School Police Departments A report for the Tennessee General Assembly as provided under Public Chapter 302. Prepared by: Tennessee Department of Education, Office of School Safety and Learning Support.
Purpose and Scope of Study Public Chapter 302 provides that the department of education shall study the feasibility of allowing LEAs to establish school district police departments. In preparing this study the Department of Education reviewed current Tennessee law relative to commissioning and employing law enforcement officers. School police departments in states where such departments have been authorized were surveyed as were the security supervisors in each of the state s four largest school districts. Areas of legal concern were identified and the potential benefits and challenges associated with allowing school districts to establish their own police departments were explored. Finally, a brief update on the status of school resource officers in Tennessee schools has been included. Acknowledgements The Tennessee Department of Education would like to acknowledge the assistance and contributions of the following organizations in completing this report: The Center for the Prevention of School Violence Hamilton County Schools Indianapolis Public Schools Knox County Schools Memphis City Schools Metro Nashville Public Schools Palm Beach County Schools Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission (Tennessee) Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools Waco Texas Independent School District
Existing TCA Relative to the Authority to Commission and Employ Law Enforcement Officers The overwhelming body of state law relative to police officers is contained in Title 38, Section 8 of TCA relative to the employment and training of police officers. The Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) Commission is authorized to establish and enforce standards for the employment and training of police officers. In addition to county and municipal governments, TCA specifically authorizes varying levels of police authority for numerous governmental entities including the Office of Homeland Security (38-3-114), the Tennessee Valley Authority (38-3-120), as well as the Board of Regents and University of Tennessee (49-7-118). In 2007 the General Assembly established minimum expectations for school resource officers; however, TCA is silent relative to school districts and their authority to establish a police force or to directly appoint law enforcement officers. Authority of Local Government to Empower Police Agencies Local governmental entities may establish specialized polices force within their jurisdiction by amending their charter or by Private Act. Examples of specialized forces that have been established include airports, public housing authorities and parks. The same could be done for local education agencies. Areas of Potential Legal/Policy Concern In many school situations there are different standards that must be applied depending on whether the individual acting is considered a "school official" or a "law enforcement officer". If a LEA establishes its own police department it creates a legal grey area because the individual is in effect both a school official and a law enforcement officer. These situations include: 1) The standard for searching students in compliance with the 4th Amendment should be considered. Law enforcement officers must use the "probable cause" standard when searching individuals whereas school officials must follow a less restrictive standard called "reasonable suspicion. The question is raised: For law enforcement officials employed by the school district which standard applies? There is case law around the country indicating that SROs who are not school employees have broader flexibility to use the lower standard; however, this is still an area of legal risk that should be clarified. 2) Law enforcement officers generally are not subject to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) like school officials. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that if a school official files a juvenile court petition against a child receiving services under the IDEIA, this could be considered a change of placement for
purposes of IDEIA and should not be done before a manifestation determination meeting has been held (Morgan v. Chris L., 1997 WL 22714 (6th Cir.Tenn.). If a LEA has established its own police department, are the law enforcement officers also considered school officials for purposes of this issue? 3) Student records maintained by LEAs are subject to the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). This law specifies the process for disclosing personally identifiable student information without prior written consent from the parent. FERPA defines law enforcement records differently than education records. LEAs with an internal police department would have to determine which records were education records as defined by FERPA and keep them separate from law enforcement records. The LEA would also have to clarify if and how education records could be shared in compliance with FERPA. School Police Departments in Other States At least five states have passed legislation allowing school districts to establish school police departments with varying levels of authority and jurisdiction. Memphis City School s Department of Policy and Legislative Planning is in the process of conducting a feasibility study related to the establishment of a school police department. Attached as Appendix I is a review of those statutes as compiled by Memphis City Schools. Survey of Other States/Jurisdictions Department staff interviewed personnel representing Palm Beach County Schools (Florida), Waco Texas Independent School District, and Indianapolis (Indiana) Public Schools. During the course of these interviews several common themes emerged: 1) School police departments reported being better able to recruit and retain officers particularly suited for school law enforcement. 2) Qualifications, standards and salaries for school police officers were very similar, if not identical, to those for officers serving on the municipal force within which the school district is located. 3) Building an effective school police department takes time and a long-term commitment from school and community leadership. It is important to note that even in states that allow the creation of school police departments, districts continue to rely upon a variety of resources including traditional school resource officers, security guards as well as school police officers. Strong school police departments work closely with their municipal counterparts.
Survey of Urban School Districts Each of the state s four urban school district security supervisors or chiefs were surveyed as to their interest in establishing a school police department. Hamilton County reported no interest in doing so at this time. Knox County and Davidson County indicated that they were somewhat interested. Both indicated that their district would benefit from at least a limited number of officers with police powers. Particular areas of concern included the safety of their evening security personnel and the districts ability to respond to trespassing violations. Memphis City Schools ( MCS ) employs a small contingent of security personnel and contracts with Memphis Police Department ( MPD ) to provide Officers in Schools ( OIS ) at a significant cost. Due to the increased security needs of MCS, in November 2003, MCS Board of Commissioners instructed MCS personnel to study the feasibility of seeking an amendment to TCA 49-7-118 to allow MCS to form a school district police department, reducing and possibly eliminating the need for MPD in the schools. Subsequently, MCS, in its 2007 Legislative Agenda, requested the General Assembly to allow it to form a school district police department, resulting in the General Assembly s request for a feasibility study on the formation of school district police departments. In the interim, MCS has conducted a feasibility study to better understand the structure of a school district police department, develop a proposed MCS police department structure and assess its potential community and fiscal impact in order to make viable recommendations should the General Assembly decide to authorize the formation of school district police departments. Benefits Department personnel were unable to find any independent evaluations or data to document the effectiveness of a school versus a municipal police department. As noted earlier in this report, Department staff interviewed three of the larger and more experienced school police chiefs in the country, all of whom have established strong programs. Specific benefits cited by those interviewed included shorter incident response times, direct control over officer assignments and priorities, access to federal and state law enforcement funding sources and improved ability to link school and police policies and procedures. Challenges Law enforcement and education are two unique social institutions with frequently differing statutory and organizational frameworks. School districts do not possess the specialized training, supervision, communications, and data infrastructure associated with a modern police department. Specialized police resources such as SWAT and bomb teams are generally considered to be beyond the pale of even the largest school police departments.
All Tennessee law enforcement officers must meet minimum qualifications and successfully complete a ten-week basic training course approved by the POST Commission. Staff received estimates on the costs associated with this basic training that ranged from $ 6,000 to $ 25,000 per officer. While none of the issues identified above are insurmountable barriers, the costeffectiveness of their development would seem to preclude all but the largest school districts from being candidates for the establishment of such a force. Any district, regardless of size, would need the full support of existing police agencies and local government in order to succeed. School Resource Officers School resource officers (SROs) are defined in TCA as a law enforcement officer who is in compliance with all laws, rules and regulations of the Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission and who has been assigned to a school in accordance with a memorandum of understanding between the chief of the appropriate law enforcement agency and local education agency. The school resource officer program is widely recognized as a model for structuring strong partnerships between education and law enforcement. As of Fall 2007, 558 SROs were assigned to a Tennessee school. One hundred three of the state s 136 school districts partner with their sheriff or chief of police to host at least one officer. One hundred seventy-one of these officers are assigned to Memphis City, Metro-Nashville, Knox County and Hamilton County Schools. A summary of the 2007 School Resource Officer Survey is attached as Appendix II. At the direction of the Tennessee General Assembly, the Department of Education developed and released Recommended Standards for the Eligibility, Qualifications and Training of School Resource Officers: Guidelines for Successful Partnerships between School Districts and Law Enforcement Agencies in March, 2007. These recommended standards were developed in collaboration with the Tennessee Department of Safety, the Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police, the Tennessee Sheriffs Association and the Tennessee Association of School Resource Officers. A copy is attached as Appendix III. Recommendations The creation of a school police department raises a unique set of issues and concerns. Given the fact that local governments are already empowered to establish specialized police forces, it is recommended that the complex decisions and inter-relationships associated with the establishment of a school police department remain the responsibility of local communities.
Appendix I
Appendix I
Appendix I
Appendix I
Appendix I
Appendix I
2007 SRO Survey Appendix II Number of Middle Schools Number of Elementary Schools Adheres to TCA49-5-4217 Emplmt. Standards Number of Number of Number of Number of School System High Schools SROs SROs SROs Total SROs Alamo City Schools 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Alcoa City Schools 1 0.34 1 0.33 1 0.33 1 Yes Anderson County Schools 2 4 4 4 9 0 8 Yes Athens City Schools 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Bedford County Schools 3 4 2 2 7 0 6 Yes Bells City Schools 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Benton County Schools 2 1.05 1 0.20 3 0.75 2 Yes Bledsoe County Schools 1 1 1 1 3 0 2 Yes Blount County Schools 2 2 4 3 12 4 9 Yes Bradford SSD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Bradley County Schools 2 4 2 2 11 11 16 Yes Bristol City Schools 1 1 1 1 6 0 2 Yes Campbell County Schools 2 3 3 3 9 0 6 Yes Cannon County Schools 1 1 0 0 6 0 1 Yes Carroll County Schools 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carter County Schools 4 4 1 0 10 0 4 Yes Cheatham County Schools 4 0 3 0 6 0 0 Chester County Schools 1 1 1 0 4 0 1 Yes Claiborne County Schools 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 Yes Clarksville-Montgomery County Schools 7 7 7 7 19 0 14 Yes Clay County Schools 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 Cleveland City Schools 2 2 1 1 6 4 7 Yes Clinton City Schools 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Cocke County Schools 2 2 0 0 9 1 3 Yes Coffee County Schools 1 1 1 1 5 0 2 Yes Crockett County Schools 1 0 1 0 3 0 0 Cumberland County Schools 22 2 0 0 9 0 2 Yes Dayton City Schools 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 Yes Decatur County Schools 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 DeKalb County Schools 1 1 1 0 3 0 1 Yes Dickson County Schools 3 1 3 0 8 0 1 Yes Dyer County Schools 1 1 2 0 5 0 1 Yes Dyersburg City Schools 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 Yes Elizabethton City Schools 1 1 1 0 3 0 1 Yes Etowah City Schools 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Fayette County Schools 1 4 2 2 7 0 6 Yes Fayetteville City Schools 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 Fentress County 1 1 0 0 4 1 2 Yes Office of School Safety and Learning Support 1
2007 SRO Survey Appendix II Franklin County Schools 2 3 2 0 8 0 3 Yes Franklin SSD 0 0 2 0 5 0 1 Yes Gibson County SSD 1 1 1 0 6 0 1 Yes Giles County Schools 2 2 1 1 5 0 3 Yes Grainger County Schools 2 2 1 1 4 2 5 Yes Greene County Schools 4 0 1 0 11 0 0 Greeneville City Schools 1 1 1 0.25 4 0.25 1.50 Yes Grundy County Schools 1 1 0 0 6 1 2 Yes Hamblen County Schools 2 3 4 1 11 2 6 Yes Hamilton County Schools 17 10 21 4 48 0 14 Yes Hancock County Schools 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Yes Hardeman County Schools 2 0 1 0 6 0 0 Hardin County Schools 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Hawkins County Schools 2 2 3 0 12 0 2 Yes Haywood County Schools 2 1 1 1 4 0 2 Yes Henderson County Schools 2 3 0 0 7 0 3 Yes Henry County Schools 2 1 1 0 3 1 2 Yes Hickman County Schools 2 2 2 1 4 0 3 Yes Hollow Rock-Bruceton SSD 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Houston County Schools 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 Yes Humboldt City Schools 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 Humphreys County Schools 2 2 2 0 3 3 5 Yes Huntingdon SSD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Jackson County Schools 1 1 1 1 2 0 2 Yes Jackson-Madison County Schools 5 2 4 1 18 0 3 Yes Jefferson County Schools 1 1 4 4 5 0 5 Yes Johnson City Schools 1 3 1 1 8 0 4 Yes Johnson County Schools 1 1 1 0 5 0 1 Yes Kingsport City Schools 1 1 2 2 7 0 3 Yes Knox County Schools 12 13 14 14 50 25 52 Yes Lake County Schools 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 Yes Lauderdale County Schools 2 2 2 1 2 0 3 Yes Lawrence County Schools 3 3 1 0 8 0 3 Yes Lebanon SSD 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 Lenoir City Schools 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Lewis County Schools 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 Yes Lexington City Schools 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 Yes Lincoln County Schools 1 1 1 1 6 0 2 Yes Loudon County Schools 2 2 3 1.50 4 2.50 6 Yes Macon County Schools 2 2 1 1 5 0.50 3 Yes Manchester City Schools 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 Marion County Schools 3 0 2 0 4 0 0 Marshall County Schools 3 3 1 1 5 0 4 Yes Office of School Safety and Learning Support 2
2007 SRO Survey Appendix II Maryville City Schools 1 1 1 0 5 0 1 Yes Maury County Schools 7 7 3 3 10 10 20 Yes McKenzie SSD 1 0.34 1 0.33 1 0.33 1 Yes McMinn County Schools 2 3 0 0 7 3 6 Yes McNairy County Schools 2 0 1 0 5 0 0 Meigs County Schools 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 Yes Memphis City Schools 30 29 30 13 106 0 0 Yes Metro/Nashville Public Schools 16 27 36 36 73 0 63 Yes Milan SSD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Monroe County Schools 3 3 3 2 6 2 7 Yes Moore County Schools 1 0.90 0 0 1 0.10 1 Yes Morgan County Schools 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 Yes Murfreesboro City Schools 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 Newport City Schools 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Yes Oak Ridge City Schools 1 1 2 0 4 0 1 Yes Obion County Schools 2 2 0 0 5 0 2 Yes Oneida SSD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Overton County Schools 1 1 1 1 5 1 3 Yes Paris SSD 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 Perry County Schools 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 Pickett County Schools 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Polk County Schools 2 1 1 0 3 0 1 Yes Putnam County Schools 3 4 5 0 9 0 4 Yes Rhea County Schools 1 1 1 0.50 4 0.50 2 Yes Richard City SSD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Roane County Schools 5 5 5 0 8 0 5 Yes Robertson County Schools 5 7 3 3 10 0 10 Yes Rogersville City Schools 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Yes Rutherford County Schools 10 15 15 11 17 16 42 Yes Scott County Schools 1 1 1 0 5 0 1 Yes Sequatchie County Schools 1 0.75 1 0.75 1 0.50 2 Yes Sevier County Schools 4 4 4 4 13 13 21 Yes Shelby County Schools 8 13 13 12 28 1 26 Yes Smith County Schools 2 2 1 0 6 0 2 Yes South Carroll SSD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Stewart County Schools 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 Yes Sullivan County Schools 4 4 7 0 16 0 4 Yes Sumner County Schools 7 7 9 0 24 0 7 Yes Sweetwater City Schools 0 0 1 0.50 3 0.50 1 Yes Tipton County Schools 3 3 4 3 6 3 9 Yes Trenton SSD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Trousdale County Schools 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 Yes Tullahoma City Schools 1 1 2 0 4 0 1 Yes Office of School Safety and Learning Support 3
2007 SRO Survey Appendix II Unicoi County Schools 1 1 1 1 4 0 2 Yes Union City Schools 1 0.50 1 1.00 1 1 3 Yes Union County Schools 1 2 1 1 4 1 4 Yes Van Buren County Schools 1 0.34 1 0.33 1 0.33 1 Yes Warren County Schools 1 2 1 1 9 0 3 Yes Washington County Schools 2 2 2 2 8 0 4 Yes Wayne County Schools 4 0 3 0 3 0 0 Weakley County Schools 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 Yes West Carroll SSD 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 White County Schools 1 1 1 1 7 0 2 Yes Williamson County Schools 8 7 8 8 22 0 15 Yes Wilson County Schools 4 6 2 2 11 2 10 Yes Totals 330 294.89 327 183.35 969 120.42 558 0 Office of School Safety and Learning Support 4
Appendix III Tennessee Department of Education Division of Resources and Support Services Office of School Safety and Learning Support Recommended Standards for the Eligibility, Qualifications and Training of School Resource Officers: Guidelines for Successful Partnerships between Schools Districts and Law Enforcement Agencies March 15, 2007
Appendix III Background T.C.A. 49-6-42 provides that the Commissioner of Education working with the Commissioner of Safety recommend employment standards for the eligibility, qualifications and training requirements for school resource officers. Attached you will find employment standards for school resource officers. You will also find guidelines for effective partnerships between local education and law enforcement agencies. Both agencies have a long history of partnering together for the safety of students. Strong relationships strengthened the ability of both agencies to prepare for and respond to criminal and/or threatening incidents that occur in school settings. Well developed school resource officer programs provide the crucial link between school districts and law enforcement agencies in their continued efforts to establish and maintain safe and secure learning environments. Defining School Resource Officers In the process of developing employment standards, it was noted that there were varying definitions for school resource officers across the state. For purposes of this document, school resource officers are defined as uniformed, duly sworn, post-certified officers who are regularly assigned to a school setting. SROs are employed by local law enforcement agencies and act as liaisons between the police, the school and the community. Acknowledgements Numerous agencies, resources, field experts and practitioners were consulted and/or participated in developing the following recommendations. Acknowledgements are appropriate for the following agencies that provided leadership in this project: The Center for the Prevention of School Violence Governor s Office of Homeland Security Haywood County Sheriff s Department Kentucky Center for School Safety Maury County Schools Maury County Sheriff s Department Montgomery County Sheriff s Department National Association of School Resource Officers North Carolina Justice Academy Office of the Attorney General of Florida Rutherford County Sheriff s Department Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police Tennessee Association of School Resource Officers Tennessee Department of Education Tennessee Department of Safety Tennessee Highway Patrol (Dare Unit) Tennessee School Boards Association Tennessee Sheriff s Association United States Department of Justice (COPS) University of Tennessee County Technical Assistance Service Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services
Appendix III Goal 1: Establish Roles and Responsibilities that Support the Mutual Goals and Objectives of the School Resource Officer Program Recommendation #1 The Director of Schools and the Sheriff and/or Chief of Police should work together to define the goals of the program, the role of the school resource officer and the general framework under which the program will operate. Rationale: It is important that all parties have a clear understanding of the program goals. SRO programs vary in the extent to which officers are engaged in educational or mentoring activities. For example, many school resource officer programs use the triad plus one model to define the role of the SRO to include that of a teacher and counselor as well as law enforcement officer. As a rule, school officials are responsible for all disciplinary matters, while the school resource officer will be responsible for responding to all criminal acts committed at the school. Determining what role each agent plays will prevent confusion and support the development of strong partnerships. Recommendation #2 Although school resource officers are employed, supervised and assigned by local law enforcement agencies, school administrators should be involved in the selection process. School personnel should have input in the decision to assign and retain a school resource officer. Rationale: Since a close working relationship is vital to the success of the school resource officer program, it is important that school administrators have confidence in the person selected for the position. Although school resource officers are hired by the local police department, the school district should have input in assigning SROs to a school building. School resource officers must also understand and respect the role that the principal plays as the building supervisor and physical plant manager. Recommendation #3 A written contract or Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should be developed to ensure that both the law enforcement agency and the school district understand the duties and responsibilities of each. Rationale: Successful partnerships require that all parties are involved in the planning process and have a clearly-defined role. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or other written agreement helps clarify expectations and avoid operational problems. (Examples of Memorandums of Understanding can be found under additional web resources)
Appendix III Recommendation #4 Any funding for SROs provided to a law enforcement agency by the local board of education should be accomplished via an inter-local agreement. Rationale: Under the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated (5-1-113), The county legislative body of any county and the chief legislative body of any one (1) or more municipalities lying within the boundaries of the county are authorized and empowered to enter into any such agreements, compacts or contractual relations as may be desirable or necessary for the purpose of permitting the county and the municipality or municipalities to conduct, operate or maintain, either jointly or otherwise, desirable and necessary services or functions. The Department s Office of Internal Audit recommends that if funds are going to be transferred between agencies that the following items be considered when creating an inter-local agreement: A description of each type of service to be provided A description of the location(s) the service will be provided A description of the unit to be used to measure or quantify each type of service for billing purposes The amount that will be billed per unit of service The supporting documentation, such as time sheets and other records, that should be prepared, submitted, and filed to support the costs of the program A description of the billing cycle The time period for which funding will be provided The maximum dollar amount that will be paid for the time period of the inter-local agreement If applicable, a description of how ancillary costs, such as travel, supplies, etc., are to be documented and billed
Appendix III Goal 2: Select Qualified Candidates Recommendation #1 School resource officers must be post-certified, sworn officers of a law enforcement agency within the jurisdiction that includes the school community being served. Rationale: A school resource officer is first and foremost a law enforcement officer serving a jurisdiction that includes the school community. His or her specific beat is the school. Recommendation #2 School resource officers should have at least 2 years experience as a police officer or the equivalent. Rationale: Working in a non-traditional setting presents unique challenges. School resource officers need to have the expertise and experience of traditional police work to draw upon in performing their duties in a school setting. A seasoned officer is more likely to have developed the attributes needed to work in a school environment. Recommendation #3 Not only should school resource officers be selected based on specific qualifications, but also a genuine desire to work with youth. Rationale: Due to the nature of the position, school resource officers spend the majority of their time interacting with youth. Officers that have a sincere desire to work with students are promising candidates for the position. The ability of a school resource officer to connect with students and provide positive and enriching relationships is a very important trait and will have a positive effect on the school s overall climate.
Appendix III Goal 3: Coordinate Ongoing Partnerships and Trainings for School Resource Officers and School Officials Recommendation #1 School resource officers should receive 40 hours of specialized training provided by the Department of Justice, the National Association of School Resource Officers, or other appropriate and recognized entities. Rationale: The role of a school resource officer is significantly different than that of a traditional patrol officer. The position requires skills and knowledge that may not be addressed in traditional law enforcement training. Therefore, it is important for school resource officers to receive specialized training that will prepare them to work in a school setting. Recommendation #2 After the initial training, school resource officers should attend 16 hours per year of training specific to their school resource officer duties. Rationale: To ensure that school resource officers remain up-to-date with school related issues, trends, and best practices, it is important that ongoing training take place. This will provide the officer with the knowledge and ongoing professional development necessary to effectively do his or her job. Recommendation #3 School resource officers and school personnel should collaborate in planning and training for emergencies and school safety. Furthermore, both should take an active role in training school personnel regarding emergency management issues. Rationale: School resource officers should work closely with school officials in the development and implementation of school safety plans. These plans should include and engage other first responders in the community. Recommendation #4 Within the bounds of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the school district and the law enforcement agency should participate in an open exchange of information and resources to better serve the community and students. Rationale: To best serve both the school district and the law enforcement agency, it is important that lasting, long-term collaborations take place. In addition to the previously cited MOU, it may be necessary to formalize information-sharing procedures in order to address student confidentiality concerns.
Appendix III Additional Web Resources National Association of School Resource Officers www.nasro.org Office of Community Oriented Policing Services www.cops.usdoj.gov Tennessee School Resource Officers Association, Inc. www.tnsro.com Kentucky Center for School Safety www.kycss.org/law/sro/ The Center for Prevention of School Violence www.ncdjjdp.org/cpsv/sro.htm (Sample MOU) North Carolina Justice Academy www.jus.state.nc.us/ncja/w-hs-srocert.htm Comparison of Program Activities and Lessons Learned among 19 School Resource Officer (SRO) Programs www.ncdjjdp.org/cpsv/acrobatfiles/sro_natl_survey.pdf The Virginia School Resource Officer Guide www.dcjs.virginia.gov/forms/cple/sroguide.pdf (Sample MOU) Office of the Attorney General of Florida www.myfloridalegal.com/pages.nsf/4492d797dc0bd92f85256cb80055fb97/25249 121322a8d7a85256cca00575d2b!OpenDocument Tennessee School Safety Center http://www.tennessee.gov/education/learningsupport/index.html Rutherford County Sheriff s Department http://www.rutherfordcounty.org/so/sro.htm Maury County Sheriff s Department www.maurycounty-tn.gov/sheriff/sro.htm