1. Promoting a Positive School Climate

All schools are recommended to assess and implement strategies and programs to bolster a positive school climate where all students feel accepted and have a sense of belonging. Schools should utilize a program or curriculum designed to increase school climate and student connectedness, such as Sandy Hook Promise, “Start with Hello.” When considering programs and activities, it is important to ensure the curriculum is culturally responsive and age appropriate. It is also important to ensure that youth are involved in defining and designing school safety initiatives, both in the implementation and operationalization of activities. While at least one adult champion/supervisor will be needed, leadership should ideally come from the students - not only to foster leadership development, but to ensure the needs that are being addressed are those identified by the students themselves. Through student clubs and involvement with administration, students should be empowered to educate their peers on safety and school climate, engage with the community and parents, and both inspire and lead hope within their school. To accomplish this, schools should implement Youth Leadership and Empowerment programs and activities such as the Sandy Hook Promise, SAVE Promise Club. Schools should also address attendance rates as part of school climate and implement support for students with higher rates of absenteeism.

Built environment will also need to be considered. Physical security involves much more than the layout of a building or the placement of metal detectors. It includes things like well-lit pathways and instruction on finding a trusted adult - that larger context is sometimes referred to as the “built environment.” All students are encouraged to have discussions on identifying trusted adults in their life, including while at school. All students are recommended to have safe access to after school and out of school activities. Safe transport or walking routes near the school, as well as easy access to after school activities, including homework circles and clubs, is important to promote both student safety and inclusion. Families should have frequent access to school workshops and presentations, including at minimum on how to recognize signs that their child may be experiencing mental health concerns, including mental health signs, substance use, suicidality, ways to support youth at home, where to access mental health resources at school and community for a crisis, school and community resources and programs, parenting support, how to connect and partner with the school related to concerns, safe storage, and how to access to free and low cost programs for activities for their children. When police, schools, or parents recognize that a family member is in need of support, there must be easily accessible services to prevent escalation. There needs to be a commitment to support youth and their families and utilize prevention strategies before pursuing legal avenues.

2. School Safety Plans and Assessments

All schools are recommended to utilize Comprehensive School Safety Assessments. At minimum, the comprehensive school safety assessment should include the following areas: School grounds, safe routes to school, access points to the campus, perimeter access control for building(s), visitor screening procedures, security camera systems, alarm systems, interior access control, management of space, student supervision, school climate, bullying prevention strategies, antiterrorism measures, opportunities to increase the use of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), how written policies, plans and procedures match practice, effective documentation of security and safety procedures, use of social emotional wellness prevention, resources and access for support. All schools should consider utilizing Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) as part of their comprehensive school safety plan (see below for more details). Schools are encouraged to conduct a CPTED School Assessment to address areas of opportunity in the school building and grounds that may impact youth violence and perceptions of safety. These principles may impact schools through creating a welcoming environment, creating a sense of physical and social order, sending positive messages to students, maximizing the presence of adult authority figures, decreasing opportunity of out-of-sight activities, managing access to school areas, and creating a sense of ownership of students.

3. Target Hardening Measures

While some hard measures may be a vital part of a comprehensive approach to safety, we need to take care to avoid implementing hardening measures that are largely driven by a desire to rapidly respond to mass shootings. Chambers suggested four key implications to keep in mind when considering target hardening in schools(2): 1) target hardening measures are not a substitute for other evidence-based approaches to school safety; 2) “hardening” of schools must not interfere with teaching and learning; 3) avoid instilling fear in students and inhibiting healthy adolescent development when applying these measures; and 4) protect against security technology altering student-teacher relationships where students are viewed as threats. Below we discuss common target hardening approaches, based on level of evidence, along with best practices and caveats to consider prior to implementation.

School Resource Officers (SROs)

Many U.S. communities are debating whether and how to engage law enforcement in their schools in response to high-profile school shootings and community violence. These discussions are challenged by national and local community-police relations, calls for police reform, and research that suggests that the presence of law enforcement in schools does not stop school shootings, increases the criminalization of student behaviors, and feeds the school-to-prison pipeline. Data from the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, however, offer a different perspective indicating that over the past two decades schools have become safer, juvenile arrests are down, and that this coincides with the expansion of SRO programs as part of a comprehensive strategy.(9) A 2021 U.S. Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center report concluded that “school resource officers play an important role in school violence prevention.”(10) SROs can fulfill a variety of roles: preventing and responding to school-based crime; facilitating relationships among law enforcement, educators, students and the community; and supporting a positive school climate.

Notably, SROs need specific skills and training for working with youth and in schools because these may be different than the typical training officers receive. It is useful for SROs, for example, to understand issues about adolescent development, develop relationships with students and school personnel, and develop an identity as a resource for schools. Researchers suggest that traditional police training often does not provide adequate instruction on topics relevant to school-based law enforcement, such as prevention and early intervention, diversion, adolescent and child development, crisis intervention, gang activity, and substance abuse.(11) A lack of specialized training can result in SROs who may be ill-equipped to fulfill key roles, jeopardizing the success of the SRO program, and hindering school safety. Training and resources are offered by local, state, and federal agencies (such as the U.S. Department of Justice’s COPS Office), technical colleges, and other private organizations, including the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, and National Association of School Resource Officers. Basic SRO training includes instruction on how to teach, mentor, and counsel students, work collaboratively with school administrators and staff, and familiarity with policies and procedures that adhere to juvenile justice and privacy laws. See Appendix for additional details on SROs including standard operation procedures.

During the past decade, the presence and state mandates of SROs in schools has increased, which has coincided with a dramatic increase in the number of referrals and arrests to juvenile courts made by schools, which has disproportionately affected minority groups and students with disability.(9) Despite this shift, only recently have researchers begun to examine how the increased utilization of trained law enforcement personnel can affect school climate and school safety. Some of the most rigorous research on this topic has been conducted by Gottfredson and colleagues.(12) In one recent review, Devlin and Gottfredson concluded that all else being equal, having police present in a school results in more crimes being reported to law enforcement, not less, compared to schools that do not have a police presence.(13) Instead of responding to more serious crimes, police presence is associated with increases in the reporting of nonserious crimes to law enforcement, and increased arrests for minor offenses, particularly for youth under the age of 15.(14) The most serious crimes such as gun violence are already reported to law enforcement whether or not a police officer (or SRO) is positioned within the school.(15)

The key takeaway from the current evidence suggests that school and community officials may need to have realistic expectations for SROs and their role in school safety. They most certainly play an important role, but arresting and criminalizing adolescent behaviors that are somewhat to be expected during this developmental period may end up doing more harm than good. Rather, SROs can contribute to school safety teams, help students build trust with police, assist with creating a positive school climate, and assist when a situation becomes concerning or dangerous (i.e., early detection of warning signs). SROs are also a vital resource as the first responder when a violent or shooting incident takes place before more help arrives. To address some of these issues, it would be helpful if SRO duties and responsibilities are developed with school leaders and formalized into written agreements which are reviewed on an annual basis to help make role definition clear and adaptable.

Trauma-Informed Active Shooter Drills (ASDs)

Recent years have seen an increase in calls for improved school safety and preparedness, particularly with active-shooter incidents.(16–18) Active Shooter Drills (ASDs) are one of the most common responses to this type of violence, having been implemented in over 95% of U.S. K-12 schools.(1) Not only have ASDs quickly proliferated in the nation’s schools, they have also evolved within a scant framework and with a lack of standards resulting in the conflation of “drills” with simulation-style “Full-scale or Functional Exercises.” According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Full-scale or Functional Exercises include, among other things, simulation and stressful environments.(19) These simulations can involve mimicking the sound and smell of gunfire, people play-acting injuries, staff being shot with pellet guns, fake blood, and law enforcement sweeping hallways with firearms drawn. Simulations can be traumatic for students and staff and have occasionally resulted in physical injuries.(20) Additionally, there is currently no evidence that these types of simulation exercises are effective at improving school safety.(21) It is important for schools that conduct ASDs to consider the methods they use to ensure the safe participation of all students and to avoid trauma and/or psychological harm.

A 2020 report by Everytown for Gun Safety, American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association outlines several recommendations for drills which may help to ensure that they are trauma-informed and less detrimental to mental health.(22) These include strategies like notifying school communities in advance; avoiding realistic simulations; ensuring developmental appropriateness; consulting with mental health professionals; and tracking data on their efficacy and effects. The report recommends using the following best practices:

• Drills should not involve play-acting or sensorial components.(23)
• Drills should be accessible, developmentally and age-appropriate, culturally aware, scientifically based, and trauma informed.
• All drill approaches should explicitly include clear considerations (and accommodations) for students with disabilities, mental health needs, sensory needs, mobility restrictions, and auditory or visual limitations.
• Require evidence-based violence prevention training in schools that conduct ASDs. Teaching students how to prevent violence – including gun violence – before it manifests at their schools can increase school safety and strengthen students’ sense of personal safety.
• Require that ASDs be announced immediately prior to taking place, using concise and age-appropriate language. Because active shooter drills are grounded in preparing for an act of violence that could result in death, even the best formulated drill can be traumatizing to students and school personnel. One way to mitigate this effect is to clearly announce – prior to the start of the drill – that it is a practice.
• Require advance notice for students & parents/guardians and provide alternative safety training for exempted students. Even well-constructed ASDs can negatively affect students who have already experienced a form of trauma, including trauma caused by gun violence. Therefore, students and parents/guardians should be informed in advance of any pending drill and given any information necessary to make an informed decision as to whether the student will be opted out of the drill.
• A reasonable amount of time should be provided to students and school personnel between the completion of a drill and the resumption of regular activities. Making postvention services available including access to counselors, school psychologists and/or social workers may be necessary.
• Require an annual review of the efficacy and impacts of ASDs. A process should be in place to determine if active shooter drill protocols need to be updated to ensure they are prioritizing the safety and mental wellbeing of participants. Annual meetings should allow for an audit of how effective these drills are and if adjustments need to be made.

Lockdown Procedures

Lockdown drills are commonly used in schools to increase safety and survivability during mass shootings. These drills help individuals build time and space between themselves and the threat, leading to fewer injuries and deaths in real-world events. Continued training and drills are important for maintaining skill mastery in deploying the lockdown procedure effectively.(24) Research has shown that participating in lockdown drills and emergency response training reduces fear and perceived risk among students, although reported avoidance behaviors may increase.(25) 

“Run-Hide-Fight” Training

Training students and staff on the “Run-Hide-Fight” protocol, which provides guidelines on responding to an active shooter situation. 

Arming Teachers

Arming teachers with firearms provides an immediate and potentially proactive response to a security threat, but it is a highly controversial practice with concerns related to safety, training, and its effect on overall school environment. According to the latest American Educators Panels survey by the RAND Corporation, 54% of teachers believe armed teachers would make schools less safe, while 20% believe it would improve school security – despite the fact that a majority of states have laws allowing it. Several prominent organizations have released public statements indicating that they do not support arming teachers including the National Association of School Resource Officers, National Parent Teacher Association, and the National Association of School Psychologists. Arming teachers raises concerns around the risk of increased injury and death with the additional accessibility of guns within schools.(26) School officials have also raised concerns around liability, costs required for extensive and ongoing training, and risks with law enforcement response to active shooter situations when teachers may also be shooting.(27)

Metal Detectors

The effectiveness of metal detectors in improving school safety is unclear, but many public schools continue to rely on this technology to control school violence.(28) Notably, the implementation of metal detectors with best practices may not be feasible because they require adequately trained staff, procedures for handling the identification of contraband, and enough detectors to handle the rush of students entering school at roughly the same time. They also require staffing throughout the day including after school time to help screen visitors to the building. Some researchers have suggested that the presence of metal detectors in schools is also associated with a decrease in student reports of feeling safe, and that there is a disproportionate use in high-violence, and schools with predominantly minority students.(29)

Nightlocks

One of the more recent hardening mechanisms is called a Nightlock. While it is still early and research on its effectiveness is limited, parents and students reported that it saved lives in Oxford high school on November 30.(39,40,41). It is a simple, relatively inexpensive device and has the ability to prevent injury and death by allowing individuals to quickly secure their space and lock down. Every building must adhere to their own fire and safety requirements, which may impact their ability to utilize these mechanisms.

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is a comprehensive approach applicable across diverse settings to enhance safety and mitigate community violence. By strategically modifying the physical environment, CPTED aims to deter criminal activity and create spaces that promote well-being. Common strategies include improving lighting for visibility, controlling access points, fostering community engagement, and implementing surveillance measures. In residential areas, for instance, CPTED may involve trimming vegetation for clear sightlines, while in commercial settings, it could entail securing entrances and installing surveillance cameras. Schools might focus on controlled access and collaboration with law enforcement, while public parks benefit from natural surveillance and community programming. Regardless of the setting, the core principles of CPTED—natural surveillance, territorial reinforcement, access control, maintenance, and community involvement—provide a versatile framework for improving safety and reducing the risk of community violence.

CPTED core principles:

1. Natural Surveillance: CPTED principles often involve designing spaces to enhance natural surveillance. Well-lit areas with clear sightlines make it harder for criminal activities, including gun violence, to go unnoticed. Increased visibility can deter potential offenders and encourage community members to report suspicious behavior.
2. Territoriality: Creating a sense of ownership and territoriality in a community can discourage criminal activity. When people feel a strong connection to their surroundings, they are more likely to actively protect their environment. This sense of community ownership may deter individuals from engaging in gun violence within that community.
3. Access Control: CPTED emphasizes controlling and limiting access to certain areas. Restricted access can help prevent unauthorized individuals from entering spaces where gun violence might occur. This could be through the use of physical barriers, controlled entrances, or monitored access points.
4. Maintenance and Order: Well-maintained environments signal that an area is actively cared for and monitored. A clean and orderly environment can discourage criminal behavior, including gun violence. Neglected areas may attract criminal elements, increasing the likelihood of violence.
5. Community Engagement: Implementing CPTED often involves engaging the community in the design and maintenance of public spaces. This community involvement fosters a sense of responsibility and cooperation, which can contribute to a safer environment and reduce the occurrence of gun violence.

Researchers have shown that communities with CPTED activities reported decreases in gun violence, youth homicide, disorderly conduct, and violent crime.(30–33) Communities also reported positive effects on residents’ stress, community pride, and physical health.(34,35) According to the U.S. Department of Education report on school safety, there exists ample evidence that various CPTED can improve school safety without sacrificing the educational mission of schools.(9) Strategies vary by cost, but several can be implemented with relatively low cost. As part of a comprehensive school safety strategy, schools are encouraged to conduct a CPTED School Assessment (link below) to address areas of opportunity in the school building and grounds that may impact youth violence and perceptions of safety.

Other strategies including the work of Dr. Ron Astor focus on combining monitoring and mapping techniques to prevent specific forms of school violence and aggression in specific spaces and times in school.(36–38) Mapping in schools involves a comprehensive approach to address school safety concerns. This method goes beyond physical measures by mapping and understanding the social and psychological dynamics within school environments. Dr. Astor’s work emphasizes the importance of identifying hotspots for potential safety issues, understanding student relationships, and assessing the school climate. By mapping social interactions, bullying incidents, and other relevant factors, educators and administrators can gain insights into the school’s social fabric. This complements physical safety measures by providing a more nuanced understanding of potential risks and enabling the development of targeted interventions.

Many schools are implementing target hardening measures in response to mass shootings to improve school safety and security. Based on the available evidence, target hardening alone that are not part of a larger strategy will not reduce risk for school shootings and may lead to other deleterious effects on student and staff well-being. A comprehensive approach that includes attention to the social environment (e.g., student social–emotional learning, school climate) and the attentive environment (e.g., anonymous reporting systems, risk assessment) along with physical environment strategies like the target hardening and CPTED approaches discussed across all sections of this Protocol are necessary to promote community safety from gun violence. Furthermore, by fostering open dialogue, emphasizing community engagement, and implementing training programs focused on de-escalation and cultural competence, we can work towards a more constructive and mutually beneficial collaboration between law enforcement and community. This approach can help build trust, prioritize the well-being of individuals, and create a safe and inclusive learning, working, and living environment for all.

1. Musu-Gillette L, Zhang A, Wang K, Zhang J, Kemp J, Diliberti M, et al. Indicators of school crime and safety: 2017. 2018.
2. Chambers D. How school security measures harm schools and their students. Educ Theory. 2022;72(2):123–53.
3. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. A Comprehensive Report on School Safety Technology [Internet]. Prepared for The Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice; 2016 Oct p. ES1-479. Available from: https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250274.pdf.
4. Theriot MT. The impact of school resource officer interaction on students’ feelings about school and school police. Crime Delinquency. 2016;62(4):446–69.
5. Fisher BW, Mowen TJ, Boman JH. School security measures and longitudinal trends in adolescents’ experiences of victimization. J Youth Adolesc. 2018;47:1221–37.
6. Johnson SL, Bottiani J, Waasdorp TE, Bradshaw CP. Surveillance or safekeeping? How school security officer and camera presence influence students’ perceptions of safety, equity, and support. J Adolesc Health. 2018;63(6):732–8.
7. Flannery DJ, Fox JA, Wallace L, Mulvey E, Modzeleski W. Guns, school shooters, and school safety: What we know and directions for change. Sch Psychol Rev. 2021;50(2–3):237–53.
8. Flannery DJ, Farrell AD. Evaluating school-based violence prevention programs: Challenges and opportunities now and into the future. 2019;
9. U.S. Department of Education. Training school personnel to help ensure student safety. In Final Report of the Federal Commission on School Safety [Internet]. 2018 p. 101–7. Available from: https://www2.ed.gov/documents/school-safety/school-safety-report.pdf
10. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service. Averting Targeted School Violence: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Plots Against Schools [Internet]. 2021 p. 5. Available from: https://www.secretservice.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2021-03/USSS%20Averting%20Targeted%20School%20Violence.2021.03.pdf
11. McKenna JM, Petrosino A. School Policing Programs: Where We Have Been and Where We Need to Go Next. Natl Inst Justice. 2022.
12. Gottfredson DC, Crosse S, Tang Z, Bauer EL, Harmon MA, Hagen CA, et al. Effects of school resource officers on school crime and responses to school crime. Criminal Public Policy. 2020;19(3):905–40.
13. Devlin DN, Gottfredson DC. The Roles of Police Officers in Schools: Effects on the Recording and Reporting of Crime. Youth Violence Juv Justice. 2018 Apr 1;16(2):208–23.
14. Owens EG. Testing the School-to-Prison Pipeline. J Policy Anal Manage. 2017;36(1):11–37.
15. Na C, Gottfredson DC. Police officers in schools: Effects on school crime and the processing of offending behaviors. Justice Q. 2013;30(4):619–50.
16. Madfis E. The Risk of School Rampage: Assessing and Preventing Threats of School Violence. Springer; 2014. 153 p.
17. Schildkraut J, Nickerson AB. Ready to respond: Effects of lockdown drills and training on school emergency preparedness. Vict Offenders. 2020;15(5):619–38.
18. Terrades V, Khan SK. Will it ever end: Preventing mass shootings in Florida & the US. Suffolk UL Rev. 2018;51:505.
19. Hamblin J. What are active-shooter drills doing to kids? The psychological effects of realistic simulations could be dangerous. The Atlantic. 2018.
20. Herron A. It hurt so bad’: Indiana teachers shot with plastic pellets during active shooter training. Indy Star. 2019.
21. O’Regan S. The company behind America’s scariest school shooter drills. The Trace. 2019.
22. Everytown for Gun Safety. How to Stop School Shootings and Gun Violence in Schools: A Plan to Keep Students Safe [Internet]. 2022 Aug. Available from: https://everytownresearch.org/report/how-to-stop-shootings-and-gun-violence-in-schools/
23. National Association of School Psychologists. NASP and NASRO Urge Accuracy With Regard to Lockdown Versus Other Types of Armed Assailant Drills [Internet]. 2020 Feb. Available from: https://www.nasponline.org/about-school-psychology/media-room/press-releases/nasp-and-nasro-urge-accuracy-with-regard-to-lockdown-versus-other-types-of-armed-assailant-drills
24. Schildkraut J, Greene-Colozzi E, Nickerson AB, Florczykowski A. Can school lockdowns save lives? An assessment of drills and use in real-world events. J Sch Violence. 2023;22(2):167–82.
25. Schildkraut J, Nickerson AB. Effects of lockdown drills on students’ fear, perceived risk, and use of avoidance behaviors: A quasi-experimental study. Crim Justice Policy Rev. 2022;33(8):787–813.
26. Swedler DI. A public health argument against arming teachers. Health Behav Res. 2018;1(3):2.
27. Everytown for Gun Safety and Support Fund. Arming Teachers Introduces New Risks Into Schools [Internet]. 2019 May [cited 2024 Apr 10]. Available from: https://everytownresearch.org/report/arming-teachers-introduces-new-risks-into-schools/
28. Bhatt R, Davis T. The impact of random metal detector searches on contraband possession and feelings of safety at school. Educ Policy. 2018;32(4):569–97.
29. Perumean-Chaney SE, Sutton LM. Students and perceived school safety: The impact of school security measures. Am J Crim Justice. 2013;38:570–88.
30. Bushman G, Kondo MC, Rupp LA, Hohl BC, Gong CH, Zimmerman MA. Associations between land bank ownership and stewardship of vacant properties and crime, violence, and youth victimization in Flint, MI. Am J Community Psychol. 2023;72(3–4):428–42.
31. Garvin EC, Cannuscio CC, Branas CC. Greening vacant lots to reduce violent crime: a randomised controlled trial. Inj Prev. 2013;19(3):198–203.
32. Sadatsafavi H, Sachs NA, Shepley MM, Kondo MC, Barankevich RA. Vacant lot remediation and firearm violence–A meta-analysis and benefit-to-cost evaluation. Landsc Urban Plan. 2022;218:104281.
33. Gong CH, Bushman G, Hohl BC, Kondo MC, Carter PM, Cunningham RM, et al. Community engagement, greening, and violent crime: A test of the greening hypothesis and Busy Streets. Am J Community Psychol. 2023;71(1–2):198–210.
34. Sadler RC, Pruett NK. Mitigating blight and building community pride in a legacy city: lessons learned from a land bank’s clean and green programme. Community Dev J. 2017;52(4):591–610.
35. Ohmer ML, Meadowcroft P, Freed K, Lewis E. Community gardening and community development: Individual, social and community benefits of a community conservation program. J Community Pract. 2009;17(4):377–99.
36. Astor RA, Benbenishty R, Meyer HA. Monitoring and mapping student victimization in schools. Theory Pract. 2004;43(1):39–49.
37. Astor R, Benbenishty R. Mapping and monitoring bullying and violence: Building a safe school climate. Oxford University Press; 2017.
38. Astor RA, Meyer HA, Behre WJ. Unowned places and times: Maps and interviews about violence in high schools. Am Educ Res J. 1999;36(1):3–42.

39. Conklin, Audrey. “Oxford High School Parents Credit Door Lock Company for Saving Lives from School Shooter.” Fox News, 7 Dec. 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/us/oxford-school-shooting-parent-credit-door-lock

40. OaklandPress, Paula Pasche | The. “Security Door Locks Installed 4 Years Ago at Michigan High School May Have Saved Lives.” The Mercury News, 7 Dec. 2021, https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/12/07/security-doorlocks-at-oxford-high-school-may-have-saved-lives/

41. Clarke, Shawn Ley, Kayla. “How Nightlock Door Stops May Have Saved Lives at Oxford High School.” WDIV, 9 Dec. 2021, https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/defenders/2021/

SRO programs should be developed in collaboration with school and law enforcement officials, parents, and community stakeholders. Duties and responsibilities of SROs should be memorialized in written agreements and reviewed on an annual basis to guard against adverse impact. For example, Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or similar formalized agreements define the school-law enforcement partnership and delineate the program’s mission and goals. Key components of MOUs should include: Mission, goals and objectives, roles and responsibilities, level and type of commitment from partners, governance structure, process for selecting SROs, information exchange, program and SRO evaluation, student rights, integrating the SRO, transparency and accountability, and standard operating procedures (SOPs). SROs should not be involved in school discipline matters.

Key components of SOPs:

• School discipline versus criminal justice processing: Delineate which offenses require a criminal justice referral versus the use of traditional school discipline procedures, including behaviors that fall into gray areas between criminal offenses and school discipline issues (e.g., harassment, fighting, vandalism). Limit arrests for public order offenses (e.g., willful defiance or disobedience, disorderly conduct, disrupting the educational process) to help to ensure that discipline remains the responsibility of school staff.
• Schools should refer to Oakland County Youth Assistance when students need support beyond appropriate school discipline and prior to the need to involve the legal system.
• Chain of command: Delineate to whom the officer reports, how the school administrator and officer collaborate to address incidents, and what the procedure is when there is a disagreement between the school administrator and the SRO.
• Arresting students and use of force: Delineate when arrest or restraint of students or taking them into custody is appropriate, recognizing that these are actions of last resort to deal with offenses that cannot be handled through traditional school procedures. Define procedures for arresting students, including whom should be consulted and when and where arrests should take place (e.g., off school grounds and outside of school hours, except in cases where there is an immediate threat to school safety). Clarify procedures for calling in patrol officers to arrest students to protect the relationship between the SRO and the student body.
• Communication and collaboration: Define when the SRO will talk with school staff and law enforcement officials, including discussions about at-risk students and ongoing investigations. Detail what meetings SROs should attend (e.g., parent-teacher organizations, school board meetings, faculty meetings). Outline how SROs will be integrated into educational teams to help the SRO adapt to the school culture and improve understanding of school resources, referral options, and information sharing. Specify SRO engagement in periodic roll calls and other law enforcement meetings to help SROs remain part of the law enforcement team and aware of changing community issues impacting school safety.
• Uniform: Outline SRO uniform requirements, which may include law enforcement attire, a utility belt, and a service weapon, which can be a deterrent to criminal behavior. This SOP recognizes that in some school communities traditional police uniforms may create disruptions or mistrust among the student population and that SRO uniforms can vary based on school community needs and the requirements of the law enforcement agency.
• Searching and questioning students: Outline when and how SROs can search and question students, and whether administrators and/or parents need to be alerted prior to the search.
• Selecting the School Resource Officer: SRO programs are built on the recruitment and selection of qualified officers who are chosen for their willingness and ability to work with students, parents, and educators. Effective SROs are motivated by opportunities to proactively address school safety issues, build effective working relationships with school staff, and positively impact the lives of students. School and law enforcement administrators should work collaboratively to identify SRO employment criteria that are the best match for the school. Because SROs serve as role models and rely heavily on individual discretion, high levels of integrity and dependability are essential. Officers skilled in de-escalation and crisis intervention techniques and who have expertise in how to counsel or refer students can better promote school safety and a positive school climate.

SRO Training:

• SROs must be specifically trained for the duties and responsibilities they will have within the school community. Studies suggest that traditional police training often does not provide adequate instruction on topics relevant to school-based law enforcement, such as prevention and early intervention, diversion, adolescent and child development, crisis intervention, gang activity, and substance abuse. A lack of specialized training can result in SROs who may be ill-equipped to fulfill key roles, jeopardizing the success of the SRO program, and hindering school safety. Training and resources are offered by local, state, and federal agencies (such as the U.S. Department of Justice’s COPS Office), technical colleges, and other private organizations, including the National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, National Association of School Resource Officers, and other organizations. Basic SRO training includes instruction on how to teach, mentor, and counsel students, work collaboratively with school administrators and staff, and familiarity with policies and procedures that adhere to juvenile justice and privacy laws.
• Specialized training on other topics can also promote an SRO’s effectiveness. For example: Mental health, child and adolescent development and communication, implicit bias, trauma-informed care, adverse childhood experiences, de-escalation techniques/crisis intervention training, school-specific topics, and cultural competence.

Basic SRO training includes instruction on how to teach, mentor, and counsel students, work collaboratively with school administrators and staff, and familiarity with policies and procedures that adhere to juvenile justice and privacy laws. Specialized training on other topics can also promote an SRO’s effectiveness, including:

1) Mental Health – training SROs to understand child and adolescent mental illness, intellectual and developmental challenges, recognize signs of emotional disturbance, and crisis intervention can reduce referrals to juvenile court and help facilitate the connection of at-risk students to interventions and supports.

2) Child and Adolescent Development and Communication – understanding child and adolescent development can help SROs build trust and support educational objectives.

3) Implicit Bias – SROs should receive implicit bias training to understand that all individuals harbor unconscious bias, helping them recognize bias and its impacts, and instructing them on how to implement controlled responses can promote fair and impartial reactions to misbehavior and offenses.

4) Trauma-Informed Care – adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can potentially harm a child’s emotional and physical well-being and can lead to behavioral issues. Recognizing and responding to the causes and implications of trauma can help school resource officers intervene more effectively when signs of trauma appear.

5) De-escalation Techniques/Crisis Intervention Training – SROs should receive training on how to interact with and respond to students in crisis using validated communication, crisis intervention, and behavioral techniques.

6) School-Specific Topics – training in bullying, positive school discipline, substance abuse, truancy, dropout prevention, active shooters, gang activity, and school crisis planning can help SROs more effectively carry out their duties.

7) Cultural Competence – prepares SROs to communicate and tailor interventions based on an understanding of student and staff cultures. Culturally competent SROs can work with individuals representing diverse cultures, including students of various socio-economic strata, religions, ethnicities, or countries of origin.

School Safety Planning.

During school hours: A school policy and protocol on the referral process for both ongoing and crisis services regarding connecting students with the school-based mental health provider needs to be in place with frequent training for all school staff. The school-based mental health provider needs to have a referral protocol in place for connecting with community-based services for services that cannot be met within the school. If a student is experiencing a mental health emergency, the school crisis team should support the student and family to determine the appropriate next steps to stabilize and access needed services.

If the crisis team is unable to meet the mental health needs of the student within the school or the student needs a higher level of care to keep themselves safe, the school should refer students to the Youth and Family Care Connection (YFCC) located at the Oakland County Resource and Crisis Center, 1200 N. Pontiac, Telegraph Rd., 32E, Pontiac, MI, 48341. The YFCC can be accessed through walk-in services for a behavioral health crisis. Services available through YFCC include: screening, psychiatric evaluation, medication management (if advised), counseling, and other intervention as needed for up to 72 hours. For a student demonstrating an elevated risk of violence or harm to others, the school-based threat assessment team should be involved to determine if a threat assessment needs to be completed. If the threat assessment team has deemed a threat assessment is not necessary, the school crisis team can follow the same referral steps for accessing services at the Youth and Family Care Connection.

Oakland County Health Network provides School Mental Health Navigators, who can help schools access care for students through Oakland County Health Network (OCHN). OCHN will support youth and families accessing care through any service, and believes there is no “wrong door” to access care for youth in need. Schools are strongly encouraged to work with providers such as TRAILS to create suicide risk management protocols. This should include: 1) accurate assessment of suicide risk through an evidence based screening tool (such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale), 2) referral system to local provider with information sharing process, and 3) protocols in place for supporting students when they return to school.

After school hours: After school hours, a parent or guardian can call the mobile crisis unit at 877-800-1650, access the Youth and Family Care Connection 24/7, or call 988 for a mental health crisis. If there is risk of imminent danger, caregivers are encouraged to call 911 and ask for a crisis intervention team (CIT) trained law enforcement officer to be dispatched. A parent or guardian may also take their child to the emergency department (ED); crisis providers can still provide support in the ED if permitted by the ED. Inpatient admission can also be coordinated telephonically if necessary. Crisis prevention and prompt intervention is critical to reduce the likelihood of a crisis escalating.

• Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS): https://www.pbis.org/
• Sandy Hook Promise, SAVE Promise Club: https://www.sandyhookpromise.org/our-programs/save-promise-club/
• National Center for School Safety on School Climate: https://www.nc2s.org/topic-area/school-climate/
• NCSS Comprehensive School Safety Assessments: https://www.nc2s.org/topic-area/comprehensive-school-safety-plans/
• CDC Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/cpted.html
• National Center for School Safety: https://www.nc2s.org/resource/physical-security-measures-overview/
• National Association of School Resource Officers: https://www.nasro.org/
• Oxford School Shooting Safety measures & Nightlock Barricade saved lives.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-UWyR-LCi8
• National Center for School Safety Educational Videos for SROs: https://www.nc2s.org/resource/school-resource-officer-video-series/
• Systematic Review on Perceptions of SROs: https://www.nc2s.org/resource/systematic-review-perceptions-of-school-resource-officers/
• Everytown for Gun Safety, American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association’s 2020 report: https://everytownresearch.org/report/the-impact-of-active-shooter-drills-in-schools/
• Multi-hazard Emergency Planning for Schools: https://training.fema.gov/programs/emischool/el361toolkit/conductingexercisesdrills.htm#item2
• Conducting Crisis Exercises and Drills: Guidelines for Schools: https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/school-climate-safety-and-crisis/systems-level-prevention/conducting-crisis-exercises-and-drills
• National Center for School Safety’s Resources on School Drill: https://www.nc2s.org/topic-area/school-drills/
• The National Center for School Safety trainings on best practices for lockdown drills: https://www.nc2s.org/training/lockdown-drills/
• A brief informational pamphlet on the Run Hide Fight protocol: https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/active-shooter-pamphlet-2017-508.pdf
• CDC-developed CPTED School Assessment: https://rems.ed.gov/docs/CDC_CPTEDSchoolAssessment.pdf
• Youth and Family Care Connection: https://www.oaklandchn.org/DocumentCenter/View/1366/Youth-and-Family-Care-Connection-FAQ-PDF