By Crystal Hayduk
By invitation from Superintendent Mike Kapolka, Washtenaw County Sheriff Jerry Clayton spoke about School Resource Officers (SROs) at the Chelsea School District (CSD) Board of Education meeting on April 10.
Clayton said important decisions should not be rushed, but made with thoughtful deliberation. The purpose of the lengthy presentation was to provide information to the district’s leaders and board as they consider implementing an SRO program.
Historically, the first police presence in school began in the 1950s in Flint, Clayton said. With anecdotal evidence of success, the program expanded to other states. Officers have had a presence in some districts in Washtenaw County since the 1980s.
The Safe Schools Act of 1994 provided federal funds to schools for safety and security, permitting some dollars to be used for a police presence in buildings.
The shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO in April 1999, where two teens killed 13, injured more than 20 others, and then killed themselves, was a trigger point pushing the issue of police in schools. “That brought to us that there really are no safe zones, and schools now are seen … as a potential target,” said Clayton.
An official SRO meets certain qualifications: state licensed and sworn law enforcement officer (LEO), LEO employed by a local law enforcement agency (LEA), and LEO assigned to a particular school building or district. The primary function of the SRO is to improve safety and security.
Currently, the role of the SRO includes law enforcement, educator (of staff and students), and informal counselor and mentor.
Clayton outlined two standard models for police in schools. The SRO model is a contract with the local LEA with a clear understanding of the officer’s roles and responsibilities, full or part-time, and may be stationed in one building or move between buildings. The district-employed model occurs when a very large district creates its own agency and commissions its own officers. (Apart from the two universities, the district-employed model does not exist in Washtenaw County.)
The relationship between the school district and the SRO is driven by the financial contract and the MOU (Memo of Understanding), which details the roles, expectations, duties and responsibilities, corrective actions, and a graduated response model. Clayton said the MOU should be revisited annually. He also said the SRO is not responsible for behavior management that should be under the purview of the school, such as students who aren’t engaging in class or who won’t stop using their cell phones.
SROs should have skills in conflict management, judgement, and relationship building; and exhibit the qualities of emotional intelligence, integrity, and self-control. They participate in professional development that includes a basic 40-hour SRO course, Handle with Care (adverse childhood experiences), mental health response, active assailant response, and MIIS (managing interpersonal interactions series—including implicit bias, de-escalation, interpersonal communications, and cultural diversity).
Clayton said an SRO in the district partners and works collaboratively to support the wellness and safety of the school community, supports campus security, partners with mental health and behavioral health services, understands the neighborhood, and provides law enforcement in collaboration with the school if a crime is committed.
Clayton said there’s a great deal of anecdotal evidence that SROs work, but more evidence-based research is needed.
He shared his own personal commentary that the profession should be held accountable to prevent biased outcomes. “The fear of that should not stop us from doing things we know we should do that’s good public policy,” said Clayton. “…It should inform us in the right way to execute what we … want to do, so we have good public policy.”
Following Clayton’s presentation, board members asked additional questions.
Q: (Glenn Fox) Do you have data that addresses the efficacy of SROs for safety and security?
A: Clayton will forward some, but some studies look at only the presence or absence of SROs, rather than measuring related factors.
Q: (Michelle Craig) Do SROs receive training to help manage children with special needs?
A: Although it’s taught “lightly in basic” at this time, down the road, there needs to be more training, said Clayton.
Q: (Craig) How do federal and state funding for SROs work?
A: Although he couldn’t speak to any current specifics, Clayton said there are millions of dollars available, and the county recently hired someone to help navigate the grant process.
Q: (Scott Moore) What is the divide between a crime in the community versus an event between students in a school, for example, a fistfight? A: Clayton said “…the law is not suspended when we get on campus.” Kapolka said local law enforcement is called when violations of the student code of conduct warrant that level of response.
Q: (Eric Wilkinson) What other districts in the county have SROs?
A: Dexter and Lincoln each have one.
Q: (Kate Henson – to the district.) What are we trying to address by possibly bringing in an SRO?
A: (Eric Wilkinson) There needs to be more board discussion about this topic.
In his closing comments, Clayton said despite the lack of empirical evidence in a changing landscape, he is concerned about districts being unprepared if an incident occurs.
Later in the meeting, board members discussed the topic further. Board President Wilkinson said the SRO is one security measure the district does not have in place, so he recommends more research prior to the preparation of the 2023-24 budget.
Kapolka said the district has received state grant funding through Section 97, which has paid for additional cameras and AI gun detection software on some cameras. It is expected that funding for SROs may be available again in the future, but CSD has not yet applied for any of that money.
Jason Eyster suggested identifying district concerns and then what tools and options exist to meet the local needs.
Fox said he believes it best to look at data, talk to other districts who have an SRO, and to consider the possible outcomes of reduction in mental health and wellbeing and equity issues that may go hand-in-hand with having a district SRO.
Moore wants to know more about Dexter’s experience and would like input from CSD staff and students. Henson agreed with the importance of hearing from the people who are directly affected by having an SRO.
Craig suggested the possibility of working more closely with the Chelsea Police Department, especially given the proximity of the schools and the unpredictability of funding.
Wilkinson said he shares Craig’s funding concerns, as well as unrealistic expectations when the buildings are spread across town. However, the SRO has a background and lens that could add value to the district’s safety plan.
Keegan Van Batavia, 11th grade student liaison to the board, said, “It’s amazing to me that you are considering bringing in student input because they’re going to be living every single day with this person [and this] environment.”
Kapolka and a few board members said defining the issues to be addressed (as it fits with the district’s strategic goal and plans) is an important first step to identifying the appropriate response.
During the opportunity for public comment, one community member spoke in support of the district hiring an SRO.
A recording of the meeting with the full presentation, board discussion, and public comment will be available for one month here.
[This is one of two articles covering the April 10 school board meeting.]
