U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

School Resource Officer Evaluation Phase One

NCJ Number
221258
Author(s)
Amy C. Eisert M.S.
Date Published
September 2005
Length
86 pages
Annotation
Phase one summary findings are provided from a 2-year evaluation to assess the value of the School Resource Officer (SRO) Program and identify the critical components for a successful program.
Abstract
The support of school administration for the SRO Program was strong. Of those participating, 13 districts were no longer receiving State funding. Twelve of those schools had continued the SRO program through other funding sources after State grant funds expired. Support of the SRO program was also apparent through responses of the student, parent, and teacher surveys. Commonalities were identified among programs, such as Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) between law enforcement and school administration. Higher-ranking programs reported maintaining consistent contact with their law enforcement supervisor, and indicated that law the enforcement supervisor visited the school site periodically. School administrators stressed the importance of the personality of SROs, responding more favorable to SROs that had volunteered for the position as opposed to being assigned. The Center for Schools and Communities received grant funding from the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) to conduct a 2-year evaluation of all SRO programs in the State of Pennsylvania receiving State funding for their programs. This evaluation identified the best practices of SRO programs with the intended goal of developing a best practice manual for SRO programs within the State. In year one, phase one of the evaluation, 24 school districts were identified as having received or currently receiving State funds for the SRO program with 12 participated in the survey portion of the evaluation and 21 participated in the interviews. This report outlines the findings of the evaluation for the first year. Appendixes A-E