School Safety and SROs: Cutting Through Misleading Studies to Find Balance

School safety is a cornerstone of educational priorities. The presence of School Resource Officers (SROs) is one of the most debated aspects of keeping our schools safe. Discussions on their successful impact often pit their perceived benefits like preventing violence and developing relationships against concerns about their possible negative impact on students and the school climate. Studies have increasingly examined these issues, providing insight on both the value and limitations of SRO programs. Alongside the rise of techno-security measures in schools, the school safety space continues to grow, increasing the need for accountability, clear role definitions, and evidence-based solutions.

Many studies have been conducted and results reported regarding this topic. In a recent article,   Research.com looked at five studies and concluded that these studies “reveal(ed) a complex picture of how SROs operate within schools and the broader implications for student discipline and community relations.”  The “complex picture” is sometimes oversimplified and, thus, lost in the studies themselves through oversimplified abstracts and clickbait titles.

One study for example, examined public comments during school board meetings about the removal of SROs. Stakeholders expressed varied perspectives, from full support to concerns about safety, to the potential harm of police presence to some students. While the study emphasized the logic behind arguments rather than actual data, it showed the deep divisions in public opinion. This underscores the need for schools to better communicate the roles and expectations of SROs to address stakeholder concerns while ensuring alignment with policy goals.

“Perception of safety” in studies like this , rather than measurable outcomes raises questions. Public opinion, while important, should not be substituted for actual quantitative data. This study also reflects a growing trend of clickbait titles, which sensationalize issues. The title of this study alone, in my opinion, is irresponsible.

Another significant study used national data to analyze SRO impacts. It concluded that, while SROs effectively reduce “some forms of violence,” they do not prevent “gun-related incidents” and contribute to increased disciplinary actions, particularly among Black students, male students, and those with disabilities. This conclusion is not surprising since the working definition of “gun related incidents” is “The sum of incidents of robbery with a firearm or explosive device, physical attack or fight with a firearm or explosive device, threats of physical attack with a firearm or explosive device, or possession of a firearm or explosive device.”

Most such studies use similar broad definitions. This, therefore, includes SROS and administrators working together, discovering such weapons, and removing them from the school, and properly disciplining the student(s). One would think this is a good thing. When these studies use sensationalized titles and definitions, it muddies the waters.

Furthermore, the “some forms of violence” that SROs reduce, according to this study, are defined as “The sum of incidents of rape or attempted rape, sexual assault, robbery without a firearm or explosive device, physical attack without a firearm or explosive device, or threats of physical attack without a firearm or explosive device.”

So, if a student is merely possessing a firearm, it is counted as a “gun-related incident.”   This appears to be standard. Removal of a firearm from a school, while a serious and concerning offense, is not necessarily a violent offense. It certainly has the potential to be, but a professional SRO working with school administrators are preventing them, and it is then being called a “gun-related incident.”

Thus, these studies will continue to show the more firearms or explosive devices that SROs and school administrators remove from schools, the more the data will show that they (SROs and schools) do not prevent gun-related incidents. I would assume that a different tone would be achieved if studies such as these consider how many such guns or weapons are removed from schools and count it in the “SROs are effective” column. Instead, these studies often count weapons removal as a negative; especially when one considers the ensuing disciplinary actions.   

The Rise of Techno-Security

In parallel with SRO debates, the growing use of techno-security measures—such as weapon detection systems, surveillance cameras, and access control technologies—has garnered attention.  Research critiques the motivations behind these technologies, suggesting that schools are often “sold” on their necessity without sufficient evidence of effectiveness.

A recent example from Tennessee illustrates this concern. An AI-based weapon detection system failed to identify a weapon due to its positioning, raising questions about the reliability of such technologies. Vendors may overpromise, leaving schools with expensive tools that do not always deliver. Schools must approach these investments critically, ensuring they understand the capabilities and limitations of the technologies they implement.

Policy Recommendations and Narrative Bias

An analysis of policy recommendations for SROs revealed a tendency to favor their retention or reform, often rooted in narratives about their necessity. Even studies highlighting potential harm caused by SROs rarely recommend their removal. This reflects the commitment of K-12 schools to maintain SRO programs despite concerns about equity and safety.

While some argue that schools without armed SROs are inherently safer, such claims often rely on manipulated definitions of safety. Many such definitions, like the first one mentioned in this article, rely on perceptions of safety and not actual hard or quantitative data. The emphasis should shift to defining clear roles for SROs, ensuring accountability, and addressing systemic biases within schools.

Community policing principles offer a potential framework to address many of the challenges associated with SROs. A study examining the alignment of SRO activities with community policing dimensions—such as partnerships, problem-solving, and organizational adaptation, found promising overlap. By adopting this framework, SROs can better navigate roles as law enforcement officers and educators.

Clear role definitions and accountability are critical to this approach. When SROs understand their responsibilities and work within a community-oriented framework, they are more likely to build trust, reduce disciplinary disparities, and enhance overall school safety. However, educational and law enforcement leaders must hold those accountable who operate outside of their responsibilities.

The discussion around SROs must also consider the broader context of school safety, which encompasses both “hard” and “soft” measures. Hard measures, such as cameras and metal detectors, address physical threats but do little to help relationships and trust necessary for a positive school climate. Soft measures, including training, consulting, and role definition, target the human factors that often support hard safety measures. A well trained, armed, professional SRO can, and should, function as both.

For example, a recent study by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that schools using a combination of hard and soft measures experienced a 30% reduction in violent incidents compared to those relying solely on hard measures. Similarly, a study by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reported a 25% reduction in violence in schools with comprehensive safety strategies that included soft measures. These findings highlight the importance of a balanced approach to school safety.

School safety is a complex issue that requires more than one-size-fits-all solutions, all available research indicates this to be true. The debate over SROs, the rise of techno-security measures, and the need for soft safety solutions reflect the complexity of the challenge. While SROs play a crucial role in many schools, their effectiveness depends on clear roles, accountability, and alignment with community policing principles. Similarly, investments in techno-security should be evidence-based and accompanied by training and relationship-building initiatives.

By embracing a balanced approach that incorporates both hard and soft measures, schools can create environments that are not only physically secure but also supportive for all students. This balance requires thoughtful policy decisions, critical evaluations of existing practices, and a commitment to improvement that includes seeing through and rejecting studies that are not applicable. Only then can schools truly ensure the safety and well-being of their students and staff.

Schools that have experienced the unthinkable respond with more SROs. After the Marjorie Stoneman Douglass shooting in Florida a significant “after action” response emerged, primarily led by the students who survived, where they launched a nationwide movement called “Never Again MSD” advocating for stricter gun control laws, holding large-scale protests like the “March for Our Lives” and actively engaging with politicians to demand legislative change around gun control.

However, while the victims of this horrific shooting in 2018 led a national campaign around gun control, when it came to their campus, a number of hard measures were put into place including increasing the number of SROs. The answer, according to the victims of the tragedy, for everyone else was less guns. But, for them, the answer was more guns.