PADM 628 – University of Alaska Anchorage April 12, 2013 ...faculty.cbpp.uaa.alaska.edu/afgjp/PADM628 Spring 2013/PADM 628 … · Adam Lanza, 20, killed 20 children and six others

Understanding the Complexities of School Safety In Alaska: A Financial Analysis of Proposed Legislation

PADM 628 – University of Alaska Anchorage

April 12, 2013

Group Members: August Axtell, Annalisa Hood, Joy Key & Amber Sawyer

UNDERSTANDING THE COMPLEXITIES OF SCHOOL SAFETY IN ALASKA

1

Table of Contents

Introduction: The Current Climate of Gun Violence In Schools ........................................ 2 How Can We Protect Students and Make Schools Safer In Alaska? ................................. 3

Challenges Unique to Alaska: The Complexities of House Bill 55 .................................... 4 Historical Overview of School Violence, Legislation and the Law ................................... 4

Legal Rights and Responsibilities of Students and Schools ............................................... 5 Historical Legislation to Address Violence in Schools ...................................................... 8

Federal Funding for School Safety ..................................................................................... 9 Funding School Safety Programs in Alaska ..................................................................... 10

Prevention and Intervention: Effective Methods for Managing School Safety ................ 12 National School Safety Programs ..................................................................................... 13

Current Alaska Education/Safety-based Programs in Selected K-12 Districts ................ 19 Important Considerations in the Policy Making Process .................................................. 22

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 27 Appendix A: House Bill 55 from Alaska State Legislative Session 2013 ........................ 28

Appendix B: COPS Grants Awarded By State ................................................................. 31 Appendix C: COPS Grants By Funding Program ............................................................ 33

Appendix D: Fairbanks North Star Borough School Safety Budgets ............................... 34 Appendix E: Anchorage School District Safety Budgets (Not including SRO) ............... 35

Appendix F: Criteria for Determining Schools of Persistent Danger in Alaska ............... 36 References: ........................................................................................................................ 38

Miscellaneous Interviews and Correspondence Related to Project: ................................. 43


2

Introduction: The Current Climate of Gun Violence In Schools

Senseless and deadly school shootings have occurred in several schools across the

country, including the horrific Columbine High School massacre in 1999, and the most

recent Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012. The growing

prevalence of violence and the pervasive use of firearms in these incidences are

prompting heated debates about gun laws and proposed reforms to ensure the safety of

our communities. The Newton shooting serves as a call to immediate action for reforms

on gun law.

As a result, on January 16, 2013 the Obama Administration has outlined twenty

three-executive orders, which if enacted, will provide sweeping reform for gun laws and

school safety measures in the United States. President Obama’s policy changes are in

direct response to the gruesome shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in the small

town of Newtown, Connecticut. The shooter took his mother’s gun from her home, went

to the school where she worked, and began shooting. The deadly result was the

gruesome death of twenty students and six adults, and in efforts to kill his own mother

who was a teacher at the school.

All twenty-three of the executive orders are unfunded mandates, which means that

each of the individual state and local governments would be responsible for finding

revenue streams or funding mechanisms to ensure that they are implemented

successfully.

This research paper will attempt to provide a historical framework and overview

for school safety programs, discuss current and proposed legislation that will impact

school safety measures, as well as discuss the financial resources and fiscal challenges of


3

these proposed executive orders, as well as addressing the growing need for school safety

and security in the budgets. A discussion of programs and budgets from the Federal level

will be provided as well as the direct impacts on Alaska, and our local school districts.

How Can We Protect Students and Make Schools Safer In Alaska?

Every single public non-collegiate school in the United States and nearly every

state would be impacted by these executive orders, and as a result, several states have

introduced bills to address the areas of their own systems that need to be altered to

accommodate the new federal mandates. The twelfth of Obama’s executive orders would

require “law enforcement, first responders, and schools officials (are trained) with proper

training for active shooter situation” and the eighteenth order mandates that the federal

government “provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.” (Harlow,

2013) The distinction of “school resource officers” that is vital is that these officers are

armed and thus need all relevant training and permits. The United States Department of

Justice states in their School Resource Officer Program guide that the officers are meant

to be a balance of counseling, teaching, and enforcement so they must be trained and

prepared to respond in all three areas.

In Alaska, the introduction of House Bill 55 is “an act allowing school districts

and private schools to adopt a policy authorizing one or more permanent employees to

possess one or more firearms on school grounds under certain conditions." The bill

specifically states that the firearm can be no larger than a handgun and the person must

meet training standards established by the Commissioner of Public Safety. (See Appendix

A for the complete HB 55 proposal)


4

Challenges Unique to Alaska: The Complexities of House Bill 55

The unique geography of Alaska, as well as the diversity of rural versus urban

areas proposes challenges for the implementation of HB 55. It is commonplace in Alaska

to have school districts with less than 50 students total, like the Aleutian Region School

District, as well as school districts with over 48,000 students like the Anchorage School

District. (Report Card to the Public, 2012) Not only does the huge difference in size

present its own challenges but the location of the schools within and the environments the

districts exist, also present their own facets. These issues are unique to Alaska and

provide complexities when trying to implement a uniform policy that would meet the

needs addressed in the mandate by the executive orders. An example of this would be

much less direct than states such as Ohio, whose robust School Resource Officer

Association that has existed for years and who used the orders as an opportunity to ask

for more funding. (Ohio School Resource Officer Association, 2013)

Funding these programs remains a key issue for all 50 states when executive

orders are issued, as they often fail to provide adequate fiscal notes or funding specified

within them. This means they are “unfunded mandates” and that the individual states,

local governments, and school districts must determine funding mechanisms to support

them. This remains a challenging issue to address, and will be discussed later in the

policies and recommendations components of this paper.

Historical Overview of School Violence, Legislation and the Law

It appears that we are at a tipping point for gun violence in the United States.

Arguments rage over the possible causes of the recent shootings—lack of family values,


5

violent popular culture, and the easy accessibility of guns. There are no easy answers to

these difficult questions. What we do know are that there has been an increase in the

frequency of school shootings including an incident in Alaska. Provided below is a

historical timeline of notable incidents:

Date: Location: Description:

February 19, 1997 Bethel, Alaska Principal and one student killed, two others wounded by Evan Ramsey, 16.

April 20, 1999 Littleton, Colorado

14 students (including killers) and one teacher killed, 23 others wounded at Columbine High School in the nation's deadliest school shooting. Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, had plotted for a year to kill at least 500 and blow up their school. At the end of their hour-long rampage, they turned their guns on themselves.

December 14, 2012 Newtown, Connecticut

Adam Lanza, 20, killed 20 children and six others at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. He killed his mother, Nancy, at her home prior to the massacre at the school. Lanza committed suicide after the rampage. The shooting was the second deadliest in U.S. history, behind the 2007 shooting at Virginia Polytechnic Institute that claimed 32 people.

February 27, 2012 Chardon, Ohio

At Chardon High School, a former classmate opened fire, killing three students and injuring six. Arrested shortly after the incident, the shooter said that he randomly picked students.

(Source: Time Line of Worldwide School and Mass Shootings, 2012)

Legal Rights and Responsibilities of Students and Schools

Schools have the right to take precautions to ensure safety. However, parents and

students have a legal right regarding searches, seizures of property and disciplinary

actions. School tragedies have highlighted the need for policies, procedures, and

practices that are legally sound and defensible in preventing and confronting violence in

school. While a major legal concern has been the infringement of rights protected by our

Constitution, the United States Supreme Court held in a number of major decisions that


6

the justifiable interest of the school in protecting others from violence or harm will

outweigh any individual right of expression. In 1986, School District No. 403 v. Fraser,

the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that in drafting student codes, school

officials cannot possibly anticipate all misconduct (U.S. Supreme Court Media, 2013).

In most states, school officials can search a student without a warrant. A search

can be launched without any hard evidence of a crime, but reasonable suspicion must be

present that a student has done something questionable. School officials must have a

good reason to search luggage or backpacks before a field trip. If it is believed that a

school policy or procedure has been broken then lockers and handbags may be

searched. However, officials cannot conduct strip searches that expose

undergarments. School desks and lockers are school property, so schools may check or

search them as often as desired (Darden, 2006).

In 1997, Hill v. Safford Unified School District, a mother brought charges against

the school districted and the teacher for negligence and wrongful death because the

student was involved in a verbal confrontation with a gang member while at school. The

two students were taken to the office to defuse the situation and then they returned to

class. After school that day, a crowd gathered because of the anticipation of a fight

between the two boys. A teacher told them to take it elsewhere and called the

police. The students then moved to an area outside town. There, the gang member shot

the other student, and the police arrived shortly after the shooting. The court found that it

was not foreseeable that the students would continue the fight elsewhere, despite the

suggestion of the teacher. The court also noted that no school official was aware of the


7

student bringing a gun on campus; therefore, there was no evidence that the gang member

was a threat to others (Find Law, 1997).

In 1995, Brum v. Town of Dartmouth, a violent altercation between two groups of

youths resulted in the murder of a student on school property. The student’s parent filed

an action against the school district, the town and municipal officials, alleging various

civil rights violations and negligence. According to the complaint, school officials were

aware of the tension between the two groups and had detained two students. Three

youths entered the school, armed with various weapons, and went in search of a

student. Instead of locating the student they were looking for, the youths found and

stabbed another student as he sat in his social studies class. The complaint alleged that

the defendants failed to adopt and implement appropriate security policies and procedures

as mandated by state law. The front door of the building, through which the youths

entered, remained unlocked, and the school officials failed to intervene after witnessing

the alleged perpetrators entering the school. This case went to the superior court, and

was appealed. In conclusion, the defendants may have prevented the attack and their

failure to do so fell within the liability exception to the state tort claims act (Barry, 2000).

In 1997, Morse v. Lower Merion School District, a school district was not liable

for the death of a teacher shot by a local resident who had entered the school building

through an unlocked back entrance, according to the 3rd United States Circuit Court of

Appeals. The court ruled that trespassing and shooting were unforeseeable because the

door had been left unlocked for school construction workers, and the shooter was

considered mentally unstable. The teacher was shot and killed in her classroom before

her students. The shooter was a local resident with a history of mental illness and was


8

convicted of murder and incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital. The teacher’s husband

filed an action against the school district and the daycare association that owned the

center. The lawsuit alleged that the district had a written policy that all side and back

entrances to the school were to be kept locked at all times. Additionally, although the

school district was aware that the back door was left unlocked, it made no attempt to

correct the condition. A district court dismissed the case finding that the school district

did not create a particular danger to the teacher by leaving the back door open (Find Law,

1997).

Historical Legislation to Address Violence in Schools

In 1965, President Johnson, in response to The Civil Rights Movement and the

War on Poverty, provided a format to address educational equality in the form of

Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) (LoPresti, 1971).

As part of the No Child Left Behind Initiative, Project School Emergency

Response to Violence aka Project SERV was created in 1998. The $12 million program

helped schools and local communities respond to school-related violent deaths. (Kagan,

1998)

In October of 1998, President Clinton announced a series of new initiatives that

addressed many of the problems identified in the Annual Report on School Safety,

including the following:

• Targeted resources for schools with serious crime problems. Clinton announced a new initiative to hire up to 2,000 community police and school resource officers to work in the 10% of schools with serious crime problems and train police, educators, and other members of the community to help recognize the early warning signs of violence. (Kagan, 1998)


9

• Reforms to help make all schools safe, disciplines, and drug-free. The President

announced his intent to overhaul the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Program so that schools will be required to adopt careful, comprehensive school safety plans for effective drug and violence prevention and reduction. (Kagan, 1998)

In 2002, President Bush revamped ESEA “to develop assessments in basic skills to be

given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for

schools” (A Voice, 2010).

Federal Funding for School Safety

Several federal programs and initiatives funded as part the Homeland Security

Grant Programs of 2012. (FEMA, 2013) These funds can be used for planning,

purchasing equipment, training and other school security programs. (FEMA, 2013)

Program Name

Total FY 2012 Funding

Purpose and Description

State Homeland Security Program

$294,000,000

SHSP supports the implementation of state Homeland Security Strategies to address the identified planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise needs to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events. SHSP also provides funding to implement initiatives in the State Preparedness Report.

Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)

$490,376,000

UASI program funds address the unique planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas, and assists them in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism.

Operation Stonegarden (OPSG)

$46,600,000

OPSG funds are intended to enhance cooperation and coordination among local, tribal, territorial, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in a joint mission to secure the United States’ borders along routes of ingress from international borders to include travel corridors in States bordering Mexico and Canada, as well as states and territories with international water


10

borders.

(Source: FEMA, 2013)

While these programs are just a few examples of federal funding for school safety, they

provide an example of the types of programs are that are receiving funds, and provides an

overview of the types of funding solutions that are provided at a national level. This still

leaves individual states carrying the majority of the financial responsibility to promote

safe school programs and initiatives.

Funding School Safety Programs in Alaska

The primary issue of resolving the fiduciary responsibilities related to school

safety are complicated in the myriad of federal, state and municipal revenue sources for

these programs that are a burden to public education budgets and public safety initiatives.

According to correspondence with State of Alaska Education Specialist, Todd Brocious:

“Alaska school districts do not receive any school funding dedicated exclusively to school safety. Rather, they get “general” state funds to operate their schools. Each district then creates its unique budget (a portion of which would support elements that contribute to school safety and could include social emotional learning programs, Positive Behavioral Support and Intervention Programs, or other similar programs, school safety resource officers, school safety hardware like security cameras, staff training on Crisis Response Preparedness, etc..)” (SOA DEED, 2013).

Currently the State of Alaska Department of Education relies on Alaska State

Statutes 14.33.110 - 14.33.140 as the legislative model described below as the


11

foundation of Alaska School Disciplinary and Safety Programs. The outcomes and goals

for the current legislation are to:

1. Implement and maintain community-based standards of school behavior that are developed by students, parents, teachers, school administrators, and the community;

2. Facilitate the creation of a standard of school behavior and safety by local communities for the schools in those communities;

3. Protect and support teachers who enforce standards of student behavior and safety in the classroom established under AS 14.33.120 ; and

4. Ensure that all schools and school districts receiving state funds, that may not have already done so, implement and maintain an effective school disciplinary and safety program. (SOA DEED, 2013)

The current state law addresses, on a very high level, the need for school safety programs

and standards throughout the state, but as previously mentioned, fails to provide the

detailed guidance and allocation of financial resources to individual school districts

throughout the state.

As federal mandates would incur costs at both the state and municipal levels,

State of Alaska experts are relying upon future appropriations of federal funds to

implement these programs. According to the interview with State of Alaska Education

Specialist Todd Brocious:

“In February 2013 EED contacted every district in the state to discuss their current school safety needs (one of EED person and I conducted the survey) and some of the superintendents I spoke with mentioned House Bill 55. While none quantified what the real cost to the district to be, many did state that high quality training on gun safety and appropriate use in school settings would be absolutely imperative for any involved staff, and that regular practice with the firearms would also be needed to ensure safety for students and staff.” (SOA DEED, 2013)

While House Bill 55 has failed to gain momentum in the legislature, after the

introduction of the bill it was referred to the education committee in January and has

failed to leave the committee, as the end of the legislative session is April 15th, it is


12

unlikely that this bill will pass in the 2013 regular session. Upon request of HB authors,

no response was provided at the time of this research paper, and not additional

information about program implementation and funding were clarified. Nevertheless,

there is likely to be future legislation that will be required as a result of the federal

mandate, and it would be prudent for the State of Alaska and the Department of

Education, as well as Department of Public Safety to begin to develop programs and

criteria to meet the demands of the federal mandate.

Regardless of the outcome and resolution of HB 55 for the current legislative

session, local school districts continue to allocate resources and funding to ensure the

safety of the students. When examining the implementation of school safety programs

that are being utilized across the county, and in Alaska, we begin to understand the

complexities and the various types of programs that exist. While HB 55 would change the

legislation allowing educators, trained and qualified school staff, permission to

responsibly carry firearms on school premises, we should not negate the other programs

currently in effect that are helping to keep schools safe.

Prevention and Intervention: Effective Methods for Managing School Safety

The concept of the school resource officer was first initiated in Flint, Michigan, in

the early 1950s. Since then, a number of agencies have had school resource officers, or

SRO’s. However, the first formulized program was created in Florida (Sherling, 1998).

The Florida Legislature mandated that there be SRO’s statewide in all middle and high

schools. Now, there are a number of police officers throughout the nation that have been

trained as SRO’s using the Florida model (Sherling, 1998).


13

The goal of long-term school resource officers is to reduce drug-related and

violent crimes committed by juveniles in middle and high schools. The officer will

provide law-related education and safety programs, one-on-one interaction, conflict

resolution, and peer mediation for the students (Sherling, 1998).

Operational SRO Programs

The school to which a SRO is assigned becomes that officer’s zone or patrol

area. The SRO is expected to be at the school each day when school is open; attend all

school functions including dances, athletic events, and PTA meetings; and be available to

attend conferences and meetings. The SRO should have an assigned office that can be

locked to prevent intrusion and is equipped with a telephone. A computer linked to the

law enforcement agency will save hours of paper work and travel off campus. The SRO

is responsible for processing individuals arrested on school grounds unless the

department has a different policy.

National School Safety Programs

Over the course of the last couple of decades, the U.S. has seen an increase in the

presence of police officers assigned to schools to monitor and address issues of safety.

Often influxes in such staffing takes place after incidents of violent crimes in schools are

published. However, this increase in staffing is also attributed to the enhanced awareness

and participation in community policing strategies. (Mystrol, 2010) As to date, there are

currently 18 states in the U.S. that permit the carrying of firearms by permitted adults on

school grounds.


14

Security Resource Officer (SROs) programs are one such method to offer police

services to primary and secondary educational systems. SROs are tasked with three

primary areas of responsibility: 1) law enforcement, 2) student mentoring and counseling,

and 3) providing education. (Mystrol, 2010) This set of responsibilities, as defined by the

National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) is referred to as the “Triad

Model.” (NASRO, n.d.)

Officers assigned to SRO programs are often permitted to carry firearms with

them as they are acting in the role of an official law enforcement agent, working in

coordination and partnership with local school districts in an effort to address school

safety. However, not all state and local regions authorize such weapons to be brought on

campus grounds.

National State Funding Issues and Grant Program History

“Funding sources for school security personnel vary among the surveyed states and

include federal grants, state appropriations, local aid, and repurposed criminal penalty

fees. Many states rely upon a combination of funding sources, while others rely on just

one” (Sullivan, 2013). The last few years have shown a trend in the reduction of funding

on a national level for school safety and security programs. (Dvorak & Solomon, 2013)

Programs such as the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS),

Secure Our Schools (SOS), the School Safety Initiative, and COPS in Schools (CIS)

programs have experienced detrimental program cuts. Many of these programs served as

the life-blood to safety and security operations within K-12 schools.

Programs such as the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools

(REMS), which had provided approximately $20 to $30 million towards emergency crisis


15

prevention, has not issued grants since 2011. Additionally, the School Safety Initiative,

established in 1998 had distributed over $53 million up until the program’s end in 2011.

(Dvorak & Solomon, 2013)

Another significant source of safety and security funding for schools, which has

been greatly impacted by budget cuts, is the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services (COPS). Two COPS grant programs of particular interest are Secure Our

Schools (SOS) and COPS in Schools (CIS). These programs served to build collaborative

efforts between schools and law enforcement agencies in an effort to address juvenile

crime. (Dvorak & Solomon, 2013)

The Secure Our Schools grant program was active until it’s phasing out in 2012.

This source of funding was directed at building partnerships and providing resources

towards staffing, equipment, and training that would address crime prevention efforts.

(Dvorak & Solomon, 2013) Grant applications could be submitted from the state, local,

and tribal level. (COPS, 2011b & COPS, n.d.b) Congressional earmarks were the primary

source of funding for this program; however, after 2010 when most earmarks were

banned, renewal of funding was not requested by the administration. Prior to this cut in

funding, the program had distributed over $100 million in grants. (Dvorak & Solomon,

2013) The maximum federal contribution available to applicants was $500,000 and

required matching funds from agencies; grants were awarded for two years. (COPS,

2011b)

One of the largest sources of funding, with awards of upwards to $912 million

(COPS, 2011b), in the U.S. that addresses crime and violence in the school systems is the

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. A key grant initiative within


16

this organization is the COPS in Schools (CIS) program. Established in 1999 (Mystrol,

2010), the goal of this program was to prevent violence in schools and enhance safety by

way of education through partnerships between law enforcement units and educational

districts. “The COPS in Schools (CIS) grant program is designed to help law enforcement

agencies hire new, additional school resource officers (SROs) to engage in community

policing in and around primary and secondary schools” (COPS, n.d.a).

Over $753 million has been distributed by CIS to an excess of 3000 law

enforcement units (COPS, 2005; COPS, n.d.a; Mystrol, 2010) since the program’s

inception in 2005. This funding opportunity has provided the resources necessary to

employ more than 6500 SROs (COPS, 2005; COPS, n.d.a) and fund $23 million

specifically for the purpose of training school administrators and SROs. (COPS, 2005;

Mystrol, 2010) Though this program ended in 2005, aspects of its grant program

continue, and still provide means to receive funding for SRO positions. (Dvorak &

Solomon, 2013)

Eligible organizations applying for such funding through the COPS/CIS grant

may receive up to $125,000 per each officer to cover the cost of salaries and benefits. The

term of the grant is three years and local funds must be allocated for all remaining costs.

(COPS, 2005; COPS, n.d.a) Applicants must demonstrate an inability to provide funding

themselves without the assistance of the CIS grant. (COPS, n.d.a) All COPS programs

taken together have awarded roughly $912 million towards educational/school district

assistance in the U.S. (COPS, 2011b)

Though the decline of available funding poses a challenge for schools, the Obama

administration is considering an increase in resources made available through a school


17

safety initiative. This plan would provide funding for implementation of training and

surveillance equipment in school environments, as well as the hiring of upward to 1000

Security Resource Officers or mental health professionals, in an effort to prevent juvenile

crime. (Huffington Post, 2013; Rucker, 2013) “The White House says it will “provide

incentives” for police departments to train and hire these special officers. The

Department of Justice will tweak the COPS Hiring Grants, which is already used by

police departments to recruit new talent, to incentivize police departments to employ

more school-specific officers” (Huffington Post, 2013). The proposition to fund the

Comprehensive School Safety Program is expected to cost $150 million. (Huffington

Post, 2013)

Examples of State Programs and Funding Sources:

“With funding for K-12 schools and law enforcement agencies evaporating,

police and schools have partnered in an effort to ensure safety by creating makeshift

programs that target at-risk schools” (Dvorak & Solomon, 2013) Some cities such as San

Diego have shifted the focus of their safety programs to address health concerns, as with

their Psychiatric Emergency Response Team (PERT). Additionally, this city has

implemented the San Diego County Crime Stoppers prevention program, which relies

heavily on corporate donations in order to sustain their efforts. (Dvorak & Solomon,

2013)

Arizona provides a Safe School Program, similar to an SRO program, in which a

peace officer works in partnership with the school district and law enforcement to assist

in providing safety on campus. This program has received a significant amount of


18

funding through the COPS CIS program. Per the 2010 CIS data, Arizona has received

$13.8 million allowing for the incorporation of 114 new SROs. (Sullivan, 2013)

California employs a chief of security for their school safety means. This position

is selected by the school’s superintendent and additional personnel may be hired as

required. Individuals hired are identified as peace officers; they do not possess the legal

powers awarded to police officers. Personnel assigned to this set of responsibilities are

permitted to carry firearms on campus provided they have met requisite training. Funding

is provided through multiple sources: training is paid with state funds, salaries are funded

through specific violation fees, and CIS funding has been obtained in the amount of $61.5

million allowing for up to 492 personnel. (Sullivan, 2013)

In Connecticut, the school boards are responsible for the provision of a “safe

school setting,” however; they are not required to employ armed personnel. Individuals

hired to provide security are required to attend the Police Officer Standards and Training

Council mandated training program. If individuals are to carry a firearm on school

grounds, they must receive approvals from the necessary hiring and school district

authorities. While some federal funding has been received, as well as CIS funding, which

provided funding for 72 positions, most personnel expenses are addressed with local

funds. (Sullivan, 2013)

Virginia employs the SRO program through partnership of school districts and

law enforcement agencies. Individuals hired as an SRO are permitted to carry a firearm

on campus grounds. While Virginia has received CIS funding allowing for the provision

of 120 SROs, they also provide funding for expenses through the School Resource

Officer Incentive Grants Fund. This fund is a state-managed fund established and


19

maintained through contributions and interest earned. Those awarded a grant from this

program must provide matching funds. (Sullivan, 2013)

Current Alaska Education/Safety-based Programs in Selected K-12 Districts

For the purpose of this study, safety and security practices of three major school

districts in the state of Alaska were reviewed for comparison. These districts include the

Anchorage School District, the Fairbanks North Star Borough District, and the Juneau

School District.

Anchorage School District

Put into action during the 2003-2004 school year (Mystrol, 2010), and rooted in

nationally recognized standards, the Anchorage School District (ASD) has partnered with

the Anchorage Police Department (APD) for the management of an SRO program. (ASD

& APD, n.d.) With 18 officers assigned the school district, two of which serve in a

supervisory role, these individuals carry out the same responsibilities identified in the

national Triad Model. “APD maintains a ratio of 4.8 SROs for every 100 non-SRO sworn

officers…,” (Mystrol, 2010) which is consistent with the national average. SROs are

assigned to local high schools, but also serve middle and elementary school locations.

(ASD & APD, n.d.; Mystrol, 2010)

Partnership between law enforcement and school districts is a considerable

element of SRO programs, both by national standards and in the State of Alaska. ASD

shares this philosophy in their outlined goals for their district’s SRO program. The goals

defined are to: encourage attendance, work towards a reduction in juvenile crime, provide


20

police services, build relationships and counseling to students, and enrich the learning

environment through safety. “The aim is to provide a positive law enforcement influence

that concentrates on safety and security, encourages relationships between officers,

school administrators, teachers and students, and fosters education” (ASD & APD, n.d.).

The Anchorage School District’s Superintendent’s office was contacted with

inquiry about the overall operations, requirements and funding of the SRO program.

According to this office, SROs are required to attend training provided by APD, which is

specialized for working in an educational environment with K-12 students. Once assigned

to the district, SROs report both to APD and to the ASD Assistant Superintendent. APD

and ASD share the personnel expenses for such positions and ASD provides office space

and resources essential for SROs to conduct their responsibilities. SROs assist in

emergency planning and drills, and are authorized to carry a firearm on school grounds,

as they are official law enforcement officers in full uniform.

Fairbanks North Star Borough District

The Fairbanks North Star Borough District (FNSBD) also manages security and

safety through the incorporation of SRO personnel. The Superintendent’s office states

that having been established within the last couple of years, the FNSBD coordinates with

the Fairbanks Police Department for the service of two SROs at the West Valley and

Laythrop High Schools. These officers were hired in accordance with a grant received

from the COPS in Schools funding program. This grant provided 100% provision of

funds for the salaries and benefits for up to two SRO positions. (phone interview)

Funding was awarded in the amount of $529,698, and was passed and approved


21

September 14, 2009. The FNSBD is responsible for providing funding for a minimum of

12 months following the grant period; this agreement was passed and approved on

September 8, 2009. (Strle, 2009)

As in accordance with national standards, SROs serve the FNSBD through the

Triad Method, working in partnership with the school district. Additionally, these SROs

have received training, and are educated, in the Gang Resistance Education Training

(G.R.E.A.T.) program. (City of Fairbanks, 2013) SROs assigned to FNSBD are

authorized to carry firearms on district grounds.

Juneau School District

The Juneau School District’s superintendent’s office was contacted with inquiry of their

current methods for providing security within Juneau K-12 schools. The information

provided indicates that no SRO programs are presently in place, nor any security guard

personnel. Security matters are addressed directly by the principal of each school.

Additional employees responsible for various aspects of safety include the Director of

Administrative Services, who oversees Risk Management and School Safety, and the

Director of Student Services who addresses Emergency Preparedness and Response, Anti

Bullying, and the Tobacco Prevention Counselors & Grant (JSD, 2013). The district also

has an official policy (Policy 7430 – School Safety and Security) providing guidelines for

appropriate processes and procedures addressing safety in the educational environment

(JSD, 2006).

COPS Grant Awards:


22

Alaska has been a successful recipient of prior grant funding awards that have

contributed to the operation of SRO and safety programs throughout the state. The COPS

Quick Facts report for the state of Alaska, printed in 2011, identifies that from available

COPS grant award programs, 31 SRO assignments have received funding totaling the

amount of $3,740,246. (COPS, 2011a) For a full report of funding allocations provided to

Alaska, a chart of award amounts per program and location have been provided in

Appendix B and Appendix C.

Important Considerations in the Policy Making Process

The Alaska state legislature could require certain portions or allocations of the

funding they already give the school districts go towards the training and staffing of

armed emergency response employees. State supported debt and municipal bonds could

be used and would not need to be voted upon, but this is a financially risk adverse option

given that the state constitution does not consider capitalized debt, and would lack the

guarantee funds would be repaid after being borrowed. Bonds that are state guaranteed

could possibly be used for some portions of the programs: equipment needed to institute

the armed emergency responders such as handguns, security cameras, and other devices.

In this instance if the school districts are unable to secure enough revenue to pay the loan

back the state will come in and pay off the debt.

Moral obligation bonds would require voter approval, and would be time

prohibitive, which would also delay the program implementation in the schools.

The state would have public pressure, aka a “moral obligation,” but that is not a

guarantee. Beyond these types of bonds all the other revenue sources for the state are


23

either not applicable or the fund would have to go through the state legislature before

coming to the schools.

Other funding sources would include partnerships between education and public

safety programs. Some of the borough and municipal governments already fund their

own armed forces of sorts such as the Anchorage Police Department or the North Slope

Borough Police Department the patrols Barrow and the surrounding areas with the

assistance of the state trooper forces stationed in the area. Areas where there already are

officers will have easier access to set up programs such as the previously referenced

program that the Anchorage Police Department has with the Anchorage School District

but this would only be feasible for schools that are relatively close to the police

departments. This would be a very effective way to use public safety funding to help

ensure the public schools are safe. Beyond this the municipal and borough governments

could fund training programs through their police and state trooper offices for school

officials to help minimize travel expenses that could otherwise be very large in a state as

vast as ours. Training of an emergency responder for a school in Wainwright, for

example, could then occur in Barrow rather than having to have the employee fly from

Wainwright to Barrow, then to Fairbanks or Anchorage. A breakdown of school district

budget allocations are demonstrated in Appendix D for the Fairbanks North Star Borough

School District, this is based on two full time staff positions and resources necessary to

support their safety efforts.

If this level of partnership can be secured regionally so that travel expenses can be

minimized the next step would then be ensuring that individuals in each area are able to

perform the required training, that any training materials needed are available, and that


24

the firearms necessary are paid for and available. Alaska State Troopers and the police

departments could be certified to train others to provide the skills need to handle

emergency situations where shootings in public places and schools. For such trainings

private companies or Tribal governments may discount or donate their resources to

accommodate the necessary travel. Also if there is already an annual trip that happens,

such as annual trainings out of Barrow for state troopers in that area, the training for the

school officials could be scheduled so that it occurs around the same time when the

trainer is already in the area. These are logistics that would have to occur on the local

level between the school districts and the armed forces in the area but they are feasible

and able to reduce the revenue needed from the federal and state levels.

With the school districts all across the state already being so tight on funds it is not

feasible to expect them to be able to secure necessary funding on their own. Borough or

municipal governments could propose school bonds for voters to approve or raise taxes

such as the Matanuska-Susitna Borough reinstituting the 1.5% sales tax it had instituted

for a few years. Most schools have employees that are settled in the area that are not

transient who they could pinpoint as being the emergency responder. State level school

bonds could potentially secure the funding needed for the firearms for these responders

and collaboration on a more local level between municipal/borough level governments

and tribal and city governments could easily secure the rest of the necessary

funding. The challenge would be coordinating these efforts and waiting to see how long

it would take for the funds to trickle down to the individual schools.

Proposed Modifications and changes proposed to HB 55


25

The combination of the funding challenge and the unique circumstances of

Alaska’s system are why one way of responding the mandate would be to allow “one or

more permanent employees” (House Bill 55, line 2) to have a concealed handgun on

school grounds. With this law in effect smaller school districts can streamline and a cost

effective solution in order to create a school resource officer from an already existing

staff member rather than hiring a whole new staff member for this position. The fact that

the bill defines a “permanent employee” as “a teacher, administrator, or other person

under a continuing or renewable employment contract for a period of not less than one

school year” (House Bill 55, lines 10-12), points to the fact that the sponsors understand

that it may be best to have already existing or “continuing” employees be the armed

employee on the school campus.

The larger school districts such as the Anchorage School District have access to

police officers and state troopers that they can partner with to help avoid the cost of an

additional staff member. Currently the Anchorage School District has a partnership with

the Anchorage Police Department that has an officer stationed in every public school at

least a few days a week, more days for the more at risk and/or violent areas. This new

law would allow the Anchorage School District to have a staff member armed and trained

for when there is not a police officer present on the school grounds to respond if

needed. Appendix E shows the breakdown of costs associated with school safety, with

out the inclusion of the SRO programs This budget is allocated for school safety officers

and related expenses for equipment to manage the programs throughout the district.

Remote Alaska communities lack the resources to have formalized SRO

programs. It is not uncommon in more remote areas to not even have one state trooper so


26

having a school employee armed and trained as resource officer able to respond in

emergency situations could potentially be very helpful at preventing disasters both in and

outside of school. One of the more well-known incidents that could have possibly been

prevented occurred in 2005 in the village of Nunam Iqua. A drunk man raped his 13-

year- old stepdaughter and choked her to death, all in front of his three younger children

who had indeed called the police. (D’Oro, 2008) The nearest State Troopers were nearly

200 miles away and it took the troopers over four hours to get to the village. The village

still does not have an armed guard of any type but the Tribal government did hire a safety

worker to help patrol the village. Without adequate emergency training and a weapon

there is no guarantee that the worker would be effective at stopping an incident like this

in the future.

This does however point us towards some of the potential funding solutions; the

Tribal entities in such communities could partner with the schools and school districts to

help secure the funding and resources necessary to train already trusted and permanent

staff members of the schools to help get them armed and trained for emergency response

situations. It is not uncommon for the Tribal entities to step up in areas where the Tribal

Governments and schools already partner up on a regular basis.

There is also a criteria for determining school safety in Alaska, and the metric is

devised from the student population size and the number of “persistently dangerous”

incidents in a given school district or community. In Appendix F the mechanisms for

determining this risk in a school are provided. According to the State of Alaska

Department of Education, currently there are no schools in that match these criteria of

severely at risk for a violent episode.


27

Conclusion Managing the costs associated with school safety is a complex system, reliant

upon the budgets of local school districts, tribal funding sources, and federal

resources when available. Most importantly the safety of the students must be

considered, and this may complicate funding sources, as geographical

considerations must be taken into account.

House Bill 55 would enable school staff and non-‐SRO positions to carry

firearms, but this is a decision that should consider the required safety and

education related components to ensure the proper safeguards are taken into effect

to protect students, educators and the community at large.

Proposed executive orders and mandates that would effect school districts

must be evaluated to ensure that proper program implementation occurs. With the

creation of executive orders comes the responsibility of finding program funding

and the impact that it has on the communities across the country, including here in

Alaska.


28

Appendix A: House Bill 55 from Alaska State Legislative Session 2013

01 "An Act allowing school districts and private schools to adopt a policy authorizing one

02 or more permanent employees to possess one or more firearms on school grounds under

03 certain conditions."

04 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:

05 * Section 1. AS 11.61.210(c) is amended to read:

06 (c) The provisions of (a)(7) of this section do not apply to a

07 (1) peace officer acting within the scope and authority of the officer's

08 employment; or

09 (2) school employee authorized under AS 14.03.170 or

10 AS 14.45.195 to possess firearms on school grounds.

11 * Sec. 2. AS 14.03 is amended by adding a new section to article 1 to read:

12 Sec. 14.03.170. Authorization of firearms on school grounds. (a) The

13 governing body of a school district may authorize one or more permanent employees

14 of a school to possess one or more firearms on school grounds for defensive use if

01 (1) the governing body adopts a written policy specifying the manner

02 in which the firearms shall be possessed and the circumstances under which a firearm

03 may be used; and

04 (2) each permanent employee of the school authorized under this

05 section has successfully completed training under AS 18.65.820.

06 (b) A permanent employee of a school who is authorized under this section to

07 possess a firearm on school grounds may carry a concealed handgun on the person


29

08 only if the person has obtained a permit under AS 18.65.700 - 18.65.790.

09 (c) In this section,

10 (1) "permanent employee" means a teacher, administrator, or other

11 person under a continuing or renewable employment contract for a period of not less

12 than one school year but does not include a person who is in probationary or

13 temporary status;

14 (2) "school grounds" has the meaning given in AS 11.71.900.

15 * Sec. 3. AS 14.45 is amended by adding a new section to read:

16 Sec. 14.45.195. Authorization of firearms on school grounds. (a) A religious

17 or other private school regulated under this chapter may authorize one or more

18 permanent employees of a school to possess one or more firearms on school grounds

19 for defensive use if

20 (1) the school adopts a written policy specifying the manner in which

21 the firearms shall be possessed and the circumstances under which a firearm may be

22 used; and

23 (2) each permanent employee of the school authorized under this

24 section has successfully completed training under AS 18.65.820.

25 (b) A permanent employee of a school who is authorized under this section to

26 possess a firearm on school grounds may carry a concealed handgun on the person

27 only if the person has obtained a permit under AS 18.65.700 - 18.65.790.

28 (c) In this section,

29 (1) "permanent employee" has the meaning given in AS 14.03.170;

30 (2) "school grounds" has the meaning given in AS 11.71.900.


30

31 * Sec. 4. AS 18.65 is amended by adding a new section to article 11 to read:

01 Sec. 18.65.820. Firearms training for school personnel. (a) A permanent

02 employee of a school may be authorized to possess a firearm on school grounds under

03 AS 14.03.170 or AS 14.45.195 only if the permanent employee of the school has

04 completed firearms training acceptable to the commissioner of public safety.

05 (b) The commissioner of public safety shall adopt regulations necessary to

06 implement this section.


31

Appendix B: COPS Grants Awarded By State

COPS Grants Awarded to AK by State

Agency/Program Awarded Date Type Officers Funding

Multi-District

Alaska State Police Secure Our Schools 9/1/08 State 0 $83,360.00 No Safe Schools Initiative Date illegible State 0 $187,813.00 No Safe Schools Initiative 3/11/09 State 0 $250,000.00 No

Anchorage Police Department

COPS in Schools 9/1/02 Police 13

$1,625,000.00 No COPS in Schools 9/1/04 Police 4 $500,000.00 No Secure Our Schools 9/1/04 Police 0 $74,806.00 No Secure Our Schools 9/1/05 Police 0 $75,000.00 No

Bethel Police Department

COPS in Schools 9/1/99 Police 2 $250,000.00 No Bristol Bay, Borough of

COPS in Schools 9/1/02 Police 1 $125,000.00 No Dillingham Department of Public Safety

COPS in Schools 9/1/02 Police 1 $125,000.00 No Galena, City of

COPS in Schools 9/1/02 Police 1 $125,000.00 No Haines Police Department

COPS in Schools 8/1/03 Police 1 $125,000.00 No North Pole, City of

COPS in Schools 4/1/00 Police 1 $125,000.00 No Secure Our Schools 9/1/03 Police 0 $12,500.00 No

North Slope Borough of

COPS in Schools 4/1/99 Tribal 1 $120,409.00 No


32

COPS in Schools 2/1/01 Tribal 1 $125,000.00 No Northwest Arctic Borough

Safe Schools Initiative 3/11/09 Government 0 $500,000.00 No Seward Police Department

COPS in Schools 9/1/02 Police 1 $125,000.00 No Sitka, City and Borough of

COPS in Schools 8/1/03 Police 1 $125,000.00 No St. Michael, Native Village of

COPS in Schools 9/1/01 Tribal 1.5 $119,837.00 No Yakutat, City and Borough of

COPS in Schools 9/1/01 Police 1 $125,000.00 No


33

Appendix C: COPS Grants By Funding Program

COPS Grants Awarded to AK by State

Funding Program Awarded Date Type Officers Funding

Multi-‐District

COPS in Schools

Anchorage Police Department 9/1/02 Police 13

$1,625,000.00 No Anchorage Police Department 9/1/04 Police 4 $500,000.00 No Bethel Police Department 9/1/99 Police 2 $250,000.00 No Bristol Bay, Borough of 9/1/02 Police 1 $125,000.00 No Dillingham Department of

Public Safety 9/1/02 Police 1 $125,000.00 No Galena, City of 9/1/02 Police 1 $125,000.00 No Haines Police Department 8/1/03 Police 1 $125,000.00 No North Pole, City of 4/1/00 Police 1 $125,000.00 No North Slope, Borough of 4/1/99 Tribal 1 $120,409.00 No North Slope, Borough of 2/1/01 Tribal 1 $125,000.00 No Seward Police Department 9/1/02 Police 1 $125,000.00 No Sitka, City and Borough of 8/1/03 Police 1 $125,000.00 No St. Michael, Native Village of 9/1/01 Tribal 1.5 $119,837.00 No Yakutat, City and Borough of 9/1/01 Police 1 $125,000.00 No

Safe Schools Initiative Alaska State Police Date illegible State 0 $187,813.00 No Alaska State Police 3/11/09 State 0 $250,000.00 No Northwest Arctic Borough 3/11/09 Government 0 $500,000.00 No

Secure Our Schools

Alaska State Police 9/1/08 State 0 $83,360.00 No Anchorage Police Department 9/1/04 Police 0 $74,806.00 No Anchorage Police Department 9/1/05 Police 0 $75,000.00 No North Pole, City of 9/1/03 Police 0 $12,500.00 No


34

Appendix D: Fairbanks North Star Borough School Safety Budgets


35

Appendix E: Anchorage School District Safety Budgets (Not including SRO) Anchorage School District School Safety Budget Proposal FY 2013-‐2014


36

Appendix F: Criteria for Determining Schools of Persistent Danger in Alaska Alaska maintains a free, secure website where districts report all infractions that lead to suspensions and expulsions from school. This site is in place to meet the past federal requirement of Gun Free Schools, as well as State Law 14.33.120, which requires reports of all disciplinary and safety programs including all incidents of disruptive or violent behavior. The information from this source is used to determine schools that are designated as persistently dangerous by the State of Alaska. The Alaska Department of Education & Early Development is pleased to report that no Alaskan schools meet the case definition of Persistently Dangerous for the 2011-2012 school year. The case definition: (b) In determining the safety status of the schools in the state, the department shall apply the following formula:

Safety status percent =

Total days students were suspended for infractions involving a weapon or violence against a person Total student population of the school x 170

x School size factor

(c) The school size factor to be used in the formula in (b) is as follows: School Size Factor 10 - 100 students 0.7 101 - 425 students 0.8 426 - 1000 students 0.9 1001 and up 1 (d) The department shall determine the safety status of a school that has never met the criteria for being designated a persistently dangerous school under (e) of this section, or has been designated a safe school for five consecutive years, as follows: If during the past two years the school has experienced: Then the school is a: Two years with a safety status of less than three percent Safe School One year with a safety status of three percent or greater At-risk School (e) The department shall determine the safety status of a school whose safety status is not determined under (d) of this section as follows:

If during the past three years the school has experienced: Then the school is a:

Three consecutive years with a safety status of less than three percent Safe School

No more than one year with a safety status of three percent or greater At-risk School

Two or more years with a safety status of 3 percent or greater Persistently Dangerous School


37

(f) Notwithstanding the designation of a school determined under (e) of this section, the department may continue to designate a school as persistently dangerous if the school has not complied with the plan submitted under 4 AAC 06.210; or the department has evidence that the school is not a safe environment. (g) The department shall calculate a school’s safety status using the best data available back to school year 2000-2001. (h) The department may recalculate a school’s safety status using hypothecated data if, after reviewing the data reported by a district, and the district’s policies regarding discipline for infractions involving violence, the department determines that a district or a school within a district has:

• failed to fully report or incorrectly reported its data on suspensions for infractions involving violence against a person

• a disciplinary policy for infractions involving violence against a person that is in violation of state law or significantly deviates from the policies of the majority of districts in the state

• or failed to adhere to its policy for discipline of infractions involving violence against a person in one or more instance

(i) The department will include in the formula in (b) the duration of a suspension or expulsion for the school year in which the infraction occurred, regardless of whether the full time for the suspension or expulsion is served in that school year. A district may appeal to the commissioner to obtain a review of the safety status designation of a school within the district. The commissioner or the commissioner’s designee shall review the designation and allow a district to present evidence regarding the designation. A decision by the commissioner on the safety status of a school is a final decision.


38

References: Alaska State Legislature Official Website. Retrieved March 13, 2013. House Bill 55 -

Full Text Version. http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill_text.asp?hsid=HB0055A&session=28

Alaska Department of Education and Early Development. (2012). Report Card To The

Public. [Data Tables]. Retrieved from http://education.alaska.gov/reportcardtothepublic/

ASD & APD. (n.d.) Anchorage Police Department’s School Resource Officer Program.

Anchorage Police Department and Anchorage School District. Retrieved from: http://www.asdk12.org/forms/uploads/SRO.pdf

A Voice. (2010). Retrieved March 23, 2013, from Education Policy:

http://www.avoiceonline.org/edpol/timeline.html Barry, K. (2000, March 1). Boston College Law Review. Retrieved March 13, 2013, from

Law Digital Commons. City of Fairbanks. (2013). School Resource Officers. City of Fairbanks, Alaska.

Retrieved from http://www.fairbanksalaska.us/school-resource-officers/ City of Fairbanks. (2013). Fairbanks Police Department. City of Fairbanks. Retrieved

from http://www.fairbanksalaska.us/police-department/ COPS. (2005). COPS in Schools - The COPS Commitment to School Safety. U.S.

Department of Justice - COPS. Retrieved from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/e09042494.PDF

COPS. (printed 2011a). COPS Quick Facts for the State of Alaska. U.S. Department of

Justice - COPS. Retrieved from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/StateReports2010/alaska.pdf

COPS. (2011b). Fact Sheet: Secure Our Schools. U.S. Department of Justice - COPS.

Retrieved from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2011AwardDocs/CSPP-SOS-CHP/2011-SOS-Post-FactSheet.pdf

COPS. (n.d.a). COPS in Schools (CIS). U.S. Department of Justice - COPS. Retrieved

from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=54 COPS. (n.d.b). Flyer. U.S. Department of Justice - COPS. Retrieved from

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/2011GrantProgram.pdf


39

Crawford, J. (2011, February). Reauthorization of the ESEA. Retrieved March 15, 2013, from Diversity Learning K-12: http://www.diversitylearningk12.com/articles/Crawford_ESEA_FAQ.pdf

Darden, E. C. (2006, April 5). The Center for Public Education. Retrieved March 13,

2013, from Search and seizure, due process, and public schools: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Public-education/The-law-and-its-influence-on-public-school-districts-An-overview/Search-and-seizure-due-process-and-public-schools.html

Department of Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention. (2009, January 31).

Retrieved March 14, 2013, from School Resource Officer. D’Oro, R. (Feb. 14, 2008). In Rural Alaska, Police Are Scarce. The Seattle Times

Company. Retrieved from http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004181557_ruralpolice14m.html

Dvorak, K. & Solomon, J. (2013). Obama Administration, Congress Quietly Lets School

Security Funds Lapse. Washington Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonguardian.com/quickreads/exclusive-washingtons-school-security-failure

Federal Emergency Management Agency Website. Retrieved March 12, 2013.

http://www.fema.gov/fy-2012-homeland-security-grant-program Find Law. (1997, Decemeber 30). Retrieved March 11, 2013, from Court of Appeals of

Arizona, Division 2, Department B.: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1328238.html

Find Law. (1997, July 24). Retrieved March 12, 2013, from United States Court of

Appeals, Third Circuit.: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1256900.html Finn, P., Townsend, M., Shively, M. & Rich, T. (June 2005). A Guide to Developing,

Maintaining, and Succeeding With Your School Resource Officer Program. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/ric/CDROMs/SchoolSafety/Law_Enforcement /AGuidetoDevelopingMaintainingSucceeding.pdf

Finn, P., Townsend, M., Shively, M., & Rich, T. (2010, October 29). COPS. Retrieved

March 2013, 14, from U.S. Department of Justice: http://www.popcenter.org/Responses/school_police/PDFs/Finn_et_al_2005.pdf#page=49&zoom=page-width,0,10


40

Harlow, P., & Payne, E. (Feb. 5, 2013). Newtown calls on Connecticut to ‘Show America the Way’ On Gun Control. CNN, U.S. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/us/ connecticut-newtown-gun-hearing/index.html

Huffington Post. (2013). Obama on Guns: School Police Should be Funded by Federal

Government, But Not Required. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-on-guns-schools_n_2487509.html

Juneau School District (JSD). (2006). Policy 7430 - School Safety and Security. Juneau

School District. Retrieved from http://www.juneauschools.org/board/policy/7430 Juneau School District (JSD). (2013). Who to Call: District Office Staff Contact List.

Juneau School District. Retrieved from http://www.juneauschools.org/contact/who-call

Kagan, E. (1998, October 14). Education--School Violence. Retrieved March 12, 2013,

from http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/_previous/KAGAN%20DPC/DPC%2018-30/DOMESTIC%20POLICY%20COUNCIL%20BOXES%205-30_Part294.pdf.

Lake, R., Gross, B., & Maas, T. (2012, October). Examining Charters. Retrieved March

12, 2013, from http://www.partnership4learning.org/files/ExaminingCharters.pdf LoPresti, C. (1971). Urban Law Annual; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law.

Retrieved March 23, 2013, from The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: The Birth of Compensatory Education: http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1822&context=urbanlaw

Myrstol, B. (2010). Police in Schools: Public Perception. UAA Justice Center - Alaska

Justice Forum. V. 27, N. 3. Retrieved from http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/27/3fall2010/a_sro.html

NASRO. (n.d.). The National Association of School Resource Officers. Retrieved from

http://www.nasro.org/ National Energy Technology Laboratory. (2013). The National Methane Hydrates

R&D Program. U.S. Department of Energy. Retrieved from http://www.netl.doe.gov/techn ologies/oil-gas/FutureSupply/MethaneHydrates/projects/DOEProjects/MH_42962BarrowGas.html

North Slope Borough. (2013). Police Department. North Slope Borough. Retrieved

from http://www.north-slope.org/departments/police/


41

Ohio School Resource Officer Association. (Feb. 2013). Possible Areas of Funding for School Resource Officers (as of Feb. 2013). Retrieved from http://www.osroa.org/pdf/fundraise.pdf

Ohio School Resource Officers Association. (2013). Retrieved from

http://www.osroa.org/ Rucker, P. (2013). White House May Consider Funding for Police in Schools After

Newton. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-10/politics/36272645_1_gun-buyers-gun-violence-ban-on-high-capacity-ammunition

Schworm, P., & Werthmann, M. (Dec. 18, 2012). Profiles of Children Killed at Sandy

Hook Elementary School. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/ metro/2012/12/18/profiles-children-killed-sandy-hook-elementary-school/U1HrEgjzJ6 KrOdceDsX6hJ/story.html

Sherling, K. (1998). Stillwater High School. Retrieved March 12, 2013, from The History

of the SRO Program in the US: http://teachersites.schoolworld.com/webpages/KBales/resources.cfm?subpage=1142537

State of Alaska Website. Department of Education & Early Development, Division of

Teaching & Learning Support. Retrieved online March 12, 2013. http://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/schoolsafety/PersistDangerous.html

State of Alaska Website. Department of Education & Early Development, Division of Teaching & Learning Support. School Safety and Persistently Dangerous Criteria. Retrieved online March 12, 2013. http://www.eed.state.ak.us/tls/schoolsafety/persistdangerous.html

Strle, T. (2009). Resolution 4380 & 09-001. State of Alaska - Fairbanks. Retrieved from

http://www.fairbanksalaska.us/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/09-4380.pdf Sullivan, M. (2013) Armed School Security. OLR Research Report. Retrieved from

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/pdf/2013-R-0044.pdf Time Line of Worldwide School and Mass Shootings. (2012). Retrieved March 23, 2013

from Infoplease: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html White House Official Website. “Now is the Time: The President’s Plan to Reduce Gun

Violence. http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence#what-we-can-do . Retrieved online April 3, 2013.


42

Wilson, T., Isaacson, D., LeDoux, G., & Lynn B., (2013). House Bill No. 55; IN THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA TWENTY EIGHTH LEGISLATURE- FIRST SESSION. The Alaska State Legislature. Retrieved from http://www.legis.state.ak.us/basis/get_bill.asp?bill=HB%20%2055

U.S. Supreme Court Media. (2013). Retrieved March 10, 2013, from OYEZ:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1667


43

Miscellaneous Interviews and Correspondence Related to Project: Alaska State Representative Bob Lynn Sponsor of House Bill 55 [email protected] Anchorage School District Natasha Von Imhof Budget & Audit, Legislative, Policy Committees von-‐[email protected] Fairbanks North Star Borough Sharon Tuttle Executive Assistant [email protected] Juneau School District Barbara Thurston Budget Committee Chair [email protected] State of Alaska Department of Education-- Department of Education & Early Development Todd Brocious (EED) [email protected]

Documents

PADM 628 – University of Alaska Anchorage April 12, 2013 ...faculty.cbpp.uaa.alaska.edu/afgjp/PADM628 Spring 2013/PADM 628 … · Adam Lanza, 20, killed 20 children and six others