Insights on the Idaho SRO Report; Why Such Reports are Welcomed, But Can’t Define the Role of Police in Schools
Insights on the Idaho SRO Report; Why Such Reports are Welcomed, But Can’t Define the Role of Police in Schools
By John Huber
July 2025
The recent release of Idaho’s statewide review of School Resource Officers (SROs) is a welcomed publication with lots of useful information and data. It also comes with a few caution flags. The report offers insight into SRO distribution, campus crime data, and the alignment of administrator and SRO expectations of SRO duties; however, it falls into a trap that too many studies do: using incomplete data and assuming correlation implies causation.
Let’s start with the headline: counties with more SROs reported more campus crime. Of course they do. This is very misleading. More SROs in a district doesn’t mean those schools are inherently more dangerous. It simply means someone is there to see what’s happening.
Put a radar cop on a quiet corner with a radar gun and a book of tickets, and the number of speeding violations there will spike compared to the corner without a radar cop. But that doesn’t mean the second corner is safer. It just means no one was there to write tickets.
The same applies to Idaho’s school data. More SROs naturally means more eyes, more accountability, and yes, more reports. That’s what they’re there for. This is a feature of the system, not a flaw. But the report doesn’t fully acknowledge this. Instead, it notes a “statistically significant” correlation between SRO presence and school-based crime without pointing out the obvious: presence leads to detection, not necessarily higher rates of misbehavior.
The Hidden Data Problem
Another major concern with this study is the persistent use of outdated location codes in Idaho’s crime reporting system. Despite updates made in 2014 to separate elementary and secondary school data from college campuses, nearly one in five school-based offenses in 2023 were still reported under the old “school/college” location code.
This is more than just a clerical mistake, it’s a problem that obscures our ability to see what’s really happening in K–12 schools. In five Idaho counties, none of the local law enforcement agencies have adopted the updated codes. That means entire swaths of school-related crime data are muddied, lumped in with incidents at universities and community colleges, which have entirely different dynamics and populations.
This issue compromises the validity of the findings and leaves school and police leaders, and the public, with a fuzzy picture of the reality on school campuses. If we want to use data to make decisions about safety and staffing, we need to clean up the foundation first. Faulty input equals faulty output.
SRO Roles: Still a Work in Progress
On the issue of SRO responsibilities, the report makes a strong, familiar point. SROs say they’re doing more law enforcement work than administrators want them to, and not enough educating. Meanwhile, administrators say they’d like to see more teaching from SROs.
This is nothing new. We’ve seen it across districts and states. But it shows a larger truth: SROs are often left to define their role based on local culture, personal experience, or administrator preference, rather than consistent expectations grounded in best practices.
It’s one of the reasons I developed the three-level model of school–SRO partnership in A Practical Guide to Building Strong School–Police Relationships at the School Level. A Level 1 relationship is tightly defined with clear boundaries. Level 2 involves more consultation and integration. Level 3, the rarest, sees the SRO embedded deeply in the life of the school, with occasional boundary crossings that are acknowledged and handled with maturity and respect. But each level depends on clarity, and that starts with documents like the MOU, which in too many places is overlooked, unread, or unenforced.
Here’s what this Idaho report really reveals: when it comes to SROs, visibility, not volume, drives reporting. And that’s a good thing. It means schools with SROs are doing exactly what they should be doing: identifying issues before they spiral, responding to low-level offenses, and keeping a pulse on school culture.
We should not take raw numbers and use them to suggest that SROs are increasing crime. That’s not just bad data interpretation, it’s dangerous. Because when we frame the story that way, we give policymakers the wrong incentive—to pull officers out of schools to make the numbers look better.
SROs are not a magic solution, but they are a powerful part of the school safety puzzle when their role is clear, their purpose is respected, and the data used to evaluate them is properly understood. Idaho’s report is a useful first draft, but the story is still incomplete.
The report gives three recommendations:
- Develop a Statewide SRO Program
Idaho should consider adopting a statewide, coordinated SRO model similar to Utah’s H.B. 61, which includes centralized oversight, training standards, and financial support for law enforcement agencies to staff and train SROs. - Increase SRO Involvement as Educators
School administrators and SROs should work together to expand SROs’ teaching roles, aligning more fully with NASRO’s triad model. This includes providing targeted training to help officers feel confident and prepared to educate students. - Conduct Further Research on SRO Impact
Additional research is needed to understand the true relationship between SRO presence and school-based crime reporting. Current correlations may reflect improved detection rather than increased incidents, highlighting the need for deeper analysis.
These last two recommendations (expanding the educator role of the SRO and conducting deeper research into SRO presence and school-based offenses) align closely with key themes I’ve explored in my writing and presentations across the country.
Expanding the Educator Role (Triad Alignment)
As I’ve noted in multiple case studies and articles, when SROs operate under clearly defined roles (particularly when aligned with NASRO’s triad model: law enforcement officer, informal counselor, and educator), the relationship between the school and the officer becomes more balanced and sustainable. My “Three Levels of Partnership” model shows how schools and officers can work toward a more integrated presence, where the educator role is not an afterthought, but a deliberate, structured piece of the SRO’s day. Level 2 and especially Level 3 partnerships benefit greatly from SROs being seen not just as enforcers, but as credible adult voices in the educational experience.
As the Idaho report notes, training is essential. We can’t expect SROs to step into classrooms with no support or guidance. In some of the incidents I’ve analyzed (such as those in Rockford, Georgia, and others), what begins as a well-intended attempt at involvement and supporting the school can lead to confusion or liability if there’s no clear structure. Teaching isn’t about “talking at” kids; it requires preparation, strategy, and cultural awareness. That kind of professional development must be built into SRO programs from the start, not as an add-on, but as a core element of the role.
Conduct additional research
The third recommendation, calling for further research into the connection between SROs and reported offenses, is especially important. As I’ve argued earlier in this commentary on Idaho’s data: simply pointing out that more offenses are reported in schools with SROs tells us very little. It’s the same logical flaw as saying there’s more speeding where there are more tickets being written. Of course there is, because someone is there to observe it.
We should stop using surface-level data when addressing the issue of the presence of police in schools. Instead, we need research that asks better questions: What kinds of incidents are being reported more frequently? Are these serious threats, or minor offenses that were previously overlooked? How are SROs resolving these issues, through arrests, diversion, counseling? Without this depth, we risk misinterpreting increased reporting as increased crime, when in fact, it may reflect a more transparent and accountable school environment.
This distinction is important. Several of my previous articles (including the Sumter County and Smithfield–Selma incidents) examine how blurred lines between discipline and enforcement can damage trust, and how good data and proper role definition can prevent that damage. We need more research that centers the context, not just the numbers. And we need school systems to recognize that reporting more incidents doesn’t always mean things are getting worse. It may mean they’re getting better.
The Idaho SRO report brings forward important insights but also reveals how easily data can be misread when context is missing. Strong school–police partnerships depend on clearly defined roles, accurate reporting, and thoughtful interpretation of what the numbers actually mean. The presence of police in schools should not be reduced to statistics alone. It must be viewed through the lens of trust, training, and shared purpose; especially when the safety and development of students is on the line.