A Puzzling Resource: Examining the Presence of Sworn Law

Enforcement Officers in Public Schools, Use of Exclusionary

Discipline Practices, and Student Racial Composition

Jeremy Prim

Abstract: The increasing presence of police on public school campuses over the past three
decades in the United States has drastically shifted the schooling environment for students of
color (Burton 2016). This change is consistent with the theoretical framework of antiblackness,
which posits that schools, similar to other public institutions, adopt discipline and security
measures as a way to share information about the disciplinary history of a student and exhibit
social control in schools (Dumas 2011). This study intends to address the intersections of race
and social control in schools with the presence of sworn officers. Research has supported that
these forms of control and surveillance are more pronounced in schools with more Black and
brown students (Nance 2016). In this study, I use multilevel linear and logistic regression
analysis to examine a longitudinal data set that I constructed from the School Survey on Crime
and Safety (SSOCS) (NCES). Using this data set, I examine the association between the
percentage of Black students in K-12 public schools and the presence of sworn law enforcement
officers on campus. I also investigate whether there is a relationship between the presence of
sworn law enforcement officers and the suspension rates of students in public schools. The
percentage of Black students is positively associated with odds of having a sworn law
enforcement officer present on campus, controlling for a variety of school characteristics. In
addition, analyses indicate the presence of sworn law enforcement officers are associated with
increased suspension rates for students. These findings have policy implications for the role of
sworn law enforcement officers on school campuses and their implications for students’
educational experiences, particularly for students of color.
Introduction

Approximately 57 percent of school districts have some form of security officer present

on public school campuses in the United States, with 42 percent of these school districts electing

to hire school resource officers, who are tasked with ensuring the safety and security of students

(Sherfinski 2018). The percentage of officers in schools has seen an increase over the past

decade, specifically due to the rise of school shootings and as a response to rising safety

concerns. However , placing police in schools is not a new occurrence—the first school resource

officer was introduced in Flint, Michigan in 1953 (Cray and Weiler 2011)—but sworn law

enforcement officers’ job descriptions and expectations vary across schools (Cray and Weiler

2011; Benigni 2004) and their increasing presence raises many questions. Is placing officers in

schools with diverse student populations the best decision? Does their presence confuse

students? Do they negatively affect school climate?

History has shown that, in addition to other security measures in schools, officers

provide a significant amount of social control (Garland 2001). Public schools in the United

States have increased their use of control-oriented techniques that range from surveillance,

presence of officers and architectural designs that maximize visibility of students (Burton 2016).

However, there has been a lack of empirical research that evaluates the effects of these security

measures and techniques on creating a positive school climate.

In this study, I use the theoretical lens of antiblackness to understand this type of

surveillance in schools in which Black students are the majority. Antiblackness assists in

describing the monitoring students experiences as a systemic process which separates and

removes Black students from the school environment (Dumas 2016). In the school context,

Black students engage in this process of “othering”, where schools subject these students to a

phenomenon known as the school-to-prison pipeline, which is the process through which

2
students are funneled out of public schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice system

(Meiners 2011; Sexton 2008). The school-to-prison pipeline impacts students of color

disproportionately through the excessive use of school discipline practices ( Perry & Morris

2014; Meiners 2011).

I examine the connection between race and control in schools with data on the presence

of police and the use of suspensions. Specifically, I examine whether schools with a higher

concentration of Black students are more likely to have an officer present on campus, and

whether the presence of a law enforcement officer is associated with higher than expected

suspension rates. Historically underrepresented minority students experience exclusionary

discipline, specifically suspension at higher rates than white students, raising questions about

how discipline is utilized in schools and how police are integrated in these decisions (Cray &

Weiler 2011). Officers on school campuses may change the environment of schools as they

emphasize enforcement and surveillance to the detriment of students’, and specifically students’

of color, learning (Kupchik & Ellis 2008).

I explore connections between race, police, and school discipline with data from the

School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) survey from academic years 2003-04, 2005-06,

2007-08, 2009-10, and 2015-16. I use multilevel linear and logistic regression to analyze the

relationship between racial composition in schools and sworn law enforcement officers, and test

whether these variables are independently associated with suspension rates, while controlling for

variation in school characteristics. My findings contribute to the growing body of literature on

the presence of these officers in schools, school climate, and their disciplinary environment.

The Rise of Sworn Law Enforcement Officers in Schools

Police presence in schools began rising significantly in the 1950s. To assist in this

transition of increased officer presence in schools, by the 1960s and 1970s school districts and

3
police departments throughout the country sought to formalize the presence of officers on school

campuses and are formally known as , School Resource Officers (SROs). Renaming these

officers as such sought to convey their multiple roles: as both enforcers of the law and a resource

in the education system (Nolan 2011). By the 1980s and 1990s a concerted effort of SRO

integration in schools was made possible through the Drug Abuse Resistance in Education

(DARE) program, which was administered by law enforcement to deter accessibility to drugs

near and at schools (Sojoyner 2016). In addition to deterrence, DARE officers were encouraged

to teach and mentor students, through teaching law related courses and presiding over officer

campus school activities (Sojoyner 2016). However, SROs’ increasing presence in schools

intended to accomplish more than making schools safer; school administrators believed that the

inclusion of officers would assist in building stronger relationships between communities and

police departments, while police hoped that increased surveillance could curtail crime (Sojoyner

2016). Creating a culture of surveillance shifts the focus away from students’ learning and

creates an environment of control in schools, similar to the criminal justice system (Kupchik &

Ellis 2008). This potential replication of the criminal justice system in schools can create an

unsafe learning environment for all students, specifically for students of color (Kupchik 2016;

Lambert & Mcginty 2002).

SROs’ presence on campuses tends to increase after high-impact events such as school

shootings. On the heels of the Columbine Massacre, the United States Department of Justice’s

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, specifically the Cops in Schools Program

Initiative (CIS), awarded more than 753 million dollars to police departments and school districts

to fund SROs (US Department of Justice, 2005). Although funding was allocated to make

schools safer, there has been a lack of research evidence that the millions of dollars spent to

bring more SROs in schools was an effective safety measure (May et. al. 2011). School districts

4
have had a difficult time justifying the emphasis on expanding the SRO program, and the growth

of these officers stagnated when districts were met with making budgetary decisions to fund or

defund SRO programs (May et. al.2011).

The numbers of officers in schools saw minimal growth between 1999 and the 2012

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting. This shooting reignited the public and political

rhetoric that sworn law enforcement officers were needed in schools. Following this tragedy,

there was a significant increase in state and federal funding to increase the presence of police in

schools (Na & Gottfredson 2013). President Obama proposed a plan to increase funding and the

number of officers in schools, which resulted in the Community Oriented Policing (COPS)

Hiring Program, which awarded 141 agencies nearly 45 million dollars to hire 356 SROs for the

2013 fiscal year (Brenchley 2013). However, although literature has shown the ebbs and flows of

funding to increase or maintain SROs presence in schools , little is still known of their ability to

improve school safety and their relationship to the disciplinary environments in schools.

The Challenge and Inconsistencies of Police in Schools

Research on the effects of SRO presence has produced inconsistent findings, with some

studies showing a reduction of crime (Brady et al., 2007) and other studies showing that

increased arrest rates and numbers of referrals were associated with SROs presence in schools

(Na & Gottfredson, 2011; Johnson, 1999). However, there has been a lack of research on the

relationship between the presence of officers on school campuses and the use of exclusionary

discipline, specifically the use of suspensions. Research supports that throughout the country,

many SROs serve in a “mixed role” capacity on school campuses as part of the triad model of

enforcement, which focuses on SROs being law enforcers, counselors, and educators (Finn,

Shivley, McDevitt, Lassiter, & Rich, 2005). Officers serving in these mixed role positions work

5
on campus daily, as opposed to splitting their time on campus and off. However, the triad model

of enforcement has not shown statistically significant findings on students’ sense of safety or

providing additional benefits to students learning experiences while in school (Nolan 2011;

Theriot 2014).

The role of officers on school campuses are defined by the school district and police

department. However, the merging of these two institutions can cause implementation conflicts

through bringing together competing orientations, practices, and assumptions regarding the

behavior of K-12 students (Cray & Weiler 2011). Officers that serve on school campuses often

have received significant amounts of training in policing communities, and this training does not

completely translate into the school context (Price 2009). The amount of force and crisis

management training officers receive is problematic in the school setting because these tactics,

which are often employed in communities of color, have at times led to excessive force, which

when translated into the school context, places students of color at risk of being physically and

emotionally harmed at school (Price 2009). In addition, the funds allocated to these officer

positions are considered overtime for many officers that are directly hired through police or

sheriff departments and not through school districts. This may conflict with the goal of keeping

students safe if their work in schools may be viewed by the SROs themselves as secondary and

not a dedicated position to building community with students (Johnson 1999). The competing

understandings that officers have of their role on campuses paired with a questionable dedication

to their positions in schools, has serious negative implications to school settings. One of the

negative implications to the school setting through increased presence of officers is the

resemblance of prison like environments which can further exacerbate violent schooling

experiences for students of color.

6
 In recent work, researchers describe that, on school campuses, SROs’ experience a role

overload, noting that it is nearly impossible to remove officers from their intended role, which is

to serve as law enforcers (Mckenna & White 2018). From the introduction of these officers in the

1950s through the federally funded COPs Hiring Program to place more officers in schools, there

has been an imbalance in their roles and focus with nearly 60% of an officer's time directly

focused to law enforcement activities on campus, and the other 40% focused on teaching law

related topics (Coon & Travis 2012). As schools continue to find solutions to making schools

more secure, the increased inclusion of officers on school campuses with a lack of empirical

evidence that indicates that students are safer, can have detrimental impacts on the learning

experiences of students of color, particularly Black students.

Disproportionality in the Use of Suspension for Black Students

One aspect of exclusionary discipline is the use of suspensions, which physically

removes students from school due to a rule or policy violation (Kupchik & Ward 2014; Perry &

Morris 2014; Hirschfield 2008). There are two types of suspensions that schools employ: in-

school and out of school (Hirschfield 2008). These two disciplinary practices are associated with

negative educational outcomes such as increased student dropout rates and increased interactions

with police (Perry & Morris 2014; Theriot 2014; Noguera 2003; Skiba & Knesting 2001).

Urban schools began to institute zero tolerance policies, which typically include the

increased use of exclusionary discipline, during the 1990s to assist in controlling crime and drug

use in schools (Sojoyner 2016). Zero tolerance policies identify serious offense violations that if

broken by students require specific disciplinary responses ranging from out of school

suspensions to arrests (Kupchik 2016). Suspension rates among schools with a large share of

Black students surged upon giving districts autonomy to design their own zero tolerance policies

7
(Garland 2001). These policies, and their resulting disciplinary actions like suspensions, are a

symbolic form of criminalization in schools and disproportionately impact Black students

(Hirschfield 2008; Theriot 2009; Gregory et.al. 2010; Losen 2015). Research suggests that

schools that engage in zero tolerance practices have lower educational outcomes for Black

students. For example, Skiba (2000) finds that as suspension rates increase, student dropout rate

increases, particularly among Black male students.

Schools that have a culture of using exclusionary discipline have dire consequences for

Black male students who experience discipline more severely than other students (Kupchik

2010; Brunson and Miller 2006). A 2018 report from the United States Government

Accountability Office found that Black male students with learning disabilities are

disproportionately suspended and expelled in K-12 public schools (GAO 2018). Teachers and

administrators in follow up interviews provided insight to how they exercise discipline in their

classroom and why they use exclusionary forms of discipline. Teachers and administrators felt

that they were met with limitations of being able to teach students who are impoverished and

battling mental health issues (GAO 2018). The report indicates that there is a lack of preparation

among education stakeholders on how to teach students of color, which may be a consequence of

biases and assumptions surrounding these students’ behavior.

Through the disproportionate use of exclusionary discipline in schools, specifically

suspensions, the inclusion of officers in this process can lead to the criminalization of student

behavior (Hirschfield 2008; Gregory et.al. 2010; Welch & Payne 2011; Kupchik 2016). Research

supports that exclusionary discipline can have adverse effects on students of color, and the lack

of conclusive research indicating that schools are safer with the presence of SROs problematizes

their presence on school campuses (Na & Gottfredson 2013. Further research is needed on how

8
the presence of SROs on campus affects the overall school environment and the use of

exclusionary discipline.

Antiblackness in Schools

The presence of officers in schools where Black students are the majority implicates the

tumultuous relationship that schools with predominantly Black student populations have

historically had with United States public schools. Antiblackness theory argues that Black people

have been in an antagonistic relationship with majority white societal settings because these

spaces were not created for Black people (Dumas 2016). Antiblackness theorizes Black suffering

that has occurred for centuries through the constant surveillance, violence and blatant opposition

to the humanity of Black people Dumas 2016; 2011).

Theories of antiblackness originate from Afro-Pessimism theories which forefronts that,

while other cultures are recognized for their humanity, Black cultures are not, and systems

created in American society preclude opportunity and mobility for Black people (Dumas 2016).

Antiblackness theorizes that there was never a moment in history, from slavery to present day,

where Black people were not monitored and surveilled in the United States (Dumas 2011).

Through the process of constant monitoring, other racial groups purposefully create distance

between themselves and Black people, with the understanding that distancing oneself from Black

people will assist in upward mobility (Dumas 2016).

Antiblackness proliferates throughout society in different ways and is often exacerbated

through institutions, such as schools. Schools, as described by Dumas, have varying levels of

antiblackness practices. In schools where antiblackness is explicit, Black students are viewed by

education stakeholders as the problem and a threat to other racial groups’ ability to learn (Dumas

2011). The explicit intention to remove Black students from the learning environment for the

9
benefit of other students has historically put Black students at risk of increased violence and

exclusion in schools (Dumas 2016; Sexton 2008).

An example of where antiblackness explicitly operates in schools is through the

movement of desegregation. Many schools with majority white student populations disagreed

with the integration of schools, viewing Black students as problematic and through a deficit lens

(Dumas 2011). In response to legally mandated desegregation, white parents and students made

an effort to redraw and recreate district lines, which placed Black students in underfunded and

physically crumbling schools (Dumas 2011, 2014; Horsford et al. 2013). Black students were the

recipients of a “push out” from schools in the process of desegregation, and Black students were

not included in the new plans to create multicultural school communities (Dumas 2015;

Roithmayr 2014). Black students were further displaced in underperforming and under resourced

schools, whichinevitably impacted their educational trajectories (Dumas 2015; Roithmayr 2014).

In addition, antiblackness has found ways to pervade schools implicitly in response to

growing safety and discipline concerns in schools. The Safe Schools Act of 1994 focuses on

three elements that politicians believed had become integrated into the daily operations of

schools: drugs, violence, and lack of discipline (Simon 2007). The Safe Schools Act targeted

impoverished and minority students stating that federal funds from this act were to be used in

areas and neighborhoods with high homicide rates, high levels of youth under supervision of

courts, and high rates of suspension and expulsions (Simon 2007). Schools in these

neighborhoods most often enrolled majority black student populations (Garland 2001). The

legislation’s language shows that its intent was not simply to address struggling neighborhoods

and schools but to place Black students under scrutiny while at school ( Garland 2001; Simon

2007). Dumas describes the monitoring and surveillance of Black students as a form of

10
displacement through disregarding by removing students from classrooms , directly failing to

prioritize their educational needs (2011).

Following the Safe Schools Act of 1994, many districts throughout the United States

began increasing the presence of police and other security measures to address the triad of

violence-drugs-school discipline (Garland 2001; Simon 2007). Kupchik (2016) argues that, as

these officers enter school campuses, they actively identify and track students who have been

referred by teachers and administrators. This constant surveillance increases the likelihood that

students will interact with officers. Garland (2001) notes that variation in the types of

surveillance and monitoring are dependent on a school’s racial demographics and locale.

Furthermore, integrating and including officers on school campuses with historically

underrepresented minority youth causes a significant amount of tension due to the

disproportionality in police contact and arrests these youth face in their communities (Leiber et

al. 1998; Rios 2011; Stinson & Watkins 2014; Rios 2017). Nolan states that increasing minority

student contact with officers in schools has the potential to exacerbate the use of suspensions in

schools as officers seek to control and maintain an orderly schooling environment (2011).

Growing officer presence in schools, as described by Damien Sojoyner, creates education

enclosures, or spaces where surveillance and monitoring resembles those of prisons, for Black

youth (Sojoyner 2016). Garland describes this shift from schools to prison-like environments as a

culture of control that reinforces social order through schools (2001). Public schools where there

is a large proportion of Black students and officers present subject students to constant

surveillance and ultimately, puts students at risk of entering the criminal justice system ( Na &

Gottfredson 2011). Thus, the school-to-prison pipeline not only removes students from

classrooms and schools, but from their communities as they age. Such trends require an in-depth

analysis of the inclusion of officers and their role in increasing the culture of control in schools.

11
The Current Study

Recent research describing the presence of sworn law enforcement officers has lacked a

distinct focus on the student racial composition of schools (Devlin et. al. 2018; Theriot 2013).

Including student racial composition variables provides an opportunity to understand the

independent relationships between the presence of officers on campus and the use of

exclusionary discipline and student racial composition. Investigating these relationships will lead

to more discussions on safety and how the presence of these officers impacts the school

environment.

This study examines how the racial composition of schools is associated with presence of

sworn law enforcement officers, and the relationship between their presence and exclusionary

discipline. My hypotheses are as follows: 1) The percentage of Black students in a school is

positively associated with the probability of having a sworn law enforcement officer present, 2)

An increase in the percentage of Black students is positively associated with the odds of having a

sworn law enforcement officer on campus, 3) The percentage of Black students and the presence

of sworn law enforcement officers are positively associated with suspension rates, and 4)

Schools that gain a sworn law enforcement officer or increase the percentage of Black students

will see an increase in their suspension rate.

Data, Measures, Methods

I test my hypotheses with data from the School Survey of Crime Safety (SSOCS). This

nationally representative survey of public schools is conducted by the National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES). This survey was introduced in response to the need for more data

12
surrounding school safety in the aftermath of several school shootings that took place in 1997-98

(NCES 1999).

The SSOCS includes specific improvements in the quality of the measures and provides

more timely data surrounding the condition of education in the United States (NCES). SSOCS is

the only recurring federal survey that collects detailed information on school crime and safety

from the school’s perspective. SSOCS was first administered in the spring of the 1999-2000

academic year and has since been administered in springs of 2003-04, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2009-

10, and 2015-16. This survey was administered to school administrators and full-time staff

members who had a significant knowledge of their respective school’s safety and security

measures. SSOCS is the most comprehensive data collection on school safety and security

measures, which provides substantial data for analysis in regard to school resource officers and

their presence on school campuses ( Kupchik 2012).

The sample design for my study accounts for considerable variation in the surveys; I

analyze the restricted data versions from 2003-04, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2009-10, and 2015-16.

These five data sets were designed cross-sectionally, but due to random sampling there are

schools that appear more than once in the data sets and I retain the schools in my sample that

have been surveyed two or more times. The rationale for sampling schools more than once is to

observe the changes in my key independent variables to assist in predicting changes in my

outcome variables.

I merged each year of SSOCS data with the National Center of Statistics Common Core

Data Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe data file, which provides a list of all

national public schools and demographic information. Through merging the five SSOCS datasets

together, I was able to analyze 2,535 schools longitudinally. The study comprises schools that

have been included in SSOCS two ( N=2,210), three ( N= 303), and four ( N=16) times. Because

13
schools may have been randomly sampled up to 12 years apart (i.e., if a school was sampled in

2003 and then again in 2015), my analysis accounts for gaps in time in the sampling. I added a

measure for the years that the schoolwas included in my data to account for the amount of time

that elapsed between surveys.

Measures

Dependent Variable. I examine two outcomes: the presence of sworn law enforcement officers

and suspension rates. School administrators in each of the five waves of the SSOCS were asked

if their school had any sworn law enforcement officer present at least once a week. I coded this

question as a dummy variable , 1 for yes and 0 for otherwise to indicate if the school had an

officer on their campus. Table 1 displays the change in the number of officers in schools from

Time 1 and Time 2 remain relatively stable from Time 1 (78.5%) and Time 2 (77.7%), with a

slight one percentage decrease in the presence of an officer, indicating that overall schools

receive some utility from their presence.

The next dependent variable, the suspension rate of students, is a continuous variable that

represents the number of out of school suspensions1 in one academic year divided by the number

of students at a given school in the sample. In this study I do not examine other forms of

exclusionary discipline such as detention, in-school suspension, and expulsion, because this data

was inconsistently collected over each wave of the SSOCS in my sample. I also control for other

aspects of social control in schools (see below for descriptions; Garland 2001; Simon 2007) .

Independent Variables.

School Context and Composition. I examine several variables that provide context to the types of

schools included in the study. An integral aspect to my analysis is the racial composition of

1 The suspension rate variable included in the study may count students who have been suspended more than once.
This study focuses on schools and examines how they use exclusionary sanctioning and thus multiple suspensions of
the same students is not an issue.

14
schools, with a specific focus on historically underrepresented minorities such as Black, Hispanic

and Asian students. I generate these racial composition variables through creating percent

measures for each of these racial categories, with percentage of white students serving as the

comparison group.

In addition to racial/ethnic composition variables, I control for the locale of school

(urban, town, rural, midsize city, and large city). These locale variables are generated dummy

variables, with the large size city variable serving as the comparison group. In addition, I control

for the size of each school’s student enrollment, generating two dummy variables representing

medium and large size schools, with small size schools as the comparison group.

Perceived Prevalence of Crime. I include a measure from the SSOCS that is based on school

administrator’s assessment of the amount of crime that surrounds the school. This variable has

three values of high, moderate, and low levels of crime where the school is located. I generate

two dummy variables high and moderate levels of crime, with low levels of crime being the

comparison group.

Culture of Control. I include dummy variables that measure other forms of social control. These

include the presence of drug sniffing dogs, metal detectors, security cameras, a strict dress code,

and requiring school uniforms. I include these control variables to provide context of different

security and social control measures in place at schools. Additionally, these variables are

included in my analysis to isolate the association between the presence of officers and

suspension rates.

[Insert Table 1 here]

Analytic Strategy

I use multilevel logistic regression and a dummy variable signifying if a school has ever

had an officer present to assess my first hypothesis about the relationship between the presence

15
of sworn law enforcement officers and racial composition. For hypothesis two, I test whether the

change in the proportionate presence of historically underrepresented minority students is

associated with the odds of gaining an officer on campus by generating change scores for each

racial composition variable included in the data. The outcome variables for this analysis is the

presence of sworn law enforcement officer at Time 2.

I analyze my third hypothesis on the presence of sworn law enforcement officer and

suspension rates of students, with multilevel linear regression. I test my fourth and final

hypothesis with a measure of the change in student suspension rate between Time 1 and Time 2

as the dependent variable and examine whether schools that gain a sworn law enforcement

officer or increase the percentage of Black students see an increase in the suspension rate. For

each hypothesis, I estimate a series of equations beginning with a reduced model to estimate the

change in the magnitude for the primary theoretical variable.

In my logit analyses, I add control variables that represent racial composition (Model 2),

school composition and crime (Model 3), (Model 4), and cultures of control (Model 5) to

account for variation of schools in the sample. In my ordinary least squares (OLS) analyses

display results for hypothesis three, I add control variables that represent racial composition (

Models 2 and 3), school composition and crime (Model 4 and 5) and culture of control ( Model

6) covariates. Lastly, my OLS analyses for hypothesis four display varying officer presence (

keep, gain, and lose officer) from Time 1 to Time 2 ( Model 2), change in the percentage Black

students and varying officer presence from Time 1 to Time 2 ( Model 3), change in racial

composition of schools ( Model 4), school composition and crime ( Model 5 and 6) and culture

of control ( Model 7) covariates.

16
Results

[Insert Table 2 here]

Consistent with hypothesis one, Table 2 indicates that the likelihood that there is an

officer on campus increases with the percentage of Black students. The results from Model 1,

examining the odds of a sworn law enforcement officer being present on a school campus and

the percentage of Black students in schools, indicates that every one percentage point increase in

the Black student share is associated with a three percent increase in the odds of having an

officer on campus. In Model 2, I include variables for the percent of Hispanic and Asian

students, both of which are positive and significantly associated with the odds of having an

officer on campus. For Model 3, where I include control variables of where the school is located,

urbanicity, school size, and levels of crime at school, the estimated association between

percentage of Black students and the odds of having an officer on campus remains positive and

statistically significant. Model 4 includes the percentage of students who receive free and

reduced lunch as a predictor. This variable is not statistically significant, and the estimated

association between percentage black student enrollment and the odds of a police officer being

present on campus is unchanged.

Model 5 includes variables that measure the culture of control in schools. Three variables

have a positive statistically significant association with the odds of a police officer being on

campus: the presence of security cameras, the presence of dog sniffing, and enforcement of a

strict dress code at school. The presence of security cameras is associated with a 52.7 percent

increase in the odds of having an officer present on campus. Additionally, the presence of dog

sniffing is associated with a 1.66 percent increase in the odds of having an officer present on

campus. Lastly, the enforcement of a strict dress code on school campuses is associated with a

17
53.2 percent increase in the odds of having an officer on campus. In addition, Model 5 indicates

that every one percentage increase in the black student share when holding the covariates

constant, is associated with a two percent increase in the likelihood of having an officer present

on campus. The magnitude of this association decreased by one percent, however this

relationship remains positive and statistically significant.

[Insert Table 3 here]

To test hypothesis 3, I examine whether change in the share of Black students is

associated with an increased possibility of adding a sworn officer on campus. As seen in Table 3,

Models 1 through 5, a change in the share of Black students is not associated with the presence

of having a sworn officer on campus, controlling for sworn officer presence at time 1. In Model

5 there are positive statistically significant findings for two out of the five culture of control

covariates. Schools that have security cameras present are associated with a 61.8 percent increase

in the likelihood of increased presence of an officer being on campus. Additionally, schools

where dog sniffing takes place are associated with a 52.7 percent increase in the likelihood of

increased presence of an officer being on campus.

[Insert Table 4 here]

Table 4 focuses on the association between the presence of an officer and suspension

rates. Model 1 indicates there is a positive statistically significant relationship between the

presence of an officer and suspension rates. This model indicates that having an officer present

on campus is associated with a .236 standard deviation increase in the suspension rate per 100

students2. Model 2 includes the percentage of Black students at a given school, estimating the

association between Black student enrollment and suspension rates when controlling for police

2The standardized coefficient is generated by dividing the coefficient by the standard deviation of the dependent
variable

18
presence. In this model, having an officer present on campus controlling for the black student

percentage is associated with a .008 standard deviation increase in the suspension rate per 100

students. Model 3 includes Hispanic and Asian student enrollment variables, neither of which

has a statistically significant relationship with suspension rates. Model 4 controls for crime and

shows a positive statistically significant relationship with suspension rates. In Model 5, there is a

positive statistically significant relationship between free and reduced lunch and suspension

rates. Lastly, Model 6 includes variables that represent the cultures of control present in schools.

This model indicated that none of the culture of control variables have a statistically significant

relationship with suspension rates; the Black student effect decreases slightly but remains

positive and significantly associated with suspension rates.

[Insert Table 5 here]

I test hypothesis 4 by examining whether an increase in the number of sworn law

enforcement officers on campus or an increase in the percentage of Black students predicts

suspension rates. As seen in Table 5, Models 1 through 7, findings indicate that there are no

statistically significant relationship between the change in suspension rate and the percentage of

Black students or gaining of an officer on campus. However, in Model 7 there is a positive

statistically significant finding between schools that require uniforms and suspension rates. This

model indicates that a change in the suspension rate from Time 1 to Time 2, is associated with a

.225 standard deviation increase in uniforms being required, when controlling for a gain a sworn

law enforcement officer or an increase in the percentage of Black students within a given school.

Discussion

The present study adds to the existing literature on the presence of police officers in

schools by examining the relationship between the presence of these officers and student racial

19
composition. The findings from my study indicate that schools with a greater share of Black

students are more likely to have an officer present on campus. Schools with a large share of

Black students use more out of school suspensions, as do schools with an officer compared to

those schools that do not have an officer present. I did not find evidence of an association

between the addition of an officer on school campuses and the use of suspensions. I believe the

presence of officers on campus is nuanced and requires more research to better understand their

presence and how their presence can impact potential life outcomes.

I believe the third hypothesis presents null findings due to there being limited variation in

the percentage of Black students between schools that did and did not have an officer present.

Table 1 indicates that schools with an officer present on campus corresponds with the Black

student population representing 15.4 % of the total student populations. In addition, Table 1

indicates that when an officer is not present in schools, the Black student population is 10% of

the total student population. These descriptive statistics indicate that there is about a five-

percentage point difference between the black student population in overall school composition

which may have been one of many reasons why null findings were generated.

The results from my study demonstrate that the presence of officers is greater in schools

that have a large population of Black and brown students. Dumas’ description of antiblackness

describes Black citizens as a racialized “Other” (Dumas 2011). The othering effect is displayed

in schools through the policing of bodies where students of color are present and placing students

in contact with members of the criminal justice system more frequently. The inclusion of officers

in the everyday lives of students is an aspect of school safety which needs more evaluation and

exploration to make informative decisions for schools.

The implementation of officers on school campuses as described by Garland (2001) and

Kupchik (2010) are reactive measures to keeping students safe and leads to quick decision

20
making which is uninformed. Swift decision-making puts students more in contact with law

enforcement initiating the processing of more youth through the criminal justice system

(Addington, 2009; Brown, 2006; Crews et. al. 2013; Jennings et. al. 2011). The very presence of

an officer on campus threatens and exacerbates inequality that is already present on school

campuses, which provides an additive inequality to schools that makes schools inherently

unequal.

This study displays the potential latent consequences for having officers on campus, and

raises the questions “Does having an officer present make schools safer, and for whom does it do

so?”

Limitations

This study did not have the ability to test between-student differences, due to the SSOCS

being measured at the school level. Future research should test between-student differences

through using other nationally representative data sets which have student level predictors and

outcomes to discover how students differ between schools with and without an officer present on

campus. Through comparing schools with and without officers on campus, it will provide the

opportunity to assess different educational achievement and disciplinary outcomes of students

from varying racial and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Second, the measures for several independent variables, specifically the culture of control

variables used in my analysis, were not repeatedly asked in all waves. The variables I selected

for my study were used in all five waves, although there were other variables that I could have

selected. I chose to not include those variables to maintain a large sample size. For subsequent

research, I suggest using multiple imputation or discovering other data sources that have

consistency throughout longitudinal or repeated cross-sectional surveys to gain better

understanding of changes over time.

21
 Third, although this study included a control for crime where the school was located, I

am uncertain how school administrators measured crime at the school level. I suggest future

research include measures of crime from where the school is located and where students live.

This type of data will assist in understanding relationships between policing, in and around

schools, and how this impacts the schooling environment.

Fourth, similar to previously conducted research, unmeasured selection effects may

confound my results. Although this study controlled for differences between schools, it is

possible that there may be unobserved characteristics between the presence of officers and other

independent variables. Although this is a concern, I have data which examine effects over time

through the construction of my longitudinal data set. Future research would ideally have more

variables which address poverty in neighborhoods where schools are located and where students

live.

Fifth, the study was limited in its ability to assess change in the presence of officers and

assessing the varying levels of a culture of control in schools. I used a series of dummy variables

which examined if schools gained, lost, and kept an officer on school campuses. Table 1

indicates that 69% of schools that had an officer present at Time 1 retained the officer at Time 2.

Additionally, Table 1 displays that 8% of schools gained an officer and 9% of schools lost an

officer from Time 1 to Time 2. The data I have is limited in its scope of why schools may

continue to keep an officer present and also why schools make the decision to increase officer

presence on school campuses.

Lastly, the data does not indicate how many officers were added at each school from each

subsequent wave, which would be helpful to asses if schools are shifting to models where they

are increasing the culture of control in a given school. I believe this study solely focusing on if

22
schools do and do not have an officer present, provides for the opportunity for future research to

be conducted on the mechanisms that lead schools to make decisions on the presence of officers.

Implications for Research and Practice

Forthcoming studies should shift to consider other mechanisms that help explain why

certain schools and neighborhoods are more surveilled and militarized in comparison to others in

the United States. This study focuses on the relationship between race and the presence of

officers in schools. In addition, this study addresses at the school level, the relationship

exclusionary discipline has with the rapidly growing population of sworn officers on school

campuses. The implementation of new security technologies and more policing requires rigorous

research to ensure students are not put at an even higher risk of falling victim to the criminal

justice system with these new measures.

As noted by Delvin and Gottfredson (2018), policy recommendations should only be

made after subsequent rigorous research confirms findings. In the current era of frequent school

shootings, it is essential to increase the amount of research conducted through partnerships

between universities and school district stakeholders. In the wake of changing school safety

policies and increased surveillance in schools, the implementation of swift reactionary policy has

damaging effects to schools that serve Black students and other students of color. The United

States education system is creating prison-like environments for students through hyper

surveillance and questionable enforcement tactics typically used in communities of color. The

schooling environments for Black students calls into question the purpose of educating students,

specifically, with history demonstrating the volatile relationship between Black students and

public schooling. The first step forward is addressing the presence of antiblackness in schools

23
and begin to engage in finding solutions to eradicating these narratives and systems from our

public schools and institutions.

24
 References
Addington, Lynn A. 2009. “Cops and Cameras: Public School Security as a Policy Response to
Columbine.” American Behavioral Scientist52(10):1426–46.
Barnes, Lynn M. 2016. “Keeping the Peace and Controlling Crime: What School Resource Officers
Want School Personnel to Know.” The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies,
Issues and Ideas89(6):197–201.
Benigni, M. D. 2004. “The Need for School Resource Officers.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin(73):22–
24.
Bracy, Nicole L. 2011. “Student Perceptions of High-Security School Environments.” Youth &
Society43(1):365–95.
Brenchley, Cameron. 2013. “President Obama's Plan to Make Our Schools Safer.” ED.gov Blog.
Retrieved (https://blog.ed.gov/2013/01/president-obamas-plan-to-make-our-schools-safer/).
Brown, Ben. 2006. “Understanding and Assessing School Police Officers: A Conceptual and
Methodological Comment.” Journal of Criminal Justice34(6):591–604.
Burton, Chase S. 2016. “Schools and Delinquency in the Early 20th Century: Rethinking the Origins of
School Policing.” British Journal of Criminology57(3):532–50.
Coon, Julie Kiernan and Lawrence F. Travis. 2012. “The Role of Police in Public Schools: A
Comparison of Principal and Police Reports of Activities in Schools.” Police Practice and
Research13(1):15–30.
Crews, Gordon A., Angela D. Crews, and Catherine E. Burton. 2013. “The Only Thing That Stops a
Guy with a Bad Policy Is a Guy with a Good Policy: An Examination of the NRA’s ‘National
School Shield’ Proposal.” American Journal of Criminal Justice38(2):183–99.
Devlin, Deanna N., Mateus Rennó Santos, and Denise C. Gottfredson. 2018. “An Evaluation of Police
Officers in Schools as a Bullying Intervention.” Evaluation and Program Planning71:12–21.
Dumas, Michael J. 2011. “A Cultural Political Economy of School Desegregation in Seattle.” Teachers
College Record113:703–34.
Dumas, Michael J. 2014. “‘Losing an Arm’: Schooling as a Site of Black Suffering.” Race Ethnicity and
Education17(1):1–29.
Dumas, Michael J. 2016. “Against the Dark: Antiblackness in Education Policy and Discourse.” Theory
Into Practice55(1):11–19.
Finn, Peter, Jack Mcdevitt, William Lassiter, Michael Shively, and Tom Rich. 2005. “Case Studies of 19
School Resource Officer (SRO) Programs.” PsycEXTRA Dataset.
Garland, David. 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Late Modernity. Oxford:
Clarendon.
Gottfredson, Denise C. and Stephanie M. Dipietro. 2011. “School Size, Social Capital, and Student
Victimization.” Sociology of Education84(1):69–89.
Government Accountability Office. 2018. “K-12 Education: Discipline Disparities for Black Students,
Boys, and Students with Disabilities.” U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO).
Retrieved (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-258).
Gregory, Anne, Dewey G. Cornell, and Xitao Fan. 2011. “Relationship of School Structure and Support
to Suspension Rates for Black and White High School Students.” PsycEXTRA Dataset20(10):1–
31.
Hirschfield, Paul J. 2008. “Preparing for Prison?” Theoretical Criminology12(1):79–101.
Horsford, S. D., C. Sampson, and F. M. Forletta. 2013. “School Resegregation in the Mississippi of the
West: Community Counternarratives on the Return to Neighborhood Schools in Las Vegas,
Nevada, 1968– 1994.” Teachers College Record115:1–28.

25
Jennings, Wesley G., David N. Khey, Jon Maskaly, and Christopher M. Donner. 2011. “Evaluating the
Relationship Between Law Enforcement and School Security Measures and Violent Crime in
Schools.” Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations11(2):109–24.
Johnson, I. M. 1999. “School Violence: The Effectiveness of a School Resource Officer Program in a
Southern City.” Journal of Criminal Justice27(2):173–92.
Kupchik, Aaron. 2010. Homeroom Security: School Discipline in an Age of Fear. New York, NY: New
York University Press.
Kupchik, Aaron and Nicholas Ellis. 2008. “School Discipline and Security.” Youth & Society39(4):549–
74.
Kupchik, Aaron and Torin Monahan. 2006. “The New American School: Preparation for Post‐Industrial
Discipline.” British Journal of Sociology of Education27(5):617–31.
Kupchik, Aaron and Geoff Ward. 2014. “Race, Poverty, and Exclusionary School Security: An
Empirical Analysis of U.S. Elementary, Middle, and High Schools .” Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice12(4):332–54.
Lambert, Regina D. and Dixie Mcginty. 2002. “Law Enforcement Officers in Schools: Setting
Priorities.” Journal of Educational Administration40(3):257–73.
Leiber, Michael J., Mahesh K. Nalla, and Margaret Farnworth. 1998. “Explaining Juveniles Attitudes
toward the Police.” Justice Quarterly15(1):151–74.
Losen, Daniel J. 2015. Closing the School Discipline Gap: Equitable Remedies for Excessive Exclusion.
New York: Teachers College Press.
May, David, Corrie Rice, and Kevin Minor. 2011. “An Examination of School Resource Officers'
Attitudes Regarding Behavioral Issues among Students Receiving Special Education
Services.” Current Issues in Education- Arizona State University15(3):1–14.
Mckenna, Joseph M. and Shawna R. White. 2018. “Examining the Use of Police in Schools: How Roles
May Impact Responses to Student Misconduct.” American Journal of Criminal
Justice43(3):448–70.
Meiners, Erica R. 2011. “Ending the School-to-Prison Pipeline/Building Abolition Futures.” The Urban
Review43(4):547–65.
Na, Chongmin and Denise C. Gottfredson. 2011. “Police Officers in Schools: Effects on School Crime
and the Processing of Offending Behaviors.” Justice Quarterly30(4):619–50.
Nance, Jason P. 2016. “Student Surveillance, Racial Inequalities, and Implicit Racial Bias” Emory Law
Journal66:16–30.
Noguera, Pedro A. 2003. City Schools and the American Dream: Reclaiming the Promise of Public
Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Nolan, Kathleen. 2011. Police in the Hallways: Discipline in an Urban High School. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Perry, Brea L. and Edward W. Morris. 2014. “Suspending Progress:Collateral Consequences of
Exclusionary Punishment in Public Schools.” American Sociological Review79(6):1067–87.
Price, P. 2009. “When Is Police Officer an Officer of the Law: The Status of Police Officers in
Schools.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology99(2):541–70.
Rios, Victor M. 2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. New York: New York
University Press.
Rios, Victor M. 2017. Human Targets: Schools, Police, and the Criminalization of Latino Youth.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Roithmayr, Daria. 2014. Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock in White Advantage. New
York, NY: New York Univ. Press.
Sherfinski, David. 2018. “Percentage of Public Schools with Resource Officers on the Rise:
Report.” The Washington Times. Retrieved

26
 (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/29/percentage-public-schools-resource-
officers-rise-r/).
Simon, Jonathan. 2007. Governing through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American
Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skiba, R. J., R. S. Michael, A. C. Nardo, and R. Peterson. 2000. “The Color of Discipline: Sources of
Racial and Gender Disproportionality in School Punishment.” The Urban Review34(4):317–42.
Skiba, Russell J. and Kimberly Knesting. 2001. “Zero Tolerance, Zero Evidence: An Analysis of School
Disciplinary Practice.” New Directions for Youth Development 2001(92):17–43.
Sojoyner, Damien M. 2016. First Strike: Educational Enclosures in Black Los Angeles. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Stinson, Philip Matthew and Adam M. Watkins. 2014. “The Nature of Crime by School Resource
Officers.” SAGE Open4(1):1–10.
Theriot, Matthew T. 2009. “School Resource Officers and the Criminalization of Student
Behavior.” Journal of Criminal Justice37(3):280–87.
Theriot, Matthew T. 2013. “The Impact of School Resource Officer Interaction on Students’ Feelings
About School and School Police.” Crime & Delinquency62(4):446–69.
U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Weiler, Spencer C. and Martha Cray. 2011. “Police at School: A Brief History and Current Status of
School Resource Officers.” The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and
Ideas84(4):160–63.
Welch, Kelly and Allison Ann Payne. 2011. “Racial Threat and Punitive School Discipline.” Social
Problems57(1):25–48.

27
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Officer Present at No Officer Present at
Sample
Time 1 Time 1
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Suspension Rate 1.573 (2.852) 0.846 (2.404) 1.417 (2.777)
Black Students (%) 15.393 (21.381) 10.034 (18.385) 14.243 (20.883)
Hispanic Students (%) 19.663 (25.463) 13.045 (20.513) 18.243 (24.627)
Asian Students (%) 4.560 (8.814) 4.190 (9.595) 4.481 (8.984)
Rural 0.181 (0.386) 0.311 (0.464) 0.209 (0.407)
Town 0.403 (0.491) 0.402 (0.491) 0.403 (0.491)
Midsize City 0.175 (0.380) 0.094 (0.293) 0.157 (0.364)
Large City 0.241 (0.428) 0.193 (0.395) 0.230 (0.421)
Urban 0.305 (0.460) 0.164 (0.371) 0.274 (0.446)
High Level of Crime at
0.062 (0.241) 0.033 (0.178) 0.055 (0.229)
School
Moderate Level of
0.211 (0.408) 0.119 (0.324) 0.191 (0.393)
Crime at School
Medium Size School 0.337 (0.473) 0.455 (0.499) 0.362 (0.481)
Large Size School 0.576 (0.495) 0.193 (0.395) 0.493 (0.500)
Change in Total Free
40.113 (25.203) 38.758 (25.210) 39.822 (25.200)
Lunch (%)
Metal Detectors 0.024 (0.152) 0.004 (0.064) 0.019 (0.138)
Security Cameras 0.748 (0.434) 0.607 (0.490) 0.718 (0.450)
Dog Sniffing 0.532 (0.499) 0.393 (0.490) 0.502 (0.500)
Contraband Sweeps 0.256 (0.437) 0.168 (0.375) 0.237 (0.426)
Uniforms Required 0.105 (0.307) 0.074 (0.262) 0.099 (0.298)
Strict Dress Code 0.692 (0.462) 0.582 (0.494) 0.668 (0.471)
Change in Suspension
-0.034 (3.762)
Rate
Change in Percent
0.026 (4.057)
Black(%)
Change in Percent
-0.098 (6.014)
Hispanic (%)
Change in Percent
0.027 (2.749)
Asian(%)
Sworn Officer (Time 2) 0.777 (0.417)
Sworn Officer (Time 1) 0.785 (0.411)
Gain Officer 0.083 (0.276)
Lose Officer 0.092 (0.289)
Keep Officer 0.693 (0.461)
Observations 893 244 1137

28
Table 2. Logistic Regression of Sworn Officer Present on Percentage of Black Students
(Hypothesis 1)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Black Students (%) 1.031*** 1.034*** 1.020*** 1.021*** 1.022***
(0.007) (0.007) (0.006) (0.006) (0.007)
Hispanic Students (%) 1.015** 1.004 1.005 1.006
(0.005) (0.004) (0.005) (0.005)
Asian Students (%) 1.034* 0.991 0.991 1.005
(0.015) (0.011) (0.011) (0.012)
Rural 1.341 1.371 1.137
(0.389) (0.408) (0.337)
Town 1.571 1.591 1.399
(0.372) (0.381) (0.339)
Midsizecity 1.394 1.399 1.398
(0.432) (0.434) (0.433)
Urban 2.155** 2.178** 2.245**
(0.603) (0.614) (0.630)
High Level of Crime at School 0.497 0.509 0.596
(0.213) (0.221) (0.257)
Moderate Level of Crime at School 1.747* 1.785* 1.788*
(0.452) (0.476) (0.476)
Medium Size School 5.305*** 5.246*** 4.488***
(1.339) (1.334) (1.128)
Large Size School 54.089*** 52.656*** 38.237***
(17.206) (17.207) (12.341)
Total Free Lunch (%) 0.998 0.994
(0.005) (0.005)
Metal Detectors 4.998
(4.632)
Security Cameras 1.527*
(0.289)
Dog sniffing 2.661***
(0.513)
Contraband Sweeps 1.309
(0.287)
Uniforms Required 0.916
(0.316)
Strict Dress Code 1.532*
(0.274)
Constant 9.339*** 5.843*** 0.379** 0.395** 0.177***
(1.682) (1.156) (0.119) (0.134) (0.065)
N 2410.000 2410.000 2410.000 2410.000 2410.000
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses
*
p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

29
Table 3. Logistic Regression of Presence of Officer at Time 2 on the Change of Percentage
of Black Students, (Hypothesis 2)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Change in Percent Black(%) 0.984 0.983 0.986 0.990 0.990
(0.021) (0.021) (0.023) (0.023) (0.024)
Sworn Officer at Time 1 12.345*** 12.398*** 7.570*** 7.591*** 7.165***
(2.123) (2.137) (1.407) (1.412) (1.366)
Change in Percent Hispanic (%) 0.986 0.986 0.993 0.994
(0.014) (0.016) (0.018) (0.019)
Change in Percent Asian(%) 1.012 1.016 1.017 1.013
(0.029) (0.033) (0.032) (0.030)
Rural 1.461 1.437 1.138
(0.443) (0.437) (0.359)
Town 1.123 1.103 0.915
(0.303) (0.299) (0.258)
Midsizecity 1.829 1.839 1.697
(0.635) (0.639) (0.608)
Urban 1.902* 1.863* 1.972*
(0.528) (0.519) (0.564)
High Level of Crime at School 1.126 1.129 1.135
(0.550) (0.555) (0.560)
Moderate Level of Crime at School 1.350 1.338 1.303
(0.345) (0.342) (0.344)
Medium Size School 1.750* 1.731* 1.664*
(0.396) (0.392) (0.387)
*** ***
Large Size School 7.847 7.872 7.132***
(2.114) (2.121) (1.960)
Change in Total Free Lunch (%) 0.993 0.996
(0.009) (0.009)
Metal Detectors 0.731
(0.540)
Security Cameras 1.618*
(0.318)
Dog sniffing 1.527*
(0.304)
Contraband Sweeps 1.151
(0.278)
Uniforms Required 1.199
(0.408)
Strict Dress Code 0.846
(0.167)
N 1099.000 1099.000 1099.000 1099.000 1099.000
Exponentiated coefficients; Standard errors in parentheses
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** pTable 4. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression of Out of School

Suspension Rate on Presence of Officer and Black Students,(Hypothesis 3)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Presence of Sworn Officer 0.674*** 0.560*** 0.576*** 0.501** 0.505** 0.489**
(0.165) (0.164) (0.164) (0.173) (0.173) (0.175)

30
Black Students (%) 0.026*** 0.026*** 0.018*** 0.011* 0.009*
(0.004) (0.004) (0.004) (0.005) (0.005)
Hispanic Students (%) -0.003 -0.009* -0.016*** -0.017***
(0.003) (0.003) (0.004) (0.004)
Asian Students (%) -0.003 -0.005 -0.004 -0.004
(0.009) (0.009) (0.009) (0.009)
Rural 0.317 0.164 0.143
(0.234) (0.238) (0.239)
Town -0.049 -0.137 -0.156
(0.176) (0.178) (0.182)
Midsizecity 0.540* 0.529* 0.509*
(0.225) (0.224) (0.225)
Urban -0.250 -0.327 -0.322
(0.200) (0.200) (0.201)
High Level of Crime at
1.681*** 1.509*** 1.504***
School
(0.319) (0.323) (0.324)
Moderate Level of Crime
0.926*** 0.801*** 0.817***
at School
(0.181) (0.185)
(0.185)
Medium Size School 0.154 0.2450.250
(0.227) (0.228)
(0.228)
Large Size School 0.326 0.536*
0.540*
(0.238) (0.246)
(0.248)
Total Free Lunch (%) 0.014**
0.013**
(0.004)
(0.004)
Metal Detectors -0.686
(0.489)
Security Cameras 0.110
(0.154)
Dog sniffing -0.119
(0.145)
Contraband Sweeps 0.280
(0.156)
Uniforms Required 0.243
(0.250)
Strict Dress Code 0.190
(0.137)
N 2410.000 2410.000 2410.000 2410.000 2410.000 2410.000
Standard errors in parentheses
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

31
Table 5. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression of Change in Out of School Suspension
Rate on the Change in Percentage of Black Students with the Presence of Officer,
(Hypothesis 4)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Change in Percent
-0.018 -0.017 -0.017 -0.013 0.007 0.009
Black(%)
(0.022) (0.022) (0.022) (0.022) (0.023) (0.023)
Suspension Rate - - - - - - -
(Time 1) 0.857*** 0.870*** 0.871*** 0.869*** 0.877*** 0.874*** 0.878***
(0.033) (0.033) (0.033) (0.033) (0.034) (0.034) (0.034)
Gain Officer 0.647 0.653 0.618 0.698 0.659 0.627
(0.397) (0.397) (0.398) (0.403) (0.401) (0.400)
Lose Officer 0.115 0.126 0.109 0.161 0.141 0.076
(0.384) (0.384) (0.384) (0.388) (0.386) (0.386)
Keep Officer 0.848** 0.849** 0.828** 0.950** 0.928** 0.864**
(0.270) (0.270) (0.270) (0.298) (0.296) (0.300)
Change in Percent
-0.029* -0.025 0.008 0.011
Hispanic (%)
(0.015) (0.015) (0.018) (0.018)
Change in Percent
0.001 0.001 0.007 0.010
Asian(%)
(0.032) (0.033) (0.033) (0.032)
Rural 0.460 0.381 0.476
(0.313) (0.312) (0.317)
Town 0.387 0.284 0.374
(0.266) (0.266) (0.272)
Midsizecity 0.448 0.458 0.585*
(0.297) (0.296) (0.298)
Urban 0.223 0.127 0.002
(0.251) (0.251) (0.253)
High Level of Crime
0.408 0.293 0.105
at School
(0.415) (0.414) (0.416)
Moderate Level of
0.409 0.362 0.211
Crime at School
(0.237) (0.237) (0.240)
Medium Size School -0.124 -0.164 -0.112
(0.289) (0.288) (0.290)
Large Size School -0.380 -0.377 -0.262
(0.306) (0.304) (0.307)

32
Table 5. Continued

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7

Change in
Total Free -0.031*** -0.030***
Lunch (%)
(0.008) (0.008)
Metal
0.732
Detectors
(0.685)
Security
0.066
Cameras
(0.207)
Dog sniffing -0.243
(0.191)
Contraband
0.358
Sweeps
(0.217)
Uniforms
0.848**
Required
(0.313)
Strict Dress
0.039
Code
(0.193)
N 1099.000 1099.000 1099.000 1099.000 1099.000 1099.000 1099.000
Standard errors in parentheses
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

33