Arrested Futures: The Criminalization Of School Discipline in Massachusetts' 3 Largest School Districts

8/2/2019 Arrested Futures: The Criminalization Of School Discipline in Massachusetts' 3 Largest School Districts

1/50

ARRESTED FUTURES

Principal Author: Robin L. Dahlberg

SPRING 2012

The Criminalization o School Discipline

in Massachusetts Three Largest

School Districts


2/50

Principal Author: Robin L. Dahlberg

SPRING 2012

ARRESTED FUTURES

The Criminalization o School Discipline

in Massachusetts Three LargestSchool Districts


3/50

ARRESTED FUTURESThe Criminalization o School Discipline inMassachusetts Three Largest School Districts

SPRING 2012

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION125 Broad Street, 18th FloorNew York, NY 10004

(212) 549-2500www.aclu.org

ACLU OF MASSACHUSETTS211 Congress StreetBoston, MA 02110(617) 482-3170www.aclum.org

CITIZENS FOR JUVENILE JUSTICE101 Tremont StreetSuite 1000Boston, MA 02108(617) 338-1050

www.cjj.org

Cover Photos:Let: istockphoto/evirgen; Right: istockphoto/Daniel Stein


4/50

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary ..............................................................................................5

II. The National Context ...........................................................................................9

III. Proles o the Three School Districts and Policing Models .............................13

IV. Research Findings ............................................................................................21

V. Recommendations ............................................................................................. 37

VI. Appendix: Methodology or Obtaining and Analyzing Arrest Data ...................39

VII. Endnotes .........................................................................................................44


5/50

I believe that education is the civil rights issue o our generation...

And i you care about promoting opportunity and reducing inequality,

the classroom is the place to start.

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION ARNE DUNCAN, OCTOBER 9, 2009

Top: istockphoto/mattjeacock; Bottom: istockphoto/Scott Hirko


6/50

ARRESTED FUTURES | 5

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On October 23, 2007, a 14-year-old boy at the Kennedy Middle School in Springeld, Massachusetts,

was arrested ater he reused to walk with a teacher to her oce and instead returned to his class-room. According to the police report, he yelled at the teacher, bounced a basketball in a school hall-

way, ailed to respond to a police ocers request to go with the teacher and slammed his classroom

door shut. He was subsequently taken into police custody, handcued, transported to the police

station and charged with disturbing a lawul assembly.

This incident illustrates a matter o growing concern to educators, parents and advocates: the extent

to which the permanent on-site presence o police ocers in public schools results in the crimi-

nalization o disruptive behavior. While other research has ocused on zero-tolerance policies and

the overuse o out-o-school suspension and expulsion as signicant actors in eeding the School-

to-Prison Pipeline,1 this report ocuses on the additional problem o arrest, in particular the use

o arrest to address behavior that would likely be handled in the school by school sta i not or thepresence o on-site ocers.

While some school districts use on-site ocers to apprehend students who pose a real and imme-

diate threat to the physical saety o those around them, others predominantly use these ocers to

enorce their code o student conduct. In such districts, ocers are encouraged to arrest, in many

cases using public order oenses as a justication, students who are unruly, disrespectul, use

proanity, or show attitude.

Schools have every right to hold disruptive youth accountable or their actions. However, criminaliz-

ing those actions and diverting kids away rom school and into the juvenile or adult2 criminal justice

system are harmul to everyone. Students who are arrested at school are three times more likely

to drop out than those who are not.3 Students who drop out are eight times more likely to end up in

the criminal justice system than those who remain in school and graduate,4 and the cost o housing,

eeding and caring or prison inmates is nearly three times that o educating public school students.5

Using police ocers to maintain order and address student behavior is also costly, and an impru-

dent use o taxpayer dollars in these dicult economic times. Evidence-based school disciplinary

programs that are designed to improve overall school climate, and that can be implemented by

teachers and administrators, are not only cheaper but more eective at keeping schools sae and

orderly. Among other things, such programs train teachers on how best to manage their classrooms

and permit schools to more accurately identiy those students who may need additional supports

and services or a dierent type o educational program to unction in the classroom.

In this report, the Racial Justice Program o the American Civil Liberties Unions National Legal

Department and the American Civil Liberties Union o Massachusetts (collectively, the ACLU),

in partnership with Citizens or Juvenile Justice, examine the rate at which Massachusetts three


7/50

6 |

largest school districtsBoston, Springeld and Worcesterarrest students or public order

oenses that occur at school during the school day and the extent to which school-based policing

infuences arrest rates.

While police and school ocials in the three districts were not particularly receptive to this inquiry(initially reusing to provide the inormation or denying that it existed, and then demanding tens o

thousands o dollars to produce it),6 we eventually obtained sucient inormation rom the 2007-08,

2008-09 and 2009-10 school years to conclude the ollowing:

In all three districts, there were numerous arrests at school during the school day (school-

based arrests) based on misbehavior that could have been addressed more appropri-

ately by teachers and school sta, and with signifcantly less harm to students. These

arrests were oten justied using catch-all public order oenses (such as disturbing a law-

ul assembly).

While all three districts appear to overuse public order oenses as a justifcation orarrests, Springfeld had signifcantly more such arrests than Boston or Worcester, as well

as a much higher overall arrest rate than either o the other two districts. Although the

number o public order arrests ell during the three years covered by our study, they ell the

least in Springeld and remain unacceptably high.

While there are undoubtedly many reasons why there are more public order arrests in

Springfeld than in Boston or Worcester, it appears that the manner in which Springfeld

deploys police ofcers in its public schools is a contributing actor. Springeld is the only

district that has armed, uniormed police ocers rom the local police department stationed

in selected schools or the entire duration o the school day. These ocers report to the Chie

o the Springeld Police Department, not the Springeld school district. Although Bostonhas ocers stationed in selected schools, these ocers are employed by the Boston Public

Schools, are answerable to the Public Schools superintendent, and are unarmed. Worcester

does not have any ocers with arresting authority permanently stationed in its schools.

Youth o color were disproportionately aected by the policing practices in all three dis-

tricts. This disproportionality was greatest in Boston. Although Arican-American students

accounted or approximately one-third o Bostons student body during the 2008-09 and 2009-

10 school years, two-thirds o all Boston arrests during that period were o Arican-American

students. Seventy percent o those arrested or public order oenses were Arican-American.

Youth with behavioral and learning disabilities were disproportionately aected by thepolicing practices in Boston and Springfeld. The schools with the highest rates o arrest

(arrests per 1000 students) in these districts were schools or students with diagnosed learn-

ing and behavioral disabilities, raising serious questions about the manner in which these

schools are administered.


8/50


Based on these ndings, we recommend strategies to keep schools sae that do not rely on police

ocers as a replacement or strong leadership, well-trained and supported sta, and a school cul-

ture o mutual respect and accountability. In particular, we recommend the ollowing:

1. Districts should ensure that calling upon police ocers with the power to arrest is alwaysviewed as a last resort by replacing permanent in-school ocers with on-call ocers who

can immediately respond to truly serious events. Money now spent on in-school police should

be reallocated to schools to give them the fexibility to develop in-school alternatives to arrest

and to hire trained personnel to provide leadership on disciplinary matters and related con-

cerns, such as mental health issues or inadequate stang.

2. Districts should develop policies and programs to improve school climate, including policies

to help sta distinguish between schoolhouse behavior problems and more serious oenses,

and in-school intervention programs to address student misbehavior.

3. To the extent that police ocers are involved in schools, responsibilities between schoolsta and police departments should be clearly delineated to ensure that school sta remain

responsible or all school discipline issues, and to emphasize that arrest is not an accept-

able method or dealing with disruptive students. There should be qualication and training

requirements or all school-based ocers, as well as policies to prohibit the use o catch-all

public order oenses as a basis or arrest.

4. Localities should designate an individual in each school district to collect and make public

comprehensive statistical data about school-based arrests or other reerrals to law enorce-

ment, including the underlying justication or all arrests (i.e. public order, assault, drug,

etc.), and the age, race/ethnicity, gender, and disability status o arrestees.7 Federal, state

and local ocials, as well as parents and other community members, should hold schoolsaccountable or ailing to address unreasonably high arrest rates or using arrest to exclude,

disproportionately, students o color or students with disabilities.

5. Districts, state and ederal ocials should immediately investigate and address the clearly

disproportionate use o arrest against youth o color and students attending therapeutic

schools, many o whom are arrested or behavior that appears to be a maniestation o their

disability. The use o arrest to remove, disproportionately, students o color and disabled stu-

dents rom Massachusetts schools raises serious legal and airness concerns and must stop

now.


9/50

8 |

Research has shown that the presence o on-site police ocers

requently results in both more student arrests and more arrests

or misbehavior previously handled inormally by educators and parents.

Top: istockphoto/Jose Gil; Bottom: istockphoto/Jesse Karjalainen


10/50


II. THE NATIONAL CONTEXT

The Number o Police in School Grows As the Crime Rate Declines

In the 21st century, school-based policing is, according to the National Association o School

Resource Ocers, the astest growing area o law enorcement.8 Sixty years ago, in the mid-

1950s, only Flint, Michigan employed police ocers to patrol the hallways, lunchrooms and class-

rooms o its public schools.9 By 2005, however, 48% o public schools responding to a United States

Department o Justice survey reported having on-site police ocers.10 Today, there are an estimated

17,000 school-based ocers.11

This growth has been ueled, in large part, by the public ear o youth violence and the ederal and

state governments response to that ear, including the allocation o ederal unds to deray the

costs o school-based police.12 Yet, according to the most recent data compiled by the United StatesDepartment o Justice, school crime has declined signicantly during the last 15 years. In response

to the Department o Justices most recent National Crime Victimization Survey, only 3% o students

between the ages o 12 and 18 reported having been the victim o a thet while at school; 2% reported

having been the victim o a violent crime at school; and less than one-hal o one percent reported

having been the victim o a serious violent crime.13 According to the National Center or Education

Statistics, the total rate o sel-reported school-based oenses per 1,000 students, including vio-

lent crime and thet, ell 69% between 1993 and 2008.14 The drops in school crime echo signicant

declines in juvenile crime that have occurred in all settings since the mid-nineties.

The Growth o Police in Schools Has Resulted in More Arrests or BehaviorOnce Handled by Schools

Research has shown that the presence o on-site police ocers requently results in both more

student arrests and more arrests or misbehavior previously handled inormally by educators and

parents. Districts that employ or deploy more police ocers per student have higher rates o arrest

than do districts with ewer ocers per student.15 Those arrests requently are based on behavior

that, i not or the police presence, would not normally result in an arrest. Large numbers (in some

cases well over hal) o those who are arrested in school are charged with public order oenses

such as disorderly conduct, disturbing a lawul assembly and violating codes o conduct, or

assault-related charges stemming rom school yard ghts.16

Furthermore, recent studies have concluded that on-site police ocers, particularly ones who use

arrest as a means to resolve student discipline issues, do not make schools saer. A 2011 report

published by the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University o Chicago, or example,


11/50

10 |

ound that the kind o relationships police orge with

teachers and students, rather than the number o

arrests they make, promotes school saety. Ocers

who intervene in and resolve student confict beore it

erupts into violence or otherwise disrupts the educa-tional environment make students eel saer. Those

who respond to student confict ater it has escalated

by aggressively restraining or subduing students cre-

ate a sense o mistrust that adversely aects school climate and increases disorder.17 Unortunately,

based on the records we reviewed, precisely this type o escalation appears to underlie many o the

arrests occurring in Massachusetts schools today.

National research indicates that police ocers stationed in schools spend most o their time on

law enorcement rather than playing a role as mentors or advisors to students in order to pre-

vent crimes in the rst place. In a national assessment o School Resource Ocers (SROs) by the

National Institute o Justice in 2005, SROs reported that they spend approximately 20 hours perweek on law enorcement, 10 hours on advising and mentoring, 5 hours on teaching (e.g. D.A.R.E.

programming), and another 6 or 7 hours on other activities.18

Police ocers are typically trained to address adult criminal behavior. They usually have only a lim-

ited, i any, understanding o issues related to child development and psychology. As a result, the

way they address student behavioral issues can have a detrimental eect on the student population

and school as a whole.19 As noted in the National Institute o Justices report on School Resource

Ocers, SROs must unlearn some o the techniques they learned to use on patrol duty that are

not appropriate in dealing with students (or example, resorting too quickly to using handcus or

treating misconduct as part o a persons criminal make-up when in a student the behavior may

be an example o youthul indiscretion).20 The authors o the study went on to note that with-out proper training, SROs can make serious mistakes related to their relationships with students,

school administrators, and parents that at best cause short-term crises and at worst jeopardize the

entire program at the school.21

Recent research in several states has shown that improved school saety can be achieved without

the presence o school ocers or a law enorcement approach to school discipline. These studies

ound that saety in schools can be enhanced by increasing both structure and support: adopting

rules that are strictly and airly enorced and having adults at the school who are caring, supportive

and willing to help students.22

Recent studies have concluded that

on-site police ocers, particularly

ones who use arrest as a means to

resolve student discipline issues, do

not make schools saer.


12/50


Research Shows that Students o Color and Students with Disabilities areDisproportionately Subjected to School-Based Arrests

Arican-American students and students with learning disabilities are disproportionately aected

by punitive school policing policies, not because they commit more serious crimes than Caucasianand Hispanic students, but because they are more requently disciplined or minor public order

oenses.23 Indeed, according to a University o Chicago analysis, Arican-American students actu-

ally were less likelyto commit oenses that triggered a mandatory expulsion than their Caucasian

and Hispanic counterparts.24 A study rom the Applied Research Center nds that Arican American

students are disciplined more oten and more harshly than white students. In terms o suspen-

sions, a 1998 study rom the Department o Education Oce or Civil Rights shows that Arican-

American and Hispanic students are suspended rom schools at disproportionate rates compared

to white students.25

Along with students o color, disabled students ace exceptionally high rates o arrest nationally. A

2011 study by the New York Civil Liberties Union shows that youth with disabilities are our timesas likely to be suspended as their peers without disabilities. A report issued late in 2011 by the

Justice Policy Institute outlines multiple actors contributing to the disproportionate arrests o

youth with disabilities, including: late or inappropriately designed individualized education plans

or other accommodations or students with disabilities, inadequately trained teachers and sta,

under-unded special education programs, and a reliance on law enorcement to provide discipline

in schools.26

Our study o arrest patterns in the three largest school districts in Massachusetts reveals similar

patterns to the national studies, with both students o color and disabled students acing exception-

ally high arrest rates.


13/50

12 |

He who opens a school door, closes a prison.

VICTOR HUGO

Top: istockphoto/Dan Thornberg; Bottom: istockphoto/Eddie Green


14/50


III. PROFILES OF THE THREE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ANDPOLICING MODELS

We ocused on Boston, Springeld and Worcester because these three school districts are the

largest in Massachusetts and share many o the same demographic characteristics, particu-

larly when compared to the rest o the Commonwealth. Together, they account or roughly 10% o

Massachusetts 1,824 public schools27 and 10% o Massachusetts 957,053 public school students.28

During the 2009-10 academic year, Boston Public Schools enrolled approximately 56,000 students in

157 schools; Springeld Public School District had roughly 25,000 students enrolled in 57 schools;

and the Worcester Public School District had about 24,000 students in 50 schools.29

In all three districts there are higher percentages o students o color and students with limited

prociency in English than the statewide average, as well as higher percentages o students who

qualiy or special education services or ree and reduced lunch. Students o color account or 87%

o Bostons student population, 85% o Springelds and 64% o Worcesters (compared to 34% o

students statewide). Students with limited English prociency make up 20% o Bostons student

body, 13% o Springelds, and 27% o Worcesters (compared to 6% statewide).30 In Boston and

Worcester, 20% o students receive special educational services, while the rate is 24% in Springeld

(compared to 17% statewide).31 And, while a third o Massachusetts public school students qualiy

or ree or reduced price lunches (a common indicator o poverty), the rate rises to 75.6% in Boston,

81.4% in Springeld and 71.8% in Worcester.32

Educational perormance by students on the MCAS was lower than the statewide average in all

three districts. While 68% percent o all Massachusetts students who took the MCAS in 2010 scored

at or above procient in English and 59% scored at or above procient in math,33 only 46% o Boston

students who took the MCAS scored at or above procient in English and 40% scored at or above

Boston Springeld Worcester Statewide

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Arican American

Hispanic

Asian

White

Other

Table 1: Student Enrollment by Race and Ethnicity 2009-10


15/50

14 |

procient in math. In Springeld, 37% o students who took the MCAS scored at or above procient

in English and 27% scored at or above procient in math. In Worcester, 51% o students who took the

MCAS scored at or above procient in English and 42% scored at or above procient in math.34 The

graduation rates in the three districts are also signicantly lower than the statewide rate o 82%.

In Boston the graduation rate is 63.2%, in Springeld it sinks to 53% and in Worcester it is 71.4%.35

School Policing Models in the Three Districts

Each o the three districts eatured in this report has a dierent school policing model.

The Boston School Policing Model

The Boston school district has two dierent types o police presence at its schools. It has its own

Department o Saety Services that, as o June 2011, employed 78 saety ocers, 74 o whom were

permanently stationed in 33 schools throughout the district (school saety ocers). Pursuant to

special powers granted to them by the Boston Police Department, these ocers may make arrests,but only on school grounds. The second group o police is the Boston Police Departments 15-mem-

ber School Police Unit (the School Police Unit or BPD ocers), which works closely with the

school saety ocers. Teams o ocers rom this School Police Unit patrol Boston schools in desig-

nated geographic areas throughout the school day.36

Free orreducedLunch

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0Special Ed Limited

EnglishAt or aboveprocient

English MCAS

Graduationrate

Boston

Springeld

Worcester

Statewide Average

Table 2: Selected social-economic and educational indicators2010


16/50


The saety ocers wear uniorms but are not armed. In contrast, the police ocers do not wear uni-

orms but carry guns. According to the police ocers, they dress in street clothes because Boston

Public School ocials believe that having armed, uniormed police ocers in its schools would

disrupt the educational environment.

The Chie o the districts Department o Saety

Services reports that school saety ocers do not

receive any ormal training but notes that many have

had previous law enorcement experience. The BPDs

School Police Unit ocers receive training through the

National Association o School Resource Ocers and

have been asked by the Association to teach some o

its classes. Consistent with what has been ound in

national assessments, training or these school o-

cers is not mandatory, and i given at all, does not include training in adolescent psychology, how to

gain respect o youth and manage behavior in a school setting, or how to work with students withdisabilities or mental health issues.37

School saety ocers do not need to obtain approval rom or coner with school administrators

beore making an arrest. They may exercise their discretion as long as they do so within the param-

eters o Massachusetts law. Unlike the BPD police ocers, however, they are ultimately account-

able to the districts Superintendent.

The Superintendent o BPS and the BPDs School Police Unit appear to share the same outlook

concerning the role o school-based law enorcement ocers. They see the primary responsibilities

o such ocers as identication and prevention, i.e. identiying at-risk students, getting to know

them and intervening to prevent them rom engaging in criminal activity. They view arrests as aconsequence o last resort. As one police ocer told us, student arrests can cause more problems

than they solve. Among other things, they can lead to increased bullying, threatening behavior and

retaliatory assaults. According to the Chie o the districts Department o Saety Services, you can-

not arrest away problems.

As a result, the BPDs School Police Unit, in addition to patrolling Bostons schools, engages in a

variety o activities that have more o a social work ocus, as opposed to a law enorcement orien-

tation. For example, under Operation Home Front, police ocers, school personnel and members

o the clergy go to students homes one night per week to visit with their parents and discuss the

students school behavior. Under Operation Script, police ocers and school ocials visit with stu-

dents who have threatened to commit violent acts at school and reer them to community-basedsocial service providers or ollow-up. Police ocers also meet on a Saturday morning with stu-

dents who have violated the Boston Public Schools Code o Discipline in a program called SMART

(Saturday Morning Alternative Reach Out and Teach). They discuss their behavior and educate them

about the criminal justice system and the consequences that they might ace i their behavior does

not change.

As one police ocer told us, studen

arrests can cause more problems

than they solve. . . According to the

Chie o [BPS] Department o Saety

Services, you cannot arrest away

problems.


17/50

16 |

In addition, the BPDs School Police Unit, in cooperation with the Boston District Attorney and school

administrators, has initiated a diversion program to give a second chance to students who may

have committed minor criminal oenses while at school. Instead o arresting these students, the

Police Department enters into a behavior contract with them. Ocers rom the BPDs School Police

Unit monitor the students compliance with the contract. I the student successully completes thecontract, he or she is never prosecuted. As o June 2011, approximately 40 students have partici-

pated in the program, 97% o whom completed it successully and had had no urther contact with

the Police Department.

Springfeld School Policing Model

The Springeld school district is the only one o the

three districts in this study to have armed, uniormed

police ocers stationed in its schools. As o late 2011,

the Springeld school district had 21 ocers rom theSpringeld Police Departments Student Support Unit

(also known as the QUEBEC Unit) stationed in 19 o its

schools. Each middle school, high school and alter-

native school had at least one police ocer. Although

the ocers salaries are paid by the school district,

the ocers ultimately report to the Chie o the Police Department. Unlike Bostons on-site school

saety ocers, they are not required to work within the educational ramework established by the

district.

Historically, ocers were instructed to view themselves rst and oremost [as] law enorcement

ocer[s] in the city o Springeld Massachusetts, obligated to and responsible or enorcing stateand municipal laws. They were to investigate all incidents that occur[red] on and around the cam-

pus and take appropriate action.38

During interviews, school ocials and the sergeant in charge o the QUEBEC Unit stated that o-

cers were not required to consult with school ocials prior to making an arrest but to notiy them

o the arrest ater the act. School ocials contended that principals and teachers always tried to

handle disciplinary incidents by themselves and would only ask police ocers to intervene i they

were unable to get the child to settle down. However, the QUEBEC Units supervisory ocer stated

that many administrators and teachers relied upon police ocers to do more than get children to

settle down. They used them to maintain order in their classrooms, hallways and lunchrooms.

This supervising ocer would like ocers to act more as mentors, counselors and teachers, and

less as law enorcement ocials. In act, at his request, the Memorandum o Understanding between

the Springeld Police Department and the school district or the 2011-12 school year makes clear

that police ocers cannot be used to discipline students and enorce school codes o conduct. Yet,

many administrators and

teachers relied upon police ocers

to do more than get children tosettle down. They used them to

maintain order in their classrooms,

hallways and lunchrooms.


18/50


the supervising ocer notes that ocers must be responsive to school administrators and teachers

and cannot reuse to arrest students that allegedly commit an arrestable oense when explicitly

asked to do so. According to the supervising ocer, on-site police ocers unction as school sher-

is while the schools principals are the mayors.

We are aware that in 2001, there was a tragic murder in one o the Springeld schools. 39 However,

none o the ocers or administrators we spoke to in Springeld identied this as a concern or even

an underlying reason or Springelds current use o police ocers to address student discipline

issues.

Worcester School Policing Model

Unlike Boston and Springeld, the Worcester school district does not have uniormed ocers with

the authority to arrest students permanently stationed in any o its schools. It has deployed security

guards or saety personnel in ve schools but these individuals have no special law enorcementpowers. It also has an on-going relationship with our ocers and a sergeant rom the Community

Impact Division o the Worcester Police Department. The district appears to use those ocers to

assist it in preventing, rather than responding, to school crime.

Because police ocers are not permanently on-site, decisions as to whether to reer a student

to law enorcement are typically made by school administrators, not police ocers. Teachers

are instructed to notiy an assistant principal i a student is assaultive or out o control. Assistant

principals then investigate and, in consultation with principals, decide whether to call the police.

According to a 2008 Memorandum o Understanding between the Worcester Public Schools and the

Worcester Police Department, school ocials are to call 911, not the Community Impact ocers, or

all situations requiring an immediate police response or intervention.40

A 2008 job description or the Community Impact ocers requires them to review and ollow-up on

crimes committed on or around school property and to engage in a number o preventive activities,

including participating in student interventions, mediating disputes between students, and teaching

classes designed to help students handle the pressures o high school lie. They also are required to

participate in a program designed to assist students on probation adhere to the terms o their pro-

bation, one o which is oten obey school rules.41 The Memorandum o Understanding states that

the Community Impact ocers may be called upon to provide a police presence to avert anticipated

problems; to prevent motorists rom speeding by or near the school; and to conscate student drugs

or drug-related paraphernalia.42

Although the ocers salaries are shared by the Police Department and the school district, the

ocers do not report to the district. They work under the supervision o a police sergeant and in

coordination with the districts School Saety Liaison, who unctions as a clearinghouse, passing

inormation as appropriate between the police ocers and school personnel.


19/50

18 |

Signifcant Funds are Spent to Employ Police in Schools

Boston and Springeld both spend millions o dollars employing police ocers in their schools.

In FY 2012, or example, Boston budgeted more than $4.5 million dollars on saety and security,

over $4 million o which unds approximately 77 SRO positions in the schools. Springeld bud-geted more than $2.5 million or saety and security, including unding or 22 police ocers.43 These

amounts are equal to approximately $80 and $100 per student, respectively. By comparison, in FY

12, Worcester budgeted just $120,000 or its police program, or approximately $5 per student. 44 In

Springeld, the 2012 Budget represents an 827% increase or saety and security rom the 2011

actual budget, even while the district struggled to make up a $26 million dollar decit.45

As we discuss below, such a signicant allocation o resources is quite problematic. Research rom

around the country indicates that the placement o police ocers in schools does not necessarily

have a positive impact on school saety or school culture. Both the atmosphere in the school and

school perormance overall are more likely to be enhanced by the presence o strong administrators

and supportive and engaged sta.


20/50


A Note on Methodology (see urther discussion in the Appendix)

Obtaining arrest data was dicult. While Massachusetts law requires government agencies to

make arrest dataincluding narrative inormation about each arrestavailable to the public,neither the school districts nor the police departments that work with them were cooperative

about producing this data. One district insisted that no such data was kept. The others inormed

us that they would charge tens o thousands o dollars to produce the records. Only ater eigh-

teen months, a lawsuit and payments o approximately $8,000 were some o the requested

records produced. The records provided were sucient to determine the number o the arrests

in each school during certain years, but not whether some students were arrested multiple

times in any given year or over the course o the three years.

To determine the manner in which police ocers were deployed in the public schools, we

obtained copies o relevant policies and procedures and interviewed those school administra-

tors and police ocials and ocers who were willing to make themselves available to us.46

A detailed description o our methodology and the process o gathering and analyzing the inor-

mation contained in this report appears in the Appendix. Certain data was excluded rom our

analysis because (1) the arrest was not school-based; (2) it could not be determined rom a

particular incident report i an arrest had been made; or (3) the arrest was not based on conduct

that had occurred at school (e.g. arrests or outstanding warrants or arrests o non-students).

Oenses that ormed the basis o arrests were grouped into one o ve categories: public order,

person, property, drug and weapons.47 In Boston and Worcester, our data did not indicate the

severity o the charges. Thus, in those districts, we do not know how many arrests resulted in

elony charges as opposed to misdemeanor charges. In addition, because we did not receivethe incident narratives rom Boston, we are unable to assess the nature o the circumstances

surrounding these arrests. Because names or other identiying inormation were removed rom

the reports we did receive, we cannot determine whether the incidents involve the same youth

being arrested or dierent incidents.

The collection o the data did not enable us to dierentiate among elementary, middle and high

schools and compare arrest rates at dierent levels o the educational system.

This report ocuses only on school-based arrests. It is important to note that many students

are prosecuted or school-based activity without an arrest taking place, since delinquency and

criminal complaints are requently issued as the result o a clerks hearing.


21/50

20 |

Steering young people rom schools to prisons

harms everyone.

Top: istockphoto/evirgen; Bottom: istockphoto/Daniel Stein


22/50


23/50

22 |

As discussed below, in addition to having a much higher overall arrest rate, Springeld schools also

appeared to arrest many more students or public order oenses. More than hal o Springelds

arrests were or public order oenses. By comparison, between 25% and 30% o arrests in Boston

and Worcester were or public order oenses. While a ew public order arrests involved youth who

were so agitated that they were endangering their own physical saety or that o others, the vastmajority involved youth who reused to obey directives rom teachers and/or police ocers in a ver-

bally conrontational manner.

Boston School Arrests

During the 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 school years, there were 325, 189 and 173 arrests, respec-

tively. Thirty-eight percent (124) o the 2007-08 arrests were or public order oenses, as were 26%

(50) o the 2008-09 arrests and 28% (47) o the 2009-10 arrests.48

Based on our examination o reports rom the other districts, we suspect that a certain number o the

person oense arrests should also be counted as public order oense arrests. In both Springeld

and Worcester, about 25% o person oense arrests occurred ater police ocers or teachers scu-

fed with insubordinate or disrespectul students who reused to be handcued or taken into police

custody. Because Boston did not produce the underlying arrest reports or each arrest, we cannotascertain the number o such incidents in Bostons schools.

Public Order

Drugs

Person

Weapons

Property

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Table 4: Boston School Arrests by Charge

124

68

112

129

2016

80

23

50 47

17

84

1213


24/50


Springfeld School Arrests

In 2007-08, there were 251 student arrests or incidents that occurred during the school day on

Springeld school property, 134 o which were or misdemeanor public order oenses. In 2009-10,

there were 210 arrests, 110 o which were or misdemeanor public order oenses. Because o thesteep ee requested by Springeld to produce redacted police reports or 200809, we decided

not to obtain copies and have no data or that school year. More than one-hal o the arrests in

Springeld in 2007-08 and 2009-10 were or public order oenses.

Because we have Springelds arrest reports or two academic years, we have descriptions o the

events that resulted in the arrests. According to those reports, although a ew public order oense

arrests involved students who were so distraught that they were endangering the physical saety o

those around them, most o the arrests occurred ater students reused to ollow the directive o a

teacher, administrator or police ocer in a verbally conrontational manner.

Between one-quarter and one-third o the events that led to arrests or person oenses in Springeld

began as public order oenses but escalated ater an ocer or teacher attempted to take control o

the student. Several involved aggressive eorts by police ocers to handcu students who did not

want to be handcued, oten in a public hallway or stairway in ull view o the students peers.

Students who swear at teachers, police ocers and other adults are exhibiting disrespectul behaviorthat must be addressed. However, it is neither appropriate nor necessary to arrest them and charge

them with a crime. Acting out by adolescents requently involves verbal deance. Responding to

such behavior with physical orce and handcus, and, in some cases, incarceration and a ull-blown

court case, is not only extremely costly, but potentially traumatic. For youth who may be acting out

as the result o underlying trauma or other mental health concerns, such a response may actually

worsen and escalate the underlying anxiety that led to the problem behavior in the rst place.49

Table 5: Springfeld School Arrests by Charge

Public OrderDrugs

Person

Weapons

Property

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2007-08 2009-10

134

72

11 1023

74

3 5 8

114


25/50

24 |

The ollowing are typical examples o behavior or which Springfeld students were arrested,

as described in the police reports:

In 2007, a boy at Kennedy Middle School was ound with a cell phone in his book bag in viola-tion o school policy. School administrators conscated the phone and told the student that

his mother would have to come to the school to retrieve it. The student then started walking

around the oce and stated that he needed his -cking phone. The student was warned that

he was becoming disruptive, but continued to swear and state that he needed his phone. He was

advised that he was going to be arrested, stated that he did not care, and was then handcued

and told to sit down. He was charged with disturbing a lawul assembly.

In 2007, a boy at Central High School was suspended ater reusing to go to class. He cursed

as he was leaving the building, but subsequently changed his mind about leaving and stated, I

aint leaving its too ar to walk. He was arrested and charged with trespassing and disturbing

a lawul assembly.

In 2009, in a hallway at the High School o Commerce, a police ocer walked by a girl as she

reused to identiy hersel to a teacher, swore at the teacher, and then attempted to walk away.

When the ocer asked the girl to stop and identiy hersel, she again reused, stating that she

did not have any identication. She continued to try to walk away. The ocer grabbed her, told

her that she was under arrest, placed a handcu on her right hand and struggled with her to

get the handcu on her let hand. Ultimately, he orced her to the foor using an arm bar take

down. She was charged with disturbing a lawul assembly and resisting arrest.

In 2007, at the Chestnut Accelerated Middle School, a group o students became upset while

talking to an administrator. A boy allegedly began to get loud and stated: This is -cked up. We didnt do anything. When the students mother arrived at the school in response to a call

rom school administrators, the student became highly upset and reused to talk to anyone

and began to walk away. When the ocer approached the student to take him into custody, the

student pushed the ocer away and took a combative stance. The ocer continued to attempt

to subdue the student, struggling with him in such a way that they both ell to the foor. The

student was arrested and charged with assault and battery and disturbing a lawul assembly.

In 2010, in a hallway at Central High School between classes, a police ocer asked a student to

stop, believing that an administrator was looking or her. She ignored him and started to walk

up a fight o stairs. He pursued her, at which point she allegedly swore, reused to go with him,

stated that she was going to her next class, and continued to walk away. The ocer attemptedto grab her by the arms so that he could handcu her. She tried to pull away, striking him in the

ace. They continued to struggle and stumbled backwards down the stairs into a crowd o stu-

dents. The student was charged with assault and battery on a police ocer, disturbing a lawul

assembly and resisting arrest.


26/50


27/50

26 |

The ollowing are typical examples o behavior or which Worcester students were arrested,

as described in the police reports:

In 2010, an ocer present at Burncoat Middle School to participate in mediation overheard aemale student call a vice principal a stupid -cking bitch. The vice principal responded by

stating: No, you did not just call that to me. Ater trying to run away rom the vice princi-

pal down a crowded hallway and later rolling her eyes at the vice principal, the student was

arrested and charged with disturbing a lawul assembly.

In 2010, an ocer at Burncoat High School or other reasons was notied by the high schools

saety ocer that a student was ficking a white cigarette lighter on and o in the in-house

suspension room and reused to give it to the teacher. According to the police report, the

student became belligerent and argumentative when the police ocer asked him about the

lighter. He was arrested and charged with disturbing a lawul assembly.

A 14-year-old special education student at Burncoat High School was arrested or acting out,

reusing to calm down, and spitting on and trying to bite the police ocer who attempted to

restrain him. He was charged with assault and battery on a police ocer, resisting arrest,

disturbing a lawul assembly and disorderly conduct.

In 2008, an ocer was called to Central Massachusetts Academy to assist with a 13-year-

old student who had become uncooperative and disruptive. She had been asked to leave the

school building but reused to do so, and threw a pencil at a sta member. She was charged

with assault and battery, trespassing, disturbing a lawul assembly, and threatening to com-

mit a crime.

Gender, Race, Ethnicity and Age o Arrested Students

In all three districts, most o the students who were arrested were male: 80% in Boston and

Worcester, and nearly all o the students arrested in Springeld.

Although the 2008-09 and 2009-10 data or Boston indicated the race, ethnicity, age and gender

o the arrestees, the 2007-08 data did not. In both 2008-09 and 2009-10, arrested students were

disproportionately Arican-American. While Arican-Americans accounted or slightly more than

one-third o the student body, they represented about 63% o all arrests and 70% o public orderarrests.50 We asked the Boston Public Schools and the Boston Police Department to comment on

the reasons or this disparity, but they did not respond.


28/50


Arrestees in Springeld schools were, as in Boston, disproportionately Arican-American and

Hispanic. As shown below, during the 2009-10 school year, Hispanics accounted or 55% o the stu-

dent body, 65% o all arrests and 50% o public order arrests. Arican-Americans accounted or 23%

o the student body, 29% o all arrests and 40% o public order arrests.

Table 8: Springfeld, Race/Ethnicity o Arrestees vs.

Race/Ethnicity o Student Body 2009-10

White

Arican-American

Hispanic

Because there wereso ew arrests o

Asian and NativeAmerican studentsand students whoserace or ethnicity wasunknown, we did not

include those arrestsin this chart.

Enrollment All Arrests Public Order Arrests

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

16%

23%

55%

6%

29%

66%

10%

40%

50%

Table 7: Boston, Race/Ethnicity o Arrestees v. Race/Ethinicityo Student Body 2008-09 and 2009-10

WhiteArican-American

Hispanic

Enrollment All Arrests Public Order Arrests

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Because there wereso ew arrests o

Asian and NativeAmerican studentsand students whoserace or ethnicity wasunknown, we did notinclude those arrestsin this chart.

13%

37%39%

65%

29%

5% 5%

70%

24%


29/50

28 |

As in both Boston and Springeld, Arican-American students were over-represented among

arrestees in Worcester. Approximately 25% o the arrestees were Arican-American. Yet, Arican

Americans accounted or only 14% o the student body.

One troubling nding o our research was the very young age (as young as 11) at which some chil-

dren are being arrested in schools or behavior which, while undesirable, is not normally regarded

as criminal. In Boston, approximately 66% o all arrestees were between the ages o 14 and 16, and

8% (16 o 189) o arrests in 2008-09 were arrests o students 12 years old or younger. Four percent (7

o 173) arrests in 2009-10 were students 12 years old or younger. In Springeld, 60% o arrested stu-dents were between the ages o 14 and 16. During the 2007-08 school year, 7% (18) o arrests were

o students who were 12 years old or younger. During the 2009-10 school year, 9% (19) o arrests

were o students 12 years old or younger. Eighty percent o the students arrested in Worcester were

males who were 15 years o age or older. Two arrestees were 11 years old.

The types o events that led to the arrests o the youngest students did not appear to be qualitatively

dierent rom those that led to the arrests o older students. I anything, the events were even more

refective o the kind o behavior and impulsiveness that is normally associated with angry children,

not individuals who are charged with crimes:

In 2007, an 11-year-old student at a middle school in Springeld, who apparently believedthat he had been alsely accused o wrongdoing, walked through the school building, yelling

I did not do anything and banging lockers. He was arrested ater he was directed to calm

down by a police ocer, reused to do so, stated that he didnt care, and threw his book bag.

Table 9: Worcester, Race/Ethnicity o Arrestees vs.Race/Ethnicity o Student Body 2009-10

White

Arican-American

Hispanic

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Enrollment All Arrests

38

14

3740

25

35Because there wereso ew arrests o

Asian and Native

American studentsand students whoserace or ethnicity wasunknown, we did notinclude those arrestsin this chart.


30/50


Also in 2007, a 12-year-old student at an alternative school in Springeld reused to leave the

art room and go to the in-house suspension room. He had been asked to do so because he

had poured a cup o water on another childs head. He was arrested ater he again reused

to leave the room, this time at the request o a police ocer, yelled that he wasnt going any-

where and stated F-ck this sh-t Im outta here.

In 2010, an 11-year-old student at the Chandler Magnet School-Academic Center or Transition

in Worcester was disruptive in class, would not do his work, ran out o his classroom and ulti-

mately the school, and while outside, threw a snow ball at a teacher, hitting her in the leg. He

was arrested and charged with assault and battery on a public employee, disorderly conduct

and disturbing a lawul assembly.

Certain Schools Have Noticeably Higher Rates o Arrest

None o the schools in Worcester had an arrest

rate that exceeded ve arrests per 1,000 students.

In Boston and Springeld, however, certain schools

stood out as having egregiously high rates o arrest.

In both districts, a number o the institutions with

high arrest rates are schools that are supposed to

serve students with emotional, behavioral or learn-

ing diculties, raising serious questions about

whether these students are receiving the services

and education to which they are entitled.

Boston:

O all o Bostons public schools, Charleston High School, the McKinley Schools, the South Boston

Educational Complex, the Dorchester Educational Complex and the Hyde Park Educational Complex

had high arrest rates as compared with Boston Public Schools overall.51 Charleston High School, the

McKinley Schools and the South Boston Educational Complex also had higher public oense arrest

rates. During the 2009-10 school year, or example, there were 70 arrests per 1,000 students at the

McKinley Schools, 19 per 1,000 students at the South Boston Educational Complex, 14 per 1,000

students at the Hyde Park Complex, 13 per 1,000 students at the Dorchester Educational Complex

and 12 per 1,000 students at Charleston High School. The rates o public order oense arrests werealso high: 26 public order arrests per 1,000 students at the McKinley Schools, 7 per 1,000 students

at Charleston High School, 6 per 1,000 students at the South Boston Educational Complex and 3 per

1,000 students at the Hyde Park Complex.

Students with diagnosed disabilities

are entitled to a ree and appropriate

education under the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). High

arrest rates could indicate that studen

are not receiving the education to whic

they are legally entitled.


31/50

30 |

The McKinley Schools are a cluster o our special education day schools or students with emo-

tional, behavioral and learning diculties. They were designed to combine in one program the req-

uisite academic services with the social, emotional and behavioral supports and structures needed

by [Bostons most severely disabled students].52 Students are typically assigned to the schools

through the Individualized Education Plan process mandated or students with disabilities by the

ederal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

During the three years covered by this study, McKinley students accounted or less than 1% o

Bostons student body with between 410 and 430 students enrolled in grades K through 12.53 Yet,they accounted or 5% o all Boston public school arrests made during the 2008-09 school year, 9%

o those made during the 2007-08 school year and 17% o those made during the 2009-10 school

year.

BPSOverall

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

CharlestonHS

McKinleySchools

South BostonComplex

DorchesterComplex

2007-2008

2008-2009

2009-2010

Table 10: Comparison o Boston Schools with Large Number o ArrestsPer 1,000 Students

Hyde ParkComplex

5.83.5 3

18

7270

27

6

12

40

27

19

37

13

5

32

14 14

Note: The BPSOverall num-bers includeelementaryschools, whichhave loweroverall arrestrates.

Table 11: McKinley School Arrests by Charge

Public Order

Drugs

Person

Property

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

18

16

14

1210

8

6

4

2

0


32/50


Although a ull evaluation o the McKinley Schools is beyond the scope o this report, the act that

the arrest rate at those schools is three to our times higher than the school with the second highest

arrest rate raises serious questions about the quality o the McKinley Schools academic program,

their behavior management systems, the teaching and administrative sta, and the appropriate-

ness o the schools as placements or the students who attend them. Students with diagnosed dis-abilities are entitled to a ree and appropriate education under the above-mentioned Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). High arrest rates could indicate that students are not receiving the

education to which they are legally entitled.

Springfeld

As in Boston, the Springeld schools with the highest arrest rate or all types o oenses and or

public order oenses were the constellation o schools or students with behavioral, emotional and

learning dicultiesthe nine schools known as The Springeld Academy or Excellence, or more

inormally, the S.A.F.E. schools.54 Students at these schools were over ten times more likely to bearrested than students at other Springeld schools.

Roughly two-thirds o all arrests at the S.A.F.E. schools in both 2007-08 and 2009-10 were or public

order oenses. In act, more than 25% o all public order arrests in the Springeld schools in 2009-10 were made at a S.A.F.E. school.

Table 12: Springfeld Schools with Greatest Number oArrests per 1,000 students

2007-08

2009-10

140

120

100

8060

40

20

0

Springeldoverall

CommerceHS

Forest PkMS

JFKMS

SAFE

123

103

2535

212628

33

149


33/50

32 |

Again, while a thorough evaluation o the S.A.F.E. schools is beyond the scope o this report, the

Massachusetts Department o Elementary and Secondary Education should immediately and

aggressively intervene and determine why the schools are relying to such an extent on the Springeld

Police Department to control their student body and whether these students are receiving the ser-

vices to which they are entitled under the IDEA.55

Discussion o Findings

As noted earlier, the three districts proled in this report all ace signicant challenges, includinghigher numbers o poor students and students with special education needs than the statewide

average. These districts also struggle with issues related to academic perormance, as evidenced

by their lower graduation rates and MCAS scores.

It must be emphasized that the presence o larger numbers o students who are poor or require

additional services does not explain or justiy the striking overuse o public order oense arrests,

the disproportionate use o arrest against students o color (in particular the use o public order

oense arrests), or the incredibly high rates o arrest based on misbehavior in schools that are

allegedly designed to provide services or exactly the type o student who might be expected to act

out.

The Worcester public schools, like the schools in Springeld, have higher numbers o special educa-

tion students and poor students than the statewide average, yet have signicantly lower arrest rates

than the other districts. These actors alone cannot explain the high rates o arrests in Springeld

or the inequitable results o the policing practices in Boston and Springeld.

Table 13: Oenses Resulting in Arrests,Springfeld S.A.F.E. Schools

2007-08

2009-10

Public Order Drugs Person Property

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0


34/50


35/50

34 |

In many school districts, an arrest or reerral to the courts results in suspension or expulsion rom

the school. This can have a proound eect on uture lie outcomes, as students oten nd it dicult

to make up the work they have missed and re-engage in school activities. In Massachusetts, where

all seventeen year olds are automatically treated as adults or all oenses, an arrest can also mean

the creation o a permanent, adult criminal record as well as incarceration alongside adult criminaloenders.

Whether it is accomplished through arrest or other unnecessary, out-o-school discipline policies,

steering young people rom schools to prisons harms everyone. Incarceration puts youth at signi-

cantly greater risk o suicide and abuse. It is expensive, costing some communities on average o

over $240 per day per youth. In addition, young people who enter the juvenile or adult criminal justice

system are more likely to drop out o school and ace additional consequences, including diculties

getting a job, going to college, or losing a drivers license.59 All o these actors signicantly decrease

the chances that a young person will grow into a responsible, tax-paying member o society.

Relying on arrest to solve school discipline issues also takes the responsibility away rom schoolteachers and administrators to address and shape student behavior. Police and school ocials we

spoke with repeatedly emphasized that the most critical actor in creating sae, orderly schools

was not the presence o police, but the engagement o school administrators. Police in particular

acknowledged that arrest was not a useul way to address underlying discipline issues, one noting

that you cant arrest yoursel out o [disciplinary] problem[s]. Others noted that dramatic incon-

sistencies existed between schools with regard to the strength o their leadership or their overall

approach to discipline.

Consistent with other research,60 our study ound that police aced pressure rom school sta to deal

with issues that should have been dealt with in the classroom; in one case reported to us, police

were asked to arrest or a student who had thrown a cheeseburger. In Springeld, schools reportedlyresisted being held responsible or anystudent discipline issues in negotiating their Memorandum

o Understanding with the police. This suggests that at least in some schools, the presence o the

police is undermining school culture and the leadership role schools have traditionally taken in mat-

ters o student discipline.

Focusing unding and attention on police in schools instead o on the overall school climate diverts

scarce resources away rom alternative disciplinary tools that are less harmul to youth and which,

in the long run, would promote healthier, saer school communities. In both Boston and Springeld,

the amount spent on school saety dwars other expenditures, such as money or proessional devel-

opment, reading programs, counseling or psychological services, athletics/physical education, and

other student support services or programs.61 Reallocating even a small portion o these unds toprograms that are designed to support and hold accountable youth in school, rather than orcing

them out o school, could go a long way to preventing the fow o children into our juvenile or adult

criminal justice systems.


36/50



37/50


38/50


V. RECOMMENDATIONS

Schools, districts, police ocers, state and city ocials, parents and students all have a role to play

in making our schools sae while also ensuring that children are not unneled into the criminal jus-tice system. The recommendations listed below are directed toward achieving that goal.

1. Districts should ensure that calling upon police ocers with the power to arrest is always

viewed as a last resort by replacing permanent in-school ocers with on-call ocers who

can immediately respond to truly serious events. Money now spent on in-school police should

be reallocated to schools to give them the fexibility to develop in-school alternatives to arrest

and to hire trained personnel to provide leadership on disciplinary matters and related con-

cerns, such as mental health issues or inadequate stang.

2. Districts should develop policies and programs to improve school climate, including policies

to help sta distinguish between schoolhouse behavior problems and more serious oenses,and in-school intervention programs to address student misbehavior.

3. To the extent that police ocers are involved in schools, responsibilities between school

sta and police departments should be clearly delineated to ensure that school sta remain

responsible or all school discipline issues, and to emphasize that arrest is not an accept-

able method or dealing with disruptive students. There should be qualication and training

requirements or all school-based ocers, as well as policies to prohibit the use o catch-all

public order oenses as a basis or arrest.

4. Localities should designate an individual in each school district to collect and make public

comprehensive statistical data about school-based arrests or other reerrals to law enorce-

ment, including the underlying justication or all arrests (i.e. public order, assault, drug,

etc.), and the age, race/ethnicity, gender, and disability status o arrestees. Federal, state

and local ocials, as well as parents and other community members, should hold schools

accountable or ailing to address unreasonably high arrest rates or using arrest to exclude,

disproportionately, students o color or students with disabilities.

5. Districts, state and ederal ocials should immediately investigate and address the clearly

disproportionate use o arrest against youth o color and students attending therapeutic

schools, many o whom are arrested or behavior that appears to be a maniestation o their

disability. The use o arrest to remove, disproportionately, students o color and disabled stu-

dents rom Massachusetts schools raises serious legal and airness concerns and must stop

now.


39/50

38 |

istockphoto/Matty Symons

...the most critical actor in creating sae,

orderly schools [is] not the presence o police,

but the engagement o school administrators.


40/50


APPENDIXMethodology or Obtaining and Analyzing Arrest Data

1. Using the Massachusetts Public Records Law

Obtaining arrest data was dicult. Our initial goal had been to analyze data and police reports

pertaining to school-based arrests made in each district during three consecutive academic years.

The Massachusetts Public Records Law requires government agencies to make available to the

public records created and maintained in the normal course o business unless those records all

within one o the exemptions set orth in the Law. It urther permits the custodian o the records

to charge the requester a reasonable ee to recover the costs o producing the documents.62 Arrest

data, including the narrative reports completed by law enorcement ocers at the time o arrest,

does not all within an exemption.

We requested arrest data and reports rom the Boston Public Schools and the Springeld and

Worcester Police Departments in 2007 and 2008 and again rom the Boston, Springeld and

Worcester Police Departments in 2010. One agency denied collecting or maintaining the data, orc-

ing us to le a lawsuit to compel it to comply with our request. Another told us that it would produce

the requested materials but only i we paid it $40,000. A third asked or a total o $10,000 to respond

to two requests.

Unwilling to pay in excess o $50,000, we narrowed our requests, abandoning our eorts to obtain

any arrest reports rom Boston and limiting our request or Springeld arrest reports to two years,

rather than three. In total, we paid approximately $8,000 to the three police departments and the

Boston Public Schools and in exchange received the documents listed below. It took the agencies

between 1 and 18 months to respond to the requests.

The ollowing was provided:

From the Boston Public Schools, a list o the arrests made and criminal complaints led in

response to incidents at the Boston public schools during the 2007-08 academic year, disag-

gregated by date and location o arrest or incident, type o oense and gender o arrestee;

From the Boston Police Department, a list o the arrests made at Boston Public Schools

during the academic years o 2008-09 and 2009-10, disaggregated by date o arrest, race,gender and age o arrestee, type o oense and location and name o school at which arrest

was made;

From the Worcester Police Department, a list o the arrests made at the Worcester pub-

lic schools during the 2007-08 academic year, disaggregated by race, gender and age o


41/50

40 |

arrestee, date, location and time o arrest, type o charge, and type o incident that gave rise

to the charges; similar lists o the arrests made during the 2008-09 academic year and the

arrests made during the 2009-10 academic year; and copies o police reports describing the

arrests made during the 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic years; and

From the Springeld Police Department, arrest reports and incident reports documenting

arrests made and incidents that occurred at the Springeld Public Schools during the 2007-

08 academic year and arrest reports and incident reports documenting arrests made and

incidents that occurred during the 2009-10 academic year.

Any inormation that would have permitted us to identiy the arrestee had been redacted rom the

data we received. As a result, we know the number o arrests but do not know whether some stu-

dents were arrested multiple times in any given year or over the course o the three years.

2. Excluding Data Outside the Scope o Our Analysis

Because our report only examines the arrests o students or events that transpired at school during

the school day, we excluded rom our analysis certain o the above documents.

We excluded data regarding Boston complaints and Springeld incident reports because we could

not conrm that any o them had resulted in actual arrests.63 Under Massachusetts law, an ocer

may arrest a student accused o a elony so long as the ocer nds there is probable cause to

believe that the student committed the oense, but may only arrest a student accused o a misde-

meanor oense or a limited number o oenses specied by law or i the ocer personally wit-

nesses the student commit the oense. In those cases where an arrest is not made at the time o

an alleged oense, an ocer or alleged victim can le an application or a complaint in court andthe student will receive a summons to attend a clerks hearing. I probable cause is ound, a ormal

complaint is issued and the student is ormally charged in court. We do not know which complaints

or incidents that occurred at these schools ultimately resulted in an arrest or prosecution in court.

In Springeld, ocers used incident reports to document complaints received rom third-parties

that could result in an arrest or an application or a complaint in the juvenile court, to document

events that they consider suspicious and to notiy their Department about certain non-criminal

occurrences.64 Again, we had no inormation as to whether any third-party complaints or suspi-

cious incidents complaints resulted in an arrest.

We also excluded arrests that were made at a public school but were made: (a) pursuant to a CHINSpetition or a warrant in a CHINS case or or a probation violation or a previous oense; (b) or activi-

ties that occurred o school grounds; (c) or activities on school grounds but ater school hours;

and (d) or activities on school grounds during the school day that did not involve students rom

that particular school. We were able to conrm which arrests to exclude rom the Springeld docu-

ments and which to exclude rom 2008-09 and 2009-10 Worcester documents by reading the arrest


42/50


reports themselves. With respect to the Boston and 2007-08 Worcester data, we excluded any arrest

or which the oense listed was CHINS, WARRANT, SERVICE TO OTHER PD INSIDE OF MA,

TRESPASSING, or an oense that appeared, by its description, to have occurred o school prop-

erty, such as ROBBERY-UNARMED-STREET.

We were let with the ollowing arrests o students or behavior at school during a school day:

Number o Arrests that Formed Basis o Reports Findings

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Boston 325 189 173

Springfeld 251 n/a 210

Worcester 49 25 13

3. Categorizing the Remaining Arrest Data

A cursory review o the arrest data revealed that dierent police departments and ocers used

dierent charges when categorizing oenses. Ocers in Boston, or example, requently charged

disruptive or unruly students with aray. Ocers in Springeld, however, charged such students

with disturbing a lawul assembly.

Boston07-08

90

80

70

60

50

40

3020

10

0

Boston08-09

Boston09-10

Springeld07-08

Springeld09-10

Chins

Warrant

Ater School,No Student,

Trespassing,Other

Arrests Excluded rom Analysis

Worcester07-08

Worcester08-09

Worcester09-10


43/50

42 |

To compare arrests across districts, we grouped oenses into one o ve categories: public order,

person, property, drug and weapons. Public order charges included aray, disorderly person,

disturbing a lawul assembly, and threat to commit a crime. Person charges included all assault-

related charges, including assault and battery, simply assault, assault with a deadly weapon,

assault and battery against a public ocial, and assault and battery against a police ocer.Property charges include armed robbery, unarmed robbery, grati, destruction o property,

tagging, and larceny. Drug charges included possession and intent to sell oenses.

The Boston arrest data listed a single oense or each arrest. The Springeld and Worcester data,

however, listed between one and our charges or each arrest. Where there were multiple charges,

any arrest where one o the charges included possession o a weapon, regardless o what the other

oenses were, was listed in the Weapons category. Any arrest that did not include a weapons

oense but included a drug oense was included in the Drug categoryagain regardless o what

the other charges were. Any arrest that did not include either a weapons or drug oense but included

an assault charge was included the Person category. Any arrest that did not include a weapons,

drug or assault charge but included a property charge was included in the Property category. Anyarrest that did not include a weapons, drug, person or property charge was included in the Public

Order category.

4. Obtaining Inormation on the Deployment o Police Ofcers

To determine the manner in which police ocers were deployed in the public schools, we obtained,

again through Massachusetts Public Records Law, copies o relevant policies and procedures. In

addition, we spoke to various school administrators and police ocials and ocers in each o the

three districts.


44/50



45/50

44 |

ENDNOTES

1 See, e.g., Massachusetts Appleseed Center or Law and Justice, Keep Kids In Class: New Approaches to School Discipline

(January 2012); American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force,Are Zero Tolerance Policies Eective inthe Schools?An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations, AmericAn Psychologist, Vol. 63, No. 9, at 852-62 (Dec. 2008),available at www.apa.org/pubs/ino/reports/zero-tolerance.pd (last viewed on Sept. 25, 2011) (hereinater APA ZeroTolerance Task Force).

2 In Massachusetts, all seventeen year olds, regardless o how minor the oense, are processed in the adult criminaljustice system.

3 Gary Sweeten, Who Will Graduate? Disruption o High School Education by Arrest and Court Involvement, Justice QuArterly,vol. 23, Issue 4 (2006).

4 Centers or Disease Control, Health Risk Behaviors Among Adolescents Who Do and Do Not Attend School: United States,1992, Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 43: (08) (March 4, 1994); see APA Zero Tolerance Task Force,supra.

5 Cradle to Prison Pipeline Factsheet Colorado, Childrens Deense Fund (Mar. 2009), available at Cradle-prison-pipeline-colorado-2009-act-sheet.pd (last viewed on Sept. 25, 2011). See generally, Christopher C. Weiss, E. Christine Baker-Smith & Vanessa G. Ohta, The Added Cost o Education ater Arrest, to Community and Student, (Institute or Social andEconomic Research and Policy, Columbia University), available at www.aepweb.org/.../Weiss%20Baker-Smith%20Ohta%202011_0.pd, (last viewed on Sept. 25, 2011).

6 See urther discussion in the Appendix.

7 Each o the three districts proled in this report has a legal obligation to keep and report accurate data on both reerralsto law enorcement and school-based arrests as part o the U.S. Department o Educations Civil Rights DataCollectionsurvey, and to track this inormation by race/ethnicity, gender, and disability status (but not age). Despite this require-ment (which was adopted or the most recently published survey, or the 2009-10 school year), it does not appear thatSpringeld or Worcester is accurately reporting this data to the ederal Oce o Civil Rights. Worcester, or example,did not report any arrests or reerrals to law enorcement. Springeld also reported no arrests, and only 75 reerrals tolaw enorcement, ar lower than the 210 arrests documented by our own research or the same school year. (See urtherdiscussion regarding Boston data at endnote 50). Because the survey does not require schools to report the underlyingbasis or the arrest or reerral, the OCR data, by itsel, is less useul in uncovering the inappropriate use o arrest to dealwith routine school disciplinary matters. See generallyhttp://ocrdata.ed.gov/DistrictSchoolSearch.

8 National Association o School Resource Ocers, About NASRO, available at http://www.acebook.com/NASRO.org?sk=ino.

9 Oce o Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), U.S. Dept o Justice, OJJDP Fact Sheet: School ResourceOcer Training Program (2001).

10 Lawrence F. Travis, III & Julie Kiernan Coon, The Role o Law Enorcement in Public School Saety: A National Survey19-20(2005).

11 Johanna Wald and Lisa Thurau, First Do No Harm: How Educators and Police Can Work Together More Eectively to PreserveSchool Saety and Protect Vulnerable Students, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute or Race & Justice (March 2010), at 1.

12 For example, since 1999 the COPS in Schools grant program o the U.S. Department o Justice Oce o CommunityOriented Policing Services has awarded over $750 million to more than 3,000 grantees, resulting in the hiring o morethan 6,500 SROs (Oce o Community Oriented Policing Services, 2008).

13 As dened by the Survey, thet includes purse snatching, pick pocketing, all burglaries, attempted orcible entry, andall attempted and completed thets except motor vehicle thets. Thet does not include robbery in which threat or use o

orce is involved. Violent crimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault. Serious violent crimes include rape,sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault. National Center or Education Statistics, Indicators o School Crimes andSaety (2010), at 15, n. 1, available athttp://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pd/iscs10.pd (last viewed on Dec. 9, 2011)(hereinater National Center or Education Statistics, Indicators).

14 Justice Policy Institute, Education Under Arrest: The Case Against Police in Schools (Nov. 2011) available athttp://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/educationunderarrest_executivesummary.pd (last viewed on Dec.9, 2011) citing National Center or Education Statistics, Indicators at Table 2.1 (hereinater Justice Policy Institute,Education Under Arrest).
http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdfhttp://www.aefpweb.org/.../Weiss%20Baker-Smith%20Ohta%202011_0.pdfhttp://www.aefpweb.org/.../Weiss%20Baker-Smith%20Ohta%202011_0.pdfhttp://ocrdata.ed.gov/DistrictSchoolSearchhttp://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/iscs10.pdfhttp://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/educationunderarrest_executivesummary.pdfhttp://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/educationunderarrest_executivesummary.pdfhttp://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/educationunderarrest_executivesummary.pdfhttp://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/educationunderarrest_executivesummary.pdfhttp://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/iscs10.pdfhttp://ocrdata.ed.gov/DistrictSchoolSearchhttp://www.aefpweb.org/.../Weiss%20Baker-Smith%20Ohta%202011_0.pdfhttp://www.aefpweb.org/.../Weiss%20Baker-Smith%20Ohta%202011_0.pdfhttp://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdf


46/50


15 During the 2008-09 school year, or example, Philadelphias public schools had a security orce that was three timeslarger than that o 19 other Pennsylvania school districts combined, despite the act that it had a ar lower student enroll-ment. It also had an arrest rate that was up to 25 times higher than that o some other large districts in Pennsylvania.Advancement Project and Youth United or Change, Zero Tolerance in Philadelphia: Denying Educational Opportunities andCreating a Pathway to Prison (2011), at 15, available at http://www.advancementproject.org/digital-library/publications/zero-tolerance-in-philadelphia-denying-educational-opportunities-and-creating-pathways-to-prison (last viewed onSept. 25, 2011).

16 A 2006 Florida study, or example, ound that 76% o the roughly 30,000 students arrested or misbehaving at schoolhad been charged with misdemeanor public order oenses or assault oenses stemming rom school yard ghts.Florida State Conerence NAACP, Advancement Project & NAACPLegal Deense and Educ

Documents

Arrested Futures: The Criminalization Of School Discipline in Massachusetts' 3 Largest School Districts