Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.

173–192, 1999
Copyright © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0047-2352/99 $–see front matter
PII S0047-2352(98)00049-X

SCHOOL VIOLENCE: THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A

SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM
IN A SOUTHERN CITY

Ida M. Johnson

Department of Criminal Justice

University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0320

ABSTRACT

The safety of America’s school children is constantly being threatened by violence, drugs, alcohol,
gang-related activities, and other social ills. It is becoming increasingly difficult for school administra-
tors across the United States to provide youth with a safe learning environment. With the nation’s youth
becoming increasingly exposed to violence in schools, it is important for school officials, community
leaders, and community service workers to acknowledge and address school disciplinary problems. The
School Resource Officer Program has been developed to help school officials cope with the growing in-
cidence of school violence and to make the school environment safe and conducive to enriched learning.
This study was designed to evaluate a School Resource Officer Program in a southern city and its impact
on school violence and school disciplinary problems. The data revealed that the placement of police of-
ficers in city schools has a positive effect on school violence and disciplinary infractions. The total num-
ber of intermediate and major offenses in high schools and middle schools decreased from 3,267 in
1994–95 (before the School Resource Officers were permanently assigned to city schools) to 2,710 in
1995–96 (after the School Resource Officers were permanently assigned to city schools). © 1999
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION problem that can no longer be denied or ig-

School violence is a serious problem in
America’s public schools. School violence not
only affects the physical, emotional, and social
well-being of students but it also prevents
school administrators and teachers from accom-
plishing the primary goal of education. This is a
173
nored. Learning is only possible in an environ-
ment that is free of violence and that encourages
mutual respect, self-confidence, and coopera-
tion. Society has a vested interest, opportunity,
and obligation to create, monitor, improve, and
evaluate school-based prevention programs.
The importance of administrators and teachers
174 I. M. JOHNSON
developing and adhering to a clear, concise, and
consistent policy on school violence should not
be overlooked.
Concerns about school violence have led
several states to study the pervasiveness of the
problem and to draft legislation to address ways
in which school violence can be reduced (Fur-
long et al., 1996; James, 1994). A number of ed-
ucational and preventive programs have already
been implemented in public schools across the
United States. Schools are not only developing
educational programs designed to teach stu-
dents how to manage conflict, but they are also
implementing regulatory programs that place
police officers in schools to deal with school vi-
olence. These programs, as well as others, have
been developed to reduce school violence,
though there has been limited research to deter-
mine whether such programs are having a posi-
tive impact on school violence and other disci-
plinary problems. Research based on behavioral
outcomes is needed if we are to conclude with
any degree of conviction that our efforts at re-
ducing school violence are actually working.
The purpose of the present research study
was to evaluate the effectiveness of a School
Resource Officer (SRO) program whereby uni-
formed police officers are placed in city high
schools and middle schools for the purpose of
creating and maintaining a safe and secure
school environment. The evaluation of the SRO
program focused on the following research
questions: (1) Is the SRO program successful in
fulfilling stated program goals? and (2) What
particular components of the SRO program are
having a positive effect on school violence and
disciplinary problems?
PROGRAMS REVIEW
School violence represents broad categories
of acts that may range from harassment to mur-
der. School violence involves acts of physical,
sexual, or psychological aggression that may or
may not result in injury or death. These acts can
be perpetrated by students against other stu-
dents, students against teachers, and teachers
against students, though most acts of school vi-
olence involve those perpetrated by students
against other students. School administrators,
parents, police officers, community leaders, and
students are concerned about drugs, the posses-
sion and use of weapons, gangs, assaults, and
murders that occur on school premises across
the United States. The need for preventive mea-
sures against school violence is supported by
the massive number of guns, knives, and other
weapons making their way into schools. Accord-
ing to Townley and Martinez (1995), 100,000
guns and 600,000 knives are brought to schools
daily. These figures are conservative, though other
studies place the number of guns packed by school
children daily at 270,000 (Hawkins, 1990; Sau-
tter, 1995). Nationally, more than 400,000 violent
crimes were reported in or around school pre-
mises (Hawkins, 1990). Two thousand students,
consequently, are physically attacked on school
premises every hour and 900 teachers are
threatened hourly, while another 40 are physi-
cally attacked (U.S. Department of Justice Sta-
tistics, cited in Lantier, 1995).
The media, school administrators, parents,
and community leaders support the belief that
school violence is an ever-increasing problem,
though some students hold significantly differ-
ent perceptions regarding the nature, extent, and
management of school violence. These students
consider the threat of physical violence to be
more pervasive than actual physical conflict and
that more students are victims of verbal harass-
ment than physical violence (MacDonald, 1997).
The acknowledgment of an existing problem
of school violence must also address the reasons
why acts of violence occur in schools. Violent
acts perpetrated by students on school premises
may be explained by a combination of a number
of factors: poverty, exposure to violence, racism,
disintegration of the home environment, materi-
alism, and conflicting value systems (Lindquist
and Molnar, 1995; Wright, 1997).
Violence in public schools can be explained
by the same theoretical explanations that eluci-
date street crime committed by youth. In fact,
many acts of violence that occur on school pre-
mises involving enrolled students spill over
from conflicts that originated in the community.
Many schools that have on-going problems with
acts of violence are located in metropolitan ar-
eas that are characterized by slums, poverty,
 School Violence: Program Effectiveness
and a breakdown in familial and societal con-
trols. Schools that are located in close proximity
to socially disorganized or socially disintegrated
(Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1985) neighbor-
hoods where there is a high visibility of drugs,
prostitution, burglaries, robberies, murders, as
well as a lack of parental supervision and concern,
are likely to experience high levels of violence.
The subculture of violence thesis has been
used to explain the differences in delinquency
rates across some secondary schools (Rutter et
al., 1979). Some students are raised in homes
and communities that not only condone vio-
lence but expect and encourage it. In such situa-
tions, students have been socialized into a sub-
culture of violence (Wolfgang and Ferracuti,
1967) that models, supports, and patterns aggres-
sion, social dominance, and masculinity. Some
students, therefore, may be more violent or en-
gage in more deviant behavior than other stu-
dents because they have a distinct set of values
that either support or tolerate violence. Schools
that have a high proportion of students who in-
ternalize positive values instead of subcultural
values, schools that stress the importance of ac-
ademic values, and schools that apply firm but
fair discipline tend to have low levels of delin-
quency (Felson et al., 1994; Rutter et al., 1979).
The problem of school violence must be ap-
proached from an interdisciplinary perspective.
Efforts designed to reduce school violence and
to create a safe and productive learning environ-
ment must reach beyond school personnel to en-
compass parents, community leaders, heath care
officials, police officers, juvenile justice offi-
cials, and the government. Prior to the imple-
mentation of school violence intervention strat-
egies and programs, a multidisciplinary team
involving school officials, community leaders,
parents, and legal and social agencies should
meet to discuss program implementation and to
examine current research on successful school
violence programs. The problem of school vio-
lence appears to be mounting in light of the re-
cent shootings at schools across the nation,
though some school officials have found that vi-
olence can be prevented or reduced consider-
ably through the creation of school- and com-
munity-based prevention programs.
A number of innovative programs developed
175
to address issues relative to school violence
have taken a conflict resolution approach. One
conflict resolution program, Resolving Conflict
Creatively Program (RCCP), focuses on educat-
ing students about the identification and use of
alternatives to violence and creative conflict
resolution through mediation and communica-
tion. The RCCP was one of the first programs
of its kind. It was launched in 1985 in New
York City and has grown into the largest
school-based program involving participants
from over 3000 schools (Lantier, 1995). Pro-
grams based on the conflict resolution model
are incorporated into the curriculum and actively
involve young people in the fight against youth
crime and school violence. Such programs en-
courage students to articulate their concerns and
views of violence through the process of writ-
ing. Several studies have revealed that conflict
resolution programs have shown a decrease in
both violent and nonviolent behavior (Lantier,
1995).
Most school violence preventive strategies
and programs take an educational, environmen-
tal-technological, regulatory, and combined ap-
proach (Coben-Weiss, Mulvey, and Dearwater,
1994). A well-rounded systematic, comprehen-
sive, and collaborative approach to school vio-
lence should integrate all four approaches into
an overarching program. Educational programs
focusing on school violence preventive strate-
gies should address the root causes of violence,
the consequences of drug and alcohol problems,
and the availability of drugs.
Educational programs must be integrated with
environmental and technological strategies. Be-
fore meaningful educational programs about
school violence can take place, students must
first feel safe. One without the other defeats the
overall mission of reducing school violence.
Many schools have modified their school envi-
ronment by implementing security devices and
practices such as video cameras, walkie-talkies,
hand metal detectors, increased lighting, inter-
com systems, hall monitoring, student identifi-
cation cards, and school uniforms. In addition,
many schools have developed specific policies
that limit or eliminate locker use; require public
sign-in and sign-out procedures; limit multiple
access to the school; and require that school
176 I. M. JOHNSON
buildings, school grounds, and movement of the
student population be monitored.
With the escalation of incidents of school vi-
olence, many schools have moved toward im-
plementing a regulatory program. The regula-
tion and monitoring of the internal and external
environments of the school is based on the as-
sumption that high visibility deters crime. Re-
search indicates that the most problematic areas
of schools, where drugs and gang-related activi-
ties flourish, are areas that are not consistently
monitored. The need for constant regulatory
checks before, during, and after school has led
some school officials to take a proactive ap-
proach to school violence by incorporating a
police model into their crime-prevention strate-
gies. Police officers have now joined forces
with other community agencies and leaders in
the plight to curb incidents of school violence.
Just as community leaders have looked to law
enforcement officers to help them address vio-
lence in the community, school officials have
now turned to law enforcement for legal assis-
tance in dealing with the rising rate of school vi-
olence and school disciplinary infractions. The
realization that school violence is a community
problem, not a school problem, is necessary to
develop interdisciplinary strategies that will
have a positive effect on school violence.
The placement of police officers in schools
is not a new phenomenon. Officers have been
placed in schools for over twenty years, how-
ever, today, some police officers are assigned
full-time to a particular school to assist in estab-
lishing and maintaining a crime-free school en-
vironment. Several states have enacted laws
that require law enforcement notification of cer-
tain crimes that occur on school premises (Kip-
per, 1996). Crimes that take place on school
campuses are more likely to be detected, re-
ported, recorded, and processed, when law en-
forcement officers are assigned to schools. Con-
sistent and appropriate standards of reporting
acts of school violence to law enforcement
agencies may serve as a deterrent. In fact, the
mere presence of uniformed police officers in
schools can have a positive impact on school vi-
olence (Kipper, 1996).
The increasingly perceived level of violence
in U.S. schools has led to the development of a
number of specific violence prevention pro-
grams involving the placement of police offic-
ers in public schools. One program that places
police officers in public schools is the “Safe
School” program in Chicago, Illinois. The Safe
School program involves a number of con-
cerned parents, community leaders, and law en-
forcement officials. The program is broadly de-
veloped to encompass security personnel provided
by the Board of Education, 120 city police of-
ficers, and a security staff hired by Chicago
public schools (Crouch and Williams, 1995).
The Safe School program not only saturates the
public schools with parents, city police officers,
security officers, and community members, it
also mandates the provision of character educa-
tion focusing on concepts such as honesty, in-
tegrity, and values; peer mediation; in-school
learning centers; security cameras in hallways and
lunchrooms; and school uniforms. The daily
presence of, and, interaction with parents, po-
lice officers, and security personnel appears to
be the most effective deterrent of school vio-
lence in Chicago public schools. In fact, in four
years, arrests made on school property for mur-
der, aggravated battery, robbery, and other seri-
ous crimes have fallen 46 percent (Crouch and
Williams, 1995).
Another school-based violence prevention
program involving the placement of police of-
ficers in public schools is the School Resource
Officers program in Fresno, California. This
program was initially created in 1968 when the
Fresno Police Department, in an attempt to pro-
mote community relations among students and
to reduce the rising juvenile crime rate on
school campuses, assigned police officers to
high schools (West and Fries, 1995).
The longevity of the Fresno School Resource
Officers program has lead to numerous changes
and a restructuring designed to improve the ser-
vice delivery of police officers in the Fresco
public schools. The police officers, now called
Juvenile Tactical Officers, have joined forces
with the Fresno County Juvenile Department
and the Fresno Unified School district to inte-
grate police and juvenile probation services.
Since the inception of the police/probation team
concept, there has been a significant improve-
ment in campus safety and a reduction in vio-
 School Violence: Program Effectiveness
lent crime on high school campuses (West and
Fries, 1995).
Not all schools have full- or part-time police
officers, though most schools use hall monitors,
security guards, and parent aides to provide a
safe and secure school. Some schools that do
not have full- or part-time police officers do, in
fact, take a proactive approach to school vio-
lence by requesting that Gang Resistance Edu-
cation and Training Officers (GREAT), Drug
Abuse Resistance Education Officers (DARE)
and the Police Athletic Team (PAT) offer semi-
nars and workshops on gang, drugs, and hand-
gun violence. In addition, in some public high
schools and middle schools, police officers
serve as liaisons. These officers make regular
informal contacts with students and staff for the
purpose of providing information about law en-
forcement and crime prevention and to gain
awareness of any ongoing problems that may be
occurring within the school community (Libby,
1994).
Another example of a regulatory strategy
used by some schools is a unified school uni-
form policy. The pioneering work of Catholic
schools relative to school uniforms has finally
been embraced by numerous schools across the
United States (Donahue, 1996). The implemen-
tation of a school uniform policy has been de-
veloped in conjunction with other school-based
programs designed to reduce school violence.
The mandate of a school uniform policy is
partly based on the assumption that school uni-
forms will minimize the wearing of gang colors,
clothing theft, fights over name brand clothes,
and ill feelings by children who are economi-
cally disadvantaged and cannot afford to wear
name brand clothing valued so dearly by the
student population. The presence of uniformed
police officers and their security methods ap-
pear to deter both violent and nonviolent activi-
ties, to have a calming effect on students, and to
promote respect and a sense of understanding
between police officers and students (Carvino
and Davis, 1994; Finn, 1996; Kipper, 1996).
School violence in America’s schools is a
problem that needs to be addressed. It is impor-
tant for the community and community service
workers to be a part of the resolution of school
violence and disciplinary problems. A number
177
of school-based violence programs have been
developed to address and intervene into the
problem of school violence. Several schools
have developed police partnership programs,
though very few preventive programs exist
where police officers are assigned to schools
full-time. The present study was designed to
evaluate one such intervention program, the
School Resource Officer program, and its per-
ceived effect on school violence and school dis-
ciplinary problems. Since school violence mir-
rors the social, economic, and political deficits
that are found in the broader community, it is
important to integrate a police model in schools
if a safe and productive learning environment
for children is to be created and maintained.
With the creation of diverse school violence-
reduction programs, it is also important to eval-
uate programs to see if they are having a positive
impact on the reduction of drugs, gang-related
activities, violence, weapons, and other social ills
found in America’s schools.
The purpose of this research was to examine
the impact that a School Resource Officers pro-
gram in a southern city has on school violence
and school disciplinary programs and to iden-
tify components of the program that are useful
in dealing with acts of school violence.
THE SCHOOL RESOURCE
OFFICER PROGRAM
The placement of police officers full-time in
high schools and part-time in middle schools in
the study city dates back to 1983. The moving
force behind the placement of police officers in
city schools was an increase in violent youth
crime and the realization that preventive mea-
sures were needed to establish a positive liaison
between the police and young people in the
community. The placement of police officers in
the city high schools and middle schools was a
proactive measure designed to prevent school
fights, theft, drugs and alcohol use, the posses-
sion and use of weapons, and other school-related
problems. The perceived assumption was that
the high visibility of uniformed police officers
in city schools would reduce and prevent hand-
178 I. M. JOHNSON
gun violence and other acts of violence in the
city schools.
The initial placement of police officers in
city schools was a decentralized effort with po-
lice officers from different precincts performing
various duties with limited interaction and shar-
ing of information. These officers were as-
signed to multiple high schools, middle schools,
and elementary schools. The School Resource
Officers (SROs) were not assigned full time to a
any one school, rather, they had minimal con-
tact with high schools, middle schools, and ele-
mentary schools. The SROs conducted walk-
throughs of the schools during the fall and spring
semesters without becoming too involved in
the daily operations and problems areas of the
schools. The SROs performed full-time patrol
duties, when school was not in session during
the summer. During this period of decentraliza-
tion, the SRO program did not have a supervi-
sor, clearly stated goals and objectives, clearly
defined duties and responsibilities, centralized
method of reporting school incidents, or collec-
tive roll call meetings.
The SRO program became centralized in
1990. The development of a centralized SRO
program was a joint effort between the study
city and the Board of Education. There were
eight officers placed in the city schools to pro-
vide counseling services to parents and stu-
dents. These officers were not assigned to the
city schools full-time but provided some part-
time services to principals, teachers, and stu-
dents.
In October of 1995, the police department re-
ceived the Youth Firearm Violence Initiative
Grant (YFVIG) from the U.S. Department of
Justice to implement new programs, upgrade
their data analysis program, and expand some
existing programs, such as the SRO program, in
order to reduce and control handgun violence
and other related problems (e.g., drug traffick-
ing, gang activities) existing within and outside
city schools. The SRO program was expanded
in conjunction with the YFVIG. The SRO pro-
gram was not grant-funded, though approxi-
mately $94,000 in overtime funds from the
YFVIG were earmarked for the program. The
overtime funds also allowed the SROs and their
supervisors to be paid for attending, monitoring,
and participating in evening and weekend school-
related functions (e.g., PTA meetings, athletic
events). The SRO program was substantially
modified and expanded in conjunction with the
YFVIG. The number of SROs increased from
eight to eighteen officers.
At present, eighteen SROs are placed in nine
city high schools and eighteen middle schools.
There are no SROs placed in elementary schools.
The data for this study focused on the place-
ment of police officers in high schools and mid-
dle schools for deterring and preventing school
violence. The placement of police officers in
city schools dates back to 1983, though police
officers were not placed in schools full-time un-
til January, 1996.
The eighteen SROs were expected to provide
full-service policing, role modeling, problem
solving, and support services at their assigned
schools. In addition, the SROs worked closely
with other programs, such as Gang Resistance
Education and Training (GREAT), Police Ath-
letic Team (PAT), Drug Abuse Resistance Edu-
cation (DARE), and Straight Talk About Risks
Program (STAR), to reduce school violence and
other related school problems. Five of the mid-
dle schools’ SROs are also GREAT officers.
The centralization and funding of the SRO
program coincided with national and local at-
tention focused on school safety, especially the
availability and use of guns and drugs in schools.
Political figures, the media, and school adminis-
trators have defined school violence as a na-
tional problem that requires a national response
in order to make the nation’s schools safe and
violence free.
The selection of police officers as SROs was
based upon officers indicating (by word of
mouth) their interest in working with young
people. Officers who showed a genuine concern
for the plight of young people in an increasingly
violent environment were selected to serve as
SROs. During the selection process, officers
were not informed that they would be paid for
overtime work, therefore, their decisions to be-
come SROs were not based on monetary gain.
The researcher was recruited as a national
consultant by a consulting firm contracted by
the U.S. Department of Justice. The researcher’s
role as a consultant involved evaluating the SRO
 School Violence: Program Effectiveness
program and making recommendations for im-
provement.
PROGRAM OPERATIONS, GOALS,
OBJECTIVES, AND COMPARISONS
The stated purpose of the SRO program is to
provide a safe school environment conducive to
positive learning. School is defined as an aca-
demic institution that includes city high schools
and middle schools for the purposes of this
study. Private schools, elementary schools, county
schools, and alternative schools were excluded
from the SRO program. The total number of
students enrolled in the city high schools was
11,524 and the total number of students en-
rolled in the city middle schools was 10,009 for
the academic school year 1995–96. The ethnic
makeup of city high school and middle school
students was predominately African American.
With the exception of one high school, Whites
in city high schools and middle schools make
up 1 percent of the total population. One high
school had approximately 30 percent White stu-
dents and approximately 70 percent African
American students. At one time, this school was
predominately White, however, with the “White
flight” movement away from the city to the sub-
urbs, the ethnic composition in the city schools
changed.
The overall goal of the SRO program is to
provide a safe school environment conducive to
learning. This goal is to be accomplished by
achieving the following: reducing the preva-
lence of weapons, drugs, and gang-related ac-
tivities; monitoring students’ movements; main-
taining a secure school environment; providing
support to school administrators, teachers, and
staff; providing counseling services to students;
and being highly mobile, visible, and flexible.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
To examine the efficacy of the School Re-
source Officer program, the research effort was
guided by the following research questions: (1)
179
Is the School Resource Officer program suc-
cessful in fulfilling stated program goals? and
(2) What particular components of the School
Resource Officer program are actually work-
ing? The study consisted of five components:
(1) a qualitative description of the program
based on administrator, supervisor, and SRO in-
terviews; official program materials; and obser-
vations; (2) a self-administered questionnaire to
the SROs measuring their perceptions of the
SRO program and school safety and school vio-
lence; (3) face-to-face formal and informal in-
terviews with school administrators, teachers,
students, and attendance personnel designed to
measure their perceptions of the School Re-
source Officer program and its personnel, school
safety, and school violence; (4) direct observa-
tions of interactions between SROs, school ad-
ministrators, teachers, and students; and (5) sec-
ondary analyses of weekly school incident reports
filed by the SROs and school disciplinary records
maintained by the attendance department.
Evaluation or program research, as a form of
applied research, involves a number of complex
issues that if not adequately handled can bias
the outcome. It is not uncommon for programs
to operate without clear statements or ideas
about program goals. The lack of clearly stated
program goals, policies, and procedures makes
it difficult to assess whether such goals are be-
ing realized. When the SRO program under
study was initially developed, the goals and ob-
jectives were not clearly articulated. After the
program was in operation, however, more clearly
stated goals and objectives were defined. In ad-
dition, many of the program staff have an un-
derstandable interest in maintaining a favorable
image of the current procedures and practices of
their organization, and thus, may be hesitant to
disclose information that is counterproductive
to the overall mission of the program. From this
perspective, the evaluator must identify and ed-
ucate stakeholders about the necessity of evalu-
ating the program to determine what compo-
nents of the program are working and what
components are not working. The program staff
involved in the SRO program under study ap-
peared to be genuinely interested in having the
program evaluated not only to determine if the
program’s goals and objectives were being real-
180 I. M. JOHNSON
ized but also to identify ways in which the pro-
gram could be improved. It is imperative that
the evaluator establishes a relationship with in-
dividuals who have direct or indirect interest in
the program or evaluation results.
Population and Sample
The populations for the study included the
administrators of the SROs, the SROs, nine city
high schools, and eighteen middle schools. All
SROs were given a self-administered question-
naire. Seventeen of the eighteen SROs returned
their completed questionnaires within a week
from the date they received the instrument.
Due to the small number of city high schools
and middle schools involved in the SRO pro-
gram, the researcher did not employ random
sampling procedures. The high schools and
middle schools were selected on the basis of re-
gional characteristics for the purpose of select-
ing a city high school from each of the regions
of the studied city geographical area (i.e.,
North, Southwest, and East). A total of five
schools (i.e., four high schools and one middle
school) were selected for site visits on the basis
of regional representation. The location of the
SRO program and the names of the participat-
ing schools have not been disclosed, for reasons
related to confidentiality. More schools from
the West region were included in the evaluation
process because there are more high schools
and middle schools in that region.
At each of the high schools and one middle
school, the principal, assistant principal(s), and
teachers were formally interviewed. Each prin-
cipal or/and school secretary identified the
teachers to be interviewed. A total of ten princi-
pals and assistant principals and seven teachers
were formally interviewed. The researcher also
interviewed several teachers not identified by
school administrators to participate in the re-
search study. Because of issues related to con-
sent and confidentiality, in all but one of the
five participating high schools and middle
school, no formal student groups were con-
vened for the researcher to gather information
about the SRO assigned to their schools. In each
of the four high schools and one middle school,
the researcher informally interviewed an aver-
age of eight to ten students.
Instrument
Four questionnaires and interview schedules
were developed. A semistructured interview
schedule consisting of forty opened-ended and
fixed choice questions was developed. The in-
terview schedule was administered to the two
key administrators of the SRO program. The
purpose of the interview schedule was to gather
data about the following issues: (1) how the
SRO program was developed; (2) how the SRO
program operates; (3) the goals and objectives
of the SRO program; and (4) perceptions of
whether the SRO program is meeting its goals.
An eighty-two-item self-administered ques-
tionnaire was developed and administered to the
eighteen SROs. The questionnaire was designed
to measure the SROs’ perceptions of their du-
ties and responsibilities; school safety and vio-
lence; interactions with the administrators, teach-
ers, students, and parents; and changes needed
in the school environment to reduce school vio-
lence.
Semistructured interview schedules were de-
veloped and administered to principals and
teachers at the four high schools and middle
school. The interview schedule for principals
consisted of eighty-five items while the inter-
view schedule for teachers consisted of eighty-
one items. The interview schedules were designed
to measure principals’ and teachers’ perceptions
of the SRO program, its effectiveness, the role
of the SRO in the school, and school safety and
school violence.
Data Collection
The data for the study were collected during
Fall, 1996, with the exception of the interview
data that were collected from the administrators
of the SRO program in June, 1996. In all data
collection sessions (i.e., interviews, question-
naires, and official data) involved in the study,
the researcher followed Human Safety Proce-
dures. These procedures included informed con-
sent, confidentiality, and protection of subjects
from harm.
 School Violence: Program Effectiveness
The researcher met with the SROs during
their 7:30 a.m. roll call meeting to request the
assistance of the officers in completing a self-
administered questionnaire and to inform the
SROs that site visits would be conducted at se-
lected schools. The researcher later delivered
the questionnaires to the supervisor of the SROs
who in turn, hand-delivered the questionnaires
(enclosed in envelopes) to the SROs during roll
call. Once the SROs completed the question-
naires, they returned them in the enclosed enve-
lopes to their supervisor. The questionnaires
were retrieved by the researcher from the SRO
supervisor.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted with
ten principals and seven teachers of the four
high schools and one middle school. All princi-
pals had served in their official capacity for
over a year, with the exception of one high
school principal. Most principals and assistant
principals, therefore, had worked with the SRO
long enough to formulate an opinion of the indi-
vidual.
Informal interviews were conducted with
teachers and students identified by the re-
searcher. The informal interviews with the teach-
ers were conducted in the faculty lounge. The
faculty lounge was a central location for infor-
mally interviewing teachers since the lounge is
frequently visited by teachers during the course
of the day. The researcher informally talked
with an average of six teachers at each of the se-
lected schools. None of the teachers approached
by the researcher declined to talk about the SRO
assigned to their school or school-related issues.
School groups were arranged at one of the
five schools in which site visits were conducted.
The researcher met with these student groups in
the school library. Each student group consisted
of five to six students. The researcher also in-
formally interviewed the SRO assigned to each
school. The verbal exchange was very general
and informal, since the SRO had already com-
pleted a questionnaire. At the conclusion of the
informal talk with the SRO, the researcher ac-
companied the SRO on a walk-through of the
internal and external grounds of the school.
During the walk-through, the SRO identified
security problems, deteriorated areas, and dis-
cussed general information about the school it-
181
self. Observations were made at each of the four
high schools and one middle school. The obser-
vations consisted of the researcher conducting
walk-throughs, observing student interactions
between classes, talking with students between
classes, observing teachers in their classrooms,
observing how teachers and students interact
with the SRO, and observing parent and SRO
counseling sessions.
Another source of data collection was the
weekly incident reports completed by each of
the eighteen SROs. Each SRO is required to
complete daily activities reports for their as-
signed school and forward the reports to their
supervisor every Friday. The completion of the
weekly incident reports commenced January
1996. Data, therefore, were collected from the
weekly incident reports beginning January 1,
1996 to May 31, 1996. This time frame was se-
lected because the fall of each year was a
change period. The new programs would be in
place and working by the spring semester. The
spring semester, therefore, would provide more
accurate program operation data. The following
information is included in the daily incident re-
port: (1) number of arrests made (drug arrests
and weapon arrests); (2) number of drug-related
activities; (3) number of investigations involv-
ing gangs; (4) number of vehicle searches; (5)
number of locker searches; (6) number of inci-
dents involving weapons; (7) number of tres-
passers; (8) number of classes given (i.e., drug
classes, gang classes); and (9) number of stu-
dents and parents counseled. The information
requested on the daily activity reports was thor-
oughly completed by the SROs. Paperwork in-
volving arrest data is a normal part of any police
officers’ daily activities. Confidence in the va-
lidity and reliability of the data provided in the
daily activities reports was high.
A final source of data was the school disci-
plinary records housed and maintained by the
City Department of Attendance for the city
schools. The Attendance Department compiles
data on the number of school suspensions by
high school, middle school, and elementary
school and by Class I offenses (minor offenses),
Class II offenses (intermediate offenses), and
Class III offenses (major offenses). Official data
(SRO incident reports and school disciplinary
182 I. M. JOHNSON
data from the Attendance Department) were an-
alyzed. Post data, beyond the year 1996, were
limited, since police officers were only placed
full-time in city high schools and middle
schools in January 1996. Due to the small sam-
ple size, the data for the study were analyzed
using frequencies and percentages.
FINDINGS
Demographic Characteristics of the School
Resource Officers and School Officials
The majority of the seventeen SROs were
African Americans (n 5 16; 94 percent) and
male (n 5 15; 88 percent), with a mean age of
forty-three. The average number of completed
years of education was 14.7 indicating that most
SROs had some college education or a college
degree.
The average number of months the officers
served in the capacity of SROs was thirteen to
eighteen months with eight (47 percent) officers
indicating that they had been SROs for over
eighteen months. Most of the SROs indicated
that they had worked in the area of law enforce-
ment for six to ten years with no SROs report-
ing having worked in the area of law enforce-
ment over fifteen years.
School officials are defined as principals (N 5
5), assistant principals (N 5 5), and teachers (N 5
7). Most of the seventeen school officials were
African Americans (n 5 15; 88.2 percent) and
male (n 5 10; 58.8 percent). Fourteen (82 per-
cent) school officials were over the age of forty
with three (17.6 percent) school officials under
the age of forty.
Responsibilities, Duties, and Goals of the
School Resource Officers
The SROs were asked a series of questions
concerning school safety and the measures they
took to ensure that the school was as safe as
possible. SROs reported that, on a daily basis,
they took precautionary measures to ensure that
the school was safe and secure. Some of the se-
curity measures that they took were as follows:
(1) checked students’ IDs to minimize the num-
ber of trespassers coming into the school (n 5
10; 58.8 percent); (2) checked exterior doors to
make sure that they were locked (n 5 11; 64.7
percent); (3) immediately intervened in a poten-
tial violent or dangerous situation involving stu-
dents such as a fight, drug possession, or gang
identification (n 5 13; 76.5 percent); and (4) es-
tablished a trusting and respectful relationship
with students so that students would be willing
to inform authorities about a potential danger-
ous situation before it occurred (n 5 9; 52.9
percent). The majority (n 5 11; 64.7 percent) of
the SROs ranked the security at their assigned
school as being good while only one SRO (5.9
percent) ranked the security at his/her assigned
school as poor. Only one SRO (5.9 percent)
ranked the security at his/her assigned school as
being excellent.
All SROs (N 5 17) acknowledged that
crowd control in schools is important during the
morning when students arrive at school, when
they change classes during the day, and when
they are dismissed from school at the end of the
day. SROs cleared hallways, monitored lunch-
room activities, and assisted teachers in main-
taining order in classrooms on a daily basis,
during the spring semester of 1996.
The security measures taken by school offi-
cials to ensure school safety varied from school
to school. All four high schools and the middle
school at which site visits were conducted had
hand metal detectors. The SROs, upon arrival at
school, assisted the administration and teachers
in using the hand metal detectors, in searching
students’ backpacks, and in checking to see if
students were wearing their IDs or at least pos-
sessing them. Most SROs (n 5 10; 58.8 per-
cent) reported randomly checking students’ IDs
throughout the day and not just upon their ar-
rival at school. Two of the four high schools
visited by the researcher did not mandate that
students wear their IDs. The other two high
schools and the middle school enforced the ID
policy but to varying degrees.
School officials, periodically, conducted un-
announced searches of students’ lockers and
backpacks. The SRO provided assistance, when
such searches were conducted. One of the five
 School Violence: Program Effectiveness
schools included in the site visit did not allow
students to carry backpacks because they were
perceived to be contraband. Another school in-
cluded in the site visit only permitted students
to carry see-through backpacks or mesh back-
packs.
Another important way in which the SROs,
school administrators, and teachers maintained
security checks on students was by enforcing
the mandatory school uniform policy. The Board
of Education, during the fall semester of 1996,
mandated that all city high school, middle school,
and elementary school students wear school uni-
forms. Sixteen (94.1 percent) of the SROs re-
ported that students should be required to wear
school uniforms and that as a consequence of
students wearing school uniforms, they were
calmer (n 5 11; 64.7 percent), showed more re-
spect (n 5 7; 41.2 percent), followed school
rules better (n 5 7; 41.2 percent), became less
involved in fights (n 5 14; 82.4 percent), and
wore gang colors less often (n 5 14; 82.4 per-
cent). Only one SRO (5.9 percent) reported that
students appeared to use and/or possess drugs
less since the mandatory uniform policy was en-
forced. School Resource Officers identified ma-
jor problems surrounding the wearing of school
uniforms as follows: gang colors were worn un-
der the uniforms (n 5 8; 47 percent), shirttails
were worn outside pants (n 5 4; 23.5 percent),
and a variety of uniforms and colors that deviate
from the uniform policy were worn (n 5 2; 11.8
percent).
Gang and Drug Activities
Gangs, drugs, and weapons are major con-
cerns of the SROs, school administrators, and
teachers. The majority of the SROs (n 5 16;
94.1 percent) reported that weapons were not a
major problem at their assigned school, and
76.5 percent (n 5 13) of the SROs indicated
that the presence and/or use of weapons was a
problem prior to their assignments to their re-
spective schools. In terms of gang-related activ-
ities, 70.6 percent (n 5 12) of the SROs stated
that gangs and gang-related activities involving
fighting and gang initiation (n 5 14; 82.4 per-
cent) were problems at their assigned schools.
183
As reported by the SROs, 60 percent of
school fights were gang related. Sixteen (94.1
percent) of the SROs reported that gang-related
activities were a problem prior to their school
assignments, however, since working at their
assigned schools, most SROs (n 5 15; 88.2 per-
cent) reported that gang-related activities de-
creased. Most SROs intervened into gang-related
activities by identifying gang leaders, by media-
tion, and by maintaining daily communications
with all students. Most of the gang-related fights
that took place on school premises were initi-
ated in the students’ neighborhood, usually on
the weekend, and the confrontation continued and
was imported with the students into the school
on Monday. Most school fights were likely to
occur at the beginning of the school week or at
the end of the school week.
School Resource Officers reported that they
provided youth with alternatives to gang-related
activities. The SROs who are also GREAT of-
ficers conducted several eight-week classes on
gang resistance. These GREAT officers also
worked closely with the SROs assigned to high
schools in counseling and teaching students
how to resist the pressure of gangs. SROs re-
ported that they provided youth with the follow-
ing alternatives to gang-related activities: sports
(n 5 6; 35.3 percent); religious activities (n 5
5; 29.4 percent); counseling (n 5 17; 100 per-
cent); and community programs (n 5 10; 58.8
percent). Most SROs (n 5 16; 94 percent)
stated that they attempted to develop proactive
strategies in dealing with gang members by
keeping the lines of communication open with
gang leaders.
Ten (58.8 percent) of the SROs reported that
the use and/or possession of drugs was related
to gang activities. Eleven (64.7 percent) of the
SROs reported that weapons found at their as-
signed school were related to gang activities.
The three most important problems identified by
SROs at their assigned schools were drugs (n 5
9; 52.9 percent), gangs (n 5 10; 58.8 percent),
and the lack of respect (n 5 8; 47.1 percent).
All SROs have made misdemeanor and fel-
ony arrests at their assigned schools. The aver-
age number of misdemeanor and felony arrests
made by SROs since their school assignments
was thirty and forty, respectively. Ten (58.8
184 I. M. JOHNSON
percent) of the SROs reported that the number
of misdemeanors occurring at their assigned
schools decreased since their assignments at
their respective schools. In addition, 86.5 per-
cent (n 5 13) of the SROs indicated that the
number of felonies decreased since they were
assigned to their respective schools.
The SROs were asked whether a series of
acts increased, decreased, or stayed the same
since the SRO program started. SROs reported
that the use of a handgun (n 5 12; 70.6 per-
cent), the use of a knife (n 5 12; 70.6 percent),
and the use of other objects as weapons de-
creased since the SRO program started. In terms
of fighting, nine (52.3 percent) of the SROs
stated that school fights decreased while six
(35.3 percent) reported that school fights stayed
the same. Most SROs (n 5 11; 64.7 percent) re-
ported that the use and possession of marijuana
decreased while four (23.5 percent) SROs re-
ported that the use and possession of marijuana
remained the same since the SRO program was
started. Other activities such as theft (n 5 8;
47.1 percent), illicit sexual behavior (n 5 10;
58.8 percent), and violation of dress codes (n 5
9; 52.9 percent) decreased. In terms of gam-
bling, six (35.3 percent) of the SROs reported
that gambling decreased while four SROs (23.5
percent) reported that gambling increased and
another four (23.5 percent) reported that gam-
bling activities remained the same.
School officials’ perceptions of school vio-
lence varied slightly from the SROs’ percep-
tions of school violence. When asked if the use
of weapons was a major problem at their as-
signed schools, 10 (58.8 percent) school offi-
cials reported that weapons were a problem at
their school. School officials (n 5 11; 64.7 per-
cent) reported that the possession of a weapon
was related to gang activities.
School officials stated that gangs were not a
problem at their assigned schools (n 5 9; 52.9
percent) while six (35.3 percent) school offi-
cials reported that gangs were a problem. Most
school officials reported that gangs were a prob-
lem prior to the SROs assignment to the schools
(n 59; 52.9 percent) while eight (47.1 percent)
stated that gangs were not a problem. The
school officials were evenly divided in their
perceptions of whether gang-related activities
increased or decreased since the SRO was as-
signed to their school. Seven (41.2 percent)
school officials reported that gang-related activ-
ities increased since the SRO was assigned to
the school and seven (41.2 percent) reported
that gang-related activities decreased.
When asked whether the number of misde-
meanor and felony arrests increased or de-
creased since the SRO was assigned to the
school, nine (52.9 percent) school officials re-
ported that misdemeanor arrests decreased
while eight (47.1 percent) reported that misde-
meanor arrests have remained the same with no
school officials stating that misdemeanor arrests
increased. In terms of felony arrests, thirteen
(76.5 percent) of the school officials stated that
felony arrests remained the same.
School officials were asked their perceptions
of whether certain disciplinary acts increased,
decreased, or stayed the same since the SRO
was assigned to their schools. School officials
reported that the use of handguns (n 5 12; 70.6
percent), use of a knives (n 5 11; 64.7 percent),
use of other objects to inflict injury (n 5 11;
64.7 percent), fighting (n 5 11; 64.7 percent),
use of marijuana (n 5 11; 64.7 percent), use of
cocaine (n 5 10; 58.8 percent), theft (n 5 2;
58.8 percent), gambling (n 5 10; 58.8 percent),
illicit sexual behavior (n 5 11; 64.7 percent)
and violation of dress codes (n 5 12; 70.6 per-
cent) all decreased since the SRO was assigned
to the school. Thirteen (76.4 percent) of the sev-
enteen school officials reported observing the
SRO handling disciplinary incidents, and that,
in all instances, the SRO handled the situation
in a very professional manner. The researcher’s
observations of SROs’ interaction with school
administrators, teachers, and students revealed
that the officers were professional at all times.
When SROs were assigned full-time to the
city high schools, many of them were placed in
the high school from which they graduated or
the high school which is in close proximity to
the community in which they live. From this
perspective, many SROs were already familiar
with the students and, in many cases, a relation-
ship had already been established. The SROs
and some students attended the same Church,
lived in the same neighborhood, and partici-
pated in the same community activities. Their
 School Violence: Program Effectiveness
relationship with the SRO was already a posi-
tive relationship and this relationship continued
in the school. Students who already knew the
officer from their community informed other
students that the SRO was “cool” and that they
could talk with him/her.
All SROs stated that they had a genuine in-
terest in young people and that this was the pri-
mary reason why they became SROs. They re-
ported that while they performed daily security
checks (e.g., checking doors, checking win-
dows, checking bathrooms, patrolling halls),
they also interacted with students. The SROs
stated that they were interested in getting to
know the students and in establishing a trusting
relationship with the students. On a daily basis,
SROs indicated that they looked for the positive
in young people. They encouraged the students
to excel and when they did, they personally
congratulated them. In addition, some of the
SROs reported that a number of students ap-
proached them about the qualifications one
needs in order to become a police officer. The
SROs stated that they informed students about
the nature of police work and what they need to
do to prepare themselves for a career in law en-
forcement. All school officials (n 5 17) stated
that overall, students were generally supportive
of the SRO.
A substantial number of SROs (n 5 10; 58.8
percent) reported that they had daily contacts
with parents and that most of the contacts that
they had with parents were related to school
fights, gang activities, and disrespect of teach-
ers. Overall, 82.4 percent (n 5 14) of the SROs
reported that parents responded to them in a
very positive way and welcomed their presence
in the school. In addition, the majority of the
school officials (n 5 16; 94.1) stated that par-
ents and other teachers were very supportive of
the SROs who were assigned to city high
schools and middle schools.
The SROs reported that they counseled at
least 30 percent of the students at their assigned
school and that the focus of the counseling ses-
sions was academic performance (n 5 9; 52.9
percent), school fights (n 5 14; 82.4 percent),
drug-related behavior (n 5 11; 64.7 percent),
leaving school grounds without authorization
(n 5 9; 52.9 percent), gang-related behavior (n 5
185
16; 94.1 percent, and skipping classes (n 5 9;
52.9 percent).
As previously stated, eight to ten students
were informally interviewed at each of the
study high school and middle school, totaling
forty-six students. Over 90 percent of the stu-
dents informally interviewed were African Ameri-
cans with roughly 60 percent males and 40 per-
cent females. When asked whether they felt that
the presence of a uniformed police officer at
school and the surveillance activities (e.g., ran-
dom searches, high visibility) interfered with
their privacy, most of the students indicated that
the mere presence of law enforcement officials
at their schools provided them with a sense of
security. Most of the students stated that the
random searches of their lockers did not inter-
fere with their privacy; rather, they saw such
searches as necessary to prevent and to reduce
the flow of drugs, gang-related activities, and
the availability of guns. A few of the students,
however, stated that the presence of uniformed
police officers did interfere with their privacy
and personal rights and they preferred that po-
lice officers not be placed in their schools.
These students, however, also acknowledged
the fact that while an uniformed police officer
was assigned to patrol their school, the police
officer could not monitor their every moment,
and thus they were still provided a great deal of
privacy.
In addition, students reported that the mere
presence of the police officer in the school de-
terred students from engaging in certain disci-
plinary behavior. If student was arrested, the
student was handcuffed immediately and taken
to the police car. Some students reported that to
be arrested and handcuffed before the entire stu-
dent body was embarrassing and that the imme-
diate legal action taken by the police officer
served as a deterrent. Students, administrators,
and teachers stated that they appreciated the im-
mediate attention that the SROs gave to a disci-
plinary situation. If a disciplinary situation arose
and an arrest warranted, the SRO immediately
removed the student from school premises with-
out having to wait until a patrol car was sent to
the school. In addition, each SRO had his/her
own patrol car which was usually parked in a
highly visible location. The visibility of the car
186 I. M. JOHNSON
itself served as a reminder to outsiders that a
law enforcement officer was on the premises.
In terms of the school officials’ perceptions
of SROs’ presence in the schools, thirteen (76.5
percent) of the school officials reported that po-
lice officers should be placed in schools and
four school officials felt that police officers
should not be placed in schools. Most school of-
ficials (n 5 12; 70.6 percent) believed that the
SROs were doing an excellent job, though
seven (41.2 percent) school officials felt that the
SROs could improve their service delivery to
the school by making themselves more visible
in all school buildings. All high schools had
multiple, detectable buildings. Teachers reported
that they felt comfortable when the SRO was
visible in their buildings. School officials did
acknowledge the fact that there was only one
SRO assigned to each school and that the SRO
could not patrol two buildings simultaneously.
In addition, some teachers felt that the SRO
should assist them more with maintaining order
in the classroom, hallways, and lunchroom.
School Incident Reports
The incident reports completed by the SROs
for January 1996 to May 1996 revealed that the
SROs made a total of 145 arrests for this time
period. There were 97 responses involving
drugs, 57 responses involving marijuana, 18 re-
sponses involving cocaine, and 22 responses in-
volved other drugs. Forty-nine responses in-
volved weapons, 15 responses involved guns,
20 responses involved knives, and 14 responses
involved other weapons. One hundred and fifty-
seven responses involved gang-related activi-
ties. In addition, there were 74 at-risk youth
counseled between January 1996 and May
1996. There were no comparative data for Janu-
ary 1995 to May 1995 because SROs only
started maintaining school incident reports in
January 1996.
SROs’ and School Officials’ Perceptions of
Changes Needed in the SRO Program
Both SROs and school officials identified a
number of changes that they would like to see
implemented in the School Resource Officers
program. With the exclusion of one (5.9 per-
cent) SRO, all SROs reported that there is a
need for modifications in the SRO program.
Five (29 percent) SROs indicated that training
classes and seminars should continue and that
more training and seminars are needed. SROs
also reported that more SROs need to be hired
(n 5 5; 29 percent), the SRO program needs to
do more outreach with the parents (n 5 1; 5.9
percent), a management program which man-
dates team work between administrator, teach-
ers, and SROs is needed (n 5 1; 5.9 percent),
the SRO program should focus more on school
problems and provide counseling services in
problematic areas (n 5 3; 11.8 percent), and
better equipment should be provided (n 5 1; 5.9
percent).
When asked what changes they would like to
see take place at their assigned school, the
SROs reported the following changes: (1) re-
duction in school fights (n 5 11; 64.7 percent);
(2) reduction in the flow of drugs (n 5 9; 52.9
percent); (3) improved school security (n 5 8;
47.1 percent); and (4) an increase in teacher
control in the classroom (n 5 11; 64.7 percent).
Fifteen SROs (88.2 percent) SROs reported that
they see themselves as an effective SRO while
two SROs (11.7 percent) did not provide an
answer.
When asked what changes they would like to
see made in the SRO program, school officials
reported that they would like to see more than
one SRO assigned to their schools (n 5 14; 82.4
percent), more metal detectors (n 5 10; 58.8
percent), video cameras placed in the school (n 5
9; 52.9 percent), more walkie-talkies for admin-
istrators and teachers (n 5 10; 58.8 percent),
and intercom systems (n 5 8; 47.1 percent).
Two (11.7 percent) school officials reported
that administrators of the SRO program need to
be sensitive to the needs of the student popula-
tion and that when officers are placed in
schools, the racial makeup of the officer should
be matched with the racial make-up of the stu-
dent population. It is important that the SRO
identifies with the student population and un-
derstands the cultural background of the stu-
dents. According to two school officials, when
an SRO of a different racial and cultural back-
 School Violence: Program Effectiveness 187

ground than that of the student population was

1996–97

2,154
146
65
785
312
193
159
24
121
349
Total
assigned to a school, students were not afforded
the opportunity to identify with the SRO as a
role model.

1996–97
Class III
It was also suggested that some of SROs

353
22
61
64
21
44
27
23
29
62
need to be more assertive in their interactions
with students and teachers. Some officials de-

BIRMINGHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS: HIGH SCHOOL SUSPENSION COMPARISON FOR 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 (THRU NOVEMBER 1996)
scribed the SRO as being mild-mannered. In

1996–97
Class II

1,457
76
4
638
229
120
130
1
58
201
spite of the lack of assertiveness on the part of
the SRO, school officials still reported that they
were performing a good job.

1996–97
Class I

344
48
0
83
62
29
2
0
34
86
Is the School Resource Officer Program
Successful in Fulfilling Stated Program Goals?

1995–1996
The data for this study indicated that the

3,760
231
220
862
280
280
231
471
366
819
Total
School Resource Officers program was meeting
the goal of providing a safe school environment
conductive to positive learning. The overall
goal of the SRO program was to provide a safe
1995–96
Class III
school environment by reducing school vio-

557
18
84
105
20
87
23
50
53
117
lence. The suspension data complied by the
City Attendance Department for the 1994–95
academic year, 1995–96 academic year, and
1995–96
Class II

2,128
213
117
664
201
153
207
152
52
369
TABLE 1

1996–97 (through November 1996) academic

year were analyzed (see Table 1 and Table 2).
This time frame includes school suspension
1995–96

data one year before the SROs were placed in

Class I

1,075
261
1
0
19
93
59
40

269

333
schools full time and suspension data for one
semester (i.e., August 1996–November 1996)
after SROs were placed in schools full-time.
1994–95

Table 1 shows suspension comparison data

4,049
336
474
858
277
164
233
582
111
1014
Total

for city high schools for 1994–95, 1995–96, and

1996–97 (through November 1996). The data in
Table 1 reveals whether Class I offenses, Class
1994–95
Class III

II offenses, and Class III offenses for each high

416
62
53
68
18
51

90
14
56
4

school in which a SRO is placed have in-

creased, decreased, or stayed the same since
SROs were placed in the schools.
1994–95
Class II

2,919
91
229
273
327
676
173

177
70
903

The definition of Class I, Class II, and Class

III offenses varied by degrees of offenses. Class
I offenses are defined as minor offenses. Exam-
1994–95

ples of Class I offenses are: harassment or in-

Class I

714
1
94
114
86
22
0
315
27
55

timidation of other students, gambling, repeated

tardiness, nonconformity to dress code, use of
profane or obscene language, and a minor dis-
High Schools

Total schools

ruption on a school bus. Class II offenses are in-

School 1
School 2
School 3
School 4
School 5
School 6
School 7
School 8
School 9

termediate offenses and include a sample of the

following acts: fighting, larceny, possession
and/or use of tobacco products, defiance of
 188

TABLE 2
BIRMINGHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS: MIDDLE SCHOOL SUSPENSION COMPARISON FOR 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 (THRU NOVEMBER 1996)
Class I Class II Class III Total Class I Class II Class III Total Class I Class II Class III Total
Middle Schools 1994–95 1994–95 1994–95 1994–95 1995–96 1995–96 1995–96 1995–96 1996–97 1996–97 1996–97 1996–97
School 1 17 275 19 311 17 124 28 169 10 60 1 71
School 2 3 526 44 573 8 295 75 379 16 370 25 411
School 3 28 77 83 188 7 272 36 315 3 73 13 89
School 4 0 17 22 39 0 11 11 22 3 10 5 18
School 5 2 16 2 20 0 30 0 30 0 0 2 2
School 6 1 74 20 95 1 52 3 56 4 34 1 39
School 7 0 1 2 3 7 55 6 68 0 54 8 62
School 8 20 252 28 300 11 200 39 250 8 138 9 155
School 9 0 46 18 64 0 56 27 83 5 72 32 109
I. M. JOHNSON

School 10 4 418 42 464 2 274 50 328 20 300 16 338

School 11 7 74 22 103 0 1 36 37 8 43 24 75
School 12 1 33 0 34 1 72 1 74 0 52 0 52
School 13 3 67 27 94 1 32 52 85 0 26 6 32
School 14 5 240 22 267 0 115 26 141 1 112 4 117
School 15 0 37 15 52 0 6 16 22 0 5 5 10
School 16 0 172 23 195 0 168 16 184 1 88 8 97
School 17 1 374 37 412 1 408 32 441 7 208 8 223
School 18 3 45 5 53 0 23 3 26 0 9 4 13
Total schools 95 2,744 431 3,267 56 2,195 457 2,710 86 1,654 171 1,913
 School Violence: Program Effectiveness
School Board employees’ authority, trespass-
ing, written or verbal propositions to engage in
sexual acts, leaving school grounds without per-
mission, and wearing secret society apparel.
Class III offenses are defined as major offenses.
The commission of a Class III offense may con-
stitute violation of criminal laws established by
the state. The following offenses are some ex-
amples of Class III offenses: unauthorized pos-
session, transfer, and use or sale of drugs and/or
alcoholic beverages; arson; grand theft; bur-
glary of school property; possession of firearms
or weapons; aggravated battery; sexual acts;
and inciting or participating in a major student
disturbance.
The total number of Class I, Class II , and
Class III offenses reported at the nine high
schools in which SROs were placed for the aca-
demic year of 1994–95 was 4,049. As previ-
ously stated, SROs were not placed in the
schools full time during the academic year of
1994–95. A further look at Table 1 reveals that
the total number of Class I, Class II, and Class
III offenses for the academic year of 1995–96
decreased from 4,049 (during the academic year
of 1994–95) to 3,760 (during the academic year
of 1995–96). SROs were placed full time in city
schools January 1, 1996. These data reveal that
the overall number of Class I, Class II, and
Class III offenses declined after SROs were
placed in the schools full time. The total num-
ber of Class I, Class II, and Class III offenses
for the academic year of 1996–97 is 2,154,
however, this total is only based on suspension
data compiled from August 1996 thru Novem-
ber 1996. When the total number of individual
classes of offenses is considered, the data still
show a decline in the total number of Class II
offenses but an increase in the total number of
Class I and Class III offenses after SROs were
placed in the schools full time. The total num-
ber of Class II offenses declined from 2, 919
(during the academic year of 1994–95) to 2,128
(during the academic year of 1995–96) after
SROs were placed in the schools full time. The
total number of Class I offenses increased from
714 (during the academic year of 1994–95) to
1,075 (during the academic year of 1995–96)
while the total number of Class III offenses in-
creased from 416 (during the academic year of
189
1994–95) to 557 (during the academic year of
1995–96). When some of the individual high
schools were compared on the number of Class
I, Class II, and Class III offenses, the number of
offenses increased after SROs were placed in
the schools.
The suspension comparison data for middle
schools are shown in Table 2. The data reveal
that the total number of Class I and Class II of-
fenses has declined since SROs were assigned
to middle schools. During the academic year of
1994–95, the total number of Class I offenses
decreased from 95 to 56 in 1995–96. In addi-
tion, the total number of Class II offenses for
the academic year of 1994–95 declined from
2,744 to 2,195 in 1995–96. Class III offenses,
the most serious offenses, increased from 431 in
1994–95 to 459 in 1995–96.
There is an overall decline in school suspen-
sions after SROs were assigned to the middle
schools, when looking at the total of all classes
of offenses combined. The combined total for
Class I, Class II, and Class III offenses declined
from 3,267 in 1994–95 to 2,710 in 1995–96. A
further look at the individual effects of Class I,
Class II, and Class III offenses reveals that the
number of school suspensions for most of the
eighteen middle schools declined after SROs
were assigned to the schools with the suspen-
sion rate remaining the same for a few middle
schools.
The data in both Tables 1 and 2 show that,
overall, the number of Class I, Class II, and
Class III offenses combined has decreased in
high schools and middle schools since SROs
were assigned to these schools. The suspension
data presented in Tables 1 and 2 are supportive
of the findings from the SROs’ questionnaires
and the school official interview data, which re-
vealed that SROs and most school officials be-
lieve that Class I, Class II, and Class III offenses
have decreased since SROs were permanently
assigned to the schools. SROs and school offi-
cials reported that the use and possession of
drugs, school fights, and gang-related activities
have all decreased since SROs were assigned
full-time to high schools and part-time to mid-
dle schools.
During the formal and informal interviews
with school officials, the researcher inquired
190 I. M. JOHNSON
about program development during the time the
SROs were assigned to the schools. School offi-
cials reported that no new programs were devel-
oped nor were existing programs modified dur-
ing the time SROs were assigned to the high
schools and middle schools. The lack of pro-
gram development during the time SROs were
assigned to the high schools and middle schools
increases the likelihood that the reduction in
Class I, Class II, and Class III offenses is due to
the placement of SROs in the schools and not
program development.
Based on the official suspension data gath-
ered from the Attendance Department, the
SROs questionnaires, and the interview data
provided by school officials, the SROs were
fulfilling their goals. With the overall reduction
in Class I, Class II, and Class III offenses after
SROs were assigned to the schools, the SROs
were providing a safe and secure school envi-
ronment; are reducing school violence, drug-
related behavior, and gang activities; and are
providing highly visible enforcement to prevent
youth violence.
Should the SRO Program Be Maintained?
School administrators, teachers, students,
and attendance personnel were very supportive
of SROs and unequivocally stated that SROs
are needed in the schools. As the data in Tables
1 and 2 show, city schools were experiencing
problems with school violence and continue to
do so although the overall number of incidents
of school violence has decreased since SROs
were placed in the schools.
The SRO program is fulfilling its goals and
objectives, and thus, should be maintained.
Considering the problem of school violence, the
SRO program is one that is greatly needed. If
SROs are taken out of the high schools and mid-
dle schools, there may be a sharp increase in the
number of school suspensions for Class I, Class
II, and Class III offenses.
CONCLUSION
Several components of the SRO program ap-
pear to be working. The following program
components are in place and working smoothly:
(1) reduction in school violence and other re-
lated activities; (2) counseling services; (3) high
visibility of SROs in the schools; (4) support
services to school administrators and teachers;
(5) proactive approach to dealing with trespass-
ers; and (6) overtime services.
As was previously discussed, the overall
school suspensions based on Class I, Class II,
and Class III offenses have decreased since
SROs were assigned full-time to high schools
and part-time to middle schools. In support of
the overall reduction of school violence, SROs
have continually provided counseling services
to youth who are involved in drugs and gang-
related activities as well as those youth who
have the potential to participate in these activi-
ties. Gang-related and drug-related workshops
involving students, teachers, and GREAT offic-
ers are held. During these workshops, youth are
educated about the potential danger of using
drugs, selling drugs, and becoming involved in
gangs. Alternatives to drug- and gang-related
behavior are provided to youth. Many SROs
provide counseling services to youth and par-
ents on a daily basis and not just when work-
shops or group meetings are convened. SROs
make themselves available and visible to school
administrators, teachers, and students on a daily
basis. This high visibility not only helps to de-
tect and reduce school violence, it also provides
SROs with the opportunity to create and main-
tain a positive rapport with students.
A very important component of the SRO
program is to provide assistance to school ad-
ministrators and teachers but not interfere with
the duties and responsibilities of school offi-
cials. As previously discussed, SROs provide
support services to school officials by maintain-
ing a high level of security, immediately inter-
vening in a potentially dangerous situation and
removing the suspect from school premises, and
assisting teachers in maintaining order. This
component, originally, was not working prop-
erly because SROs were performing some of
the duties and responsibilities of school admin-
istrators and teachers instead of providing sup-
port services. SROs also assist school adminis-
trators and teachers in taking preventive measures
to warn trespassers who enter school premises
 School Violence: Program Effectiveness
without authorization. Both SROs and school
officials make a concerted effort to know who
their students are and to immediately identify a
trespasser who tries to blend in with the general
student population. Trespassers are, in many
cases, detected before they gain entrance to
school buildings at which time they are given a
warning by the SRO. Many trespassers are stu-
dents from other schools who have been sus-
pended or who are skipping school.
The overtime component of the SRO pro-
gram appears to be working well in spite of the
fact that SROs were not informed that they would
be paid overtime when they were hired as SROs.
Most SROs do not mind working overtime; they
see the overtime as a part of their commitment
to improving the plight of young people. All of
the components of the SRO program are needed
and are working properly in conjunction with
the overall goal of the SRO program.
The following recommendations are sug-
gested for improvement in the SRO Program:
1. Expand the in-service training for SROs to in-
clude diversified topics related to youth prob-
lems and to provide in-service training on a
more regular basis.
2. Meetings between the SRO, school administra-
tors, teachers, parents, and community leaders
should be held on a regular basis to identify
youth problems occurring at each school and to
devise ways to solve those problems. A multi-
disciplinary approach should be implemented
in dealing with school violence.
3. School Resource Officers and school adminis-
trators must keep each other informed about
changes that take place in their respective ar-
eas. Continued communication between SROs
and school administrators is important for the
successful operation of the SRO Program.
4. Additional SROs should be hired. Although
there are eighteen full-time SROs placed in
high schools and middle schools, additional
SROs are needed. As previously stated, it is
difficult for one officer to fulfill all the needs
of school administrators, teachers, students,
and parents. In addition, if for some reason
(e.g., sickness, attending a training session out-
side of the service area) an SRO cannot report
to his/her assigned school, there should be re-
lief SROs who can provide support surveil-
lance during their absence.
191
5. Proactive counseling session between SROs,
students, teachers, and parents should be
scheduled on a regular basis. These counseling
sessions should be held as preventive measures
to crisis situations.
Further research in the area is needed to de-
termine the long-term impact of school violence
prevention programs such as the School Re-
source Officer program and to provide a com-
parative analysis of suspension and incident
data across all high schools and middle schools
participating in the SRO program in a given ju-
risdiction.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research was funded, in part, by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, Office of Community-Oriented Policing
Services Grants Administration.
REFERENCES
Carvino, J., and Davis, D. (1994). A commitment to youth.
Police Chief 61:42.
Coben-Weiss, J., Mulvey, E., and Dearwater, S. (1994). A
primer on school violence prevention. Journal of School
Health 64:309.
Crouch, E., and Williams, D. (1995). What cities are doing
to protect kids. Educational Leadership 52:60–3.
Donahue, J. (1996). There’s something about a uniform.
America 175:18–20.
Felson, R., Liska, A., South, S., and McNulty, T. (1994).
The subculture of violence and delinquency: Individual
vs. school context effect. Social Forces 73:155–74.
Finn, B. (1996). Gangbangers on the educational fringes.
Equity and Excellence in Education 29:68–76.
Furlong, M. J., Babinski, L., Poland, S., and Munoz, J.
(1996). Factors associated with school psychologists’
perceptions of campuses violence. Psychology in the
Schools 33:28–37.
Gottfredson, G. D., and Gottfredson, D. C. (1985). Victim-
ization in schools. New York: Plenum Press.
Hawkins, D. (1990). Defining and bridging the gap. Science
Education 105:67–71.
James, B. (1994). School violence and the law: The search
for suitable tools. School Psychology Review 23:190–
204.
Kipper, B. (1996). Law enforcement role in addressing
school violence. Police Chief 63:26–9.
Lantier, L. (1995). Peacing our schools back together. Edu-
cation Digest 60:14–8.
Libby, D. (1994). Preventing school violence. The FBI Law
Enforcement Bulletin 63:20–4.
Lindquist, B., and Molnar, A. (1995). Children learn what they
live. Contemporary Issues: Violence in Schools 52:50–2.
MacDonald, I. (1997). School violence: Redirecting the
storm chasers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the Canadian Association for the Study of Educational
Administration. St. Johns, Newfoundland, Canada.
192 I. M. JOHNSON

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., and Ouston, J. (1979).
Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects
on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sautter, R. (1995). Standing up to violence. Phi Delta
Kappa 76:12.
Townley, A., and Martinez, K. (1995). Using technology to
create safer schools. NASSP Bulletin 79:61–9.
West, M., and Fries, J. (1995). Campus-based police/proba-
tion teams making schools safer. Corrections Today
57:144–7.
Wolfgang, M., and Ferracuti, F. (1967). The subculture of
violence. London: Tavistock Publishers.
Wright, J. (1997). Discipline and order in the classroom.
Current July:23–6.