1. When Did Making Adults Mad Become a Crime?
Dismantling a zero tolerance system using the school-justice partnership model

2. THE EFFECTS OF INCIDENT DRIVEN SCHOOL POLICING
Graduation rates fall to 58% & Crime rate at all-time high
Referrals
SRO Unit Created
PURPOSE OF SLIDE: To illustrate the relationship between zero tolerance policies and arrest rates involving monir offenses.
SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS:
Clayton County Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta, was the first community to enter into a collaborative agreement to reduce school referrals to the juvenile court. The educators, law enforcement, and courts looked at the data and agreed that the style of policing on campus contributed to over a 2,000% increase in school arrests of which 92% were misdemeanor offenses.
After police were placed on middle and high school campuses in the mid-1990s, the number of referrals to the juvenile court increased approximately 1,248% by Most of the referrals were misdemeanor offenses involving school fights, disorderly conduct, and disrupting public school, which are infractions previously handled in school with school disciplinary measures. At the same time, the more serious felony
offenses did not increase.
During these same years, the OSS numbers increased (Clayton County Public School System, 2010). As these numbers increased, the graduation rates decreased to 58% by 2003 (Clayton County Public School System, 2010). Altogether, one-third of all delinquent referrals to the court were from the school system, and most were minor offenses (Clayton County Juvenile Court, 2010). These referrals contributed to an increase in probation caseloads averaging approximately 150 probationers per caseloads. The majority of the caseloads involved minor offenses and consisted of kids not considered a high risk to re-offend or a public safety risk.
Consequently, the high-risk and serious offenders were not adequately supervised because of the overwhelming number of probationers. In other words, resources were wasted on the youth who made us mad instead of concentrated on the youth who scared us. This resulted in high recidivist rates that compromised community safety.
By 2003, with referrals, probation caseloads, and recidivist rates increasing, and graduation rates decreasing, the system was under stress. It was time to evaluate how the system should respond to disruptive students in light of the research indicating that punishment alone, whether by suspension, expulsion, or arrest, exacerbates the problem for the students, schools, and the community.
RESOURCES FOR DEVELOPING THIS DISCUSSION:
Scope of arrests and justice system involvement for truancy
From Courts to Communities: The Right Response to Truancy, Running Away and Other Status Offenses (Vera Institute, December 2013)
In Meridian, Mississippi, state officials are being sued by the federal government for operating a “school-to-prison pipeline” by arresting and incarcerating students for minor disciplinary infractions such as talking back to teachers and violating dress codes, and then sending them to a youth court, where they are denied basic constitutional rights. Terry Frieden, “Mississippi Town Sued Over School-to-Prison Pipeline,”CNN Justice, October 26, 2012, accessed June 16, 2013 at Justice Information Exchange accessed April 29, 2014.
Factors that drive unnecessary arrests and disparities
Shifting Away From Incarceration: Fiscal Realignment Strategies to End the Mass Incarceration of Youth in the United States, November 2012
THE EFFECTS OF INCIDENT DRIVEN SCHOOL POLICING
Clayton County, GA ST

3. Why Reduce School-Based Referrals to the Court & What Research Supports the Reduction?
List in this Message Matrix box the positive outcomes associated with reducing school-based referrals to the juvenile court and replacing them with restorative practices

4. COMMON AGENDA: WHAT IS THE SHARED VISION FOR CHANGE?
WHY REDUCE SCHOOL-BASED REFERRALS TO THE COURT? (List the positive outcomes associated with reducing school-based court referrals & replacing with a graduated response program)
COMMON AGENDA: WHAT IS THE SHARED VISION FOR CHANGE?
(The group will develop a statement that describes the problem, goals, and the collective vision for solving it.
Example: Keeping Kids in School, Out of Court, and on to a positive healthy future)
WHO ARE THE PARTNERS/STAKEHOLDERS? (List the public and private organizations who can contribute to achieving the common goal and common agenda)
GOAL:
REDUCE SCHOOL-BASED REFERRALS TO COURT BY DEVELOPING A GRADUATED RESPONSE PROGRAM
WHAT SUPPORTS THE WHY? (List the research, studies, and other evidence that shows that a School-Justice Partnership to reduce school referrals to court is positive for students, schools, and the community)
HOW WILL THE PARTNERS ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL? (List the strategies and techniques used by others to achieve the common agenda)
WHAT IS YOUR NAME?
(The group will create a name for the collaborative if one has not been created. Example: School-Justice Partnership)

5. Why One: Avoid Hyper-Recidivism or Making Kids Worse

6. The Kids that Scare Us vs Those that Make Us Mad

7. Uniform Notice Data
* Protocol did not allow for 4th filing of Uniform Notice

8. Reduce Racial & Ethnic Disparities
Black youth are suspended nearly four times more often than white youth, and Latino youth are twice as likely to be suspended (Losen & Martinez, 2013);
Nearly a third (31%) of black youth in middle school alone were suspended at least once during the school year (Payne & Welch, 2010);
Black youth are more likely to be disciplined and receive harsh discipline when the punishments were discretionary (Texas study)

9. School-Justice Partnership Begins

10. Sixth Big Why: We Don’t Want to Hurt Kids With Disabilities
High school students with disabilities are nearly three times more likely to receive OSS compared to those without disabilities;
In Texas where 60% of students were suspended at least once, the rate among students with disabilities reached nearly 75%;
Rates were highest among students with LD and EBD

11. Why Two: To Increase Graduation Rates
A student arrested on campus is twice as likely to drop out, and
A student who appears in court is four times as likely to drop out
Sweeten, Gary, Who Will Graduate? Disruption of High School Education by Arrest and Court Involvement. 24.4, Justice Quarterly, (December 2006). 11

13. Adolescent Brain Research
Frontal lobe of brain filters emotion into logical responses is not developed until age 25.
Kids are neurologically wired to do stupid things!
Kids are still under neurological construction.
Kids are being hard-wired and need positive influences such as school, but
Not in the best training schools for delinquency—Detention Centers!

14. What Two: Complex Trauma Research
Complex Trauma children are:
More likely to fail a grade in school
More likely to drop out of school
More likely to have struggles in receptive & expressive language
More likely to have suicide ideation
More likely to be suspended or expelled
More likely to be arrested

15. Traumatized people, traumatize people!

16. Orange County

17. What Four: The Epidemiology Model
To provide a basis for developing surveillance measures and prevention procedures for groups and at-risk populations, and to identify causation and then strategies that impact both groups and populations, thereby also allowing individual treatments to be effective.
This represents a shift from targeted reactions to population-based prevention and intervention.
So, we needed a different way to look at data, and to look at data in a different way caused us to explore how other fields of expertise view data. In talking with epidemiologists, we discovered that their view of data starts with a population-based view and then they drill down from there. Instead of focusing only on targeted reactions such as the consequences for misbehavior, or the apex of a graph of misbehavior, the population-based view of data can change the discussion to prevention and intervention.

18. Look at the Data from Epidemiological Basics
Diseases do not occur by chance: there are always determinants for the disease to occur.
Diseases are not distributed at random: distribution is related to risks factors that need to be studied for the population in order to identify solutions.
Disruptive behaviors do not occur by chance: there are always determinants for the disruptive behavior to occur.
Disruptive behaviors are not distributed at random: distribution is related to risks factors that need to be studied and for the population in order to identify solutions.
Let me give you an example. The epidemiologists say that diseases do not occur by chance and the distribution of diseases is not random. Now substitute disease with disruptive behavior – it does not occur by chance and it is seldom random. If something is random, we feel as though we have no control of it. Additionally, if it occurs by chance, again, we often feel like we have no control of it.

19. How Will Partners Accomplish the Goal?
List the strategies and tools used to achieve the common goal.

20. What is the School-Justice Partnership Model?: In a Nutshell
Developed in 2003 in Clayton County, GA;
MOU between schools, law enforcement, and courts;
To create a School-Justice Partnership;
Using a Focus Act Decision Tree;
By replacing arrests with a Graduated Response Program;
That is guided by a Role Conflict Avoidance Model;
Using the Positive Student Engagement Model for School Policing; and
Create an independent backbone agency to deliver services to chronically disruptive students

21. Focus Act Algorithm Rules
Run all offenses regardless of their nature through the algorithm because some offenses may involve mitigating circumstances that could result in breaking down the offense into subcategories (e.g. Did an injury occur?);
Do not make a decision based on the existence of resources or responses. Any offenses that become a Focus Act through this algorithmic process doesn’t necessitate immediate application, but may be added later to MOU when the resource becomes available;
Greater weight during the algorithmic process should be given to those stakeholders who are primarily responsible for decisionmaking (e.g. intake decision for diversion at initial filing, judicial discretion at hearing, etc.)

22. probable than not the judge will divert or informally adjust the case?
FOCUS ACT
MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING
What offenses have
occurred on your
campuses?
DECISION
TREE
Will the offense be
diverted from a formal
petition?
FOCUS ACT
YES NO
YES
Once in court, is it more
probable than not the judge will divert or informally adjust the case?
Are there mitigating circumstances that can be separated from aggravating circumstances?
YES NO NO
REFERRAL
TO COURT

23. Total School Arrests Pre & Post School-Justice Collaborative Agreement
SRO’s removed from middle schools due to budget cuts
SRO Program Begins

24. Role Conflict Avoidance Decision-Tree
Is it a Focus Act?
Is the conduct delinquent or a school infraction?
Delinquent
School Resource Officer Involved?
YES
Infraction NO
Can it be resolved using problem- oriented approach?
No Law Enforcement Involvement
Response applied by School Resource Officer as set forth in Graduated Response Matrix
This decision-tree is designed to aid school-justice partnerships with developing written guidelines that clearly distinguish the role of school police and school administrators to avoid role conflict that results in the unintended criminalizing of school rules. This process also aids in developing least restrictive responses when the infraction is delinquent in nature. As suggested in this process, SRO’s should be given discretion at every decision point to resolve delinquent acts using a problem-solving model if possible.
School Code Responses applied by Administrator
Referral to Juvenile Court

25. Promising Intervention Strategies: Law Enforcement
Captain Marc Richards
Clayton County Police Department
Promising Intervention Strategies: Law Enforcement

26. Intervention Strategy One
Positive student engagement Model: The Foundation of all other strategies
Intervention Strategy One

27. “Schools are a microcosm of the community
“Schools are a microcosm of the community. What happens over the weekend is brought to school on Monday, but students don’t talk to the adults they don’t trust.”
Captain Marc Richards
Former Supervisor, SRO Unit
Clayton County Police Department

28. School-Justice Partnership Forced a Change in SRO Culture on Campus
The bulk of our time spent before the SJP went operational was responding to breaking school rules and minor offenses resulting in arrests. Since the start of the SRO program in 1995, the school arrests increases over 1,200% of which 92% were minor offenses.
By using an incident driven approach, or cleared by arrest, it precluded SRO’s from engaging students in positive ways, and this alienated the student population. They developed an unhealthy fear of law enforcement, and this short-shrifted any positive student engagement.
When the SJP went operational, SRO’s were prohibited from responding to a school rule infraction and arresting on minor delinquent acts. The arrests dropped by 54% within 6 months. This left SRO’s questioning their role on campus because they were no longer spending their days arresting students.
The SRO Unit made a collective decision to engage students with positive contact, which began an open dialogue with students that increased SRO intelligence about the student body that transformed how SRO’s viewed students ( i.e. background, needs, issues, and concerns that explained most behaviors)
As the trust increased, students began to share intel about off-campus crimes that led to arrests, and on-campus incidents and threats.

29. Positive Student Engagement Increases Police Intel on Crime in the Community

30. FOSTERING POSITIVE STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS REDUCES DELINQUENCY
When students believe that adults and peers in their school care about their learning as well as about them as individuals, research shows that a student’s feelings of “connectiveness” serves as important protective buffer that reduces many risk behaviors, including early sexual initiation, alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use, and violence and gang involvement.
PURPOSE OF THIS SLIDE: To show the relationship between a positive engagement model and reducing negative behaviors and delinquency.
QUESTION: How does a student’s feelings that they are cared for and wanted at school by school personnel relate to their behavior?
ANSWER: They feel included and can connect to the people at the school. Or, the student may not get the positive engagement at home from his parents and/or siblings. It is a matter of human development that we desire to be included and wanted, and we gravitate toward those who include us. For example, students who are recruited by gang members are more likely to join if the adults around them do not convey a connectiveness to that student.
SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS:
Because being in school is a protective factor against delinquent conduct (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001), suspending and removing students from school for normal teenage behaviors is counterproductive.
Besides being counterproductive, suspension increases the risk of antisocial and delinquent behaviors.
Zero tolerance policies apply sanctions across the board regardless of the risk level of the student.
Studies have found that disciplining harshly with OSS and criminal sanctions regardless of the risk level of the student exacerbates the problem by making students worse (Andrews & Bonta,1998; Mendez, 2003).
A longitudinal study on the disciplining of elementary and middle school students found that OSS is a predictor of future suspensions (Mendez, 2003).The study also found that OSS contributes to poor academic performance and failure to graduate.
The research shows that students handled by punishment alone are less likely to succeed (Mendez, 2003).
This finding is the same for youth in the correctional setting; that is, the use of punishers to modify behavior increases the risk of re-offending (Andrews, Bonta, & Wormith, 2006; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2004).
The Surgeon General’s report on youth violence indicated that a child’s connection to school was one of only two protections against risk factors for violence (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001).
Other studies found that students’ belief that adults and peers in school care about them is related to lower levels of substance abuse, violence, suicide attempts, pregnancy, and emotional distress (McNeely, Nonnemaker, & Blum, 2002).
Studies also reveal that this belief, referred to as school connectedness, is linked to school attendance, graduation rates, and improved academics (Rosenfield, Richman, & Bowman, 1998; Battin-Pearson et al., 2000).
The research shows that students who disrupt are typically not assessed to determine the reasons for the behavior (Mendez, 2003).
The failure of schools to assess disruptive students may be explained by the goal of zero tolerance policies, which focus solely on punishment as a tool to modify behavior and which minimize the need to ask why a student is disruptive.
RESOURCES FOR DEVELOPING THIS DISCUSSION:
School connectedness is a strong protective factor against delinquency. US Surgeon General. (2001). Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General.
School connectedness is linked to lower levels of substance abuse, violence, suicide attempts, pregnancy, & emotional distress. Journal of School Health 72 (4).
OSS of elementary & middle school students contributes to drop-out rates. Predictors of Suspension & Negative School Outcomes: A Longitudinal Investigation (2003) ST

31. Positive Student Engagement Model for School Policing: New Culture Different Approach
The process of enabling the participation of students to improve school safety and climate using positive behavioral techniques, practices, and interventions that yields a willingness, capacity, and opportunity to safely participate in the prevention and solving of discipline and safety concerns

32. Examples
Scenario: SRO is standing in hallway greeting students as they get off the bus. Officer Jones observes Johnny wearing his hat, which is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
Officer Jones: Hey Johnny, you forgot to take your hat off when you came in. I think Principal Smith is around the corner.
Scenario: Officer Jones is called to Ms. Smith’s classroom because Johnny is shouting and using vulgarities and disrupting the classroom, which is a delinquent offense. Officer Jones enters the classroom and Johnny is still shouting and will not calm down.
Officer Jones: Hey Johnny, you’re angry about something. Lets go outside and talk about it.
(Johnny exits classroom with Officer Jones)
Officer Jones: Johnny, I can see class isn’t working for you today. Did something happen that made you angry?
Johnny: Yes, Ms. Smith called on me and I didn’t know the answer and the others laughed. Another student behind me said I was retarded. I am not that good at math.
Officer Jones: Lets take a time out from this class today and go see Ms. Lee. Share your feelings with her. She can speak to Ms. Smith about why you got angry, and how to help you more with your math. I will talk to Ms. Smith too.

33. Intervention Strategy Two
Create a Graduated Response System
Intervention Strategy Two

34. Basic Three Tier Graduated Response System
Written Warning
Program Referral
Juvenile Complaint

35. Graduated Response Decision Tree
FIRST ACT
SECOND ACT
THIRD ACT NO
Does the type of act require restitution, drug assessment, TX, or other response?
YES
Is a Graduated Response necessary?
Is a referral to court necessary? NO NO
YES
YES
Match response to act using Response Matrix
WRITTEN WARNING
COMPLAINT
Best practice requires that a response process engage the decision-maker at every decision point to ask what response can be narrowly tailored (least restrictive) to achieve the desired outcome (modify behavior)

36. Uniform Notice of Offense
SRO’s after periodic reviews requested a “Level” box to reflect the use of their discretion to issue another warning or referral in lieu of the next step.
Used for all misdemeanors (beginning in 2014) not involving serious bodily injury
Some exceptions exists (e.g., youth on probation, aggravating emergent circumstances, etc.)
Four levels of use
Serves as referral to various diversion programs
SRO’s also requested the discretion to make a variety of referral, or take other action

37. Program Referral Outcomes: 7-15% Recidivist Rate
* Protocol did not allow for 4th filing of Uniform Notice

38. Intervention Strategy Three
Create Alternatives to Arrest with Emphasis on Teaching and Restorative Justice
Intervention Strategy Three

39. Focus Act Response Matrix
ACTS
List Focus Acts:
Person
Property
Weapon
Inappropriate Touching
Drugs
Public Order
Other
TYPE
RESPONSES

40. Types of Restorative Programs
System of Care
Drug Ed./Treatment/Testing
Mediation/Circles/Family Conferencing
School Conflict Workshop
Choices Program/Drug Awareness
Boundaries Workshop
Theft Workshop/Restitution Program
Apology Letter
Warning
Peer Court
Restorative Board

41. Principles of Effective School Policing
The way that police officers talk to students;
the way that they interact when confronting a disruptive event on campus;
every sentence that they put together; every comment that they make to the student body…
…all have a profound impact on how students view police and their community at large.

42. Principles of Effective School Policing
Every time a police officer has contact with a student, the student who is involved makes a judgement.
And studies have shown that the single most determining factor for how a person evaluates that contact is not “did I received a ticket”, but rather “was I treated fairly.”
How a students answer that question will renew or erode their confidence in law enforcement and the fairness of our system.
Life is Not Always Fair, But I Can!

43. The Story of Jane
An Example of Positive Student Engagement in School Policing

44. Who & How on implementation & oversight
COMPONENT
PURPOSE
GOALS/CONDITIONS
Data Collection
Who collects it?
How is it collected?
How is it used?
How is it reported?
Periodic quality control meetings
Who attends?
How often?
What are the Performance measures?
What are the outcome measures?
What is the process for modifications?
Who & How on implementation & oversight
Quality Control
INTER-AGENCY
AGREEMENT/MOU

45. Bridging the School System and What Works in the Community
Orange County

46. Henry County Board of Education v. S.G. A16A0201, May 31, 2016
The Local Board, through its actions and arguments, has demonstrated a policy of expelling students for fighting on school grounds regardless of whether the student was acting in self-defense. The Local Board’s rejection of S. G.’s justification defense is consistent with that zero-tolerance policy, is inconsistent with the requirements of OCGA § (c), is not supported by the record, and, therefore, amounted to an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s reversal of the Local Board’s ruling.

47. HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. S. G
HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. S.G. ____ GA _____ S16G1700 (Decided August 28, 2017)
In this case, however, the record does not reflect that the Local Board properly considered the evidence that S.G. acted in self- defense or that it properly applied the law regarding self-defense. As the Court of Appeals also noted, the facts recited by the hearing officer could support a finding that S.G. acted in self-defense. But because the findings indicate S.G. was found guilty “for being involved in a fight,” and because self-defense is not addressed in the findings, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the record does not reflect whether the Local Board properly considered the self-defense evidence or, even if it did, whether it properly applied the law regarding self-defense. See Henry County, etc. v. S.G., id., at 266 (2) (b).

48. HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. S.G. (Cont.)
Simply because a student engages in a fight does not establish the student has violated a disciplinary rule prohibiting the “physical abuse” of others, nor does it establish the student has engaged in conduct that constitutes a misdemeanor under Georgia law. The record establishes only that a school resource officer charged S.G. with an unspecified misdemeanor.
As the Court of Appeals noted, Georgia’s self-defense law does not require a person to retreat when the person reasonably believes she is at risk of harm from another’s imminent use of unlawful force. See OCGA § In other words, the law “[does] not require S.G. to be hit first before defending herself; nor was S.G. required to have lost the fight in order to claim self-defense. That an individual prevails in standing [her] ground against an aggressor does not make her actions unlawful.” Henry County, etc. v. S.G., supra, 337 Ga. App. at 266 (2) (b).