SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS IN KENTUCKY WHO ... 2015 - 2016 SRO...Approximately 1 in 10 (11.4%) had...

School Resource Officers in Kentucky

1

SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS IN KENTUCKY

WHO ARE THEY AND WHAT DO THEY DO?

By:

Kentucky Center for School Safety Staff

Lee Ann Morrison, M.S.

May 2016


2

SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS IN KENTUCKY

WHO ARE THEY AND WHAT DO THEY DO?

The first School Resource Officer (SRO) program in Kentucky was initiated in Jefferson

County in 1977. Since that time, the program has grown steadily due primarily to the availability

of grants through the federal Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office in the U.S.

Department of Justice.

School Resource Officers were first referenced in Kentucky statutes with the passage of

the Safe Schools Act in 1998. Kentucky Revised Statute 158.441 defines an SRO as a sworn law

enforcement officer who has specialized training to work with youth at a school site. The officer

shall be employed through a contract between a local law enforcement agency and a school

district. The statutory language was extremely important to the development of the SRO program

for three reasons: 1) it required SROs to have specialized training; 2) it recognized the importance

of having a written contract between the two agencies to clarify the duties of the officer; and 3) it

formally recognized SROs as a specialized field of law enforcement.

Every even year (e.g., 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016), the KCSS has updated

its database of SROs and has administered questionnaires to the SROs asking questions regarding

their characteristics, activities, and perceptions of school safety and the SRO’s role in school safety

in Kentucky. This report is an outcome of that effort during the spring of 2016.

Data Collection

In the spring of 2016, researchers from the Kentucky Center for School Safety (KCSS)

conducted a study in collaboration with the Kentucky Department of Criminal Justice Training

examining the attributes of School Resource Officers throughout the state of Kentucky. Using

an existing database revised in the fall of 2015, an electronic questionnaire was utilized to make


3

it easier for the SROs to complete the survey. An introductory email want sent out from

DOCJT that served as a warning email advising the SROs that the survey would be coming soon

was sent to all SROs in the database in February of 2016. After two weeks, a second email was

sent that explained the purpose of the survey and included a link to a SurveyMonkey website

where the questionnaire was housed. A final email was sent two weeks later that contained the

link and reminded the SROS to complete the survey if they had not already. Of the 247 SROs

who received a questionnaire, 175 responses were received, for a response rate of 71.0% percent.

This response rate was 10.0% higher than the 2013 study.

Due to inconsistency in reporting, the questions regarding the population of students at

assigned schools, proportion of time spent on duties and activities, maintenance of reports,

and perceptions of seriousness of activities were removed from the survey. In previous years

we found that these questions were inconsistent and had a high percentage of missing data.

Upon discussion with SROs we found that they were hesitant to respond to the survey due to

the length and time it took to complete.

The data for this study are comprised from responses received from 175 SRO

questionnaires. Practically all respondents provided data for questions on the last page of the

questionnaire, indicating that the entire sample probably read the entire questionnaire.

Nevertheless, some respondents failed to complete data for some of the questions. The charts

provided below (as well as the percentages presented in the text of the report) reflect only valid

responses. In other words, the number of responses for some charts is greater than the number of

responses for others because some respondents chose not to answer some questions. In most

cases, the charts present the raw number of responses while the text presents summary of the


4

charts, using percentages instead of raw numbers. The tables from which the charts were derived

are available upon request.

Results

The gender and racial characteristics of the Kentucky SROs who provided data for this study are

similar to those who responded in the previous SRO reports.

The vast majority (90.0%) of the SROs were male, while 10.0% were female.

90%

10%

Chart 1. Gender of SROs

Male Female


5

The vast majority of SROs (9.0%) were White, while the remaining SROs were Black

(.0%) and Hispanic (1.0%).

9%1%

90%

Chart 2. Race/Ethnicity of SROs

African American Hispanic White

3

40

61

50

19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

25 - 30 Years 31- 40 Years 41 - 50 Years 51 - 60 Years Over 60 Years

Chart 3. Age of SROs


6

Of the 173 SROs who responded to the question that asked their age, a small percentage

(1.7%) were 24 to 30 years of age and 23.1% were between 31 and 40 years of age. More than

one in three SROs were 41 - 50 years of age (35.2%). Almost one in three SROs (28.9%)

reported being between the ages of 51 and 60 years of age. One in ten SROs were over 60 years

of age (10.9%).

Of the 172 responses to the question asking how much SRO experience the officers had,

only one officer had been working as an SRO for a year. The majority of SROs had been

working 3-5 years (27.9%) and 6-10 years (29.6%). Of the remaining SROs who responded, one

in five had been working as a SRO for 1-2 years (20.9%) and for 11 years or more (20.9%).

1

36

4851

2115

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Less than 1 1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-10 Years 11 - 15 Years 16 plusYears

Chart 4. Years of SRO Experience


7

We then asked the respondents how many years they had been employed in law

enforcement. Of the 174 officers who responded to that question, only two had less than four

years of law enforcement experience. Approximately 1 in 10 (11.4%) had been employed as law

enforcement officers for 5-9 years and 35 years or more years and 30 – 34 years (10.3%). One in

eight officers (12.0) had 25 – 29 years of experience. More than one in six had been employed

as law enforcement officers for 10-14 years (18.3%), 15 - 19 years (17.8%), and 20 - 24 years

(17.2%).

2

20

32 31 30

21

1820

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4 Years orLess

5-9 Years 10-14Years

15-19Years

20-24Years

25-29Years

30-34Years

35 Yearsor More

Chart 5. Years of Law Enforcement Experience


8

We then asked the SROs how many years of education they had completed. Of the 172

SROs who answered this question, one in eight respondents (12.8%) had completed high school.

More than two in five SROs (43.6%) have some college education and one in four SROs (25.0%)

earned a bachelor’s degree. Four SROs reported having a master’s degree, and one SRO

reported earning a doctorate degree.

2

22

75

27

43

4 10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

GED High School Some College(no degree)

Associate'sDegree

Bachelor'sDegree

Master'sDegree

Doctorate

Chart 6. Years of Education


9

The SROs were then asked how their position was funded. The 170 responses to that

question are presented in Chart 7. As is evidenced by the chart above, in 2011 and 2013 no

schools were funded by Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) funding, which is a

dramatic reduction from 2004, when almost half of the SROs were funded by COPS funding. In

2014 three SROs reported being funded by COPS funding. Most of the SROS were funded

either through the Board of Education (37.6%) or through collaboration between the Board of

Education and Police Department (39.4%). Of the remaining categories, 15.8% were funded

solely by police departments, 5.3% were funded by other sources which were not listed.

COPS fundingBoard of

Educationfunded

PoliceDepartment

funds position

CollaborationBetween the

school districtand law

enforcementagency

Previously wasCOPS funded

but nowfunded by

other source

OtherMultipleSources

2006 15 34 22 0 24 25 0

2008 2 83 58 0 9 17 0

2011 0 41 19 40 0 6 8

2013 0 64 21 50 3 8 0

2014 3 64 27 67 1 8 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Nu

mb

er

of

SRO

sChart 7. Type of Funding Available to the SRO at Schools


10

The SROs were then asked what type of SRO training they had received. The responses

to that question are presented in Chart 8. Among the SROs who responded, 42.4% had attended

the SRO Basic training offered by the Kentucky Department of Criminal Justice Training

(DOCJT). One in five SROs (21.0%) had attended the basic training program offered by the

National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO). That percentage has stayed the

same since the survey was last conducted in 2013. One in four SROs (25.3%) attended the

DOCJT advanced course which was a 13.5% decrease since 2013. Only 11.4% had attended the

NASRO advanced training program, which was a slight increase since 2013.

67

40

33

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

DOCJT Basic DOCJT Advanced NASRO Basic NASRO Advanced

Chart 8. Types of Training SROs Have Received


11

SROs were then asked how many hours per week they worked in the SRO role during the

typical school year. The responses to that question are presented in Chart 9. Of the 174 SROs

who responded, 64.9% worked full-time as SROs (40 hours per week) during the school year.

More than one in five (21.3%) worked more than 40 hours per week. Small percentages had

worked 20 hours or less (5.7%) or 21-39 hours (8.0%). Thus, the majority of SROs were full-

time SROs during the school year, a trend that matches the findings from the four previous

reports.

10 14

113

37

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

20 or less hours 21-39 hours 40 hours Over 40 hours

Chart 9. Hours Worked in a Typical Week as an SRO


12

Respondents were then asked the number of schools for which they provided coverage.

The responses to that question are presented in Chart 10. Of the 171 SROs who responded, one

in four SROs (25.1%) were assigned to one school while more than one in three (37.4%) were

primarily assigned to one school but were on call for other schools. Almost one in three SROs

(29.8%) split their time between two schools. This percentage has increased by 20.9% since the

survey was conducted in 2013. Only a small percentage of SROs (7.6%) were assigned to more

than two schools. This percentage decreased by 23% since 2013. Thus, despite the fact that the

optimal situation is one SRO per school, most officers are responsible for more than two schools

or respond to other schools in their district and that trend appears to be increasing over time.

64

5143

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

I am assignedprimarily to one

school but I am oncall to other

schools.

I am assinged tomore than two

schools.

I am assignedonly to one

school.

I am assigned totwo schools.

Chart 10. Number of Schools that SROs are Assigned To


13

We then asked the SROs the grade levels of the school(s) to which they were assigned.

The responses are presented in Chart 12. More than three in five (65.2%) SROs were assigned

exclusively to high schools, while approximately one in five (20.3%) were assigned exclusively

to middle schools. Only three officers (2.2%) were assigned exclusively to elementary schools.

Of the remaining SROs who responded, 3.6% were assigned to schools of more than one level

and 8.7% responded with other. Thus, SROs in Kentucky work primarily in the middle and high

schools and this has been the case for each of the years for which we have data.

3

28

90

0 512

0102030405060708090

100

Chart 12. Type of School Where SRO was Assigned


14

We then asked the SROs how much of their time was spent on each of the SRO duties

that NASRO suggests comprise the SRO triad (law-related counselor, law-related educator, and

law enforcement officer). The responses to those questions are presented in Chart 13. The SROs

in this sample spent the majority of their time (59.0%) as law enforcement officers with less than

half their time spent on law related counseling (28.0%) and an even smaller amount spent as law-

related educators (16.0%). Thus, at least among this sample of SROs, the “triad” is not an

accurate depiction of the way in which SROs actually spend their time. In fact, the SRO’s

proportion of time spent on the three tasks would better be described as a “pie,” with one slice

teacher, two slices counselor, and three slices law enforcement.

Law EnforcementOfficer

Law-related CounselorLaw-related Education

Teacher

2011 58% 28% 14%

2013 59% 28% 16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%M

ean

Pe

rce

nta

ge o

f Ti

me

Chart 13. Proportion of Time Spent onEach SRO Duty


15

We then asked the SROs about the different types of activities they performed at their

assigned schools and the frequency of those activities. The most frequently occurring activity

that SROs performed daily was monitoring parking areas; three in four SROs (72.6%) did this

activity daily. The second most common daily activity was monitoring lunchrooms (69.8%) of

the SROs performed this activity daily), then counseling students (51.0%), consulting with

faculty and administration (47.4%), clearing halls (42.4%), and conducting investigations

(40.3%). The activities that SROs performed less frequently were assisting teachers (13.0%),

searching a student not under arrest (3.6%), and breaking up fights between students (2.2%),

transporting students (2.9%), and teaching classes (5.0%). In a separate question in the survey,

half of the SROs surveyed indicated that they also served as a sponsor for a student organization.

ClearHallways

AssistTeachers

TransportStudents

MonitorLunchroo

m

MonitorParking

SearchStudent

not UnderArrest

Break upFightingStudents

TeachClasses

CounselStudents

Consultwith

Admin./Faculty

ConductInvestigati

onsOther

2006 60 24 8 85 96 6 3 74 51 52

2008 72 26 6 101 106 5 5 71 71 57

2011 61 30 3 76 81 9 4 62 66 56

2013 59 18 4 97 101 5 3 7 71 66 56 11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Axi

s Ti

tle

Chart 14. Activities Performed Daily at School


16

We then asked those SROs who said they participated in extracurricular activities on a

regular basis to describe the activities in which they participated. Their responses are presented

in Chart 15. The most common extracurricular event in which SROs were involved was sporting

events.

Coaching Sporting EventsExtracurricular

activitiesAfter School

ProgramsOther

2004 0 58 15 5 1

2006 8 32 20 6 2

2008 5 61 3 5 2

2011 8 33 5 7 0

2013 8 55 25 11 13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Nu

mb

er

of

SR

Os

Chart 15. SROs Participating in Extracurricular Activities on a Regular Basis


17

We then asked the SROs if they maintained a written record of the activities they

performed at school and, if they did, who received a copy of that record. The responses to that

question are presented in Chart 16. Of the 59 SROs who responded to the question regarding (1)

that they maintained a written record of their activities and (2) who provided information about

what was done with that record, over half (52.5%) of the SROs said that the law enforcement

supervisor in their department would get a copy. Only 1 in 10 (8.4%) SROs said both the law

enforcement supervisor and the school administrator would get a copy of report while one in six

(17.0%) reported they would maintain the copy of the report but not share it with others.

LESuperv.

LeSuperv.

andSchoolAdmin.

Principal/SchoolBoard

Kept onfile bySRO

LE.Superv.

andDistrictAdmin.

AllAdmin.

District/Board

CourtDesig.

Worker

DistrictStaff

Other

2004 26 9 4 5 16 0 0 0 0 9

2006 44 11 11 0 5 0 3 3 1 0

2008 52 9 8 9 6 2 1 1 1 3

2011 41 8 7 9 2 3 2 3 0 1

2013 31 5 2 10 7 0 3 0 0 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nu

mb

er

of

SR

Os

Chart 16. Person Who Gets a Copy of Report or Record of SRO Activites at School


18

Table 1. SROs Perception of Seriousness of Problems During Past School Year

2004 2006 2008 2011 2013

Theft 31 30 40 21 29

Disorderly Conduct 36 34 28 21 26

Violate Dress Code 41 32 28 27 27

Bullying/Harassment 31 30 24 29 31

Drug Possession 31 18 19 20 21

Fighting 21 23 14 12 7

Drug Distribution 36 14 14 15 15

Illicit Sexual Behavior 7 4 6 3 3

Sexual Harassment 10 8 5 7 3

Knife Possession 7 5 2 2 2

Bomb Threat 4 2 2 0 4

Possession of Other Harmful Objects

3 7 1 0 1

Possession of Gun 2 2 1 0 0

We then asked the SROs their perception of how serious a number of problems were at

their school during the past school year. Their responses to those questions are presented in

Table 1. Of the SROs who responded to these questions, approximately one in four (22.3%)

thought that bullying/harassment was a serious problem at their school while one in five thought

that theft (20.8%), violation of dress code (19.4%), and disorderly conduct (18.7%) were serious

issues. Of the respondents who answered in this category, none thought that the possession of a

handgun was a serious problem at their school.


19

Table 2. SRO Opinion of School Administrator 2004 2006 2008 2011 2013

Welcome My Presences

120 112 140 105 122

Has Genuine Concern for Student

124 114 144 108 122

Has Genuine Concern for Teacher

121 113 142 105 122

Low Tolerance for Violence

122 111 140 99 120

Low Tolerance for Gangs

113 108 136 107 121

Low Tolerance for Drugs

124 113 140 103 121

Strict Enforcer of Rules

78 103 135 95 118

Cooperative with LE Investigations

119 112 135 103 123

Support SRO Program

119 111 104 104 123

SROs were then asked a series of nine questions designed to allow SROs to give their

opinion of the principal at their assigned schools. The responses to that series of questions are

presented in Table 2. The vast majority of responding SROs had a high opinion of the principal

at the school where they were assigned. The vast majority agreed that the principal at their

assigned school: (1) welcomed their presence at the school (87.8%); (2) has a genuine concern

for students (87.8%); (3) has a genuine concern for the teachers (87.8%); (4) has a low tolerance

for violence (86.3%); (5) has a low tolerance for gangs (94.2%); (6) has a low tolerance for drugs

(94.2%); (7) was supportive of the SRO program and was cooperative with law enforcement


20

investigations (88.5%). The vast majority also felt that the principal at their school was a strict

enforcer of rules (84.9%). Overwhelmingly, then, the SROs who responded to this questionnaire

thought that the principal at their school was making an effort to reduce crime and violence in

the schools and support them in their role as an SRO.

Based on feedback and questions we have received from SROs in earlier reports, we

added a number of questions to the current questionnaire in 2008 to examine emerging issues

among SROs. We began by asking SROs to identify a number of resources that were available

to help them perform their assigned duties. Their responses to these questions are presented in

Chart 17. Of the SROs who responded to these questions, the vast majority (89.2%) stated that

they had access to handheld radios. Also, the majority (89.2%) stated that patrol cars were

available to them at the school while three in four reported that they had access to OC/pepper

spray (75.0%), batons (73.4%), and cell phones (72.7%) at the school. Less than three in four

PatrolCar

Segway Taser BatonOC/Pep

perSpray

PCComput

er

LaptopComput

er

CellPhone

iPad orTablet

Handheld Radio

Other

2008 136 2 64 106 122 114 69 127 146

2011 102 0 72 84 94 90 62 96 110

2013 124 2 95 102 104 97 77 101 23 124 8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Nu

mb

er

of

SR

Os

Chart 17. Resources that Help SROs Perform Duties


21

SROs reported having a taser (69.0%) while performing their duties at the school. The majority

of SROs reported having access to a PC computer (70.0%) or a laptop computer (55.4%). One in

six (16.5%) reported having access to an Ipad or tablet. Only two SROs reported having a

Segway on their school campus.

The SROs were then asked how long an SRO program had been in existence in the

district to which they were assigned. These responses are shown in Chart 18. According to the

131 officers who responded that question, half of the SRO programs with which they were

affiliated had been in existence for over 10 years (49.6%). More than one in three (35.9%) stated

that the SRO program had been in existence fore 6 – 10 years. Only one in seven (14.5%)

reported their SRO program being in existance 5 years or less. Overall, then, the SROs providing

data for this study generally work in districts with well-established SRO programs.

Less than 1 Year 1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-10 YearsMore than 10

Years

2008 3 5 21 84 24

2011 1 0 11 47 53

2013 2 7 10 47 65

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Nu

mb

er

of

SR

Os

Chart 18. Number of Years SRO Program Has Been in Existence


22

We then asked the SROs a number of questions about their SRO program. The responses

are presented in Chart 19. Of the SROs who responded to the survey, over one in six (17.3%)

stated that they were a Special Law Enforcement Officer (SLEO). The vast majority (74.8%)

reported that since the SRO program began in the district, it had been funded consistently by the

same agency. Less than one in seven (13.6%) stated that they had been able to obtain additional

grant funds to support the SRO profram in the district. More than three in ten SROs (34.5%)

reported that the Safe School budget reductions over the past fiscal year had impacted the SRO

program. Additionally, the majority of the SROs who responded (80.0%) stated that there was a

written contract/Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the school(s) where they worked

as an SRO and the police department with whom they were employed. This is a 15% decrease

since 2011. Finally, the vast majority of SROs (92.0%) who responded to this question, reported

that the contract/MOA adequately described the role and duties of the SRO and the relationship

between the school administration and the law enforcement agency to which they belonged.

Attend SLEOProcess

Funded bySame Agency

ObtainedAdditional

Funding

BudgetReductionImpactedProgram

WrittenContract/MOA

MOA DescribesRoles and

Duties

2008 19 98 29 44 103 97

2011 23 97 18 32 81 78

2013 24 104 19 48 93 93

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Nu

mb

er

of

SR

Os

Chart 19. Information about SRO Program


23

The SROs were then asked questions about their resources provided by the school and

their law enforcement agency. The responses are presented in Chart 20. Of the SROs who

responsed the survey, 9 in 10 (94.8%) stated that they had their own offices located at school.

Almost all of the SROs (96.1%) reported that they wore a uniform in their role as an SRO and

that uniform was provided by the agency for which they were employed (96.0%). All but one

officer (99.1%) carried a firearm on school property, while less than half of the officers (46.7%)

had access to .shotgun on school property. Only one in ten (8.6%) had a gun safe in their school

to store their shotgun. Additionally, over 9 in 10 SROs (91.6%) had access to canine patrol units

for searches on the school property.

Office atSchool

WearUniform at

School

UniformProvided

by Agency

Carry aFirearm

Have aShotgun

ShotgunStored at

School

Haveaccess to

K-9

PersonalChoice to

CarryFirearm

2008 110 135 130 145 79 130

2011 101 106 101 109 53 39 103 4

2013 111 123 120 129 57 5 110 2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Nu

mb

er

of

SR

Os

Chart 20. Information about SRO Program - Resources Provided


24

The SROs were then asked information about their positions. The responses are presented

in Chart 21. Of the officers who responded the survey, more than four in five (84.8%) stated that

their positions were designated “School Resource Officer”. The vast majority (95.7%) reported

that they were certified police officers in Kentucky half (50.0%) stated that they were a member

of a professional SRO organization.

110

142

8993

114

73

118

133

69

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Position Designated SRO Certified Police Officer A Member of a ProfessionalSRO Organizaion

Chart 21. Information About SRO

2008

2011

2013


25

For those who responded that they were a member of professional SRO organizations, we

then asked that they list the organizations to which they belonged. The responses are presented in

the Chart 22. Of the SROs that stated that they were member of professional SRO organizations,

two in five (44.0%) belonged to the Kentucky Association of School Resource Officers

(KYASRO). One in four (27.3%) reported being a member of the National Association of

School Resource Officers (NASRO). A small percentage (6.5%) belonged to Drug and Alcohol

Reduction Education (DARE) and one in ten (8.6%) belonged to the Kentucky Crime Prevention

Coalition (KCPC). The membership to NASRO, DARE, and KCPC has steadily declined since

2008.

NASRO KYASRO DARE KCPC Other

2008 62 64 32 26 3

2011 51 57 12 23 6

2013 38 61 9 12 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70N

um

be

r o

f S

RO

s

Chart 22. Membership in Professional Organizations


26

We then asked the SROs about changes they would like to see take place and their

perception of an effective School Resource Officer. The reponses are presented in Chart 23. Of

the SROs who responded, almost 9 in 10 (83.1%) stated that the law enforcement administrators

understood their role while more than three in five (64.3%) reported that they were invited to

faculty meetings. Less than half of the SROs (42.8%) stated that they always consulted with a

school administrator prior to making an arrest on school property and more than half (53.2%)

agreed that school administrators always notified them when a crime had been committed on

school property.

122

97

135

146

100

81

44

68

103

81

54

67

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Chart 23. SRO Role at School

2008

2011

2013


27

Based on responses to previous surveys and reports based on that survey data, in 2011

we included a number of questions in the report that had not been previously examined. We

first asked the SROs about the ramifications of budget reductions in their districts. The

responses are presented in Chart 24. Of the 48 SROs who responded “yes’ to the question that

asked if the Safe Schools budget reductions over the past fiscal year had impacted their program,

over half (52.1%) of them stated that they had been unable to attend trainings and conferences

that they had previously been able to attend. Slightly fewer officers (45.8%) reported that the

requests for new equipment had been unable to be met. One in three SROs who thought budget

cuts had impacted funding stated that there were fewer SROs in their districts now and that they

were responsible for more schools (37.5%). One in three (33.3%) stated that they had fewer

instructional resources to help them do their job and agreed that they had fewer crime prevention

resources to help them do their job (33.3%). Finally, three SROs had gone from full-time to

part-time status because of budget cuts.

17

10

2

15 15

24

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Chart 24. Impacts of Budget Reductions

Fewer SROs in District

Responsible for More Schools

Gone From Full-Time to Part-TimeStatus

Fewer Instructional Resources

Fewer Crime Prevention Resources

Unable to AttendTrainings/Conferences


28

Finally, we then asked the SROs about their particpation with emergency management

planning and lockdown procedures. The responses to those questions are presented in Chart 25

and Chart 26. Of the 126 SROs who responded to those questions, the vast majority (85%) were

asked by administration for their input and participation in both emergency management plans

and lockdown procedures.

108

18

Chart 25. SROs Participation with School Emergency Plans

Yes

No

107

19

Chart 26. SROs Participation with School Lockdown Procedures

Yes

No


29

Conclusion

The results presented here suggest that the School Resource officer program continues to

thrive in the state of Kentucky. Kentucky SROS are generally experienced law enforcement

officers who enjoy their positions, work well with the school administrators at their school, and

feel the schools in which they work are relatively safe environments. SROs generally work at

least 40 hours per week in their positions as SROs and are generally assigned to more than one

school (typically middle and high schools). Even though they respond that the majority of their

time is spent in law enforcement duties, SROs engage in a wide variety of activities at school

that would not traditionally be considered law enforcement activities (e.g., monitoring hallways,

parking lots, clearing hallways, counseling students). SROs perceive disorderly conduct, theft,

dress code violations, verbal harassment, and bullying as the most serious safety problems at

their schools and have a wide range of ideas on how to solve these problems. Given the findings

from this report, it appears that the SROs who work in schools in Kentucky work collaboratively

with school administration and are an asset to the schools in which they perform their duties.

Date post:	29-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS IN KENTUCKY WHO ... 2015 - 2016 SRO...Approximately 1 in 10 (11.4%) had...

Documents