Insights from Developing and Implementing a Novel School Community Collaborative Model to Promote School Safety

Abstract

Background:

School Resource Officer (SRO) programs do not reduce school violence, and increase school discipline. We describe the use of a culturally responsive framework to form a school community collaborative between students, parents, staff, administrators, and law enforcement to reform an SRO program, promote school safety, and reduce punitive measures.

Methods:

Members of a participating school district (PSD), a local county, and a university collaborated. Adapting an identified culturally responsive model, a racially/ethnically diverse school community co-developed and implemented a School Community Collaborative (SCC) to address a school safety priority (SRO program reform). The main outcomes were SCC model development and implementation, policy change, and school community feedback.

Results:

Sixteen community members participated in the 5-week SCC with students, staff, law enforcement, and parents. The SCC revised the district’s SRO memorandum of understanding (MOU) with law enforcement. Participants reported favorable feedback, and 89% reported the inclusion of diverse voices.

Conclusions:

Co-development and implementation of an SCC process with schools was feasible. School SCC participated in a community-engaged evaluation and revision of an MOU.

Implications for School Health Policy, Practice, and Equity:

SRO policies and practices affect school safety, and the SCC process supports a systematic evaluation of school SRO programs.

INTRODUCTION

A safe learning environment supports healthy youth development and positive educational outcomes. The National Center for Education Statistics estimates that school shootings in the US have increased from 2010 to 2021.¹ The most recent Youth Risk Behavior Survey reports that the percentage of female and male students who missed school due to safety concerns increased from 2011 to 2021.² For Black students, this figure is the highest among all racial groups, with increases from 7% to 12% during this 10-year period.² Given these disparities, measures are needed to ensure the safety and health of all students, particularly those most vulnerable.

One frequently used method to promote safety in US public schools is the School Resource Officer (SRO) program. SROs are sworn law enforcement officers assigned to school districts or specific schools to increase safety and address crime in a school community.³ As of 2020, over half of US public schools (51.2%) have an assigned sworn law enforcement officer.⁴ Signaling future increases in SRO programs nationwide, Congress recently passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in June 2022, which provided $300 million for STOP School Violence—through Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)—to hire and train more SROs.^5,6 Yet, there is no evidence that SRO programs reduce school violence.⁷ Rather, SRO programs are linked to increased exclusionary punishment (e.g., out-of-school suspensions) and student arrests, particularly for students of color.^8–10 Since forced removal from schools and early exposure to the criminal justice system adversely impact youth mental health, educational attainment, and socioeconomic success,^11–13 SRO programs may exacerbate inequalities in youth health, development, and well-being.

The School-Based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding, and Respect (SECURe) rubric offers strategies for reducing the negative impact of SRO programs, such as increased prevalence and disproportionality of school discipline.¹⁴ These strategies prioritize involving “school administrators, educators, local law enforcement, students, parents and families, and other relevant stakeholders during the memorandum of understanding [MOU] revision process.”¹⁴ However, the SECURe rubric does not provide clear guidance on how schools should co-develop and evaluate SRO policies that will promote school safety.

The Culturally Responsive Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (CRPBIS) framework empowers school communities to develop culturally responsive strategies that promote positive behaviors in schools.^15–17 The CRPBIS framework operationalizes cultural responsiveness through the “learning lab” methodology. In a learning lab, the school community participates in structured meetings to collectively align school policies and practices with the diverse strengths, needs, practices, and goals of the school.¹⁵ This approach fosters sustainable school-family-community partnerships in policy making. Qualitative evidence suggests that learning labs can help school districts revise policies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities in disciplinary actions.¹⁵ Our case study offers novel insights into partnership development, co-development, implementation, and outcomes, of an adapted CRPBIS learning lab framework, called the School Community Collaborative (SCC), to address SRO reform.

METHODS

Partnership, Project Design, and Data Sources

Collaborators were interdisciplinary members from the participating school district (PSD), a local youth criminal justice system representative, and a university-based research center with expertise in injury and violence prevention, forming the project team. The school community refers to students, staff, parents, and law enforcement, and all persons participating in the SCC process are participants (Figure 1). The work was conducted with middle and high schools in the PSD between January 2022 to September 2022. The criminal justice system facilitated the academic-school relationship. The PSD prioritized SRO program reform as the school safety priority.

Figure 1:

Proposed Model of a School Community Collaborative for School Resource Officer Program Reform

We prospectively collected data before (January 2022 – May 2022), during (August – September 2022), and after (September 2022) SCC model implementation. Survey data were collected and managed using REDCap electronic data capture tools hosted at the Institute of Translational Health Sciences.^18,19 Secondary data on demographic and disciplinary measures were collected from the 2020–2021 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC). We used surveys via REDCap, focus groups, and interviews for primary data collection. Our approach to this work was guided by a community advisory board.

Examining School Community Perceptions of School Safety Prior to SCC Model Implementation

The PSD conducted a convenience sample community survey of students (n = 324), staff members (n = 109), parents (n = 49), and community members (n = 17) from one middle school and one high school served by the SRO program to understand participant perceptions of the program prior to partnership with the project team, which informed this work.

The project team jointly reviewed and discussed results to ascertain how best to promote school safety and to formulate a decision regarding the continuation of the SRO program post the COVID-19 pandemic and return to in-person learning. Approximately 86.2% of respondents favored continuing the SRO program, with 53.8% supporting it “as is” and 32.4% suggesting that changes were needed. The school community’s call for change was considered by the team throughout the SCC model development and implementation.

Co-developing the SCC Model

The PSD superintendent (FH) and project team organized listening sessions, focus groups, and interviews with students, staff, parents, law enforcement, and district administrators to learn community perspectives and priorities on SRO reforms and potential alternatives to school safety strategies. The school community was invited to participate via school district e-mail listservs, and district interpreter services were made available to ensure language access for all participants. The project team obtained consent to record and transcribe the information gathered during the focus groups and listening sessions, which were later analyzed. Development of the SCC model was informed by insights from listening sessions and feedback. School community members indicated a strong desire for increased collaboration and engagement in the SRO reform process, and to meet this need, the project team introduced the CRPBIS learning lab methodology.

The project team adapted the CRPBIS methodology to co-create the SCC model by identifying key steps, session purposes, leadership roles, required resources, and a timeline for the SCC model implementation (Table 1). The project team solicited representation from school administration, law enforcement, and parents. Potential SCC participants were identified through invitations from the school community, listening sessions, and focus group participants. Participants who attended at least 80% of the sessions received an incentive in the form of a check or gift card. Two project team members (MS and KH) facilitated the SCC sessions, while other members moderated sessions and/or took notes, analyzed data, and developed strategies for next steps. The project team met weekly for one hour on average and held ad-hoc communications.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics of School Community Collaborative Cohort, Participating School District, Washington State, and National Average

	SCC Cohort		Participating School District		Washington State		National Average
Total enrollment	n = 10		n = 2,825		n = 1,085,645		n = 49,150,566
	Count	(%)	Count	(%)	Count	(%)	Count	(%)
Gender
Male	4	(40.0)	1,424	(50.4)	560,467	(51.6)	25,236,331	(51.3)
Female	6	(60.0)	1,401	(49.6)	525,178	(48.4)	23,914,235	(48.7)
Race/ethnicity
AI/AN	0	-	26	(0.9)	13,088	(1.2)	457,993	(0.9)
Asian	1	(10.0)	755	(26.7)	91,643	(8.4)	2,605,592	(5.3)
Black/African American	4	(40.0)	554	(19.6)	50,784	(4.7)	7,386,606	(15.0)
Hispanic	3	(30.0)	909	(32.2)	271,122	(25.0)	13,982,344	(28.4)
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	0	-	121	(4.3)	13,397	(1.2)	159,581(0.3)	(0.3)
White	2	(20.0)	297	(10.5)	550,418	(50.7)	22,386,744	(45.5)
Two or more races	0	-	163	(5.8)	95,193	(8.8)	2,171,706	(4.4)
ELs	-	-	1,060	(37.5)	131,181	(12.1)	5,186,633	(10.6)
FRPL	-	-	2,153	(76.2)	531,987	(47.5)	23,100,766	(47.0)
IDEA	-	-	361	(12.8)	181,573	(16.7)	8,416,507	(17.1)
Out-of-school suspension	-	-	138	(4.9)	44,646	(4.1)	2,419,099	(4.9)
Race/ethnicity
AI/AN	-	-	3	(2.2)	1111	(2.5)	34,043	(1.4)
Asian	-	-	13	(9.4)	997	(2.2)	26,534	(1.1)
Black/African American	-	-	52	(37.7)	4373	(9.8)	924,641	(38.2)
Hispanic	-	-	36	(26.1)	12649	(28.3)	525,545	(21.7)
Native Hawaiian	-	-	4	(2.9)	696	(1.6)	9,305	(0.4)
White	-	-	17	(12.3)	20394	(45.7)	794,790	(32.9)
Two or more races	-	-	13	(9.4)	4426	(9.9)	104,241	(4.3)
IDEA	-	-	29	(21.0)	(13,834)	(30.1)	615,027	(25.4)

Note: SCC = School Community Collaborative; ELs = English learners; FRPL = Free/reduced-price lunch eligible; IDEA = Qualified for disability status under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; AI/AN = American Indian or Alaska Native. Source: Civil Rights Data Collection, 2020–21 school year.

OUTCOMES

The main outcomes were: 1) SCC model co-development (completion of preparatory work by the project team), 2) SCC model implementation (completion of SCC sessions and scheduled goals), 3) policy changes (policy evaluation, revision, and approval), and 4) school community feedback (participant survey scores).

DATA ANALYSIS

We used mixed methods for analyzing primary data and secondary data. Qualitative data from listening sessions, focus groups, and interviews were transcribed using the secure platform Rev.com. Two project team members conducted iterative analyses of transcribed notes to identify themes. Discrepancies in findings were addressed and resolved during team meetings. Notes from SCC sessions were examined and triangulated to provide insights into the progress of the SCC model implementation and notable activities or discussions during the SCC process.

The STATA 15 software was used to calculate descriptive statistics from online surveys and the 2020–2021 CRDC.

RESULTS

Characteristics and Diversity of SCC Participants (Figure 1, Table 1, Table 2).

Table 2.

Participating School District’s School Community Collaborative to Reform a School Resource Officer Program.

Steps in the SCC Process	Leadership	Timeline
Step 1: Co-developing the SCC with school district		5 months total
Secure leadership buy-in	Joint	1 months
Recruit SCC participants	District	2 weeks
Organize meeting space and schedule	Joint	1 week
Organize resources to promote inclusivity (e.g interpreter services)	District	1 week
Select SCC facilitator	Joint	1 week
Data collection (e.g., surveys, interviews, and secondary data)	Project team	3 months
Step 2: Establishing SRO program goals with SCC		SCC #1 and #2
Review data on school safety and discipline	Joint
Surveys
Interviews and focus groups
Listening sessions
Identify barriers and facilitators to the positive learning environment	Joint
Develop new SRO program goals to redress barriers and promote facilitators	Joint
Step 3: Reviewing existing SRO policies with SCC		SCC #3
Read and critique the SRO MOU document SRO program goals should guide critiques	Joint
Prepare plain-language summaries of SRO MOU sections	Project team
Organize group activities to analyze SRO MOU sections	Project team
Develop a list of MOU elements and sections needing revision	Joint
Step 4: Revising SRO policies with SCC		SCC #4 and #5
Generate solutions to address MOU elements and sections needing revision	Joint
Compile solutions to address each goal defined in Step 2	Project team
Step 5: Planning for implementation after SCC
Develop SCC summary document	Project team	1 week
Disseminate process and findings to school community	District	2 weeks
Begin administrative SRO MOU revision process Actively involve school community	District	9 months
School district approves the SCC model SRO MOU*	District	pending

Note: SCC = School community collaborative; SRO = School resource officer; MOU = Memorandum of understanding. SCC sessions occurred weekly from August to September 2022, and each session lasted 2 hours. Median attendance in SCC sessions (i.e., SSC #1–5) was 15 and ranged from 14 to 18 participants, including project team facilitators. Law enforcement participants attended SCC #3–5.

^*As of this writing, the School District Board of Directors has yet to pass the revised MOU.

Table 1 presents demographic information and out-of-school suspensions of PSD students and similar data for Washington State and US students; these results highlight diversity and exclusionary punishment of PSD students. The PSD reported a lower proportion of White students (10.5%) than WA state (50.7%) and the national average (45.5%). A higher proportion of PSD students identified as English learning compared to WA state and the national figure (37.5%, 12.1%, and 10.6%, respectively). Further, more students (79.2%) from PSD were eligible for free/reduced-price lunch compared to WA state and the national average (47.5% and 47.9% respectively). The number of students receiving one or more out-of-school suspensions was greater for PSD than for WA state (4.9%, versus 4.1%, respectively). Black/African American students represented 19.6% of the student population but received 37.7% of the out-of-school suspensions, highlighting overrepresentation. In PSD, students who qualified for disability status under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were overrepresented among students who received at least one out-of-school suspension (i.e., IDEA students represented 12.8% of PSD students, and 21.0% of students receiving out-of-school suspension).

Table 1 summarizes demographic characteristics of SCC participants who responded to the demographic survey. Nineteen school community members (7 students, 5 staff, 3 law enforcement, and 4 parents) were invited to participate in the SCC process, and three parents opted out. The final SCC roster included 16 school community members (7 students, 5 staff, 3 law enforcement, and 1 parent). Among SCC participants who responded to the survey (n = 10), 40% identified as African American/Black, 30% identified as Hispanic, and 20% identified as White. Additionally, more SCC participants identified as female (60%) than male (40%).

SCC Process Implementation Overview (Table 2)

Table 2 details SCC process implementation in five steps, with each step requiring distinct responsibilities, timeframes, and tasks: 1) Co-developing the SCC with the school district; 2) Establishing SRO program goals with the SCC participants; 3) Reviewing existing SRO policies with SCC participants; 4) Revising SRO policies with SCC participants; and 5) Planning for implementation after the SCC.

Step 1 began the process of organizing the SCC with the school district. The PSD superintendent requested that the project team complete an SCC process in approximately one month to meet urgent school community needs for safety. In response, the project team collaborated with two principals from PSD to derive an SCC model to fit this time frame and accomplish the necessary steps for school community members to examine and revise SRO policy. The process required condensing prior learning lab processes¹⁵ into five weekly sessions. The organization of the SCC meetings was a joint effort. The project team primarily managed logistics (e.g., organizing meeting spaces and schedules, selecting facilitators), data collection, and data dissemination, whereas district officials led community outreach (e.g., providing inclusivity resources) and recruitment. After finalizing recruitment, the SCC was scheduled to meet five times from August to September 2022. Three project team members facilitated the SCC process (MS, KH, and CH). Step 2 marked the beginning of the SCC (i.e., SCC #1 and #2) and worked with SCC participants to establish SRO program goals.

The inaugural SCC session (SCC #1) introduced participants, established SCC objectives, and outlined discussion norms. Introductions centered on participant connection to their city, with questions such as, “What’s your favorite thing about [your city]?” The primary objective of the SCC was clarified: “To formulate recommendations for PSD’s SRO program to ensure safe and equitable learning environments for all students.” The SCC’s impetus was traced to prior listening sessions that gathered diverse community feedback on the SRO program. Feedback on the SRO program was mixed, with safety lauded, but concerns expressed about racial disparities in police interactions. The session culminated by establishing discussion norms and logistical planning for subsequent meetings, with a hybrid format (SCC participants attend via Zoom or in-person) adopted.

The second SCC session (SCC #2) delved into community perceptions of the SRO program. The project team analyzed PSD survey data, information from previous sessions, and publicly available disciplinary and policing SRO-related metrics (e.g., Civil Rights Data Collection and Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction). Participant feedback included support for the SRO program to promote safety, but also criticisms highlighting racial bias in policing. Proposed SRO program modifications included uniform modifications, enhanced socio-emotional training, and prioritized trust-building. The session underscored three pivotal goals for the SRO program: 1) Fostering relationships and trust, 2) Ensuring racial and ethnic equity, and 3) Enhancing school safety. Toward the end of SCC #2, the group discussed safe spaces and decided that involving law enforcement in these discussions would promote inclusivity in the process. The group later recruited three law enforcement officers, including two SROs assigned to PSD and the Chief of Police, who attended starting in the third session (SCC #3). The session concluded with an agenda for the subsequent meeting to discuss a comparative analysis of SRO program policies and the potential inclusion of past SROs and the PSD Police Chief.

Step 3 focused on reviewing current SRO policies and practices. The third SCC session (SCC #3) assessed the SRO program’s MOU and aligned it with the school community’s goals, co-developed in Session 2. Two breakout groups (one with students and one with staff and administrators) examined the MOU’s mission and SRO roles. Groups identified deficiencies in the MOU, such as its emphasis on control and discipline over community engagement. The SCC breakout groups collectively noted the absence of equity-centric policies and found that the MOU’s language seemed outdated (referring to students as “juveniles”). These insights helped the SCC identify areas to improve the MOU.

Step 4 focused on revising SRO policies. The last two SCC sessions (SCC #4 and SCC #5) used collaborative activities to generate policy revisions to the SRO MOU. SCC participants developed recommendations that would enhance the SRO program, including: 1) Relationship and trust building, 2) Racial equity, and 3) Safety. Each participant wrote suggestions on color-coded post-it notes, with each color corresponding to one of the three goals (e.g., green represented racial equity). The notes were later affixed to a whiteboard and collectively reviewed. The SCC then discussed each proposal’s feasibility and potential integration into the school district’s SRO MOU program. The deliberative process culminated in formal recommendations delivered to the school district to be considered for amending the SRO MOU. Each session concluded by providing an overview of goals to be addressed in upcoming sessions, including the operationalization of policy recommendations and summarizing participants’ reflections from session activities.

Step 5 focused on implementing the SCCs work. After completing the five SCC sessions, the project team summarized the formal recommendations and then delivered them to the school district administration and local law enforcement. The SCC process provided recommendations to modify an existing policy, and these recommendations were forwarded to the PSD school boards. The Board deferred a vote on the revised MOU desiring additional feedback from PSD affinity groups within the broader school community prior to review, after which the Board may schedule a vote.

SCC Model Feedback (Table 3)

Table 3.

School Community Collaborative Participant Feedback

Survey Statement	% Agree
I felt like my opinion was valued during the SCC	100%
I felt comfortable sharing my thoughts during the SCC	88.9%
The SCC participants represented a broad set of voices from my school community	88.9%
I feel like the SCC will have a positive impact	100%
I think [my district] should host the SCC again next year	100%
Other schools that have school resource officers should host their own SCC	77.7%
I think the SCC process needs improvement	62.5%

Note: SCC = School community collaborative. (n = 11/18 participants; 61.1% response rate)

SCC process feedback yielded a 61.1% response rate (n = 11). All respondents reported that their opinions were valued, and a majority (88.9%) perceived the SCC to be representative of diverse voices. Most (77.7%) reported that other schools with SROs should host their own SCC, indicating a perceived broader applicability of this intervention. However, 62.5% of the respondents felt that the SCC process could improve and suggested the following: 1) Monthly meetings permitting an evaluation of the SCC process, 2) Ensuring adherence to the policy process, 3) Hosting unique virtual and in-person sessions per meeting, and 4) Alternating virtual and in-person sessions.

DISCUSSION

We present insights using a mixed methods approach to co-develop and implement a novel CRPBIS-based SCC model that promotes school safety. This work addressed a pressing PSD priority to modify an existing SRO program. The main findings include the co-development and implementation of an SCC process with schools and facilitating a community-engaged evaluation and revision of an MOU that governs SRO roles, responsibilities, and practices.

SRO programs are associated with out-of-school suspensions and arrests related to students of color; such outcomes counter the goals of programs to promote school safety.^8,20 The CRPBIS model enables school officials to develop strategies to promote positive behavior and safety in schools through community engagement in policy development and reform. This process is accomplished by activating learning labs and having school community members participate in structured meetings that adjust school policies and practices to ensure alignment with the goals of the school community. This project represents the first attempt to apply the CRPBIS model to reform a school SRO program such that diverse community perspectives are heard and integrated into policies that enhance school safety and equity in students’ experiences with law enforcement.

Implications of Adapting the CRPBIS Model to an SCC Model and Implementation

The SCC process supports a systematic evaluation of school SRO programs, and there are favorable implications for schools adapting the CRPBIS model to reform existing SRO programs. First, the engagement of school community members, including law enforcement officers, principals/superintendents, and parents, can foster a school-family partnership that leads to trust-building among members of the school community. Second, the co-development of culturally relevant SRO policies can help to establish disciplinary practices that are less punitive and more thoughtful in identifying the needs of diverse students. Model co-development can also encourage more culturally tailored and respectful policy design. A favorable outcome can be the elimination of racial disproportionality in out-of-school suspensions. Another potential positive result from the adapted CRPBIS model could be opportunities for improved interactions between students and other community members with their appointed SROs. Being involved in this type of adaptation creates moments for engagement with leadership that otherwise may not be in existence within these school communities.

The CRPBIS process is historically conducted over one academic year.¹⁵ In response to school needs to expediently transform the SRO program, we adapted the CRPBIS approach to have a more rapid process improvement timeline, which resulted in SCC completion occurring in five weeks. While preparation for this work and follow-up from this work through the PSD Board took 11 months, we were able to rapidly and efficiently adapt and implement the SCC to revise the MOU; such an adaptation suggests that academic institutions and communities can come together to jointly leverage theoretical frameworks in a timeline to expediently meet community needs without compromising scientific underpinnings or methods.

Lessons Learned

The 16-member SCC process presented some key lessons learned that may benefit other school communities addressing SRO program reform. The students, teachers, parents, administrators, project members, and law enforcement, who jointly participated in listening sessions, reviewed and recommended the MOU revisions, and were instrumental to project success.^15–17 Establishing a template for the length of time for each segment of programming (e.g., listening sessions or reviewing documents) requires school community input. The five-week timeline resulted in a revised MOU that was presented to the school board for approval. Despite the shortened 5-week timeline, SCC participants trusted the process and participated in vulnerable conversations. Although the university initiated efforts to organize activities, the final task of revising the MOU was led by the school community, reflecting capacity building at the PSD for sustainable change. We intentionally included a strong student voice, as evidenced by the ratio of students to other SCC participants across all SCC sessions.

We encountered some implementation challenges and difficult conversations. Law enforcement wanted to be included in the SCC process and their participation was essential to advance this work. Prior to the start of SCC meetings, the project team had discussions with law enforcement concerning protocols for attending SCC meetings in uniform. School enforcement personnel explained that they needed to remain in uniform to be responsive to unforeseen emergencies while on shift but were aware that their uniformed presence could incite varying responses from the other participants. While there may have been a desire for non-uniformed clothing during SCC sessions, SROs needed to adhere to protocol. The discussion relating to discomfort with uniformed officers and the ensuing power imbalance was an important topic that needed to be confronted during SCC meetings. We avoided harmful interactions and trauma-induced responses while engaging in discussions around policing in schools by intentionally having these conversations. Consequently, the first two SCC sessions were held without law enforcement, enabling participants to freely express their concerns about the presence of SROs and the SRO program.

The PSD Board declined to vote on the SCC-recommended revised MOU language, pending additional input from PSD student affinity groups. We recognize that additional feedback from school community groups most affected by the policies is needed. The PSD Board may revisit the MOU vote upon receipt of additional feedback. Our discussions with district administration and the board members on the broader topic of holistic school safety demonstrate the value of the SCC process in raising both solutions, and engaging community voice in school safety.

While the SCC model implementation was feasible, SCC model co-development addressed urgent school needs when a 12-month model process was considered too long. However, the 5-week rapid process did not adequately consider all affinity group voices. Our findings also suggest that involving PSD board members at the project inception can ensure the definition of an optimal timeline for local SCC model utilization.

Ten Recommendations for Academic Organizations

Based on lessons learned from this initiative, we propose recommendations for academic institutions working with school communities to promote school safety through SRO program evaluation and implementation: 1) Develop interdisciplinary teams that include school health, criminal justice, injury and violence prevention, education, and race equity; 2) Partner with local public organizations who have trusted relationships with school communities and networks; 3) Identify representatives with cultural and language competencies to interface with diverse school communities (e.g., interpreters; trusted messenger); 4) Develop competencies around engagement in difficult and trauma-informed conversations, including discussions about the presence of uniformed or non-uniformed officers, with or without firearms; 5) Plan community capacity building for sustainable change; 6) Avoid recommending solutions based only on existing research because community voices must be included; 7) Collaborate with the school district and university institutional review board to facilitate research in schools that includes students (who will likely be minors) as the majority of SCC participants, and increase their voices in school safety policies; 8) Solicit frequent and real time feedback from community advisory boards, communities and participants on the SCC process; 9) Share findings with school community to enable trust-building, and 10) Include PSD board members in the SCC process.

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths are 1) Introduction of a novel approach to promote safety in a racially and ethnically diverse school district with strong champions for change; 2) Development of a preliminary SCC model for refinement and future testing to evaluate effect of SCC on school safety policy, outcomes, and practices; 3) Intentional and desired capacity building for revising the SRO MOU to support the school community; and 4) Demonstration that a rapid cycle SCC process can result in a first draft of theory-informed policy recommendations from school community members and representatives. Limitations are: 1) This work was conducted in one school district in one state and requires external validation; 2) We did not determine whether the SCC improved school safety or reduced exclusionary discipline; 3) The revised MOU was not approved by the school board and not yet implemented; 4) We did not have representation from all voices; and 5) The SCC did not represent intersectional identities.

CONCLUSIONS

This work in WA state demonstrated a successful partnership between an academic institution, a local criminal justice public agency, and a school community, to evaluate and revise an SRO MOU. The partnership helped build trust between the university and the school community. Applying the SCC to revise a school district’s SRO MOU provided a collaborative space and a unique opportunity to promote school safety.