Legal Aid of North Carolina, Inc.

Advocates for Childrens Services

Mailing Address: PO Box 2101, Durham, NC 27702 Physical Address: 201 West Main Street, Suite 400, Durham, NC 27701 919.226.0052/0053 Fax 919.226.0566 www.legalaidnc.org/acs
Lewis Pitts, Esq. Managing Attorney Erwin Byrd, Esq. Staff Attorney Jason Langberg, Esq. Equal Justice Works Fellow Angela Grant, NCCP Paralegal

August 5, 2011 Dear Chairman Margiotta and Members of the Wake County Board of Education: I write to express serious concerns about the school resource officer (SRO) "study" conduct by Russ Smith and the discussion that occurred at the August 2nd Board work session. I write as a lawyer who continues to have clients harmed by Wake County's SRO policies and practices and as a member of various WCPSS groups working on related issues (e.g., the Economically Disadvantaged Student Performance Task Force and the Suspension Professional Learning Team). As you know, I believe careful evaluation of the SRO program is extremely important for numerous reasons, including: There are many SROs in Wake County, and they are expensive. There are 54 SROs in the Wake County Public School System. Each SRO costs taxpayers $80,000 per year, for a total $4,320,000. Hundreds of students are referred to court from Wake County schools each year. Over the last two state fiscal years for which data is available (2008-09 and 2009-10), 1,460 children age 15 and younger were shipped off to juvenile court as a result of school-based delinquency complaints, which accounted for 30% of all delinquency complaints in Wake County. No data is kept on students age 16 and older (i.e., most high school students), all of whom are sent directly to adult criminal court when school-based complaints are filed. The school policing issue is a civil rights issue. Black students were disproportionately funneled from schools to juvenile court: they made up approximately 26% of students in WCPSS, yet they were subjected to about 69% of school-based delinquency complaints.1 Students who are dumped into the juvenile and criminal systems face debilitating collateral consequences, including increased risk of dropping out, stigmatization, deportation, ineligibility for student loans, prohibition from participation in high school athletics, delay in earning a drivers license, reduced employment opportunities, and eviction from public housing. SROs carry weapons, such as TASERs, that can cause serious trauma, injury, or even death.2
1

National research shows that students with disabilities are also disproportionately referred to juvenile court. Anecdotally, I believe this to also be true in WCPSS. However, data on the number of school-based delinquency complaints against WCPSS students with disabilities is not collected.

The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children. -Dietrich Bonhoeffer
LEGAL AID NC

A United Way Agency

August 5, 2011

Page 2 of 4

No data is collected about: school-based arrests, school-based criminal complaints, or the use of force by security personnel. The SRO program has never been meaningfully evaluated, and WCPSS has never published a report about its SROs. In contrast, educators, who cost taxpayers far less money and are unarmed, are constantly under the microscope and bombarded with accountability. Studies suggest that a heavy police presence in schools intimidates students, undermines educators, creates an adversarial environment, and increases the number of court referrals for minor offenses. This summer, school discipline reform advocates were tremendously excited about the School Board's receptiveness to concerns about SROs and apparent willingness to look carefully at the use of SROs. At the June 2011 Board meeting, WCPSS head of security, Russ Smith, requested $113,514 to pay for SROs in Cary high schools and $340,542 to pay for SROs at 10 Raleigh high schools. Board members expressed serious concerns about SROs and asked Superintendent Tata to conduct a study of SROs and report back within three months. For two months, advocates from community-based organizations requested to be involved in the study and waited with optimism to hear how the study would be conducted. However, hopes were dashed at the Board work session on August 2nd. Russ Smith surprised education justice advocates when he presented the results of the mysterious "study." He sent the relevant materials to Board members less than three full business days before the Board meeting and then provided new materials just minutes before the work session began. The public was not informed about the process. The advocates who had been working diligently for over a year to ensure that the SRO program actually produces safe and fair schools were stunned that they were left in the dark. There were no SROs, educators, students, parents, or representatives from community-based organizations involved in the "study." There were no public hearings. There was not an opportunity for public comment, outside of the very short two minutes allowed at Board meetings. There was no online survey. It appears that the survey was conducted solely by a former law enforcement officer and the current head of security in WCPSS (in effect, Mr. Smith, was reviewing his own program). Did anyone truly expect a conclusion other than an "A" and "four stars" for the SRO program after such an undemocratic, biased process that lacked transparency, neutrality, and reliability? What is worse, the "study" produced little, if any, useful information. The entirety of the "study" consisted of a survey sent to middle and high school principals and assistant principals. The survey consisted of only five leading, loaded, "agree" or "disagree" questions. There were no questions that asked about how to improve the SRO program. There were no SROs, elementary school administrators, support staff (e.g., school counselors, psychologists, and social workers), teachers, students, or parents surveyed. In other words, 99.9% of people directly effected by the presence of SROs were completely ignored. From this miniscule amount of

On October 1, 2008 a Cary Police officer, acting as a SRO at a WCPSS High School, TASERed a student in the chest. Consequently, the student's lung collapsed. Last month, a federal jury awarded $10,000,000 to the family of a seventeen-year-old who was killed after police shocked him with a TASER. See also The Need for Safer TASER Policies in North Carolina, NC TASER Safety Project, 2008, http://acluofnc.org/files/NotThereYet.pdf.

August 5, 2011

Page 3 of 4

unreliable information, Mr. Smith and Superintendent Tata concluded that the SRO program is successful, and in fact, that SROs should be even more integrated into leadership teams. The only data presented, other than the survey results, was about a decline in the incidents of crime in schools. Mr. Smith pronounced a statistically invalid causal relationship between a decline in school crime and violence and the presence of SROs. It is unclear on which data Mr. Smith based his conclusion, since he did not present the data. What is clear is that Mr. Smith failed to mention that the juvenile crime rate is decreasing across the Board, both inside and outside of school. Furthermore, he failed to mention that the rate of "violent incidents" is already so low that a 54% decline over a six-year period, if in fact that statistic is true, is not a very meaningful piece of information. He also failed to provide the Board with any data about the use of force, school-based arrests and court referrals, and racial disparities. Additionally, he failed to mention that data clearly shows that schools are among the safest places for children-they were before the massive increase in the number of SROs and they still are. Finally, he did not offer a scintilla of proof that SROs make schools safer or that they are worth the nearly four and a half million taxpayer dollars every year. The Board spent less than 12 minutes discussing the SRO issue. The fact that no Board members requested answers to the following questions was shocking and disturbing, to say the least:3 Why were students, parents, teachers, support staff, or SROs not surveyed or involved in interviews and focus groups? Who else was involved in conducting the study? If no one else was involved, why not? How many students were arrested at school last school year and why were they arrested? How many students were referred to juvenile and criminal court last school year and why were they referred? Are there disparities (e.g., gender, race, disability) among the students arrested at school and those referred to court from schools? Which schools have the highest rates of court referrals? Why are their rates high? How can we reduce their rates? Which schools have the lowest rates of court referrals? Why are their rates low? How can we replicate whatever is working well? Which schools had the greatest disparities? How can disparities be reduced? To which schools are SROs assigned and why are they assigned to those schools? Have school administrators and teachers been given a copy of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) among WCPSS and local law enforcement agencies? If so, when? If not, why not? Specifically, what specialized trainings do SROs receive? Did you conduct a thorough literature review of the research about the presence of law enforcement officers in schools? If so, what did you find? If not, why not?

The Board Code of Ethics requires the Board to: "conduct the affairs of the Board in an open and public manner;" " make policy decisions only after full discussion;" "render all decisions based on the available facts;" and "remember always that a Board member's first and greatest concern must be the educational welfare of the students attending the public schools." (emphasis added)

August 5, 2011

Page 4 of 4

Did you study better practices from around the country? If so, what did you find? If not, why not? Did you consult with experts on this issue? Community-based organizations have repeatedly suggested ways to improve the SRO program, including: Improved qualifications, including experience working "at-risk" youth; Improved training, including trainings about students' rights, legal standards for searches and seizures in public schools, creating positive school climates, adolescent development, working with students with disabilities and mental health issues, cultural competency and dismantling oppression, de-escalating students without using physical force, safe restraint techniques, restorative justice, and the consequences for youth of court-involvement and arrests; Improve data collection and publication, including disaggregated data about the use of force and school-based arrests, delinquency complaints, and criminal complaints; Proper guidelines for SROs, including limitations on complaints being filed against students whose behavior is a manifestation of their disabilities and on the use of force; and Greater accountability, including clear complaint procedures for use when SRO misconduct occurs and a community-based oversight committee. I fail to see how any of these recommendations could be considered anything other than productive and responsible. Why wouldn't we want more highly qualified, better trained, more accountable SROs? Some SROs have great relationships with students and school staff and seemingly deter misbehavior. Some have completed good trainings. Some refer very few students to juvenile and criminal court. Some never used force. Some know what community resources are available and make appropriate referrals. However, there are also SROs who do not possess such traits. There is also inconsistency across schools and law enforcement agencies. Reforming the SRO program should be about replicating what works, eliminating what does not work, creating consistency, not settling, and constantly improving. I hope you will ask for a thorough, unbiased evaluation of the SRO program, with community involvement, and then make the necessary changes to policies and practices. We can make our schools safer and fairer. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to call (919-226-0051 ext. 438) or email (jasonl@legalaidnc.org) me. Sincerely, Jason Langberg