure every student has a fair

112  Student Safety through an Equity Lens

and equitable chance at available opportunities. The overlooked reality is that every student is different and each has unique and different sets of needs. Officers, school staff, and social workers should be trained to recognize and identify what those needs are so that sufficient resources can be properly allocated to meet those needs. Equity allows schools to ensure that systemic issues and actions that historically produced negative outcomes for many marginalized student groups do not occur in the practices and mindset of the school-based law enforcement officers and school staff. Effective equity provides students what they need to be successful academically, socially, emotionally, behaviorally, and in a manner that expands opportunities. For example, children are often a reflection of the behaviors and standards they observe within their home environments or communities. They may sometimes exhibit negative behavior that is either celebrated, ignored, or overlooked by their parents and guardians. When specially trained staff and officers can recognize and acknowledge that a student is not inherently delinquent because of his race, gender, disability or socioeconomic status, but that his behavior is a direct result of a chaotic or dysfunctional living environment, an equitable solution would suggest that providing the student and his parents or guardians with resources or services that support the behavioral, academic and psychological needs of the whole family would likely influence a positive response from the student. Although family dysfunction may be the stimulus for one child’s behavior, another child’s behavioral problems may result from homelessness and food insufficiency. For equity to exist, trained staff would identify the need and make efforts to close the gaps. Public schools serve students with a variety of needs, and some qualify for special education services. Equitable treatment of students with special needs are a concern that exist in school districts throughout the United States. Disabilities can include autism, certain learning disabilities, emotional disturbances, and mental illness. Crises that affect students with disabilities can manifest in the form of inappropriate, unusual, or abnormal behavior. When handled inequitably, it can increase the likelihood of student with special needs referral to law enforcement and the juvenile justice system. Students are exposed to a variety of circumstances outside of school that may lead to trauma or a behavioral crisis response. For this reason, advocacy is an important strategy that can be used to encourage equity for all students, including those with special needs. School staff consistently advocate for what is in the best interest of students and it is imperative that parents or guardians be included at the highest level possible to ensure the most equitable outcomes for each child. Traumatic situations occurring in the home are often carried internally by the affected student into the school environment. The trauma is often compounded when staff is unaware of adverse experiences and may seek to apply standard disciplinary recourse to correct unacceptable behavior. The impact and outcomes of each student is dissimilar. It may require a unique inquiry into the root cause of the underlying issues that triggered the behavior and what strategies can be effectively utilized to meet individual student needs. Law enforcement is an important component in school safety but officer involvement to address unusual and abnormal student behavior, particularly those with special needs may exacerbate and not mitigate the problem. The primary objective is to meet the needs of students in a manner that leads to long-term success. Responses such as non-compliance, depression, disrespect, and aggression tend to ignite a response to aggression that is inconsistent with the underlying student need. The problem can be compounded when school staff or law enforcement fail to seek the root cause of the student behavior in exchange for a dominant and power-initiated response. The student body of many schools is diverse and

Student Safety through an Equity Lens  113

student response to trauma can vary and professional development prioritization should include raising the level of cultural understanding of school staff and law enforcement. The outcome can result in dramatic cultural change in a manner that produces an environment where true equitable outcomes for all students occur. Equity should not be based on theories but on reality, starting with the reality that schools are diverse and the diverse experiences are valuable. The most critical race is the human race which includes every student from many different races, cultures, and experiences. Equity is the fair value of everyone. Building the cultural competence of officers without focusing on the prioritization of one group over another will prove to be invaluable to the growth and development of the law enforcement profession. Skin color is not what defines an individual, actions do. The question was once asked, “What color is a burglar? What color is a thief? What color are activists, what color are passivists, what color are murderers?” The answer is that each exists in every color. There must be a sincerity of practice while avoiding absolutism when doing the work of equity. Contrary to popular belief, all things are not equal. As a result, the opportunity to provide effective equitable outcomes gives every student an equal opportunity to succeed. That does not mean that success is guaranteed or that it includes the denial of opportunities to others. It means that success is possible for anyone when given equal access and opportunity. Just as equity cannot be viewed in a vacuum, success must also be defined in broader terms with respect to the child in question. Instead of applying a one-size-fits-all standard, a successful outcome has to be measured and viewed on a case by case or child by child basis. There is little denial that historical and systemic issues have existed and negatively impacted certain demographics more than others. The reality of this truth exists in schools throughout the United States. Certain criminal laws tend to be enforced at a higher rate against marginalized student groups. Successful resolution resulting from effectively addressing concerns cannot occur until a true assessment of current practices and transformational changes exists and supports equitable outcomes. In several schools, marginalized students tend to experience negative law enforcement interactions and are arrested at a higher rate than other student groups (3). Offenses such as drug or alcohol possession, fighting, or disruptions are typically handled more aggressively against marginalized student populations. This could be a contributing factor for why marginalized students are overrepresented in drug and assault arrests when compared to other student groups. A recurring theme seen in schools is the disparity in the reporting of certain offenses to law enforcement. Administrators in certain schools are less reluctant to report drug possession of White students and more likely to report minority students or those deemed to be problematic. The outcome of White students with drugs often results in a confiscation by the administrators and the implementation of informal discipline practices. Whereas marginalized students more frequently experience the formal disciplinary process which is considered a contributing factor for the overrepresentation of minority students in the criminal justice system. Code of conduct mandates in schools must be evaluated for equitable alignment with what is in the best interest of students. Certain mandates are considered culturally centered and unfairly target students and discourage cultural expression. The wearing of “durags” or baggie pants are cultural apparel that Black students commonly used as a representation of the culture. Students with emotional or social issues might wear hoodies to conceal their identity from the world. Additionally, wearing hairstyles that do not conform to typical standards of society might be considered culturally or socially unacceptable. However, it is considered inequitable when schools make it permissible for students to wear a wide range

114  Student Safety through an Equity Lens

of hair coloring while denying students the privilege to wear culturally relevant hairstyles or designs. Instances around the United States have demonstrated a lack of acceptance for hairstyles such as dreadlocks which have been cut from the heads of student athletes during various sporting events. Law enforcement professional experiences can misinterpret juvenile actions based on interpretations of previous adult encounters and interactions. It is important to understand that although similar in some respects, all student negative actions do not require a command level response to achieve a specific outcome. Juveniles have not reached a level of maturity that is consistent with reactions that are affective with many adults. Officers in schools must recognize that law enforcement actions make dramatic impacts. School-based law enforcement must seek to utilize conceptual change practices that help to achieve a mindset shift that aligns with equitable outcomes for juveniles. The shift can lead officers to an understanding that student disrespect is not always a direct challenge to the officer’s authority. The student action can be an opportunity for law enforcement to recognize the manifestation as a behavioral concern and the privilege to find effective alternatives to address underlying issues rather than law enforcement confrontation. A beneficial and equitable initiative that can establish an alignment of roles involving police is to ensure that police are not involved in the enforcement of non-criminal codes of conduct violations. All non-criminal behaviors or acts should be directed to school staff or administrators. A portion of society contends that personal biases of police are often inconsistent with the expectations of the public. Although police have been in schools in the United States for many years, continuous claims of racism have not abated. Critics of school policing suggest that racial biases developed by police on the streets accompany them into schools. It is the product of an inequitable mindset that considers some groups more prone to be problematic than others. In part, it is argued that the mindset is based on practices encouraged and promoted within a law enforcement agency. The objective assessment of existing police practices that produce racial disparities must be explored to better understand what drives those disparities. The Equity Pillar includes viewing every school policing decision through an equity lens, recognizing that every student is different and has different needs, and making sure every student has a fair and equitable chance to achieve their highest potential. Under this approach, a designated equity specialist ensures that systemic issues and actions that historically produced negative outcomes for so many students of color and marginalized groups do not occur. It is equally important to ensure that actions do not exist in the practices and mindset of trained school police−based law enforcement officers. Equity is an important pillar in school safety which continuously re-emerges as a high priority particularly after incidents of disproportionality and marginalization emerge. Schools and safety are not just a focus on feeling safe from active shooter threats, it is about being safe from many threats that negatively impact student growth, development, and opportunities. Equity helps to identify the most appropriate balance between safety, opportunity, and meeting the needs of students through strategies that create an open and inviting learning environment. As the socialization of students changes, so does the need for continual effective learning environments that support growth and development. Creating a climate that recognizes the needs, value, and cultural capital of each student provides an opportunity for students to grow in the understanding of how each peer is invaluable to the future success of a civilized society. It leads to an environment where character and individual differences are deemed valuable. It provides an opportunity to empower students to grow

Student Safety through an Equity Lens  115

as individuals through personal accountability, self-actualization, and through collective support without impeding personal growth protentional and success. Equitable outcomes provide each student the opportunity to succeed in a manner that does not disproportionately impact another. The psychological safety of students is a fundamental characteristic of an effective educational environment. The implementation of equity as a safety solution provides a space for interaction between diverse and developing personalities that foster the discovery of how to adapt and assimilate into a sociocultural environment. The process of learning at multiple levels can be done in an educational environment that is open, inclusive, and dynamic. It allows students to benefit from the goals and opportunities available to them throughout their entire educational journey. Learning is difficult to obtain in an unsafe and inequitable educational environment, therefore law enforcement and school staff have the important responsibility to ensure that barriers that impede positive student development are removed. For example, a school can achieve true safety in the safety protocols implemented at campus facilities but if students are not treated equitably, then the environment is not truly safe. Perceptions of safety and psychological comfort must be achieved coextensively and equitably to attain optimal learning and school safety. Officers, social workers, and school staff must train collaboratively to truly recognize and identify student needs. In doing so, staff can develop effective strategies that can be deployed to allocate appropriate resources to address specific needs. The goal is to provide the needed resources to students and without promoting historical disproportionality and systemic issues in law enforcement that have negatively impacted the most marginalized student populations. The concern and need for equity to be embedded at multiple levels of education, school safety, and policing are of the utmost importance. Countries around the world are growing into the realization of the need for equitable outcomes. The U.S. Department of Education created an initiative in 2014 which focused on providing support to states to ensure that marginalized student groups like low income and students of color received equitable access to high-quality teachers. The initiative was called the Excellent Educators Initiative for All (4). Each state in the country participated and identified existing gaps that negatively impacted students. In addition, the conducted root cause analyses to determine the underlying factors created equity gaps and developed implementation plans to close those gaps. The following year, the U.S. Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act or ESSA (5). The legislation focused on identifying and correcting disproportionalities regarding the assignment of ineffective or unqualified educators to teach students of color and low-income students in Title 1 schools. The need for such initiatives demonstrates the need for educational systems to evolve from strategies that historically and inequitably placed the needs of a portion of the student population over the needs of others. The initiative highlighted the need for equitable opportunities for all students to give all a fair chance at success. A random people can name the teacher who made the most impact on their lives. High-quality teachers produced quality student outcomes for student groups with access to the enhanced level of instruction. Achieving true equity is accomplished by ensuring that every student has access to the supports and resources to meet individual needs without prohibiting them from achieving academic and future success. There are a variety of ways that inequities can result in a reduction of the valuable assistance required to meet student needs. Identifying inequities whether social, economic, cultural, or educational and taking proper corrective to mitigate

116  Student Safety through an Equity Lens

disproportionality can demonstrate to students that they are valued. It demonstrates that opportunities and resources are provided in a manner that removes historic barriers that once limited educational growth and personal improvement. Promoting equity as a pillar of student success provides a viewpoint that recognizes the importance of establishing and maintaining a positive cultural school climate. Students recognize those in the environment who are supported, included, and encouraged. They also recognize those who are not. An environment built to support equity can make students feel welcome and inspired to a level where they can thrive. A student who feels unwelcomed or undervalued can develop a sense of uncertainty regarding a variety of concerns including personal and school safety. It further enhances a desire for a student to no longer remain in such an environment. The absence of support and encouragement in a school environment can be a barrier that limits opportunity and makes a student feel less safe. A supportive environment improves a student’s sense of belonging, which equates to a safer environment. A safe school climate is achieved when all students share in the equitable opportunity to learn in a positive, inclusive, and engaging environment. It results in an improved learning experience that is conducive to success. Citations 1. https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/studies-school-violence/school-crime-pattern.pdf 2. Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from prison inmates, arrests and self-reports? The American Economic Review, 94(1), 155–189. 3. Kupchik, A., Curran, F., Fisher, B., & Viano, S. (2020). Police ambassadors: Student-police interactions in school and legal socialization? Law & Society Review, 54(2), 391–422. 4. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/equitable/njequityplan060115.pdf 5. Fusarelli, & Ayscue, J. B. (2019). Is ESSA a retreat from equity? Phi Delta Kappan, 101(2), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721719879152

Chapter 12

Behavioral Health

Behavioral Health Pillar The Behavioral Health Pillar of the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model provides an innovative solution for improving school safety while providing the best support services and solutions for student success. The model was the first in the United States to include social workers inside a formal school district police department. The use of social workers employed by the school district police department proved to be a tremendous benefit in providing service to students with social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs. The approach allows social workers to provide wrap-around services to the families and ongoing support to students related to a variety of behavioral health concerns. In addition, the model uses a variety of alternative resources such as emotional therapy dogs to assist students in crisis to return to a level of calm so that they can receive the proper level of services needed. The behavioral health approach limits police interaction with students in crisis as a primary intervention response. Many crisis situations can mimic criminality. Absent subject matter experts such as social workers, a police response could potentially compound the issues students experience. The approach mitigates situations that might cause student actions to be viewed as criminal, especially during a crisis when the student might not be fully cognizant of their actions. Aspects of zero-tolerance practices appeal to police and school administrators when dealing with student behavior and disciplinary decisions. The command presence of law enforcement as a solution for voluntary compliance can in some ways influence student behavior and serve as a deterrent to criminal behavior. Justifications for zero-tolerance practices in schools often assume that the removal of students considered negative influences, cause disruptions, or engage in criminal behavior, schools will remain peaceful environments. However, such policies may be less equitable to marginalized student groups including students with mental health challenges and are historically overrepresented in school disciplinary actions, suspensions, and expulsions. Adding social workers to a school district police department is an innovative solution so that student actions are not prioritized for measurement in the balances of the criminal justice system. Justice is blind but there are various situations related to student interaction where justice should have the ability to see the true appearance of injustice. Several large municipal police agencies use social workers on staff to assist officers with critical incidents. The Round Rock Independent School District (ISD), in Texas, was the first school police department in the United States to hire social workers to work specifically for the department.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-12

118  Behavioral Health

Although it is an innovative solution that addresses the intersectionality of school policing and social, emotional, and behavioral health issues, it provides benefits that address the marginalization and disproportionality of marginalized student groups. During the creation of the Round Rock ISD Police Department and the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model, critics conceded that the significance of the police and social worker partnership provided irrefutable evidence of the benefits to students who were inappropriately placed on a criminal justice avenue. Critics of the postmodern and transformative alignment argue that both can be equally effective independent of each other. However, when separated, there is an organizational emphasis on certain practices in response to specific outcomes. The exposure is sometimes limited between the two and it can result in opposing views, objectives, and agendas. Having officers and social workers working together in a school setting creates an environment where subject matter expert professionals recognize the benefit of the partnership. It allows both to work together on a daily basis in a manner that helps them to better understand the beneficial impact that each has on the long-term success of students and a school environment. Additionally, there are shared learning opportunities and the awareness regarding indicators of internal dysfunction. Resolving any issues that cause misalignment between both teams of subject matter experts allows them to recalibrate and provide the most appropriate response to students in need and their families. Although social workers and school police officers working in the same department is a new approach in the United States, the practice has existed in several non-school-based law enforcement agencies. In the United Kingdom, the practice is more common (1). Police officers and social workers have different professional duties. The critical difference between the two professions is where criminal behavior and social, emotional, behavioral, and mental issues exist. It is often seen as a fluid flowing gulf and a gap between resources that needs to be bridged. The Round Rock ISD Police Department uses social workers to better serve students with social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health needs that might lead to crisis. The department allowed social workers to handle a range of prevention, intervention, and crisis situations and to provide wrap-around services to the families’ ongoing support to the students. Combining school-based law enforcement and social workers is an effective way of reducing the fragmentation of comprehensive services that exist in modern policing strategies. The common breakdowns that exist because of the fragmented representation between school police and social services are the overcriminalization of students in crisis. Historically, social workers and police services were not fully unified and aligned. With both services under the same department leadership, there is the opportunity for seamless integration of quality services provided. Additionally, the transformational approach results in a bridge between experts and allows them to remove historical lines of professional demarcation. In communities where social services provided resources that worked alongside law enforcement, the relationships and objectives were not always in the best interest of students. Social workers identified underlying issues that contributed to delinquency but police often held a myopic view of juvenile criminal behavior. The 1970s through the 1980s exposed alignment had gaps that limited the quality of service provided to students. Social workers and juvenile services departments prioritized child protection during a time when zero tolerance was in full effect. Rochdale, Nottingham, during the late 1980s and early 1990s increased the cohesive partnership between police and social workers related to joint investigations of child sexual

Behavioral Health  119

abuse cases (2). Tensions were unresolved but unlike the zero-tolerance period in the United States during that time, Nottingham experienced a cultural shift in the efforts provided to ensure child safety. In the United States, there are opportunities to ensure that the work and emphasis on responding to the needs of vulnerable and marginalized children are purposeful. Although both school police and social workers can accomplish different objectives in their individual silos, combining both services under one department is a proven and effective approach to maintaining student safety. It allows student needs to be identified, addressed, and met without navigating through the criminal justice system. There is a propensity for subject matter experts in social work and policing operated independently which can impede the success of joint working relationships. The results can lead to contention without a true cultural shift, established expectations, and alignment of combined services provided. A perspective that social workers possess is a focus on identifying underlying causes and contributing factors to provide beneficial resources and services to help students and families through crisis situations. The criminal justice system is typically not a factor considered on the benefit matrix of most social workers; however, it is a traditional preference used by law enforcement officers when dealing with criminal offenses. A critical cog in the wheel of success is any improper alignment or integration of expectations and outcomes between social workers and police. The arrangement is an important factor that must be achieved and maintained during the cultural shift and implementation of the Four Pillars. True collaboration between school police and social workers is non-negotiable. It is needed to effectively integrate the two groups in direction, practice, and purpose. Furthermore, it elevates the knowledge of both groups to a level where both develop the realization and true respect for the value of the services provided. The collaboration makes it easier to grasp the importance of the partnership as both transition toward a true and unwavering commitment to what is in the best interest of all students. If no true collaboration exists, no sustainable success will be achieved. The materialization of positive change and beneficial outcomes for students through a holistic approach to school safety will not occur. Police officers and social workers working collaboratively but independently can be an effective starting point, but strong consideration should be given to the missed potential from a failure to consolidate. The unified organizational structure helps to promote a unified practice and approach to school policing. It incorporates best practices designed to raise the standards of professionalism and service. Additionally, it creates an environment that promotes the sharing of knowledge in a manner that increases an openness to ideas while achieving the ultimate peer group collaboration between social workers and police. During certain tasks, police functions and social workers are similar. Social work can be viewed as a form of social policing which is only different from real policing in the sense that criminal offenses are not investigated and criminal laws are not enforced. Police officers respond to a variety of situations involving students in need or in crisis. Officers informally seek to determine the why but primarily seek the best solutions for resolving a crisis or meeting a need in the most effective manner. Recognizing the true value of each profession is vital in improving the relationship and collaborative efforts. The inter-agency benefit of police and social workers goes beyond the work done at the campus level. Students have access to services that allow them to receive direct care and treatment in ways that were previously unavailable. In addition to social workers, the behavioral health services department in the Round Rock ISD Police Department oversaw the five mental health clinics that were on high school campuses in the district. Because of the

120  Behavioral Health

sensitivity of the services provided, the selection process for officers and social workers must be highly scrutinized to ensure that only the best is selected. Additionally, there must be a willingness to see beyond their professional views and to seek common ground that aligns with a shared goal of serving students. One important collaborative piece when merging the two entities is the need to expand the understanding and lens of the social workers and police while aligning the overall objectives of the services provided. Although police officers are highly trained professionals in law enforcement, safety and criminal justice, social workers are highly trained in areas related to emotional distress and negative behaviors. The training of social workers allows them to detect hidden and underlying issues more accurately in students. Combining both areas of expertise under a unified department provides a holistic approach to school policing that results in more efficient and effective support toward student outcomes. It enhances the approach to meeting student needs by addressing the social, emotional, and behavioral issues of struggling students. Utilizing this service in schools and integrating it with police response is an excellent way to improve overall support for students. Many great services are provided within law enforcement agencies that school districts have yet to integrate within the organization to improve safety and security holistically. The approach that officers and social workers take to interact with individuals who commit criminal offenses is often based on different motivational factors. Social workers are effective at understanding “why” behaviors occur along with the underlying issues that caused a student to respond in a harmful manner. Police typically seek the facts that surround the behavior that proves unequivocally that the individual intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence committed an act that was criminal in nature. The tendency for law enforcement is to see actions and behavior through the lens of criminality while social workers tend to see actions through the lens of issues such as family dynamics, culture, and environment. When interviewing students suspected of committing a criminal offense, officers interview witnesses and suspects to find information that supports the elements of a criminal offense. In contrast, social workers seek to find out causes to determine the most appropriate course of intervention to help students and support families through the crisis, although the core assumption is that the approaches, if not aligned, can cause the efforts of the work to be pulled into opposite directions. It is important for social workers to recognize that issues often originate from their communities. Police officers see this impact frequently as they deal with individuals during some of the most difficult and critical times in their lives. Officers are required to make split second decisions based on the limited training they have around social services. They are expected to identify and address root causes of negative outcomes that impact a wide range of individuals beyond the student in crisis. If a crime has been committed, officers will have the nexus needed to get involved and take action that often leads to incarceration or negative police interaction. When bringing the subject matter expertise of both police officers and social workers together, all elements of the actions and behaviors can be considered. In instances where social workers are better equipped to detect underlying issues that cause a student to experience emotional distress or negative behavior, they can communicate the indicators to law enforcement so that there is a transfer of knowledge and alignment in the processes to appropriately respond to the students’ needs. Law enforcement agencies work together well with support services that align underneath the law enforcement umbrella. Incorporating social workers in a school policing

Behavioral Health  121

agency increases interaction opportunities which builds credibility and mutual respect. Law enforcement agencies have experienced situations where officers held a disregard for the services provided by social workers and would prefer to handle situations from a police perspective without calling “outside” assistance. Within the law enforcement profession, officers have a tendency to be territorial and may consider police on the scene of a crime as the ultimate decision-making authority. When social workers are not part of the law enforcement organization and are called to a scene, they may come in with limited knowledge of the law enforcement culture. There are instances where limited information is provided by police that could otherwise help to reach a non-criminal justice resolution. Challenges that have impacted students are the use of the criminal justice system and the courts by police as a primary solution to address negative student conduct and actions. Social workers tend to view criminal prosecution as a less effective solution to helping students by addressing the underlying issues that cause the behavior. In situations when recommended resolutions conflict between social workers and police, officers may be more inclined to “take control” of a situation from a criminal justice lens. The approach can create tension that erodes relationships and partnerships between the two. Incidents often occur where officers and social workers respond to critical incidents and the actions of social workers are being measured and assessed by officers or vice versa. Conflict may emerge if one party considers the actions of the other to be either too harsh or too lenient. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model recognizes that the key is to develop a mutual understanding between police and social workers. Alignment with the true objectives of the model allows both groups to collaboratively determine the best course of action for the long-term benefit of the student in crisis. It is important for leaders to create a supported working relationship that blurs the lines of separation between police and social workers. Both groups recognize that although there are two groups, there is one team and success is dependent on the effective alignment and the combined use of their individual expertise. An apprehension to the alignment is that a partnership between police and social workers may erode a social worker’s perspective and cause the position to be leveraged in a manner that criminalizes their work. The concern is that a social worker’s relationship with students would provide an avenue for sensitive information to be received and shared with law enforcement to build cases for prosecution. Using social workers to assist police officers in gathering information or evidence that can be used against students is a forbidden practice because it clouds the credibility. The collective efforts should never be leveraged to contribute to the criminalization of students in crisis. The approach is not permissible under the model. Social workers are strong advocates for students and should not be used as agents of the police to further investigations. Such actions undermine the credibility of the role of a social worker in a way that would impede their success in helping students in a manner that would set them up for long-term success. The involvement of social workers is to work with police officers in a manner that benefits students by identifying non-criminal justice resources to help students in crisis. If a student commits a major crime, social workers are not used to intervene in a criminal investigation. However, they provide services, ongoing support, and wrap-around services to the families that align with but do not interfere with a criminal investigation. The benefits provided ensure that all affected by the incident are provided support services. An additional benefit in building cohesiveness is to house social workers and school district police in the same facility. The alignment provides opportunities for both to coalesce

122  Behavioral Health

and share in the growth and development of their practices. Housing social workers inside a school district police department makes officers more comfortable with the partnership to provide the most effective level of service to the students in need. A shift in mindset develops that helps to better understand that the efficiency of service is found when the collaborative efforts of the experts are integrated. School police respond to a variety of calls for service and after assessing the situation, it is determined that the services of a social worker and not police officers are needed. The initial assessment is valuable in a school environment because it provides an instant transition from a solution to a more effective one. Building strong partnerships between social workers and police also leads to a greater level of trust and confidence in the efforts by students, staff, and parents. It is important to ensure that families understand the work of social workers and that the objective is to help students and families. Many families believe that if a social worker visits a student or household, the visit will result in the removal of the child due to the students’ manifested behaviors and actions, rather than providing support to help keep them in the home. However, a number of parents and students view social workers as a more sympathetic group than police officers. Many parents and students would prefer to work with social workers over police, particularly since the fear of going to jail is greater than the fear of a child being referred for treatment. Social workers in a school environment face a wide range of situations in the performance of their duties. The job often requires them to leave campuses and conduct home visits. A common situation that social workers face during visits is a parent or guardians’ refusal to cooperate and becoming hostile in response to the home visit. The level of anxiety for citizens may rise when social workers or police officers visit their residence. It can dramatically increase anxiety and frustration to the point that the response creates an environment where social workers do not feel safe. In some instances, the visits are in unsafe neighborhoods where social workers are unable to safely travel alone. School police officers are a beneficial resource to assist with certain calls for service. Accompanying social workers to a residence or location provides an added layer of protection in a variety of situations. During violent incidents on a school campus, a social worker may be called to the scene. The effectiveness of the social workers may be greatly enhanced by the presence of school police officers. Effective alignment of social workers with police is accomplished by implementing effective practices into their day-to-day duties while ensuring student and school safety. The practices should be consistently designed to help students who struggle with social, emotional, and behavioral health issues. The transformative approach to school policing is designed to maximize the benefits that result from the collaboration between officers and social workers that results in an alignment of the multidisciplinary framework of the two roles. The partnership has to be much more than a call to social workers by police when a student issue exists and officers do not want to deal with it. Alternatively, it should not be in response to situations where social workers consider a student too noncompliant and there needs to be police intervention. The paradigm of collaboration must be transformative in a manner that enhances the quality of response from the organization. The alignment of police and social worker services can potentially come with unintended challenges depending on the individuals hired to serve in such roles. When working with students, police officers and social workers must be selected with great care. They must have the proper passion for the responsibilities and a mindset to work with students in a manner that achieves the most effective long-term outcomes. The integration of both professions is in no way an attempt to diminish the effectiveness of the professionals or their work. It is

Behavioral Health  123

an opportunity for the combination of skillsets to align in a manner that benefits the students from a holistic level. Working in the same department, police do not have to be social workers and social workers do not have to serve as police officers. Both provide services to students and to each other in the advancement of school safety and policing. The police officer perspective in certain situations assumes the role of social workers. Police officers are familiar with removing the law enforcement lens and can work to overcome critical situations through the application of empathy, sympathy, and compassion. However, the value of the efforts can be minimized if the approach is a forceful and aggressive response to intervention. Although police officers do not possess the level of expertise as social workers, some states such as Texas have mental health officer training that helps officers identify issues related to mental health crises. When police officers and social workers work alongside each other, the transition of an event from police officer duties to social workers can be seamless. The overarching objective is to identify and use appropriate resources designed to resolve a situation in the most appropriate manner. The level of accountability that exists for social workers and policing working collaboratively is high and both ensure that objectives are met. Officers may be able to recognize issues that can impede success for social workers and social workers may be able to recognize the issues that impede the success in the approach used by officers. Both groups of professionals can discuss existing challenges and work to identify effective solutions. Both groups can share suggestions on the effective approaches to student crisis resolution or safety issues that the other party might be unfamiliar with. The success of the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model depends heavily on the support and resources provided by the school district to the endeavor. Limited support yields limited outcomes. It can lead to officers and social workers feeling undervalued and overwhelmed due to the lack of support. In an educational setting, there is a heavy emphasis on academic outcomes. To achieve target goals, resource priorities are educational service focused. To those outside of the traditional educational system, support provided to innovative school safety and security solutions is unimpressive and limits successful school safety outcomes. Both entities must work and train together to better develop a high level of seamless service provided. It should include increasing the comprehension of the area expertise and a greater understanding of the overall police and social work profession. Additionally, training should increase the confidence in the subject matter areas of expertise and enable both groups to function effectively in a multidisciplinary, multi-professional work environment. Historically, police officers have received little mental health training. However, over the past decade, a greater emphasis has been placed on providing mental health training for police that includes state licensing credentials as mental health officers. Although the training is valuable, it does not make the officers experts in mental health response. The evidence exists in the approach that several school police departments have taken when handling students who suffer from social, emotional, or behavioral health issues. Actions in schools around the United States have resulted in high-profile media coverage and public outrage when situations result in use of force situations that are considered inappropriate. Apprehension exists when police officers are used to take a primary role in response to situations related to students in a mental health crisis. Officers who are not appropriately trained to respond and recognize mental health crises might misinterpret the actions and behaviors as violent or aggressive and view an elevated use of force response as justified. Erasing the historical position that mental health response is not a true function of the

124  Behavioral Health

police role can improve the assimilation of social workers and other professional resources into a police department that will make it a truly transformative approach to policing and school safety. Incorporating social workers in a school district police department is a relatively new practice in the United States. The value of social workers working with police departments around the country has been successful. The complication that communities have experienced is identifying the best approach to ensure that the valuable resources of social workers and police officers maintain sufficient funding and support needed to remain effective. The need for both solutions exists to ensure that the most appropriate services are provided to meet community and student needs. This is not to say that police alone do not provide an effective level of support in situations involving individuals with mental health concerns. Police are often called to intervene and transport individuals who are experiencing a mental health crisis and need treatment. In situations where an individual might be violent and an involuntary commitment for treatment is needed, law enforcement might be the best option for providing the support needed. However, even in such situations, collaboration between social workers and police throughout the entire process should occur. Several states allow licensed master social worker (LMSW) or licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) social workers to provide support as a mobile outreach team for a school district. They coordinate the intake reservation process with a treatment facility. Increasingly, law enforcement and families are experiencing a shortage of available beds at mental health treatment facilities. Once a location with availability is found, police departments with social workers can connect students with services and support throughout the duration of the process. After a student is transported, social workers from the school district police department can remain with a student, support, and help a student remain calm during the intake process. The approach is more efficient and effective than past practices where officers were required to sit at intake facilities with students until the facility accepted them for treatment. In certain instances, the intake process could take an extended period which could escalate a sense of frustration and irritability by a student. Social workers have the subject matter expertise to work with students in a manner that can help deescalate, redirect, and calm them through the process. In the absence of social workers during a situation requiring behavioral health support, concerns may develop over how effective police can be compared to social workers when handling social, emotional, and behavioral health-related incidents. A current trend in law enforcement is a move toward mental health officer training. Determining the appropriate response to manifestations of various behavioral health challenges can leave officers illprepared to respond effectively. An inability to determine the best approach to address certain manifestations can put all parties involved in potential harm. Intentionality is important when making sure that officers do not transition to a mindset where they develop discriminatory attitudes and behaviors toward students who tend to reoffend, especially when there are underlying issues that contribute to the behavior. Doing so could limit the attention and deliberation of assistance they provide to those in custody or in need of noncriminal justice intervention. Uncertainty exists regarding the impact that individualistic ideals and values of officers and social workers may have on the decision-making during student interactions. Certain preconceived ideas can be adopted by co-workers when behaviors are demonstrated and viewed as acceptable. This is especially true during police field training programs. Permissible practices become tolerable actions and can produce positive or negative mindset

Behavioral Health  125

development. An important objective of school-based law enforcement in addition to meeting the needs of a student in crisis is to provide the services needed without the infusion of irrelevant individualistic ideals and biases. Police and social worker intervention must remain student-focused and centered on what options produce the best outcomes for the student both short and long term. The emphasis on attempting to meet the needs of an individual student can often create disagreements on the approach. Social workers can be helpful in identifying underlying issues that might exist to ensure the appropriate alignment of services. The policies, procedures, and campus culture created by district or campus administration can impact the efforts of a team in a manner that makes the actions taken less effective. Campus administrators seek the best academic outcomes for the overall student body, yet unspoken policies and practices are not always consistent with what is in the best interest of a school environment. Campus administrators must resist the urge to conceal issues that threaten the safety of a school environment by presenting the false image of a peaceful and safe environment. Such antiquated behavior is dangerous to students and to the entire campus environment. Parents respond with tremendous outrage whenever a school district forgoes safety for false imagery and a “nothing to see here” approach. On January 6, 2023, a 6-year old at a Richneck Elementary School student in Newport, Virginia, took a handgun to school and shot his teacher in the face (3). Parents were outraged at the administration’s reluctance to address previous safety concerns that were brought to their attention. Parents contend that the school put attendance and academics above school safety. In response, school officials implemented additional safety measures to include adding a full-time security guard and metal detectors. Continued assessments, training, and modifications should be made at the district level to ensure that barriers to beneficial student outcomes are not in place to hinder the services provided by police and social workers. Although rules, policies, and procedures are important, evaluations of the practices should be performed to ensure no unobstructed alignment of the partnerships. Human nature permits individuals to develop personal assessments and judgments of others based on various factors. The accumulation of factors causes individuals to conceptualize others in a manner that may form false opinions, interpretations, and responses. Regarding cultural alignments, facts such as perceived identities, behavior, attire, language, and moral characteristics are important determinants in how others perceive different cultures and their reactions to them. The accuracy of assessments may vary but it is a common practice that develops concepts and misconceptions. A level of discretionary decision-making is needed to allow subject matter experts to work in a manner that produces the best outcomes for a student in crisis. The collective trauma from school shootings and the emotional, mental, and physical impact is devastating. Media reports of school violence incidents highlight the need to address psychological or mental health issues. In response, an increase in mental health services is promoted in schools as an effort to mitigate future violent acts. Bullying is a concern that has existed in schools since the beginning of formal education. Sensible strategies that effectively address bullying can lead to a more positive school climate. Employing additional social workers and mental health experts to serve in schools is a good step toward preventing aggression and addressing social, emotional, behavioral, and mental health-related challenges. Experts in the field of mental health can be valuable resources in identifying at-risk students and helping to provide customized interventions

126  Behavioral Health

that reduce the likelihood of negative outcomes. A point of debate exists regarding the possibility of former students or unknown individuals unaffiliated with the school environment engaging in acts of bullying against school-aged students. Those who have committed school shootings could possibly have benefited from counseling and instruction at the onset, specifically in areas that improve school environment, foster social competencies in response to inadequate coping, and problem-solving abilities when faced with high stress or problematic situations. Past shootings provide opportunities to conduct post-analysis of the events. Predictors of future acts may not be identified but studying the events may be helpful in identifying school climate, the impact that acts and situations have on students that could lead them to a breaking point, and how robust mitigation strategies can reduce violent or aggressive responses. Suicide must unequivocally be considered a safety and security concern. It impacts the individual who commits the act and those who witness or are connected to the life lost. The earliest school-related suicide in the United States happened in April 1887 (4). A student at Potsdam Normal School in Watertown, New York, committed suicide with a firearm. Similar incidents continue to occur in society today and school districts must ensure that solutions are in place to intervene and help students with the support needed. Retaliatory situations are another reason why school shootings occur. These situations occur at the hands of the individual offended or by another individual in defense of the person offended. Retaliatory incidents are not a new phenomenon. In June 1887, a student in Cleveland, Tennessee, went to the school and shot the teacher of his younger sister Fann. The teacher was killed for spanking the shooter’s younger sister the previous day. The number of students experiencing crises in schools has seen an increase in the United States. Severe learning disabilities, poor social environments, depression, neglect, anxiety, substance abuse, malnutrition, and homelessness are challenges that many students experience. The struggles and disadvantages often manifest in behavior and actions at school. The challenges faced can be exacerbated by harassment and mistreatment by their peers, negative police interaction, or the inability to achieve academic expectations. Effective interventions are needed to help mitigate and stabilize the various areas of distress. A variety of training solutions are available to help officers identify and provide effective initial crisis response. This can include mental health first aid training, mental health officer training, psychological first aid training, and training designed to help students. It is important to identify other services that might be effective in helping students overcome past and present traumatic experiences. Training like psychological first aid was first published in 1954 by the American Psychiatric Association (5). It is helpful to developing officers to better understand the trauma and impact that students and individuals feel when they experience various disaster situations. Even unintended stress caused during active shooter drills can create new or trigger negative past experiences. The impact can cause long-term effects with the severity being extremely traumatic. Officers and campus staff must ensure that adequate training is available. There needs to be a recognition of common patterns of reaction to the experienced emotional stress placed on students during drills. Additionally, officers can ensure that they know the most effective coping principles designed to help students that suffer from social, emotional, behavioral, mental, and even physical situations that could result in crisis during the planned drills. Historically, little emphasis and consideration was placed on active shooter drills regarding the acute psychological distress that students might feel with training scenarios that were

Behavioral Health  127

performed realistically. Certain schools have used actual simunition rounds during exercises and have shot staff during the drills to create a more realistic experience. The outcome resulted in psychological trauma for students, staff, and even parents. In postmodern policing strategies, there must be a strong emphasis placed on the emotional impact that active shooter and scenario-based training situations can cause for those experiencing the drill. Although the training can prove to be valuable for officers, the weight it places on the psychological, emotional, and mental health of students and staff is not a fair exchange. More effective training solutions are available such as tabletop exercises or video training provided by Crisis Response Leader Training (CTRL) (6). Alternative training options can help to analyze situations and develop effective response strategies that can mitigate the loss of life while reducing the traumatic load that students and staff must carry during the active shooter drills. During the heightened era of active shooter response preparation, school districts allowed law enforcement officers and SWAT teams to participate in their active shooter drills. Officers, armed with training weapons and simunition rounds, fired blanks in the hallways to replicate the sound of gunfire. In 2019, active shooter training in Pennsylvania and Indiana schools resulted in teachers being shot execution-style with plastic projectile training rounds during the training event (7). Several were bruised and injured during the incident and felt more traumatized than trained. The method is troubling and the effectiveness of the practice is questionable. Concerning incidents happened at schools after students called parents during an active shooter drill on campus because of the inability to distinguish between a real event or a drill. Parents responded to campuses to protect their children, unaware that the events were planned simulated active shooter drills. A school district in Texas coordinated with local law enforcement agencies to conduct a surprise active shooter response drill. Officers entered campuses, dressed in tactical gear, and left a principal traumatized and in tears out of fear. The traumatic impact on the mental and emotional health of students can be devastating in situations when drills are not conducted in a manner designed to teach instead of traumatizing. Schools in several districts moved to provide counselors to conduct post drill assessments and sessions with students to ensure their well-being due to the traumatic experience of the active shooter training event. What makes active shooter training scenarios so concerning is that the experience exposes students and staff to simulated events like what that they may encounter during a true crisis event. It is important that they understand the expectations and responses; however, the impact of poor training practices can lead to harm beyond the intended consequences. For example, law enforcement officers conduct weapons training and use a selection of firearms for a variety of situations. Additionally, part of their issued equipment items is a bulletproof vest. However, officers are not shot with the weapons they used to test the impact of a round and are not required to wear a bulletproof vest while being shot in training to test the resiliency of the equipment. Instead, officers are trained on the mechanics, capabilities, and uses of specific firearms and taught to understand the benefits of the bulletproof vest. The purpose is designed to teach for the specific purpose to train and not to teach for the purpose of testing. The law enforcement profession is test based and testing proficiency is a regular practice. It is also the most common practice for proficiency examination in a school setting. Proficiency assessments are important but may not be the most appropriate application of

128  Behavioral Health

the training and learning of active shooter response drills. When dealing with intellectuals, it is often difficult to learn and function under those types of training practice. Including licensed mental health clinicians and social workers in the development of active shooter training development is a practice of the postmodern policing model that is transformative and truly effective in providing the best solutions for a school learning environment. School districts must be prepared for a variety of scenarios regarding school safety. Planning, training, and drills extend beyond active shooter events. Regardless of the situation, school districts must ensure that mental health experts and social workers are included in the emergency operation preparations. Natural disaster situations that result in the loss of life, loss of property, and displacement can be traumatic for students and staff and families. The psychological trauma can last and manifest unexpectedly for years to come. The effects of trauma from events such as Hurricane Katrina that devastated the United States Gulf Coast in 2005 is one such event that many still feel. Families were displaced and have never returned to their communities. It demonstrated the importance and value of having mental health resources available to help individuals through crisis. The same rule applies with critical incidents that impact students. School districts have established procedures for counselors to be available for student support and staff in crisis situations. Those in the mental health profession have a high level of experience interfacing with the public and understand how to properly implement interventions that result in healing. However, the approach can be uniquely different in a school setting and may require an additional level of knowledge and training to provide the most effective intervention and support. It further highlights the importance of having internal solutions and building surge capacity that is sustainable in providing care and stabilization rather than importing mental health professionals when a crisis occurs. Mental health and psychological first aid training can be an effective part of the training provided to officers to ensure that they understand the mental and psychological factors that contribute to actions and behaviors in response to crisis situations. It can also help officers provide effective first aid to help those in need cope with stressful and traumatic situations experienced in life. The objective in preparing officers with the training in mental health and psychological first aid is to provide compassionate and supportive assistance to help individuals through the mitigation of acute distress and to address the need for additional support or continued mental health care or treatment. The training is not designed to diagnose or to treat but to assess and assist in identifying needs and meeting the needs of those served. The processes of diagnoses and treatment are reserved for another point on the continuum of care. Mental health intervention by officers is part of a continuum and should not be misinterpreted as a method of counseling or psychotherapy. It is first aid in a similar manner that officers would provide in a situation involving physical injury. Officers are trained to recognize the injury, provide appropriate first aid, and make the referral to the appropriate subject matter expert with a higher degree of intervention training to provide the most effective resources needed. Officer intervention is typically the first point on the mental and psychological care continuum on a spectrum of comprehensive care. Citations 1. Lane, R. (2019). “I’m a police officer not a social worker or mental health nurse”: Online discourses of exclusion and resistance regarding mental health-related police work. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 429–442. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2410

Behavioral Health  129 2. Dyer, O. (1994). Ritual abuse dismissed as mythical in Britain. British Medical Journal, 308(6943), 1527–1528. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6943.1527a 3. How Richneck Elementary failed to stop a 6-year-old from shooting his teacher. (2023, February 10). Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/02/10/richneck-elementaryschool-shooting-timeline-warnings/ 4. https://www.k12academics.com/school-shootings/history-school-shootings-united-states 5. American Psychological Association. Medicine: Psychological First Aid. (1954). Time (Chicago, Ill.), 64(12), 91–. 6. Trent, I. (n.d.). Crisis response leader training—Indiana’s software simulation and consulting company. Retrieved March 17, 2023, from https://crisisresponse.tech 7. Blad, E., & Will, M. (2019, March 24). “I felt more traumatized than trained”: Active-shooter drills take toll on teachers. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/i-felt-moretraumatized-than-trained-active-shooter-drills-take-toll-on-teachers/2019/03

Chapter 13

Student Advocacy

Student Advocacy Student advocacy is the fourth pillar of the model. School staff and police play a critical role in student advocacy but the most important student advocates are parents, guardians, and family members. Contextually, students spend more time with family than spent at school. School staff may know things about students but generally the knowledge is a small fraction of the true knowledge and understanding than that of family members of students. In instances where students engage in negative behavior, parents, guardians, or family members provide explanations and mitigation factors that provide a holistic view of the student and issues that may have contributed to the behavior. There was a time in the United States when contacting parents or guardians to address student concerns and behavior was the preferred method of corrective action. If a student was involved in a fight at school, parents, guardians, or family members were connected and responded to the student’s behavior in a manner that they considered appropriate and corrective. Today, the trend is that schools take disciplinary action, irrespective of what actions parents or guardians take to remedy the behavior. Additionally, situations occur where the communication with parents or guardians is delayed with parents contacted only after the incident has been investigated by school staff. Effective student advocacy requires the immediate involvement of parents or guardians so that they are made aware of the situation involving their student. It also allows the student to have an advocate who can be provided with facts and circumstances surrounding the incident and work toward a successful resolution. A common misconception by police and educators is that the removal of problematic students from the school environment is an effective way to restore peace and maintain a safe positive learning environment. Schools have a duty to utilize effective solutions to maintain a safe and secure learning environment but it must be done in a manner that is the most beneficial to all parties involved. Removing a student and placing them in detention is helpful to a segment of the environment but may not be a sufficient response to resolve the underlying issues that caused the removal. The problem can be compounded if law enforcement is called to act or participate in the removal if there is no criminal nexus to the behavior. Although there is little controversy about the need to remove a disruptive student from a classroom, disagreements exist over the methods used to attain a peaceful environment, particularly if police are included in the solution. Officers must recognize that some students have little control over manifested behaviors. As a result, officers must serve all with empathy, sympathy, and compassion. Negative

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-13

Student Advocacy  131

student behavior can progressively worsen unless underlying issues are identified and properly addressed. Officers must know their limitations and recognize available resources beyond the officer’s ability to meet student needs. Without intervention, increased negative juvenile behavior leads to the criminal justice system is highly likely. The emphasis on discipline in public schools has been a focal point for decades. A segment of society considers the disciplinary practices to be ineffective and suggest that more severe actions such as a zero-tolerance approach should be taken to address student behavior. For example, Catholic schools have a rich history of discipline that formerly included nuns cracking the knuckles of disrespectful or disruptive students with a ruler as a disciplinary measure. Schools in many areas of the country previously allowed parents to authorize corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure for students that included paddling. Other forms of discipline included detention, in-school suspension, expulsion, Saturday school, and disciplinary alternative education programs (DAEP). Corporal punishment was a common action even up to the early 2000s or later in some states. The infractions that resulted in spankings could have been as simple as repeated tardiness, disruptive behavior, and fighting. Some states such as California prohibited spanking and corporal punishment in 1987. A zero-tolerance approach does not reduce the likelihood of disruption, rather it increases the rate at which students are suspended, disciplined, and arrested. Furthermore, there is a correlation between suspensions, expulsions, and the increased likelihood of student dropouts or delayed graduations due to the academic impact of the suspension. The concern is that the practice increases school dropout rates more than it increases school safety. Questions arise that lead schools or law enforcement to delay contacting parents. It can include the concern that parental intervention would prevent the gathering of information from the students involved which could hinder the school from determining the most appropriate resolution. In situations where students are involved in fights, schools often punish both students even in instances of self-defense. A zero-tolerance approach in situations such as fighting often re-victimizes a victim and emboldens a bully. It places the victim in a difficult position of continuing to be subjected to verbal or physical abuse. In circumstances where the victim is actively defending themselves from brutal physical abuse, they are regularly equally punished by the school. The explanation given to victims is that if they had not fought back, then they would not have been punished. Responses like this cause parents and guardians to advocate for the victim when administrative rules are not equitable. Victim of unprovoked assaults has the legal right of self-defense without punishment in states around the country, except in a school environment. School administrators should consider shifting the mindset from zero tolerance to evaluating all the facts and resolving each situation based on the circumstances surrounding the event. It is the same process that the courts follow to ensure fairness and not further victimization of an individual. Two important questions to consider are whether zero-tolerance policies create safer learning environments in schools? Does it increase the efficiency to handle student disciplinary issues? A perceived benefit of zero-tolerance policing in schools is that removing students who engage in disruptive behavior or violate school policies restores peace to the educational environment. The assumption is that the classroom becomes more conducive to effective learning for students on campus who desire a peaceful and distraction-free educational environment. The effectiveness of the practice is one of contention. The opposite effect may be the result of school districts with zero-tolerance practices yielding higher rates of student suspensions and expulsions and less satisfactory school climate ratings. Student actions and

132  Student Advocacy

behaviors may be highly scrutinized with those from marginalized groups being disciplined at a higher rate. Additionally, it requires campus staff to focus a disproportionate amount of their time handling disciplinary issues. Perhaps more importantly, research suggests that negative relationships develop from the utilization of suspensions and expulsion practices which can have a dramatic influence on student growth and overall student academic achievement, despite controlling for demographics. Although findings do not demonstrate causality, the argument that zero-tolerance policies increase positive school climates becomes more difficult, particularly when it is associated with negative achievement outcomes. Introducing students to the juvenile justice system at a young age can have lasting negative impacts on future encounters with the system. The phenomenon is concerning since evidence suggests that marginalized students tend to be policed and disciplined differently than other student groups. Marginalized students are more likely to experience incidents of negative police interactions, stricter security and surveillance measures, and stricter discipline policies. Moreover, students who are arrested during their tenure in school are less likely to graduate and are less likely to receive critical services such as behavioral health or restorative practices services as diversionary options. Schools strive to make campuses safe. If students and staff feel unsafe, then there is no ability to teach and learn effectively. In response to active shooter events around the United States, school districts contracted with law enforcement agencies to provide police services for campuses. However, the school disciplinary landscape changed in districts with the addition of contracted school resource officers. Police were included in the disciplinary process to enforce non-criminal, zero-tolerance policies which resulted in an increase in citations issued, negative police interactions, and student arrests. The increased calls for police reform and defunding campaigns in communities around the country include school policing. The outcry materialized after years of negative police interactions with students that often ended in high numbers of arrests of marginalized student groups. Although major offenses require mandatory disciplinary actions, there are innumerable minor offenses that may trigger the same response. The cultural differences and disproportionate impact of certain offenses must be considered. Regarding discretionary disciplinary placement, minorities often represent the highest percentage of students in disciplinary alternative education programs. For example, fighting is a discretionary placement option that is considered mandatory in many school districts. Students involved are removed for fear that the student might reoffend and the subsequent event is dramatically worse. The typical practice is to remove involved parties from the campus and place them in a disciplinary alternative education program. For some juveniles, fighting is a problem-solving strategy. Non-fighters typically embrace other options that they are more accustomed to which may include speaking to a person in authority about the problem in hopes for intervention. Some students consider individuals who seek adult intervention as a “snitch” which may exacerbate the problems they face. Additionally, they may choose to walk away from aggressive encounters where fighters may not consider either to be a viable option. Parental perspectives on fighting can vary which can contribute to the conflicting responses seen in juvenile fights at schools. School districts around the country generally take a zero-tolerance approach when it comes to students engaging in fighting. The approach has the potential to add to the disproportionality of marginalized students with discretionary student placement in a disciplinary alternative education program. In most cases, both parties are placed in DAEP for fighting,

Student Advocacy  133

regardless of the reason. Mutual combat is different from an unprovoked assault. A concern with the discretionary placement decision to punish both students is that a victim is often revictimized for defending themselves in response to an unprovoked assault. Schools consider the response necessary as a deterrent to future fights. Proper intervention can help students with conflict resolution while promoting self-efficacy through alternative solutions. Providing opportunities to include parents in the intervention practices can help to provide solutions designed to change attitudes about fighting. Critics of the practice point out racial disparities in suspensions and expulsions and an uneven distribution of disciplinary actions across different student sub-groups. For example, Black students are subjected to exclusionary discipline at higher rates than other student groups and suspensions and expulsions occur at higher rates for discretionary placement offenses and less serious offenses. Effective student advocacy practices are key to ensuring that the best opportunities for success are achieved. Recognizing alternatives that can mitigate acute distress for students through empathetic, sympathetic, and compassionate outcomes through student advocacy can lead to beneficial pathways that were historically off limits to many students. The Student Advocacy Pillar requires officers and school staff to actively build trust and rapport with students to ensure the increase in understanding of who students are and what they face that might otherwise be internalized. Every student is different and responds differently to adverse situations and stress. Each has a unique set of needs and experiences that with a better understanding can provide opportunities for successful intervention in times of need. Officers and staff can gain a greater level of understanding student needs and challenges through listening. It is a vital component of effective communication that is often taken for granted. Listening to understand rather than listening to speak allows those who are in distress to express specific concerns and specific needs. The information shared by students is an efficient way to determine the best strategies for providing the most effective help and resources. Listening requires patience and understanding. It is predicated on building a rapport with students. Student advocacy also provides officers and staff with an opportunity to observe a student’s behavior and response to stress contributors during a critical incident. Student advocacy is the art of determining what is needed and what can be done to meet the need. As public servants and peace officers, listening and observing produces a continuation of advocacy. By recognizing who needs assistance and the level of urgency that requires continued care, students can be provided beneficial non-criminal justice intervention solutions. Student advocacy allows officers and staff to determine appropriate services, assistance, or resources needed to mitigate or stabilize existing problems and stress. Recognizing the most appropriate response and implementation solutions can be truly beneficial to helping students properly cope and recalibrate in a manner that increases future success. Student advocacy allows officers and school staff to provide ongoing support solutions and followup to determine how students are doing and the benefits of services provided. Students may be reluctant to share concerns or problems with adults, particularly police officers on a school campus. However, when relationships have been established and the most important component of communication, which is listening, is applied, the full benefit of student advocacy is achieved. Law enforcement and school staff will recognize the success that comes from their effect of stabilizing those in need of care and assistance. Student advocacy allows students to learn from their mistakes without being penalized for the rest of their lives through a criminal record. In addition, the advocacy privilege provides an opportunity to ensure that continuity of care is initiated and continued from the earliest point

134  Student Advocacy

on the continuum. The outcome is a student who has successfully survived adversity with the care and assistance of law enforcement and school staff. Countless incidents involving school police and administrative intervention in schools have occurred that negatively impacted students and families. As a result, laws have been enacted to mitigate the challenges that are created that disproportionately affect students. The overwhelming number of minor offenses and incidents that resulted in police response reached a level to where Texas passed laws to mitigate the encounters. In 2012, a student at Fulmore Middle School in Austin, Texas, received a citation for wearing too much perfume (1). The student was admittedly taunted and bullied since 2nd grade. During class, other students made fun of her and stated that she had body odor. To prevent the bullying about her smell, the student sprayed perfume on which resulted in several students reporting the perfume smell to the teacher. In response, the teacher contacted the campus police officer and reported that the student was disrupting class by using too much perfume. The student was removed from the class and left with the police officer who wrote the student a citation for the offense. The act further traumatized the student after she was subjected to criminal action for an incident that could be more appropriately handled by school discipline. An additional concern is that the student received no advocacy outreach but was further traumatized by the teacher and the police officer. The response further emboldened bullies and resulted in a decline of the students’ confidence and self-worth. A zero-tolerance approach to this incident demonstrates the unintended and unconsidered consequences that result from the criminalization of minor offenses when those same offenses would not be a concern if committed by an adult. Although some argue that a citation is not a powerful example of the overcriminalization of student actions. To the contrary it is. Writing a citation to a student for a minor offense that could be handled without police intervention puts the student in a situation where there is an unnecessary negative encounter with police. The situation generally follows a process from an officer writing a citation, the student providing it to their parents, and the penalization of a minor offense transferring to the family who will have to either pay the fine or appear in court to challenge it. The response to often unnecessary police involvement and criminal justice actions can often create a hardship for families. It may trickle down in a manner that can cause disruption in a home due to frustration. In response to repeated instances of the overcriminalization of minor student behavior and acts, the State of Texas passed Senate Bill 393 and Senate Bill 1114 in 2013. Texas Senate Bill 393 addressed issues related to the criminal procedures allowed for issuing citations, sanctions, and the prosecution of students for certain minor offenses. Senate Bill 393 essentially prevented Texas school district police officers from writing citations to students for Class C misdemeanors, related to disrupting class or disrupting bus transportation (2). Officers may still charge students with those specific offenses, but it would require officers to sign a formal complaint and submit it to a judge. Senate Bill 1114 prohibits a law enforcement officer from issuing a citation to a student under the age of 12 for conduct occurring at school or on school transportation except for a traffic offense or public intoxication (3). Additionally, it prohibits the issuance of arrest warrants for students who violate the Texas Education Code. The overreaction to adolescent, immature, and juvenile behavior created countless situations where students were subjected to disciplinary action for behavior that historically would not have been viewed as concerning, alarming, or disruptive. An example of an incident of overreaction occurred in Mount Carmel, Pennsylvania (4). It led to the 10-day suspension of a 5-year-old girl after she told friends at a bus stop that

Student Advocacy  135

she was going to use her Hello Kitty bubble gun to shoot bubbles at them. The student added that she would shoot herself with bubbles when she got home. The initial 10-day suspension was in response to the 5-year-old student making a “terroristic threat.” Furthermore, the student was ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation by the school. The student was evaluated by a campus counselor who considered the kindergartner to be a typical 5-year old. The suspension was later reduced to 2 days and reclassified as a “threat to harm others.” The mother of the student was a former police officer who advocated for her daughter and sought a full expungement of the incident from the students’ records. Additionally, the mother sought policy changes at the district and state levels to prevent similar actions from triggering a police response. The mother stated that by treating kids like “mini-adults” effectively robs their innocent imaginations. The long-term implications of the negative police interactions can dramatically change the perspective that students, families, and communities have regarding the true safety of students. The overreactions in response to juvenile behavior should be weighed in a manner that does not lead to a disciplinary response that provide no deterrence but increases frustration due to inappropriate handling of childish acts. Many communities around the United States believe that adding police officers to schools is unnecessary. It can lead to the development of negative attitudes toward police. Negative evaluations of the true value of police in schools are the result in part of negative interactions. The source of negative student attitudes and negative police attitudes can be attributed to the implementation of a variety of policing strategies, including an unapproachable demeanor or zero-tolerance policing strategies. The preconceived beliefs that students have of police can dramatically affect interactions with officers. The negative perception due to negative interactions may lead students to be less likely to report negative experiences or concerns about officers. A fear of retaliation and intimidation are contributors for the reluctance. Additionally, students tend to be less willing to report crimes or victimization when previous encounters or observations of police actions were negative. Unfavorable views of police are generally more prevalent among students living in urban areas, students from high crime communities, and students who experienced victimization of crime. In a school setting, many students enter the campuses with preconceived ideas about police. The response to police intervention might be different than students that have a positive view of police. Critics of police in schools argue that the presence facilitates the behaviors and attitudes of aggressive officers on the streets in a manner that negatively impacts the school environment. It can make students constantly feel like suspects. Many consider the ideology to be accurate and believe that the way police treat people on the streets in front of students will dictate how students respond to police in schools. The reinforced assumption indicates that students who feel committed to school and attached to teachers tend to believe that they can trust the police. In addition, they typically had more value and care for the police in their neighborhoods. The students were more likely to believe that police treated people fairly. The solution should exist in deliberate strategies designed to improve impressions and interactions between students and school-based law enforcement. Additionally, the solutions should include strategies that create a sense of mutual trust and encouragement. None of the distrust that mirrors the negative impression should exist outside the school between some law enforcement officers and their communities. The role of school-based law enforcement officers on students and the educational system requires more study and systems implemented to determine the actual impact.

136  Student Advocacy

The Student Advocacy Pillar requires every officer to advocate on behalf of students. Instead of relying on the criminal justice system to address negative behavior, police should collaborate with the juvenile justice system and the district attorney’s offices to establish alternative solutions and resources. The partnerships allow officers and schools to help students during challenging situations without the result of arrest for minor incidents. For example, minor drug offenses or drug possession cases may not require arrest but alternatively, officers can identify the most effective resource to help the student overcome the addictions and challenges that they face. Police officers increase effectiveness of response when trained to recognize that students engaging in drug use are exhibiting the manifestation of underlying issues that caused them to turn to drug use. For example, it could be a self-medication response or social issues in the home that cause them to turn to drugs to escape the challenges. Arrest is not always the solution. Arresting students removes them from the school environment and may eliminate the disruption but it does not help the student in crisis. Student advocacy is foundational to creating an environment that improves school safety and student outcomes. The goal as officers is to not criminalize social, emotional, behavioral, mental, adolescent, immature, juvenile, or reckless behavior. Such actions could compound the situation that students experience and engage in because criminalization responses will impact them for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, it can increase the likelihood of reoffending and going from school into the criminal justice system. Criminalizing student behaviors negatively impacts struggling families, and the numbers are extremely high when it comes to marginalized student groups. The student advocacy approach is designed to ensure that officers and school administrators recognize the need to avoid criminalizing social, emotional, behavioral, mental, adolescent, immature, juvenile, or reckless behavior that students experience and engage in because criminalization responses will impact them for the rest of their lives. Instead of relying on the criminal justice system to address negative behavior, partnerships with the juvenile justice system and the district attorney’s offices should be established as alternative solutions to provide students accountability without arrest. Criminalizing juvenile behaviors has an extensive negative impact on struggling families. The numbers are extremely high when it comes to marginalized student groups. Furthermore, it can increase the likelihood of students reoffending and going from school into the criminal justice system. “You can catch the wolf that’s been killing your chickens and lock it up in a cage. That solves your problem, but it doesn’t help the wolf.” The point with that is obvious. Citations 1. McGreal, C. (2012, January 9). The US schools with their own police. The Guardian. https:// www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/09/texas-police-schools 2. Texas (2013). Senate Bill No. 393. Texas Legislature. 3. Texas (2013). Senate Bill No. 1114. Texas Legislature. 4. Item, R. D. D. (2013, January 18). 5-year-old kindergartner with pink bubble gun suspended from school. The Daily Item. https://www.dailyitem.com/news/5-year-old-kindergartner-withpink-bubble-gun-suspended-from-school/article_0fe3d622-784e-50dc-957b-e55ad7dab8a4.html

Chapter 14

Mindset Shift for Full Implementation

Mindset Shift for Full Implementation The implementation of the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing is an effective and holistic safety and security approach that is a blueprint for school safety and the redefining of school policing. The transformative and innovative solution is designed to build confidence through competence and to mitigate existing complexities that impede school safety. It is attainable for every school regardless of size. The model provides an avenue for schools to transition into the postmodern era of school safety in a manner that facilitates dramatic student success and long-term outcomes. An important but often most difficult step in the implementation of the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model is recognizing that a mindset shift from an outdated approach to school safety and policing to an innovative and effective postmodern solution is essential to long-term success. It requires a shift and commitment accompanied by deliberate action to succeed. The introduction of new knowledge and a shifting of mindset can lead to a productive change and recalibration that corrects school safety misconceptions. Although concepts and perspectives evolve, there must be a willingness to embrace new knowledge, transformational thoughts, and innovative ideas that yield beneficial results. The impetus for thought change and knowledge reconstruction is well within the control of the learner. The quest for knowledge includes perceiving the meaning, grasping the idea, and the quality of comprehension through the retention of information. The intentions of the learner and the proclivity to embrace the revelation of new facts can provide a strong indicator of mindset shift and conceptual change possibilities. A shift toward a holistic approach to school safety and policing can lead to outcomes that pay dividends over the course of a student’s lifetime. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model was first implemented in a Texas school district. Police officers hired to work in the school district had never been exposed to the innovative model that trained officers in a holistic and multilayered approach to safety, policing, and student wellbeing. An incident at a high school campus resulted in school police and campus staff being contacted regarding a drug-related incident. A female student was detained with a large duffle bag containing a variety of drugs in her possession. Officers knew the student from the previous school year and realized a dramatic change in the students’ behavior from the previous year. The once high-achieving, vibrant, and outgoing student converted into a depressed, withdrawn, and academically substandard student. Officers realized that underlying issues potentially contributed to the change and that the student required intervention to identify and address the need.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003224457-14

138  Mindset Shift for Full Implementation

Officers took possession of the contraband and collaborated with social workers and family to identify the underlying issues that led to the change in student behavior. During the investigation, it was revealed that the drugs did not belong to the student but to her boyfriend who asked her to keep the bag so if they were caught, he would not be in possession of the drugs. It was also discovered that the once lively student was struggling with difficult challenges at home. The students’ mother abandoned her and the student was forced to live with her grandmother. She was not allowed to live in the home and was forced to live in a travel trailer behind the house. Social workers learned that the student found it difficult to cope with the rejection by her mother and grandmother. The boyfriend gave the student attention and she was willing to do what he wanted because he gave her the attention that she craved. Prior to being trained in alignment with the Four Pillars model, officers who would have responded to the situation by arresting the student would have done so with a sense of accomplishment in “cleaning the hallways of drug dealers.” After the implementation of the model and embracing a mindset shift that focused on meeting students at their need, the officers gained a new perspective that highlighted the invaluable opportunities that exist in school policing to dramatically impact lives. Officers recognized that deploying a criminal justice solution in a manner that would have once been a primary approach was the least effective option for achieving positive resolution and long-term student success. An arrest would have added to the hardship the student faced and potentially lead to a greater withdrawal and decline in self-worth. Social workers and law enforcement worked collaboratively to identify effective resources, ongoing support opportunities, and wraparound services for the family that reinspired the student. The implementation of the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model resulted in the student recovering and refocusing in such a profound way that she was accepted to a top university in the country. The mindset shift and successful outcome inspired officers and social workers to embrace the model and continue to work collaboratively on a mission to improving school safety at multiple levels. Emotion can influence reasoning and response. Changing the way officers and school staff think will change the approach to reasoning and response. The two independent neural pathways of thought through which decision-making is executed are typically referred to as hot cognition and cold cognition. Hot cognition is often fueled by emotion and considers factors such as the thinking process of an individual and how it can influence one’s emotional state. It is seen in areas related to religion, politics, and social justice reform issues. Hot cognition can trigger emotion around issues such as morality. Cold cognition, however, relates to the independent cognition of information without the inclusion of an emotional component. Cold cognition typically involves analytical evaluations based primarily on logic. Hot cognition has the potential to change decision-making strategies and may vary based on positive or negative situational ideas. In a criminal justice context, hot cognition exists in police decision-making particularly in situations where anger, sadness, or outrage are induced from police. Situations and decisions made based on hot cognition can result in officers justifying a range of actions against suspects or individuals considered to most likely be guilty. The model helps to shift the mindset of those involved to a level of cognition that leads to inspire a higher level of thinking, consideration, and understanding. Police officers are servants of the public. The mindset shift approach draws officers to the understanding that all students are not suspects and all student actions are not suspicious. The shift from an “us against them” to an “us for them” mindset yields impactful results. In school policing, the need for a mindset shift is vital. It is difficult to be open-minded while refusing to consider

Mindset Shift for Full Implementation  139

alternate ideas and postulations. Abandoning old concepts and ideas can be a challenge but exposure to communities with challenging life experiences can prove valuable in the recalibration of assumptions. “Never let your ego exceed your intellect” is a statement that many field training officers attempt to instill in new officers. Ego, which is an emotion, has led officers to engage in actions or to take prideful policing postures that do not benefit students, the public, or the profession. The reality is that no person can change the behavior of another but the perceptions and preconceived notions that an individual possesses can be adjusted. Appropriate strategies can produce a positive mindset shift and dramatic conceptual change. Recognizing the conceptual change as a catalyst can improve community relationships, individual development, and organizational improvement. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing approach and training solutions are specifically designed to shift school staff and the school policing mindset and response to a more student-appropriate viewpoint. The purpose of the model and training is based on a holistic approach that can be applied broadly. Training for school staff, school-based law enforcement, and traditional law enforcement officers who interact with schools can benefit through specialized training specific to school safety and security. Regardless of whether a school district has onsite school-based law enforcement, schools are obligated to contact law enforcement when a crime occurs on campus. The question becomes what mindset does the responding officer possess and is it consistent with the mindset needed to positively interact with students to achieve the outcome of maximum potential? The model shifts the school and police mindset from the traditional criminal justice system option to the use of alternative resources and partnerships that provide the best impact in the long term. It promotes student advocacy and trains officers to recognize that the approach to problem resolution is not always to criminalize social, emotional, behavioral, mental, juvenile, or reckless behavior. Turning to the criminal justice system as a primary option for minor offenses could limit future growth potential for students. Furthermore, it can increase the likelihood of students reoffending and transitioning from school into the criminal justice system. Officers are trained to work with social workers, juvenile services, the courts, and other partners to find solutions that set students up for long-term success, not a lifetime of hardship and failure. The Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model was fully implemented in Central Texas at Round Rock Independent School District in 2020. The success experienced through the creation and implementation of the Four Pillars of School Policing model is evident in student/law enforcement interaction data. Student arrests have been dramatically reduced by utilizing successful diversionary solutions that help students in the long term. As a result of the model and the establishment of multiple intervention and diversionary solutions, student arrests decreased by 80.95% from the 2018–2019 school year to the 2020–2021 school year. Student accountably remained but resolutions were accomplished through non-criminal justice solutions. Effective diversionary solutions include a variety of options such as Trust Based Relational Intervention training or TBRI. The intervention solution is a therapeutic approach designed to meet the needs of the most vulnerable student groups. It trains caregivers to support and treat students who are at-risk. It also allows students to benefit from a wide range of abuse, trauma, neglect, and risk factors. Restorative Practices are an effective alternative disciplinary practice used by schools and police officers. Restorative Practices help students to resolve conflict, rebuild relationships, and repair any harm caused due to their actions. It also works to improve the school

140  Mindset Shift for Full Implementation

environment to ensure that students feel supportive in a culture that reduces the negative impact of inequitable disciplinary practices. Teen courts, juvenile services, and the court partnerships provide a great opportunity for diversionary options. It does not reduce student accountability for bad acts; however, it presents non-criminal solutions that do not create long-term negative consequences for students. In school policing and in every area of society, it is important to have a willingness to change mindsets and beliefs to better understand and grasp deeper realities of situations and circumstances. Tightly held beliefs in policing are embedded in the minds of both new and veteran police officers. Certain beliefs result in the development of inaccurate misconceptions about certain neighborhoods or individuals. For example, law enforcement working in high crime areas and marginalized communities may see a blurred line between criminals and non-criminals. As a result, police may be more likely to develop a mindset that views everyone as a potential criminal. Tightly held beliefs remain until an exception to those beliefs emerges. In many situations, substantial proof is required to support a mindset shift to confirm that the person encountered is not engaged in criminal activity, connected to criminal activity, or has intimate knowledge of criminal activity before the ire of police suspicion subsides. Interactions like these do not build trust but erode public confidence in police. A negative mindset held by officers in school policing can exacerbate problems to a level that results in generations of children growing up with a distrust of police. Officers with misconceptions about certain groups based on past experiences or organizational supported beliefs may need a rehabilitative overhaul toward thought exchange. The shift requires conceptual change which is the replacement of the ideas, belief systems, personal theories, and mistaken belief with a more adaptive concept. The goal is not to change a singular belief such as applying the letter of the law over the spirit of the law. It is about changing ideas and concepts that are interconnected in a manner that creates systemic issues that trigger disproportionality. In law enforcement and public schools, erroneous beliefs can exist about neighborhoods, clothing, vehicles, and individuals. Assumptions based on perception are consistent with the statement, “If a White man is running, he is jogging. If a Black man is running, he is suspicious.” Such beliefs are interrelational and expand across ideas, assumptions, races, and cultures. In school settings, similar mindsets tend to exist. To change misconceptions and inaccurate assumptions, a complete transformation within the entire organized body of knowledge is required. A shift of perception and interpretation of ideas holistically, rather than based on a single belief, must be the objective. Officers working in a school environment face challenges that impact how to best align with the mission of school policing and an educational mindset. Administrators and school police ultimately have the same desire to best serve students, but the mindset for achieving the goal can be diametrically opposed in certain practice areas. Training provided to schoolbased law enforcement must include training that produces a desire to better understand diverse mindsets, cultures, groups, and opinions. Students are attuned to learning. An effort to help dismiss misconceptions or ideas in exchange for new depths of knowledge and revelation is a component in the solution. Similarly, officers must focus efforts to become actively engaged in learning to better understand new and more enlightened ideas that result in positive change, growth, and development. School administrators and police officers can promote conceptual change. Exploring cultural differences, experiences, societal impact, behavioral health, emotional impact, and

Mindset Shift for Full Implementation  141

personal interests provides insight into individuals at levels not previously experienced. Identifying and examining key concepts with intensity can be more effective than conducting general overview assessments of many issues and topics impacting school safety and policing. Once learning occurs, officers can apply the new information to new situations to determine the value of the concepts. Successful mindset shifts can be used as an indicator to confirm that it works. Failure can provide opportunities to reassess and revise to determine if modifications are needed to achieve successful outcomes. It is easier to modify thought and truly experience conceptual change in the absence of a strong connection to previously held beliefs. Once information is found that factually contradicts previous ideas, it is easier to abandon previous thoughts and ideas. Preparing officers shifting mindsets in a manner that changes concepts and mitigates misinformation is an important step in the process. Understanding the indisputable facts and fallacies of a perception is a beneficial way to help shift misunderstandings and misconceptions. Training officers must recognize that contradictory information should not be interpreted as threatening but can lead to a better understanding. Individuals are more reluctant to concede to the introduction of new information if it requires an individual to admit that they were incorrect. The action can be perceived by the individual and others as a threat to a persons’ level of knowledge and self-esteem. School policing environments must be refined to promote conceptual change within the organization. Proper motivation can inspire officers to participate in meaningful learning and a deep exploration of new information and ideas. The catalyst is helping officers understand the value and increasing their interest in the subject matter area. Additionally, the process should be prepared and provided in a manner that helps officers achieve personal and professional goals. With a mastery of the conceptual change initiatives, officers will recognize their potential and that they possess the sufficient self-efficacy to master the process. It translates into a healthy work environment which will allow individuals to learn, explore, ask questions, and inquire without fear of being mocked for not having the knowledge or answers to appear intelligent. The entire objective of the organizational environment must be to inspire intellectual curiosity and growth. It should facilitate the development of a greater level of understanding of the information needed to effect positive and impactful change. Leaders can create an environment that helps officers embrace conceptual change by celebrating every instance that accomplishes a desired change through the reinterpretation of new information compared to previously held misconceptions. Laws, practices, and policies related to formal police interaction with students should be limited only to criminal offenses or criminal behavior. Although minor misdemeanors like disruptive behavior have a criminal nexus, it is more appropriate whenever possible for school administrators to address minor offenses as an alternative to law enforcement referral. Depending on the offense, it can be easy for campuses to remove students from class for engaging in typical juvenile behavior. The goal should be to keep students in the best learning environment possible so that academic opportunities are not impacted. Removing students for disruptive behavior has subjected countless students to disciplinary and law enforcement referrals. Incidents could have been handled more appropriately through administration or through collaboration with parents or guardians. The impact is that numerous students have unnecessarily received citations and missed school due to court directives to appear with their parents for minor issues. The additional impact placed on families, particularly those struggling with social and economic hardships, is often a tipping point of frustration and may expose some students to residual abuse.

142  Mindset Shift for Full Implementation

Police officers must understand that being a subject matter expert in law enforcement does not mean that expertise exists in every situation. School administrators must equally recognize the same regarding their roles and areas of expertise. Each profession brings a level of expertise. When combined with experts from other fields, the combined efforts can become a force multiplier in response to student needs. The expectation that police or school administrators must have the capability to resolve every issue is unrealistic. Success is not measured by being the individual who resolves a situation. It can be measured by recognizing and allocating the most appropriate resource needed to properly address concerns with proven and comprehensive solutions. Collaborative partnerships that leverage the expertise of respective professions can be beneficial. Identifying and resolving existing pain points can constructively repair existing gaps to provide the highest quality of service to students and the education system. Ego tension and power struggles between police officers and campus administrators are an unfortunate reality. The central focus, however, must be to ensure that actions and decisions achieve the best outcomes for students through collaborative investments and leveraging of partnerships. It is important for each contributor to ask, “What is the difference you bring that can be a solution to making a difference?” Transformational officers and school staff can be the catalyst for transforming the lives of all students. The introduction of new concepts and ideas in an organization is nothing new. Continuous change is not negative but depending on the frequency and expectations, it can cause change fatigue. Implementing effective change requires the solution to be understandable, attainable, and sustainable. Innovative solutions that inspire change could motivate effective implementation. Providing an overview of the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing to staff and officers presents an opportunity to spark inspiration and deeper thought into the true relevance and multi-layered approach to effective school safety. It is important to convey the benefits of the change and the opportunities that exist for the entire staff and law enforcement in order to contribute toward the successful implementation of the model. During the implementation of the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model in the Round Rock Independent School District, an opportunity for conceptual change occurred that demonstrated the true collaboration and aspiration to embrace change. A high school student had a history of depression and suicidal ideation. During class, she confided in a friend about her thoughts of suicide and discussed a plan of action. The friend contacted a teacher and a social worker was notified and responded. The student in crisis was evaluated and acknowledged that she needed intervention. The social worker worked collaboratively with the parent and an involuntary commitment order was obtained so the student could be transported to receive support services. The social worker contacted the Round Rock ISD Police Department to conduct the transport and explained situation to the officers. The student was calm, not in distress, and cooperative but needed to be transported to the facility. A new officer in training was on scene and made the comment, “I wonder how she will react when we handcuff her?” The comment prompted an immediate inquiry to better understand the comment and mindset of the officer. Upon probing into the officer’s comment, it was determined that at the officer’s previous law enforcement agency, it was department policy to handcuff every individual that was transported for commitment in a police vehicle. The field training officer and social worker used the opportunity to explain how the approach was inconsistent with the Four Pillars model. Additionally, the officer was educated on the priority to help not harm. It was explained to the officer that suicide is a serious concern but not a crime. A student needed

Mindset Shift for Full Implementation  143

help and handcuffing a person who has not committed a crime makes them reluctant to seek assistance from police or other services in the future. The social worker added that a person in need of medical assistance is not handcuffed before being placed in an ambulance and transported to a hospital. The officer embraced the change of thought and willingly shifted his mindset to a position of understanding that assisting should not be consistent with arresting. The situation provided an opportunity for improvement within the entire department by incorporating the incident in the field training program for officers and social workers as a learning opportunity. Assess and Identify Gaps and Trends

Knowledge is a powerful tool. The acquisition of knowledge generally occurs in three stages: realization, comprehension, and intellectual attainment. With the revelation of new knowledge and information, individuals typically recognize their limitations and the existence and opportunities for the acquisition of new knowledge. In the pursuit of knowledge, additional sources of information are sought on the quest to become competent in individual and collective understanding. It also promotes efforts to distinguish between factual and misconceptions developed from past experiences and assumptions. As individuals move to a higher level of consciousness and comprehension, they learn to identify and categorize the various levels of knowledge in a manner that improves the quest and development as a subject matter expert. During this process, there is a deeper understanding of the acquired knowledge and a clearer separation of previously held misconceptions and the acquisition of purer more accurate information. The mindset shift provides a clear pathway to implementing and adapting the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model to an organization’s need with robust fidelity. It allows the continuous improvement model to be designed in a manner that achieves optimum safety and security and transformative policing outcomes holistically. The process should guide school safety development and implementation in a manner that builds confidence through competence. To accurately determine the most effective school safety solutions for an organization, a detailed examination of existing organizational practices, procedures, strategies, and safety and security solutions must happen. A comprehensive assessment should be conducted of data related to existing safety and security practices, procedures, and solutions. It should include an examination of information like school safety audits, emergency communications solutions, building security, safety and security training, standard response protocols, safety plans, student disciplinary data and referrals, and other key data designed to highlight historical and existing solutions and opportunities for improvement. The assessment of relevant data helps to identify a baseline and starting point for the full implementation of a beneficial, multi-layered school safety solution. During this process, knowledge regarding the organization’s efficiencies and emphasis on school safety is gathered and reviewed for the discovery of existing gaps and trends to achieve alignment with the Four Pillars implementation. Accurately assessing existing practices, procedures, and solutions is only part of the process. The implementation includes the calibration of existing data and solutions through the incorporation of the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model. The calibration approach should use the information gathered to calibrate strategies to achieve the highest level of safety. Identifying disproportionality in discretionary placements provides an opportunity for equity, social workers, and school staff to collaborate on effective solutions

144  Mindset Shift for Full Implementation

designed to reverse any existing or potential negative impact. For example, the assessment may reveal information to indicate that many police referrals resulted in discretionary placement of a disproportionate number of marginalized students. The data collected during the assessment would allow school staff to recalibrate practices to identify contributing factors and make meaningful adjustments. The execution of the process allows for full implementation of the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model. It helps to establish effective strategies and solutions designed to optimize safety and security at a high level of success. Corrective action validation strategies are utilized for several purposes including the detection of nonconformance or divergent issues to maximize the safety and security, school-based law enforcement effectiveness, behavioral health, equity, and student advocacy practices. The execution and implementation approach allows solutions to be developed that are holistic and can be implemented with confidence, competence, and reliability. It is important to understand the need for objective, factual evidence to ensure that issues have been identified, mitigated, or removed to establish the highest efficiency of continued implementation. Evidence and key information can be gathered from many areas such as observations, student disciplinary data, discretionary placement, diversionary plans, behavioral health referrals, parental involvement, advocacy plans, and the different safety and security practices and procedures. An effective corrective action plan starts with gaining a solid understanding of the procedural requirements and needs of the corrective action plan. Understanding the assessment needs so that implementation errors are mitigated will provide a clear guideline for recognizing and documenting needs throughout the process. The objective is to close existing gaps between identified problems by determining and performing the appropriate actions that lead to resolution and realignment. Subsequently, verification is required to confirm that the corrective actions were successful. During corrective action validation, it is important to ensure that the team clearly identifies the deviation and develops a plan of action without overthinking the resolution. Answering the “who, what, where, when, and how” during reviews and documentation practices can help to key in on existing gaps and areas of deviation. It can provide the guideposts for developing corrective action validation effectiveness. Identifying existing gaps is critical to implementation and continuous improvement through corrective actions. Trend analysis is an additional method used to ensure effective implementation of the model. It allows a team to evaluate and anticipate progress of implementation through the evaluation of historical and current data. It is an effective component of the corrective action validation process. Trend analysis provides a team with indicators to validate the effectiveness of the corrective action in remediation of existing issues. It also allows the corrective action team to evaluate the data over a specified period to determine if the problem is recurring after corrective actions were taken. The expectation is that the information gathered will provide a clear picture of the success achieved or the need for a different corrective approach. An efficient corrective action validation plan requires the planning process to be clear in identifying the framework, scope, and integration procedures for the plan into the organizational operations. The planning process identifies the duties of those involved in the corrective action validation process. Key points to look for during planning include nonconformance trigger assessment related to complaints, scope creep, or assessment finding, identify areas where deviation and nonconformance exist, document issues and data that will be used in the process, identify the most effective implementation methods, ensure that

Mindset Shift for Full Implementation  145

a robust inquiry process exists that allows for the team to identify root causes, and validate resolution effectiveness. An important step in corrective action validation is to make certain that an efficient and cohesive process is developed that allows staff the opportunity to activate full program implementation with fidelity. Staff can document changes in procedures needed to realign the approach to ensure that the model is effectively implemented. Training is an important component to ensuring that corrective action is achieved. It allows staff and officers to better understand methods, best practices, and equip them with the knowledge and skills to ensure that the corrective action plan is constructive. Once the corrective action is implemented, the process should be reevaluated to ensure that adjustments are made to identify, assess, and resolve nonconformances to confirm that the model is goal aligned to perform as intended.  During implementation, random assessments should be conducted to ensure compliance with the plans, expectations, or directed corrective actions. Periodic observations can be conducted to review and evaluate existing processes and effectiveness of any changes. Corrective action validation processes should be robust and aligned with the implementation plan established. Effective corrective action validation processes reflect the organization’s commitment to ensuring that the implementation and outcomes of the model are of the highest quality. The revelation, internalization, correction, and proper application of new knowledge helps shape the development and direction of an individual in a manner that leads to the third and final stage of attainment where an individual can be called an intellect after achieving the height of knowledge in a particular field. Redefining policing and school safety through the Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model can truly transform school safety and introduce the dawning of the postmodern era of school safety and policing. Shifting the intellectual mindset in a positive direction to a focus on meeting the needs of all students will fundamentally improve safety and security practices, approaches, and procedures that follow. The mastery is in a particular field and the level of expertise is acquired through the development of factual concepts and the removal of misconceptions. Intellects become the conveyor of knowledge and clarifier of misconceptions and inaccurate perspectives. When implementing an effective school safety and security model, it requires a cultural change and mindset shift to remove misconceptions and replace them with factual knowledge from other subject matter experts in the field. Mindset shifts are effective when experts provide new and proven ways of viewing situations and problem-solving in a manner that acquires new and effective knowledge along with effective and sustainable safety, security, and policing strategies.

Response to Specific Examples

1. Cite to Brown v. Board of Education Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955) 2. A reference for Rochdale, Nottingham, sexual abuse cases Salter, M., & Dagistanli, S. (2015). Cultures of abuse: “Sex Grooming”, organized abuse and race in Rochdale, UK. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 4(2), 50–64. 3. Support for statistics such as “although Black youth represent a small percentage of the overall juvenile population, the number of school-related referrals for delinquency represents roughly half of the student referrals. Certain jurisdictions around the country produce higher numbers and minority students of color have an increased likelihood of being arrested than other student groups that commit the same offense.” Marchbanks, M., & Blake, J. (2018). Assessing the Role of School Discipline in Disproportionate Minority Contact with the Juvenile Justice System. Final Technical Report. 4. A reference (news article? Police report?) for “In February 2022, a Florida student was arrested after committing a prank where he drove around a high school campus and randomly shot at students with a non-lethal splatter gun which shoots water or gels. The student was arrested despite it being a non-lethal device.” Leslie, L. (2022, March 18). Teen arrested for shooting woman in the face with Orbeez. WINK News. https://winknews.com/2022/03/17/teen-arrested-for-shootingwoman-in-the-face-with-orbeez/ 5. Support for “The American Psychological Association created a task force and concluded in 2008 that zero-tolerance policies yielded no scientific evidence to suggest that the practice improved school safety.” Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations. (2008). The American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862.

Index

abusive language 101 academic growth opportunities 26 academic pressure 99 access to weapons 56 accountability 123 active shooter response 90 acute distress 133; psychological 126–127 adult learners, andragogical approach 111 alcoholic beverage law enforcement 9 American Psychological Association 32 andragogy 94 anti-police sentiments 71 antisocial personalities 101 anxiety 32–33, 122, 126; concern for students 32–33; and frustration 122; public 32–33 armed soldiers 78 arrest 136 artful manipulators 57 battle dress uniforms (BDUs) 71 behavioral crisis response and equity 112 behavioral health 117–128; acute psychological distress 126–127; child sexual abuse cases 118–119; decision-making 124–125; law enforcement agencies 120; mental health intervention 128; municipal police agencies 117–118; non-criminal justice resolution 121; psychological first aid 126, 128; school-based law enforcement 118, 125; subject matter experts in social work 119; suicide 126; zerotolerance practices 117; see also Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model behavioral health-related incidents 124 behavioral health services 44 behavioral threat assessment (BTA) workflow 103 Berlin Leaking Project 102–103 Brown v. Board of Education 2–4 bullying 125–126 campus-based arrests 16 Campus Crime Stoppers 15

Chauvin, Derek 46, 71 Chaz 71 child sexual abuse cases 118–119 chokeholds 38 civil liability 43 Civil Rights Movement, 1950s 11 class-based education systems 2 cocaine epidemic 15 code of conduct 113 cold cognition 138 Coleman, Tom 15–16 Columbine High School massacre, 1999 57 communication 100 community: distrust of police 75; education opportunities 6; engagement 45; policing 94; regulations 2; safety 14 community-based external mental health services center 100 compassion 130–131 Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines (CSTAG) methodology 103 confidence 134 confidential informants 15 confirmation bias 23 confiscation 113 continuity of care 103 core security prioritization 92 corporal punishment 131 Covid-19 pandemic 4 credibility 101 crimes or victimization 135 Crime Stoppers 15 criminal: behavior by students 25, 105; justice systems 10, 24–25, 39, 51, 119, 131; negligence 120; offenses 31, 105 criminalization 26; adolescent behavior 39; responses 136 Crisis Response Leader Training (CTRL) 127 critical race theory 4 critical thinking skills 38

148 Index cultur(al)e 25; alignments 125; capital 99; competence, equity 113; competency 52; differences 132; experiences 28; norms 27 culture-to-prison pipeline 25–33 Dallas, Mark 60 Dallas Threat of Violence Risk Assessment (DTVRA) 101 decision-making 124–125; skills 7 de-escalation 90 defunding police 69–71 democratic policing 6 depression 102, 126 detainment techniques 38 disabilities 110; equity 112 disaggregation of policy making 89 disciplinary alternative education programs (DAEP) 131 discretionary disciplinary placement 132 disproportionalities 19, 94 disruptive behavior 131–132 drug(s): detection 44; interdiction 74–75; K-9 dogs 25; paraphernalia 72; use 101 dry runs 104 educational institutions 1–2 educational model in America 1 educational opportunity 110 educational systems 1, 4 E.L.I.T.E model 81 emotional distress 120 emotional investments 109 emotionally disturbed behavior 102 emotional therapy 117 empathy 130–131 Equal Educational Opportunities Act 3 equality and equity 108 equality of educational opportunities 4 equity: adult learners, andragogical approach 111; behavioral crisis response 112; cultural competence 113; disabilities 112; educational opportunity 110; equality and 108; homelessness and food insufficiency 112; implementation 115; individual differences 108–109; juvenile court systems 109–110; law enforcement 112–114; police training and procedures in schools 110–111; poor education 110; profiling 109; promoting 116; school-based law enforcement officers 109; school district approaches 110; in school safety 114; sociocultural environment 115; see also Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model Equity Pillar 114 Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) 115 Excellent Educators Initiative for All 115

expert analysis of event 65 external law enforcement agencies 28 fantasy 56 fascination 56 fear-eliciting policing strategies 10 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 57, 104 Federal housing authorities 14 fighting 132 formal policing 13 formal policing systems 11 Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model 23, 29, 44, 48–50, 80–89, 83, 90; behavioral health 82; equity 83; gaps and trends 143–145; implementation of 137–145; mindset shift 145; safety and security 82; student advocacy 83; trend analysis 144–145 free public education 2 funding mechanism for schools 2 general education degree (GED) 56 George Floyd case 11, 23, 54, 70–72 Good Neighbor Next Door Program 14 guardian program 77 gun: laws 58; ownership 58; restrictions 56; violence 30 Guyger, Amber 71 Harris, Eric 57 health-related issues 100 homelessness 126; and food insufficiency 112 hoodie hiding 101 housing social workers 122 individual differences, equity 108–109 Individualized Education Program 110 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 110 iNEMSOFT ClassOne iCAS 95–96 informal policing 5, 11 in-school services 105 in-school student arrests 28 intentionality 124 internalization of decision-making 22 intrinsic issues in policing 14–24 Israel 78–79 juvenile 16; behavior 131; court systems 109–110; delinquency 8; justice system 132; mishandling of 35; overcriminalization 72–73 K-9s for therapy resources 44 K-12 discretionary placement guidelines 31 King, Rodney 11 Klebold, Dylan 57

Index 149 law enforcement 106; agencies 7, 9–11, 14, 39, 110, 120; equity 112–114; expedient resolution 16; investigation 105; leaders 51; profession 127–128; and school staff 133–134; training 18; unsubstantiated observations 17 LCSW see licensed clinical social worker leakage 104 leaking behavior 102–103 learning disabilities 126 LGBTQ curriculum 4 LGBTQIA+ 90 licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) 124 licensed master social worker (LMSW) 124 LMSW see licensed master social worker London Metropolitan Police Department 6–7 malnutrition 126 marginalization 19; of students to criminal justice system 26 marijuana 72 Marshall, John 9 mask mandates 4 mass shootings by students 67 media: saturation 65; and schools 64 mental health: concerns 7–8; crises 123–124; evaluation 100; first aid 90; first aid training 126; intervention 128; training 123 mental illness 56 micro-variables 99 military vehicles 78 minor criminal offenses 28 misconception 130 municipal police agencies 117–118 municipal utility districts (MUDs) 20 Natchez Tribe 12 National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) 76 National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) model 103 negative behaviors 120 negative cultural inspiration 27 negative juvenile behavior 26 negative police interactions 135 negative youthful behavior 50 neglect 126 NETWASS tests intervention strategies 102–103 Networks Against School Shooting Project 102–103 no-knock search warrants 13 non-adversarial interaction 18 non-criminal behaviors 114 non-criminal codes of conduct 114 non-criminal justice: resolution 121; resources 121

non-criminal student actions 33 non-law enforcement situations 17 non-lethal device 31 non-school-based law: enforcement 51; police officers 82; police training 24 non-traffic violations 28 no police in schools 75 “nothing to see here” approach 125 officer deficiencies 47 open anger manifestation 101 overcriminalization 22 over-criminalizing minor student behavior 52 peace officers 46, 78 Peel, Robert 6–7, 11 pepper spray 30 personal accountability 115 Police Foundation 54 police-free zone 71 police/policing 16; academies 48; brutality 11; community distrust of 75; critics of 87; defined 9; defunding 69–71; department disciplinary decision-making 27; evolution of 5; function of 18; intrinsic issues 14–24; in school 18; state 9; strategies 6–8; training 8; training and procedures in schools, equity 110–111; wealthier communities 19–20 Police-School Liaison program 34 Pontiac’s Rebellion school massacre, 1764 55 poor education, equity 110 positive educational opportunities 26 postmodernism 6, 85–86 post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) 48, 64 prioritization 113 profiling, equity 109 pro-police sentiments 71 psychological first aid 126, 128 public bathroom and gender designation 4 public education and modern policing 1–13 public safety 9 racial disparities 133 Raptor Technologies 96, 103 responding officers 75 response and implementation solutions 133 restorative practices 90, 139 Round Rock Independent School District (ISD) 36, 100, 117–118 Safe and Supportive Schools Program (SSSP) 105 safe learning environments 24 safety and security 90–98; see also Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model safety concerns and communication 100

150 Index school: board meetings 5; boundary 3–4; disciplinary disproportionality 93; disciplinary landscape 132; district approaches 110; district partnerships 35; districts 91; districts, police departments 41, 43–44; districts and threat assessment 101; police and administrative intervention in schools 134; police officers 52; public outrage campaigns 4; “soft on crime” approach in 87; see also school policing school-based law enforcement 9, 17–22, 28, 30, 34, 36, 41, 55, 61–62, 89, 95, 106, 118, 125; leadership 47, 50; officers 40–45, 109, 135; and school violence 55; service 52; training requirements 49 school-based law enforcement officers 60, 70, 74–75, 90, 92 school-based police services 51 School Marshal programs 77–78 school policing 5, 24, 38, 54, 59, 76, 94, 140; advent of 34–45; alternative solutions 69; alternatives to 69–79; art of 46–54; parental involvement 69; profession 88; strategies 82; volunteerism 69; see also police/policing school resource officer (SRO) program 34, 36, 39, 41, 50, 72, 91 school safety 1–2, 78; concerns 6, 34; dropout rate 29; equity 114; full-time police officers 28; prioritization 2; strategies 99; transformative 80; zero-tolerance approach 109 school shootings 34, 55, 64; Blackville, South Carolina, 1995 56; Boston, Massachusetts, 1884 55; Jonesboro, Arkansas, 1988 56; Lansing, Michigan, 1978 56; Louisville, Kentucky, 1853 55; New York City, 1867 56; Olean, New York, 1974 56; Olivehurst, California, 1992 56; Pearl, Mississippi, 1997 57; Robb Elementary, 2022 58–59; Stamps, Arkansas, 1997 56–57; West Paducah, Kentucky, 1997 57; see also school violence school-to-prison pipeline theory 25–26, 29, 35 school violence 55; after-action analyses 66; Chongqing kindergarten incident, 2018 58; Columbine High School massacre, 1999 57; examination and contributing factors 55–68; incidents 125; media coverage of 64–65; mitigation 55; phenomenon 57; Pontiac’s Rebellion school massacre, 1764 55; Robb Elementary school shooting, 2022 58–59; St. Mary’s Parochial School massacre, 1891 55; in United States 80 school zoning 3–4 “Secure the Core” approach 92 security guards 77; classroom training 77 segregation practices 3

self-actualization 115 self-coping mechanisms 100 self-directed learning 93 self-expression 104 self-worth 134 Senate Bill 1114 134 September 11, terrorist attack 69 situational awareness 23 Sixth Street 30 skin color 113 Slager, Michael 71 Slave Codes 11 slave patrol 11–12 social environments 126 social workers 44, 138; and law enforcement 99; in school district 27 societal withdrawal 102 “soft on crime” approach in schools 87 state law violation 35 St. Mary’s Parochial School massacre, 1891 55 Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) 101 student(s): anxiety 32–33; arrests 29; attitudes and police attitudes 135; behavior, cultural influences 28; discipline 35; related arrests 84 student advocacy 39; acute distress 133; arrest 136; corporal punishment 131; crimes or victimization 135; criminalization responses 136; cultural differences 132; disruptive behavior 131–132; juvenile justice system 132; law enforcement and school staff 133–134; misconception 130; negative police interactions 135; racial disparities 133; response and implementation solutions 133; school-based law enforcement officers 135; school disciplinary landscape 132; school police and administrative intervention in schools 134; student attitudes and police attitudes 135; zero-tolerance approach 131–132; see also Four Pillars of School Safety and Policing model StudentSafe software 96, 103–104 subject matter experts in social work 119 substance abuse 102, 126 substantive threats 105 suicidal and homicidal ideations 104 suicide 126 SWAT commanders 52 sympathy 130–131 taxation 2 Texas Education Code 72, 134 Texas School Safety Center 94 Texas Senate Bill 393 134 therapy dogs 44

Index 151 threat assessments 99–107; behaviors 102; external 106; goal 102; instruments 102; law enforcement 106; point of uneasiness 106; recommended option 106; risk factors 99; school climate 99; school environment 100; school violence prevention 102; self-harm or harm 104; student behavior assessments 101; teams 100–102 threat mitigation 90 thrill-seeking psychopaths 57 trade-offs 43 traditional educational system 123 training in police academies 88 transformation 17–18 transformative learning 84 transient threats 100, 105 triage evaluation 100 Trust Based Relational Intervention (TBRI) 90, 139

unashamed conversations 100 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 14 Van Dyke, Jason 71 victimless criminal offenses 28 violent crime rates 32 Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines 105 Vollmer, August 7–8, 11 War on Drugs campaign 10, 15, 30 Yarbrough, Jeffrey 81 zero-tolerance policies 25–33, 37, 49, 53, 109, 117, 131–132; of juvenile actions 19 zoning 2–3