Search results

Although the placement of school resource officers (SROs) in schools is widespread, little is known about its effectiveness in preventing school crime or the extent to which placement may harm schools and students (e.g., by facilitating the formal processing of minor offenses). The Study of Police in Schools sought to strengthen the evidence base on the effects of SROs on schools and students. Specifically, this study addressed two research questions: (1) What are the effects of SROs on school disciplinary offenses and disciplinary actions? and (2) Do the effects of SROs vary by implementation, school, and student characteristics?

The study focused on public secondary schools that increased SRO staffing through the 2013 and 2014 Department of Justice's Community Policing Services (COPS) Hiring Program (CHP) and on matched comparison schools that neither received SROs funded by CHP grants nor increased SRO staffing at the same time as treatment schools. Using longitudinal analyses of monthly school-level administrative data, the study compared the treatment and comparison schools on disciplinary incidents/offenses and actions. In addition, the study analyzed data from web surveys of school administrators and SROs at the sample schools, and from interviews with law enforcement officials at the agencies that placed the SROs in the schools. To assess the extent to which the presence of SROs affects the measurement of school crime, research staff also collected and analyzed qualitative information from interviews with school administrators in select treatment schools.

To conduct the study, the following data sources were collected or obtained:

1. Linking and SRO program information data files (1 file for CA, 1 file for FL)
2. California Department of Education administrative data files (5 files)
3. SRO web survey data files (1 file for CA, 1 file for FL)
4. School administrator web survey data files (1 file for CA, 1 file for FL)
5. Law enforcement agency interview data files (1 file for CA, 1 file for FL)
6. Moderator data file (1 file for CA)
7. School administrator interview data file (1 file for CA)

Across the United States (U.S.), school districts have grappled with how to create safe community- and achievement-oriented schools and how to ensure the necessary discipline is applied transparently, fairly, and without bias. Two programs that many schools have turned to in order to achieve these goals are Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Restorative Justice (RJ). PBIS is an evidence-driven schoolwide behavioral management approach that aims to outline clear expectations for students and to cultivate shared norms and practices across classrooms and school spaces. PBIS has become a popular approach in schools and districts: as of 2020; over 19,000 schools in the U.S. have implemented PBIS.

A second program, Restorative Justice (RJ), has grown in popularity in recent years. RJ typically focuses on restorative relationship building between affected parties, peaceful reconciliation, and non-punitive approaches to rectifying harm, using a structured circle discussion format. RJ schools use both community circles, designed to build a safe space for students and staff to share and listen to each other, and restorative circles, designed to share perspectives on and redress a behavioral issue.

Working with a large school district in a mid-Atlantic state, researchers set out to test whether these two programs substitute for or complement each other. In partnership with the school district researchers conducted two separate school-level randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The first RCT (RCT 1) sought to uncover the marginal impact of RJ by adding the program to a set of randomly selected schools that were already implementing PBIS. The second RCT (RCT 2) was designed to discover the impact of introducing both programs together into schools that had neither program at baseline. Researchers conducted student and staff surveys to collect measures of school climate, teacher logs to record program implementation, and researchers also received administrative data from the district on student test scores, teacher and student absences, student disciplinary infractions, and school costs.

There is growing evidence of the effectiveness of each of these programs in isolation. A recent meta-analysis of 32 experimental and quasi-experimental impact studies of PBIS found that PBIS reduced disciplinary exclusions and problem behavior and increased academic achievement. The findings were statistically significant and showed small to medium effect sizes. Individual studies have found that PBIS reduces the use of office disciplinary referrals and other exclusionary disciplinary measures (including the use of in-school and out-of-school suspensions), while improving student behavior and attitudes across school levels. Individual studies show variable--some statistically significant and some null--impacts on academic outcomes.

The empirical evidence on the effect of RJ in U.S. schools is more limited, with little rigorous casual evidence published to date. Based on patterns across rigorous and non-rigorous research, restorative justice is associated with decreases in suspension rates and disciplinary disparities, improved student behavior, and improved school climate and relationships.

This two-phase study examined factors influencing decisions that lead from a school-based incident to exclusionary discipline, an arrest, and a referral to the juvenile court. The research team hypothesized that multiple external factors such as race identity, socioeconomic status, and others would negatively impact the decision-maker, and generate harsher punishments for those who are in these vulnerable groups. Phase 1 involved interviewing groups of key stakeholders including school administrators, district administrators, discipline coordinators, juvenile court judges and other staff, law enforcement officers, Positive Behavior Intervention Support (PBIS) coordinators, and child welfare agencies to understand their approaches to behavior management. Phase 2 involved secondary analysis of data from local school districts and the juvenile court with jurisdiction in two counties.

The Taiwan Education Panel Survey (TEPS) is a national longitudinal project initiated by Academia Sinica and jointly funded by Ministry of Education, the National Science Council, and Academia Sinica. The objective of TEPS is to stimulate more basic research in the fields of education, sociology, economics, and psychology by employing large scale panel data on representative samples of students, and their parents, teachers, and school administrators. In a nutshell, TEPS has five distinguishing features: (1) Theory driven: The focus is on the skills, behavioral, values, and psychological consequences of schooling institutions and family environments of students. Factors that are found in the literature to affect students' learning outcomes are all included. Specifically speaking, an AOE model of learning outcomes, representing learning capabilities (Ability), learning opportunities (Opportunity), and the amount of effort made by the students (Effort), serves as a guiding framework for questionnaire development. Ability and effort are more on students themselves while opportunities covers family, teachers, and school environment, peers, and so forth.

(2) Student centered and multidimensional and multi-levels: Central to the project were questionnaire surveys of students. The data collection extends to cover the most influential actors in their learning environment: parents, teachers, and schools. It covered nested multiple levels of data - individual students, classes, and schools, etc.

(3) Panel surveys covering multiple programs and multiple cohorts: Students in junior high (G7 to G9), senior high (G10 to G12), vocational (G10 to G12), and junior college (G10 to G14) programs were administered for data collection. All students were followed at least twice. A portion of them were followed four times at G7, G9, G11, and G12. In light of the ongoing transformation of the Taiwanese educational system in 1990s, the project started with two cohorts of approximately 40,000 students, making it possible to employ a quasi-experimental design in future analysis.

(4) National representative samples of the students: Students under data collection were representative samples of the 1984/85 and 1988/89 birth cohorts. Weighting is provided according to the probabilistic sampling design.

(5) Public goods: Data are made available to the public as soon as the data collection and data cleaning is completed, thereby providing an important resource for both academic and policy research.

This study is an experimental investigation of the effectiveness of integrating School Resource Officers (SROs) into multi-disciplinary teams in reducing risk behaviors in students, specifically the average number of disciplinary incidents over the course of three years (2015-2017). The authors focus on the following research questions:

1. Do schools with SROs demonstrate significantly greater declines in student disciplinary incidents than schools with no SROs?
2. Do schools with SROs who receive the enhanced training (intervention) show greater declines in student disciplinary incidents than schools whose SROs receive only the standard training?
3. Do the answers to questions 1-2 vary by sub-populations in the schools such as students from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds, gender, and socioeconomic status?