Christopher Bowlin

Week 6 assignment

Crime prevention and school

Part I Theories

Through many different theories and studies, we see correlations between academic

performance and delinquency. This way school can become a secondary method in crime

prevention (Lab, 2016). Cohen (1955), Cloward and Ohlin (1960), and Merton (1986) pointed

towards blocked attainment and feelings of failure, each view stating that an individual with little

chance of legitimate success has a higher chance of delinquency. The school is one of the first

places a child can discover the feeling of failure and upon doing so might seek out others that are

struggling, and therefore resulting in deviancy for the hope of succeeding in something. I believe

the Merton (1986) also includes the labeling theory as a self-fulfilling prophecy where he

discusses a false definition in the beginning of a situation, which evokes a new behavior and

makes the originally false conception come true. Feeling as a failure only occurs though if we

assume that juveniles care about their academic performance. This assumption is supported by

Coleman (1966) who found that parents of all social classes are very interested in their children’s

academic performance. Furthermore, it is supported by Vinter and Sarri (1965) report that the

emphasis on performance extends to the youth, and that two other studies find that minority and

poor families place a higher value on education than their counterparts. Could the assumption

that those from impoverished and minority backgrounds are more likely to fail despite their

higher set values on education be due to the self-fulfilling prophecy posed by Merton? This can

be an interesting thought but we can’t forget the effect of general strain theories and social bond
theories that are so prevalent in an academic setting with young men and women so easily

influenced by their surroundings.

Part II Delinquency

The authors Hirschi and Hindelang (1977) establish that IQ is an important correlate of

delinquency (Lab, 2016). The section of IQ and delinquency cites a few other studies supporting

the correlation of IQ to delinquency but emphasizes a problem with these analyses. The question

unanswered being if IQ is a direct casual factor or only lays a foundation for other factors to

intervene, such as the theories discussed in part 1 as well as three important factors Hirschi and

Hindelang mention: school achievement, academic performance, and attitude towards school

(Lab, 2016). As scholastic success shows to be an important element in the relationship of

juvenile delinquency, there are factors that are outside of the student’s control.

There are a variety of practices that operate against a student’s success such as tracking,

poor instruction, and methods of evaluation (Lab, 2016). The practice of tracking in this chapter

is particularly interesting as it assigns students to different groups based on perceived needs of

the student. On paper that sounds nice because it seems like it follows the best interest of the

student. However, this splits students into two sections formerly known as college prep and

vocational schools where the vocational track expected less from their students. Thus, the

students with lower expectations received lower efforts from staff and the students themselves

because they are not worth as much as college-bound students (Lab, 2016). This process along

with lowered expectations supports the idea of self-fulfilling prophecy imposed on students by

others. Another practice that calls attention is the emphasis on testing that leads to feelings of

failure. While it may reward the “A” student for hard work and indicate positive achievement,

testing often results in resentment on the part of students that don’t pass as well as their teachers.
The result of failing often leads to the separation from his/her peers causing embarrassment,

labeling them as failures, and usually cutting them from fun extracurricular activities (Lab, 2016)

such as sports and clubs that create social bonds.

To address those issues with tracking, a wide range of strategies have been implemented

such as flexible groupings that allow movement in and out of ability levels. Course material for

vocational school settings sometimes become outdated before the student can use them in the

workforce, so more relevant teaching material is being discussed and used (Lab, 2016). The

chapter also discusses ways to alter the school’s atmosphere, creating more cooperation between

faculty, students, and family to involve everyone in the schools goals. Furthermore, most have

followed suit in reducing severity of punishments in an academic setting, developing a

“normative” approach to discipline and control (Lab, 2016). I’d say my favorite program

mentioned is the implementation of conflict management/resolution classes. The goal taught in

the courses is to resolve conflicts before they escalate into more serious events such as physical

altercations (Lab, 2016). This is a skill that should be taught at home, but through different

cultures and upbringings, conflict resolution is taught in different ways (ways that don’t always

encourage peaceful resolution). The skill is pertinent in all facets of life, and also foster

communication skills required in the workforce.

Part III Victimization

Some of these school processes can result in some students seeking attention through alternative

means, some considered unacceptable behavior. These behaviors can be seen as accomplishing

three different things: behavior aimed at the source of the student’s problem (the school),

offender gains attention, and lastly acts as a declaration that the student will not just sit by while

everyone belittles him/her. According to the Incidence of Victimization at School and Away
from School report, figure 1, it seems that total victimization has been decreasing over the last

five years overall both at and away from school. I noticed that female victimization is higher

away from school. It is also interesting to see that the victimization rate is higher for those with a

lower socioeconomic status, with the total victimization rate for students living in households

earning between $25,000 and $49,999 per year (19 victimizations per 1,000 students) and for

students living in households earning $100,000 or more per year (8 victimizations per 1,000

students). However, away from school the rates were about the same.

Part IV Police in schools also known as School Resource Officers or SRO's

The use of police officers at schools has become increasingly popular as the occurrence

of drug use and trade, bullying, sexual assault, weapons violations, theft, violent crime, and

school shootings have become highly publicized. Aside from the usual patrol, arrests, and

traditional responsibilities, these officers often train other school faculty in programs like DARE,

conflict resolution, anti-hate classes, and anti-gang classes to name a few (Lab, 2016). However,

while these training classes and mentoring programs are great, a study by McDevitt and Finn

(2005) find that less than one-third of the school police officer population conduct these

beneficial programs. There are arguments on both sides, one that states that officers should stick

to strictly law enforcement as opposed to trying to balance mentorship and training while the

other argues that the use of police at schools criminalizes what should be traditional school

discipline. In the next three paragraphs I will discuss each of the three other sources provided in

this week’s modules.

 Teacher perception on school safety with SRO presence (abstract only) adds to research

that has been primarily conducted from the perception of students. The survey on teachers in a

Midwest state showed 63% of them reported SRO presence in their school which is close to the

70% or so stated as an average in chapter 14. Teacher associated SRO presence positively

compared to the mixed results from previous studies with students. The teachers stated that they

perceived their students to be more fearful of their presence. This could be due to the perception

that if police are needed somewhere, it must be a dangerous place, thus instilling fear in the

students. It is also important to take into account that adolescents are going to have different

perceptions than a 30-year old when it comes to the idea of police, whether it is in a school

setting or not. Perceptions can be influenced by area, demographic, prior encounters with the

police and how the interaction went (could be positive or negative), whether the student’s family

has been involved with law enforcement, etc.

The research summary for the work of (Gottfredson, et al., 2020) examined an increase in

school resource officers (SRO) in a sample of 33 schools and matched it with a sample of 72

schools that did not increase their SRO staffing. Their main finding was that the increase in

SROs increased the number of drug and weapon related crimes. The study suggests that

increasing SROs does not improve school safety. Similar to chapter 14 of the textbook, the

article identifies the responsibilities of response officers in their law enforcement field vs.

mentorship roles, and how the roles conflict with each other. Of the two roles, it seems that the

law enforcement role is used more often and results in criminalization of juvenile offenses

leading to suspensions and expulsions that result in lowered academic performance, higher

probabilities of delinquency, thus creating a school to prison pipeline (Gottfredson, et al., 2020).

Overall the response to offenses in school are generally harsher in the presence of RSOs. While
this article was very informative, it doesn’t address the opposite side of the argument which I

feel is very basic unless I glanced over it. The authors paint the increase in SROs negatively

because there were more recorded offenses but don’t touch on the possibility of those offenses

being there before SRO increases and just not caught. This is especially true with the records of

drug crimes and weapons violations as mentioned in the summary section. However, this article

argues well for the idea of labeling theories and how criminalization of juvenile offenses could

push further into a delinquent lifestyle.

The last article I read by Barnes is good complimentary work since it is from the

perspective of the resource officers themselves. This article discusses the responsibilities of the

resource officers in general but emphasizes how the school employing them has a large influence

in how the RSOs work and respond to different situations. Then there are different perspectives

within the school where they are stationed, and the expectations vary from multiple staff

members. Some expect RSOs to simply stand watch in a hall or they are seen as gophers,

different things that result in a show of reduction in their authority as law enforcement officers.

Other RSOs stated that some staff would misuse them to perform duties not pertinent to the

program. All too often it seems that officers are asked to assist in routine disciplinary issues,

which could contribute to the fear that some students have of the RSOs discussed in the previous

sections. This article supports the idea that RSOs are more than just enforcement, but mentors

and the idea of community policing should be practiced in this setting. Officers should build

relationships with the staff and children, and that alone should help foster a safer environment

and if the officer knows juveniles at a personal level then it will be easier to identify when

something looks funny.

 As for the campus police it is hard for me to have an opinion because I live off campus

and don’t have many interactions with them. The only reason I would be aware of them is there

efforts in disseminating information of crimes committed near and on campus via email. I see a

couple here and there but not actively responding to anything. I do wonder what the departments

priorities are for the campus. How much do they care about underage drinking vs. drugs, sexual

assault, theft, etc. I do believe presence is important if only for a deterrence and to respond to

acts of violence regardless of how rare the event could be.

References
Barnes, L. M. (2016). Keeping the peace and controlling Crime: What school resource officers
want. The Clearing House, 89(6), 197-201.
Gottfredson, D. C., Crosse, S., Tang, Z., Bauer, E. L., Harmon, M. A., Hagen, C. A., & Green,
A. D. (2020). Effects of school resource officers on school. Criminology & Public
Policy, 19, 905-940.
Lab, S. (2016). Crime prevention: Approaches, practices, and evaluations (9th ed.).