When Did Making Adults Mad Become a Crime?

1. When Did Making Adults Mad Become a Crime? Dismantling a zero tolerance system using the school-justice partnership model

2. Graduation rates fall to 58% & Crime rate at all-time high Referrals SRO Unit Created THE EFFECTS OF INCIDENT DRIVEN SCHOOL POLICING Clayton County, GA ST

3. Why Reduce School-Based Referrals to the Court & What Research Supports the Reduction? List in this Message Matrix box the positive outcomes associated with reducing school-based referrals to the juvenile court and replacing them with restorative practices

4. WHY REDUCE SCHOOL-BASED REFERRALS TO THE COURT?(List the positive outcomes associated with reducing school-based court referrals & replacing with a graduated response program) COMMON AGENDA: WHAT IS THE SHARED VISION FOR CHANGE? (The group will develop a statement that describes the problem, goals, and the collective vision for solving it. Example: Keeping Kids in School, Out of Court, and on to a positive healthy future) WHO ARE THE PARTNERS/STAKEHOLDERS? (List the public and private organizations who can contribute to achieving the common goal and common agenda) GOAL: REDUCE SCHOOL-BASED REFERRALS TO COURT BY DEVELOPING A GRADUATED RESPONSE PROGRAM WHAT SUPPORTS THE WHY?(List the research, studies, and other evidence that shows that a School-Justice Partnership to reduce school referrals to court is positive for students, schools, and the community) HOW WILL THE PARTNERS ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL? (List the strategies and techniques used by others to achieve the common agenda) WHAT IS YOUR NAME? (The group will create a name for the collaborative if one has not been created. Example: School-Justice Partnership)

5. Why One: Avoid Hyper-Recidivism or Making Kids Worse

6. The Kids that Scare Us vs Those that Make Us Mad

7. Uniform Notice Data * Protocol did not allow for 4th filing of Uniform Notice

8. Reduce Racial & Ethnic Disparities • Black youth are suspended nearly four times more often than white youth, and Latino youth are twice as likely to be suspended (Losen & Martinez, 2013); • Nearly a third (31%) of black youth in middle school alone were suspended at least once during the 2009-10 school year (Payne & Welch, 2010); • Black youth are more likely to be disciplined and receive harsh discipline when the punishments were discretionary (Texas study)

9. School-Justice Partnership Begins

10. Sixth Big Why: We Don’t Want to Hurt Kids With Disabilities • High school students with disabilities are nearly three times more likely to receive OSS compared to those without disabilities; • In Texas where 60% of students were suspended at least once, the rate among students with disabilities reached nearly 75%; • Rates were highest among students with LD and EBD

11. Why Two: To Increase Graduation Rates • A student arrested on campus is twice as likely to drop out, and • A student who appears in court is four times as likely to drop out Sweeten, Gary, Who Will Graduate? Disruption of High School Education by Arrest and Court Involvement. 24.4, Justice Quarterly, 462-480 (December 2006).

13. Adolescent Brain Research • Frontal lobe of brain filters emotion into logical responses is not developed until age 25. • Kids are neurologically wired to do stupid things! • Kids are still under neurological construction. • Kids are being hard-wired and need positive influences such as school, but • Not in the best training schools for delinquency—Detention Centers!

14. What Two: Complex Trauma Research • Complex Trauma children are: • More likely to fail a grade in school • More likely to drop out of school • More likely to have struggles in receptive & expressive language • More likely to have suicide ideation • More likely to be suspended or expelled • More likely to be arrested

15. Traumatized people, traumatize people!

16. Orange County

17. What Four: The Epidemiology Model Epidemiology To provide a basis for developing surveillance measures and prevention procedures for groups and at-risk populations, and to identify causation and then strategies that impact both groups and populations, thereby also allowing individual treatments to be effective. This represents a shift from targeted reactions to population-based prevention and intervention.

18. Look at the Data from EpidemiologicalBasics Diseases do not occur by chance: there are always determinants for the disease to occur. Diseases are not distributed at random: distribution is related to risks factors that need to be studied for the population in order to identify solutions. Disruptive behaviors do not occur by chance: there are always determinants for the disruptive behavior to occur. Disruptive behaviors are not distributed at random: distribution is related to risks factors that need to be studied and for the population in order to identify solutions.

19. How Will Partners Accomplish the Goal? List the strategies and tools used to achieve the common goal.

20. What is the School-Justice Partnership Model?: In a Nutshell • Developed in 2003 in Clayton County, GA; • MOU between schools, law enforcement, and courts; • To create a School-Justice Partnership; • Using a Focus Act Decision Tree; • By replacing arrests with a Graduated Response Program; • That is guided by a Role Conflict Avoidance Model; • Using the Positive Student Engagement Model for School Policing; and • Create an independent backbone agency to deliver services to chronically disruptive students

21. Focus Act Algorithm Rules • Run all offenses regardless of their nature through the algorithm because some offenses may involve mitigating circumstances that could result in breaking down the offense into subcategories (e.g. Did an injury occur?); • Do not make a decision based on the existence of resources or responses. Any offenses that become a Focus Act through this algorithmic process doesn’t necessitate immediate application, but may be added later to MOU when the resource becomes available; • Greater weight during the algorithmic process should be given to those stakeholders who are primarily responsible for decisionmaking (e.g. intake decision for diversion at initial filing, judicial discretion at hearing, etc.)

22. FOCUS ACT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Whatoffenseshave occurred onyour campuses? DECISION TREE FOCUS ACT Will theoffensebe diverted froma formal petition? YES NO YES Once in court, is it more probable thannotthe judge will divertor informally adjust the case? Are there mitigating circumstances that can be separated from aggravating circumstances? YES NO NO REFERRAL TO COURT

23. Total School Arrests Pre & Post School-Justice Collaborative Agreement SRO’s removed from middle schools due to budget cuts SRO Program Begins

24. Role Conflict Avoidance Decision-Tree Is it a Focus Act? Delinquent Is the conduct delinquent or a school infraction? School Resource Officer Involved? YES NO Infraction Can it be resolved using problem-oriented approach? No Law Enforcement Involvement Response applied by School Resource Officer as set forth in Graduated Response Matrix This decision-tree is designed to aid school-justice partnerships with developing written guidelines that clearly distinguish the role of school police and school administrators to avoid role conflict that results in the unintended criminalizing of school rules. This process also aids in developing least restrictive responses when the infraction is delinquent in nature. As suggested in this process, SRO’s should be given discretion at every decision point to resolve delinquent acts using a problem-solving model if possible. School Code Responses applied by Administrator Referral to Juvenile Court

25. Promising Intervention Strategies: Law Enforcement Captain Marc Richards Clayton County Police Department

26. Intervention Strategy One Positive student engagement Model: The Foundation of all other strategies

27. “Schools are a microcosm of the community. What happens over the weekend is brought to school on Monday, but students don’t talk to the adults they don’t trust.” Captain Marc Richards Former Supervisor, SRO Unit Clayton County Police Department

28. School-Justice Partnership Forced a Change in SRO Culture on Campus • The bulk of our time spent before the SJP went operational was responding to breaking school rules and minor offenses resulting in arrests. Since the start of the SRO program in 1995, the school arrests increases over 1,200% of which 92% were minor offenses. • By using an incident driven approach, or cleared by arrest, it precluded SRO’s from engaging students in positive ways, and this alienated the student population. They developed an unhealthy fear of law enforcement, and this short-shrifted any positive student engagement. • When the SJP went operational, SRO’s were prohibited from responding to a school rule infraction and arresting on minor delinquent acts. The arrests dropped by 54% within 6 months. This left SRO’s questioning their role on campus because they were no longer spending their days arresting students. • The SRO Unit made a collective decision to engage students with positive contact, which began an open dialogue with students that increased SRO intelligence about the student body that transformed how SRO’s viewed students ( i.e. background, needs, issues, and concerns that explained most behaviors) • As the trust increased, students began to share intel about off-campus crimes that led to arrests, and on-campus incidents and threats.

29. Positive Student Engagement Increases Police Intel on Crime in the Community

30. FOSTERING POSITIVE STUDENT RELATIONSHIPS REDUCES DELINQUENCY When students believe that adults and peers in their school care about their learning as well as about them as individuals, research shows that a student’s feelings of “connectiveness” serves as important protective buffer that reduces many risk behaviors, including early sexual initiation, alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use, and violence and gang involvement. ST

31. Positive Student Engagement Model for School Policing: New Culture Different Approach The process of enabling the participation of students to improve school safety and climate using positive behavioral techniques, practices, and interventions that yields a willingness, capacity, and opportunity to safely participate in the prevention and solving of discipline and safety concerns

32. Examples Scenario: SRO is standing in hallway greeting students as they get off the bus. Officer Jones observes Johnny wearing his hat, which is a violation of the Code of Conduct. Officer Jones: Hey Johnny, you forgot to take your hat off when you came in. I think Principal Smith is around the corner. • Scenario: Officer Jones is called to Ms. Smith’s classroom because Johnny is shouting and using vulgarities and disrupting the classroom, which is a delinquent offense. Officer Jones enters the classroom and Johnny is still shouting and will not calm down. • Officer Jones: Hey Johnny, you’re angry about something. Lets go outside and talk about it. • (Johnny exits classroom with Officer Jones) • Officer Jones: Johnny, I can see class isn’t working for you today. Did something happen that made you angry? • Johnny: Yes, Ms. Smith called on me and I didn’t know the answer and the others laughed. Another student behind me said I was retarded. I am not that good at math. • Officer Jones: Lets take a time out from this class today and go see Ms. Lee. Share your feelings with her. She can speak to Ms. Smith about why you got angry, and how to help you more with your math. I will talk to Ms. Smith too.

33. Intervention Strategy Two Create a Graduated Response System

34. Basic Three Tier Graduated Response System

35. Graduated Response Decision Tree SECOND ACT FIRST ACT THIRD ACT NO YES Does the type of act require restitution, drug assessment, TX, or other response? Is a Graduated Response necessary? Is a referral to court necessary? NO NO YES YES Match response to act using Response Matrix WRITTEN WARNING COMPLAINT Best practice requires that a response process engage the decision-maker at every decision point to ask what response can be narrowly tailored (least restrictive) to achieve the desired outcome (modify behavior)

36. Uniform Notice of Offense SRO’s after periodic reviews requested a “Level” box to reflect the use of their discretion to issue another warning or referral in lieu of the next step. Used for all misdemeanors (beginning in 2014) not involving serious bodily injury Some exceptions exists (e.g., youth on probation, aggravating emergent circumstances, etc.) Four levels of use Serves as referral to various diversion programs SRO’s also requested the discretion to make a variety of referral, or take other action

37. Program Referral Outcomes: 7-15% Recidivist Rate * Protocol did not allow for 4th filing of Uniform Notice

38. Intervention Strategy Three Create Alternatives to Arrest with Emphasis on Teaching and Restorative Justice

39. Focus Act Response Matrix ACTS List Focus Acts: Person Inappropriate Touching Weapon Property Public Order Drugs Other TYPE RESPONSES

40. Types of Restorative Programs • Peer Court • Restorative Board

41. Principles of Effective School Policing

42. Principles of Effective School Policing

43. The Story of Jane An Example of Positive Student Engagement in School Policing

44. Data Collection • Who collects it? • How is it collected? • How is it used? • How is it reported? • Periodic quality control meetings • Who attends? • How often? • What are the Performance measures? • What are the outcome measures? • What is the process for modifications? Who & How on implementation & oversight Quality Control INTER-AGENCY AGREEMENT/MOU

45. Bridging the School System and What Works in the Community Orange County

46. Henry County Board of Education v. S.G. A16A0201, May 31, 2016 The Local Board, through its actions and arguments, has demonstrated a policy of expelling students for fighting on school grounds regardless of whether the student was acting in self-defense. The Local Board’s rejection of S. G.’s justification defense is consistent with that zero-tolerance policy, is inconsistent with the requirements of OCGA § 16-3-21(c), is not supported by the record, and, therefore, amounted to an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court’s reversal of the Local Board’s ruling.

47. HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. S.G. ____ GA _____ S16G1700 (Decided August 28, 2017) • In this case, however, the record does not reflect that the Local Board properly considered the evidence that S.G. acted in self-defense or that it properly applied the law regarding self-defense. As the Court of Appeals also noted, the facts recited by the hearing officer could support a finding that S.G. acted in self-defense. But because the findings indicate S.G. was found guilty “for being involved in a fight,” and because self-defense is not addressed in the findings, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the record does not reflect whether the Local Board properly considered the self-defense evidence or, even if it did, whether it properly applied the law regarding self-defense. See Henry County, etc. v. S.G., id., at 266 (2) (b).

48. HENRY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. S.G. (Cont.) • Simply because a student engages in a fight does not establish the student has violated a disciplinary rule prohibiting the “physical abuse” of others, nor does it establish the student has engaged in conduct that constitutes a misdemeanor under Georgia law. The record establishes only that a school resource officer charged S.G. with an unspecified misdemeanor. • As the Court of Appeals noted, Georgia’s self-defense law does not require a person to retreat when the person reasonably believes she is at risk of harm from another’s imminent use of unlawful force. See OCGA § 16-3-23.1. In other words, the law “[does] not require S.G. to be hit first before defending herself; nor was S.G. required to have lost the fight in order to claim self-defense. That an individual prevails in standing [her] ground against an aggressor does not make her actions unlawful.” Henry County, etc. v. S.G., supra, 337 Ga. App. at 266 (2) (b).