Police in Schools: An Evidence-based Look at the Use of School Resource Officers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This co-authored book critically reviews existing literature on school resource officer (SRO) programs and presents a thorough evaluation of an SRO program offered by Peel Regional Police in Ontario, Canada. The implementation of a school resource officer (SRO) program is a controversial response to school violence and safety issues. While some call for an increased use of police in schools, others are pushing to remove police from schools, or at least to end their involvement in routine discipline. Though many SRO programs exist around the world, little systematic research has been conducted on the topic. The study reported in this book represents the largest and most comprehensive assessment of such programs to date. The research by Duxbury and Bennell indicates that SRO programs can provide real value for students, school staff, policing organizations, and society, but benefits rely on having programs that are well-designed, that the right officers are selected for SRO roles, and that the initiative has support from major stakeholders. Given the current conversations regarding the costs and benefits of having police officers in schools, there is a clear need to determine the value that investment in these types of proactive policing programs creates. The book provides researchers, SROs, police agencies, school boards, school administrators, teachers, parents, and students with information about: the activities that SROs are involved in, how SROs can collaborate with schools to create safe learning environments, and whether (and how) such programs benefit the police, schools, students, and society. Easy-to-digest charts facilitate understanding, and anonymized reflections from SROs, school staff, and students are presented throughout the book to provide context"--
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".