Perspectives of Law Enforcement and Principals in Effectiveness of School Resource Officers and Armed Staff

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the perspectives of public school officials (principals) and law enforcement officials (chiefs and commanders) in regards to the effectiveness of armed school resource officers (SROs) and armed school staff members on overall school safety and the ability to counter active shooter situations. It replicated a 2015 study by Chrursiel, Wolf, Hanson, Rojek, and Kaminski. This study was descriptive non-experimental with convenience sampling. It used data collected from a survey that was distributed to over 1,500 Minnesota public school principals and 300 law enforcement officials. The participants were asked about their beliefs concerning the effectiveness of SROs and armed school employees. Both principals and law enforcement officials strongly felt that utilizing a full-time SRO was an effective means to increase school safety and combat the threat of a school shooting. Both groups felt that arming principals and teachers would not be an effective measure. This study revealed that both groups were quite willing to share the finical burden that comes with funding a school resource officer. It also uncovered that those participants who already have a fulltime SRO were more likely to have favorable beliefs toward their effectiveness. The implications of this phenomenon could have profound effects on future public school security policy. School shootings at Columbine High School, Sandy Hook Elementary, and many others like them have sparked a frenzy of activity by the media and policy makers at all levels. This study has given a voice to those on the frontline of this issue--public school principals and law enforcement officials. There has been little empirical research examining the beliefs of key stake-holders who are asked to carry out adopted policies. It contributes to the significant gap in literature concerning their perspectives.