--- title: "AdoptaSchool" type: "pdf" year: "2002" canonical: "/projects/564" --- # NOMINATION FOR THE 2002 HERMAN GOLDSTEIN AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING ![img-0.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/02-17/img-0.jpeg) **SUBMITTED BY: ILLINOIS STATE POLICE** # Table of Contents - [NOMINATION FOR THE 2002 HERMAN GOLDSTEIN AWARD FOR EXCELLENCE IN PROBLEM-ORIENTED POLICING](#nomination-for-the-2002-herman-goldstein-award-for-excellence-in-problem-oriented-policing) - [Summary](#summary) - [II. Description](#ii-description) - [A. Scanning](#a-scanning) - [B. Analysis](#b-analysis) - [1. County Demographics](#1-county-demographics) - [2. Mental Health Survey Concerns School Officials](#2-mental-health-survey-concerns-school-officials) - [3. Past Practices](#3-past-practices) - [4. Problem Definition](#4-problem-definition) - [C. Response](#c-response) - [1. Identification of Resources](#1-identification-of-resources) - [2. Formation of Partnership Between Police and Schools](#2-formation-of-partnership-between-police-and-schools) - [3. Funding](#3-funding) - [4. Getting Started (2000-2001)](#4-getting-started-2000-2001) - [5. Program Expansion (2001-2002)](#5-program-expansion-2001-2002) - [D. Assessment](#d-assessment) - [1. Student Perceptions](#1-student-perceptions) - [2. School Incidents](#2-school-incidents) - [3. Local Community Endorsement](#3-local-community-endorsement) - [4. Conclusions](#4-conclusions) - [III. Reference List](#iii-reference-list) - [Academic Sources and Studies](#academic-sources-and-studies) - [Other Sources and Printed Material](#other-sources-and-printed-material) - [IV. Agency and Officer Information](#iv-agency-and-officer-information) - [1 .At what level of the police organization was this problem-solving initiative adopted (e.g., the entire department, a few select officers, etc.)?](#1-at-what-level-of-the-police-organization-was-this-problem-solving-initiative-adopted-eg-the-entire-department-a-few-select-officers-etc) - [3. Were additional incentives given to police officers who engaged in problem solving?](#3-were-additional-incentives-given-to-police-officers-who-engaged-in-problem-solving) - [Assessment Tool for Predicting Violent Juvenile Behavior from the National School Safety Center](#assessment-tool-for-predicting-violent-juvenile-behavior-from-the-national-school-safety-center) - [Graduated Enforcement](#graduated-enforcement) - [Illinois State Police Adopt-A-School Student Survey Summary May 2000 - May 2001](#illinois-state-police-adopt-a-school-student-survey-summary-may-2000-may-2001) # Table of Contents I. Summary ..... 1 II. Description ..... 2 A. Scanning ..... 2 B. Analysis ..... 2 1. County Demographics ..... 2 2. Mental Health Survey Concerns School Officials. ..... 3 3. Past Practices ..... 4 4. Problem Definition. ..... 5 Perceived Lack of Sanctions by Criminal Justice System Widespread Availability of A lcohol and Drugs Limited Community and Parental Involvement Low Self-Esteem and Depression C. Response ..... 7 5. Identification of Resources ..... 7 6. Formation of Partnership Between Police and Schools ..... 7 7. Funding ..... 8 8. Getting Started (2000-2001) ..... 8 Graduated Enforcem ent School A uthorization Definition ofSRO Responsibilities 9. Program Expansion (2001-2002) ..... 11 D. Assessment ..... 12 10. Student Perceptions ..... 12 Sense of Safety Police and School Efforts 11. School Incidents ..... 13 12. Local Community Endorsement ..... 14 13. Conclusions ..... 14 III. Reference List ..... 16 IV. Agency and Officer Information ..... 17 Attachments ..... 19 Assessment Tool for Predicting Violent Juvenile Behavior Graduated Enforcement 2002 Illinois State Police, Youth in Crisis Field Guide Illinois State Police, Adopt -A-School, Student Survey Summary # Summary Adopt -A-School 1. Scanning. Illinois State Police (ISP) District 12 saw the need for more adultlyouth and police/youth interaction in two, small, downstate communities and formed a local partnership to address growing juvenile misconduct and criminal behavior. Salem, in Marion County, and Vandalia, in Fayette County, Illinois, welcomed additional efforts to reduce serious misconduct occurring in their high schools $\sim$ especially truancy and aggressive behavior. 2. Analysis. According to a survey of $8^{\prime}$ and $12^{\text {th }}$ graders in Marion County, more than half of the students who use drugs or alcohol started prior to the $9^{\prime}$ grade. Students were exposed to bullying, drug and alcohol use, weapons, and sexual advances, but felt the school and police had exerted few sanctions against such behavior. Many of their parents were not involved with the schools at all. Misconduct occurred both on and off campus. The communities did not have a standard protocol for enforcement or referral of troubled or problem juveniles. 3. Response. A dopt-A -School was the result of a multi-year planning effort by ISP, two local high schools, the court probation units, local police agencies, and mental health groups. With a 2000-2001 grant from the Illinois Violence Prevention Authority, off-duty ISP officers were hired by the schools as School Resource Officers (SROs) to interact with students, design and implement a graduated enforcement protocol, provide classroom teaching, and participate in counseling sessions for students and parents. They provided more than 500 hours of support during the first year, reported 5,900 contacts with students, and participated in 200 counseling sessions with parents, students, and school staff 4. Assessment After one year, school administrators in Salem reported an 86 percent reduction in serious misconduct cases, an 85 percent reduction in truancy, and a 90 percent reduction in local police calls to the participating schools. Students at both schools reported less gang-related activity and fewer students saw fights at school or on buses. Vandalia students were well aware of the police/school efforts to address juvenile violence, and felt safer at school after A dopt-A -School was implemented. On the other hand, many students at Salem High School felt unsafe at school and perceived the enforcement of rules to be unfair. This perception is being addressed during the 2001-2002 school year. Schools, parents, and police are very enthusiastic about this program. Three local police departments now have seven SROs working in the schools. # II. Description ## A. Scanning In 1999, ISP Sergeant Michael Mobley, District 12, noted that police rarely interacted with youth in Fayette and Marion Counties unless the youths had committed crimes or traffic offenses. Many unhealthy activities such as alcohol and marijuana use, gang interaction, bullying, aggression, truancy, and minor vandalism were not handled or tracked by police - although these other activities were often precursors to more serious offenses. For example, Salem Community High School in Marion County was plagued by approximately 200 truancies per year; but police were not informed, and parents were not consulted about appropriate interventions. When truant students were later implicated in thefts, burglaries, and serious vandalism, local law enforcement agencies responded, but little preventive or follow-up action was taken. School administrators and ISP recognized the need to establish a uniform process for identifying, targeting, and addressing these precursor activities. As a result, they hoped to provide a safer school environment and prevent further, more serious juvenile offences. Communities wanted to increase police presence. ## B. Analysis ## 1. County Demographics District 12 covers a ten-county area in south-central Illinois. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the combined population ofFayette and Marion Counties is 63,000 residents including more than 4,500 juveniles between the ages of 15 and 19. In 2000, there were 2,140 index crimes but only 102 full-time police officers in these two counties. According to Crime in Illinois 2000, the crime rate for Fayette and Marion Counties respectively was 2,079.7 and 4,228.4 per 100,000 residents. Table I : Overview of Target Area, 1999-2000 ![img-1.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/02-17/img-1.jpeg) Two like-sized communities, Vandalia and Salem, would become the pilot sites for this project. In 2000, Vandalia reported 40 burglaries, 163 thefts, and 8 vehicle thefts. Salem reported 41 burglaries, 352 thefts, and 8 vehicle thefts. Both communities were experiencing problems with j uveniles off- campus. Table 2: Enrollment and Truancy ![img-2.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/02-17/img-2.jpeg) # 2. Mental Health Survey Concerns School Officials Illinois State Police District 12 worked with the Marion County Health Department to form the Marion County Health Action Committee (MCHAC). In I 995, the MCHAC, in conjunction with the Southern Illinois University, Research and Development Department and Health and Safety Department, administered a 159 -item "adolescent survey" to 1,082 students in $8^{\text {" }}$ and $12^{\text {th }}$ grades in the 17 school systems in Marion County. This survey showed that students were exposed to and used alcohol and drugs at a young age, and 12 percent had nobody to talk to about drugs. School officials in two communities were especially concerned. Both Salem and Vandalia welcomed any additional assistance to address growing violence, substance abuse, and truancy in their schools. Specific behaviors were identified as especially troublesome including: disorderly conduct; bullying; drug use; and, vandalism, which occurred on campus or en route to and from school. Both schools expressed interest in forming a School Resource Officer (SRO) Program, but local police departments could not word to dedicate a full-time officer to the schools, nor was school funding earmarked for such a program. # 3. Past Practices In 1999, as part of the "District 12 Safe School Guide," a 20-item checklist for predicting violent juvenile behavior was disseminated and discussed with all schools (see Attachment 1). Also in 1999, the Marion Board of Education implemented a closed campus policy, restricting access to the school and prohibiting students from leaving campus without parental supervision. The primary form of discipline for problem students in both schools was "crisis classes" (akin to in-school detentions). When first-time offenders were assigned to these classes, recidivism was low. Of 124 juveniles in contact with the ISP Juvenile Officer who attended such classes in 1997-1998, none were citedfor repeat offenses. Citing this success, school administrators increased referrals. The following year, 471 students from Salem and 450 students from Vandalia schools attended crisis classes. # 4. Problem Definition The adolescent survey was repeated for several years and continued to reflect high student drug use, student vandalism, thefts, and depression. Further, the survey suggested to MCHAC that students did not feel adults cared one way or the other about their behavior, and that students were often unsupervised and, subsequently, were vulnerable to negative peer influences. Also, both schools expressed concern about high truancy rates, which were at 4.4 and 6.2 percent for Salem and Vandalia Community High Schools, respectively (2000). Working with school and mental health officials, Sergeant Mobley identified the following four factors related to criminal behavior by the area's youth: Perceived Lack ofSanctions by Criminal Justice System. The MCHAC survey indicated there were problems with the effectiveness of the local criminal justice agencies. Only one-fifth of the students said illegality was a deterrent to substance use. Further, courts, police, and probation departments influenced only one percent of former users to quit. In many small, rural communities in District 12, when a juvenile committed a criminal offense, a police officer would "pick up" the offending minor, write a "cove?" citation, refer the youthto the court system, and move on. While local officers were available to respond to incidents, little preventive contact with students was made. The judicial process was slow. Most counties had a tremendous backlog of cases with long delays before initial hearings. In fact, the initial hearing might be postponed five months or more after the incident. In 1999, there were 1,800 pending cases in Marion County ranging from curfew violations to murder. Juvenile cases were not a priority. Since police efforts focused on responding to calls and punishments were delayed, youth felt little judicial impact on their behaviors. WidespreadAvailability of.Alcohol andDrugs. Three-fourths of students surveyed reported illegal substances (ranging from alcohol to controlled prescription drugs) were "easy or fairly easy" to obtain, and more than half said they used these substances. Further, 27 percent said they started using alcohol prior to the $7^{\text {th }}$ grade. Despite the high level of substance abuse, the schools and local police did not directly and consistently try to curb students' exposure to older students selling drugs or offering alcohol. Table 2: Marion County Students' Access to illegal Substances, 1996-1997 ![img-3.jpeg](https://popdatasets.blob.core.windows.net/popdatasetmdimgs/02-17/img-3.jpeg) Limited Community and Parental Involvement. Twenty-four percent of students went home to an empty house, and thirty-four percent of them indicated their parents were not at all involved with the school. On the other hand, when adults, including parents and church members, were available to students, the teens appeared less likely to be involved with gangs and to commit violent acts. Church and family were the two leading reasons students said they stopped using drugs or drinking. Still, there was no community-wide method to identify at-risk youth, to establish ongoing intervention programs, to involve parents, or to refer youth for mental health counseling. Low Self Esteem and Depression. Despite their young age, almost one-third of the students "never felt optimistic." The MCHAC concluded the prevalent use of alcohol and drugs, coupled with the low level of community interest in their activities, were directly related to depression among Marion County youths. # C. Response ## 1. Identification of Resources There was an evident need for added, day-to-day police presence and a community-wide focus on youth. The ISP proposed to formalize a network of local police, schools, parents, and churches as a safety net for vulnerable students. This network would: + establish a method for identifying youth at risk for violent behavior; + develop and implement programs to overcome those risks, including appropriate parental and police notification, remediation, sanctions, and counseling; and, - secure funding for programs. Based on the interest already expressed by school and mental health professionals in Salem and Vandalia, the logical starting place was in those communities. Together, approximately 1,400 senior high school students and 150 staff in the two pilot schools were available to support the initiative. Local police, with just 27 full-time officers, did not initially commit personnel as SROs. ## 2. Formation of Partnership Between Police and Schools The cornerstone of the initiative was the active, formalized partnership of community members. Current partners include: state, county, and local police; youth; parents; schools; communities; probation departments; courts; and, social service agencies. Called A dopt-A -School, the plan called for consistent presence of police in the schools, increased student-officer interaction, and assistance for school administrators to establish protocols for discipline and referrals and inter-agency involvement. The long-term dedication of officers to the schools was intended to convey that misconduct would be taken seriously and that police and administrators cared about the students. Working under contract with each school, officers would identify and deter problem behaviors, allowing educators to focus more on teaching. Three purposes ofAdopt-A-Schoolwere defined: - to reduce violence/crime and the fear of violence/crime and related problems in the schools and communities; - to encourage local police agencies to become more proactively involved with local youth and related problems; and, - to demonstrate that part-time SROs were a cost-effective deterrent to juvenile misconduct at school, on school buses, and en route to and from school. # 3. Funding The partnership was awarded a $\$ 29,400$ violence prevention grant from the state-supported Ilinois Violence Prevention Authority for the 2000-2001 school year, and later, a \$30,900 grant for the 2001-2002 school year. This grant enabled the project to hire SROs part-time to coordinate the effort, develop procedures, and commence on-campus details. ## 4. Getting Started (2000-2001) Starting in July 2000, protocols for graduated enforcement and maintenance of juvenile records were established. SRO responsibilities were specified. In the fall, ten ISP officers became certified Juvenile Officers, trained as SROs, and hired by the schools. Graduated Enforcement. School administrators, probation departments, and ISP developed and implemented a graduated enforcement protocol for student misconduct, which outlined when police and parents were to be called. Actively involved in its design were students, teachers, local police, state's attorneys, and parents (see Attachment 2). This protocol complemented the existing discipline code for on-campus infractions and truancy. The graduated enforcement protocol also included a "Youth in Crisis Field Guide," a one-page overview of statutory and custody requirements (see Attachment 3). School Authorization. To meet statutory restrictions on dissemination of juvenile criminal records, each school was required to form a School Law Enforcement Unit and create a "subject" file as authorized in the United States Code, Annotated. ' Student information was shared between the SRO and the School Law Enforcement Unit in accordance with the Illinois Compiled Statutes.' Definition of SRO Responsibilities. Since the Adopt -A-School SROs were off duty ISP officers, proposed activities were reviewed in light of statutory requirements and ISP chain-of-command issues. Statutes governing juvenile files and inter-agency communication about juvenile suspects required special attention. A "School Resource Officer Guide" was developed and presented to officers during training. The plan called for SROs to provide coverage for approximately five hours per week at each school. Working under the shared direction of ISP District 12 command and the respective school superintendents, SROs served four basic functions - enforcement, counseling, teaching, and technical assistance. ' 20USCA: $1232 \mathrm{~g}(\mathrm{a})(4)(\mathrm{B})(\mathrm{ii})$. 105ILCS 1016(a)(6.5). Enforcement. The SROs patrolled hallways, parking lots, and routes to and from school, looking for disruptive conduct and violations of school rules. In addition to increased visibility, which was in itself a deterrent, the SROs often spoke with students and knew them by name. Older students were less open about approaching younger students when a police officer was nearby. Both on-campus and off campus, SRO presence ensured students safe passage to and from school. When students violated school rules, they were immediately assessed against the graduated enforcement protocol. Parents, counselors, and police were contacted and were involved in the students' intervention. When gang-related behavior was observed, SROs were required to submit an ISP form called the "ISP Notification of Gang Behavior". Two ISP K-9 Officers conducted thirty searches on campus during the nine-month school period. The SROs were required to meet the standard of "reasonable suspicion" rather than "probable cause" to effect a search on campus.' Counseling. The SROs talked regularly with students about problem behaviors, and reminded them of community expectations. The SROs provided guidance to students, parents, teachers, and staff. They also linked families to support services both inside and outside of the school. Another component of counseling was listening to and reassuring students who appeared troubled or afraid. [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{3}$ Vernonia v. Sch. Dist.47Jv. Acton, 132L.Ed.2d 564,115 S.Ct. 2386 (1995) and People v. Pruitt, 278111. App 3d 194, 662 N.E.2d 540 (1st Dist. 1996). - Teaching. The SROs presented classroom lectures on traffic and personal safety, the legal process, and Illinois laws. The officers were also available to answer students' questions which arose from day-to-day. - Technical A ssistance. The SROs provided technical and administrative assistance to the community on system-wide interventions. They trained officers, outlined SRO duties, and assisted with establishing appropriate and legal protocols. Sergeant Mobley also wrote correspondence and grant applications on behalf of the partnership. Table 3: First -Year Outputs SRO Activity- in 2001-2002 | Hours Worked | 530 | | :-- | --: | | Student Contacts | 5,95 | | Administration Cases Handled | 181 | | Number of Presentations | 54 | | Number of Students/Parents Counseled | 200 | | Reports Filed | 8 | | K-9 Searches conducted for Drugs and Weapons | 30 | | Students Expelled for Violence, Weapons, or Drugs | | # 5. Program Expansion (2001-2002) After the initial success, six local police agencies eventually requested to participate. The Salem Police Department assigned one officer full-time as a community/school resource officer (not grant-funded). Four Fayette County deputies were trained in anticipation of becoming SROs, and two Vandalia Police officers attended Juvenile Officer School and will expandAdopt-A -Schoolto the Vandalia Junior High School. # D. Assessment ## 1. Student Perceptions In the spring of 2000, and again in 2001, a 37-item survey was administered at both pilot schools (see Attachment 4). Results were mixed: Sense of Safety. Forty percent of Salem students felt safe at school all of the time, considerably fewer than a year before, while almost three-fourths of Vandalia students reported feeling safe at school all of the time. - More Salem Community High School students reported racial conflicts and had been threatened or received unwanted sexual advances than a year earlier. More students thought drugs were acquired easily. They were more likely to think truancy and vandalism were problems. On the other hand, they witnessed fewer fights on buses or at school, and were less likely to think fellow students were gang members. - More Vandalia students reported they had observed tobacco and drug use on and around campus than a year earlier, but did not think drugs were any easier to obtain. Fewer students were threatened, had to fight to protect themselves, or saw fights on the bus. Most thought that very few fellow students were gang members or that misconduct was gang-related. ${ }^{a}$ School officials attributed this insecurity and some of the expressed negativism to an in-school bomb threat which had occurred one week before the survey. A short time after the survey, investigators quickly arrested two juveniles, who were subsequently expelled. Police and School Efforts. More students at both schools thought police were working with the schools to correct problems but the perceived effectiveness and fairness of those efforts was in doubt. . Forty-four percent of Salem students thought schools and police were doing all they could to identify and address crime at school; only 30 percent thought the courts, police, and probation departments were effective; and, only half thought rules were enforced fairly at school or in the community. - However, at Vandalia, 60 percent of students thought school and police were doing all they could, and slightly more than half thought the courts, police and probation departments were a deterrent to criminal behavior. An overwhelming 85 percent (20 percent more than a year earlier) thought rules were enforced fairly in their community. Only 43 percent thought rules were enforced fairly in school and thought school officials followed up on disturbances. # 2. School Incidents Violence, drug use, and truancuwerejreatly reduced at both schools. - Students at Salem Community High School reported: 86 percent fewer serious misconduct cases, including disorderly conduct, verbal assault, fighting, possession of drugs/paraphernalia; 80 percent fewer after-lunch truancies (from 198 to 40); 85 percent fewer overall truancies, and 90 percent fewer local police calls to the school for assistance.' [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{5}$ Comparison, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. - Teachers at Vandalia were sending more students to the office for discipline but expulsions for major infractions actually decreased. Expulsions for alcohol use, truancy, and drug possession decreased 100 percent, 68 percent, and 50 percent, respectively. ${ }^{6}$ - More than 90 percent of the juvenile problems which surfaced during the first year were addressed outside ofthe court system. Problems were immediately identified, and appropriate sanctions or treatments were imposed with the help ofthe school, parents, and counselors. - Chronic truancy increased from 6.2 to 7.0 percent at Vandalia but decreased from 4.4 percent to 1.0 percent at Salem. Increased seat belt use was a secondary, unanticipated benefit. After the closed-campus and graduated enforcement programs were implemented at Salem, student seat belt use increased to 99 percent and there were no vehicle crashes over the lunch period. # 3. Local Community Endorsement Not only did school officials and parents demonstrate their support, but six local departments have asked to participate and seven new SROs have been identified. Only two parents challenged the discipline imposed on their children. ## 4. Conclusions Police and schools can be an effective deterrent without involving the already backlogged court system. However, when officials and administrators take stronger disciplinary action, students may think the discipline is not fair. [^0] [^0]: ${ }^{6}$ First quarter results only. Illinois State Board of Education, School Report Cards, 2000-2001. Using classroom instruction or written materials, police and schools need to inform students about the need for and results of the enforcement policies to help students to feel safer. Not only do A dopt-A-School partners want the schools to be safer, but they want the students and staff to feel safe. In Salem, in particular, officials need to address the perceived safety and violence in light of the actual number of incidents. - Police and schools need to be more visible in their presence and response, and ensure even-handed enforcement. More local police presence may also reassure students that the community-wide efforts are substantial, effective, and fair. - The cost of implementation can be offset by reduced absenteeism which will result in increased state funding, fewer police calls for service, and more teacher focus on education. The cost of maintaining an SRO program for five hours each week is approximately $\$ 15,000$ per year, or less than $\$ 22$ per year, per student. # III. Reference List ## Academic Sources and Studies Marion County Health Action Committee, Adolescent Survey, 1995. - Drug and Alcohol Use, Southern Illinois University, Research and Development Department and Health and Safety Department Resource Guide for Creating Positive Programs for Addressing Juveniles in Communities, Approaches for Schools and Police, Education and Law Enforcement Partnership Committee of Southwest Illinois Other Sources, Consultations Alton School System, Alton, Illinois; Resource Officer Program National Association of School Resource Officers, Boynton Beach, Florida Park Forest, Illinois Police Department; Police Liaison Program Regional Superintendent of Schools Marion, Washington, Clinton Counties; Discipline Procedures ## Other Sources and Printed Material Belleville Consolidated School System, Belleville, Illinois; Discipline Policy Bloomington, Illinois; Police School Resource Officer Guide Collinsville, Illinois; School Discipline Policy Illinois Attorney General; Legal Guidelines for Schools Illinois State Police; Use of Force Continuum Illinois Revised Statutes; Juvenile and School Laws Nashville, Illinois; Police School Resource Officer Guide Regional Institute of Community Policing, Springfield, Illinois; Community Policing Guide Salem Community High School; Policies and Procedures Scottsdale Arizona Police Department; School Resource Officer Policies and Procedures State of New York, Police Juvenile Association; School Resource Officer Instructor Curriculum Guide Vandalia Community High School; Policies and Procedures # IV. Agency and Officer Information ## 1 .At what level of the police organization was this problem-solving initiative adopted (e.g., the entire department, a few select officers, etc.)? The project was defined and implemented by ISP District 12, including the involvement of district command. Ten off-duty ISP Juvenile Officers worked as SROs in each of the target schools. In 2001-2002, the program was expanded to three other police departments. 2. Did officers or management receive any training in problem-oriented policing and/or problem solving before this project began or during its execution? All ISP cadets receive eight hours of community policing training, which includes a four-hour block on problem-solving. Sergeant Mobley, one of the original 67 dedicated ISP Community Policing Officers and a Violence Prevention Specialist, received 80 hours of community policing training in 1996. Further, all officers hired before 1996 received four- to eight-hour blocks of problem-oriented policing training in 1999. ## 3. Were additional incentives given to police officers who engaged in problem solving? No financial incentives are provided to officers who participate in problem-solving. There are, however, some indirect benefits, including working with the schools, local communities, etc. The ISP also sponsors an annual Problem-Oriented Policing (POP) program, which allows six teams of officers to showcase their POP projects and compete for special recognition. ISP officers participating in this project were reimbursed at the overtime rate for "hireback" details at the schools. 4. What resources and guidelines (manuals, past problem-solving examples, etc.) were used, if any, by police officers to help them manage this problem-solving initiative? - ISP Safe Schools Unified Emergency School Contingency Plan - ISP Problem-Oriented Policing Form Guidelines - ISP School Resource Officer Guide 5. What issues/problems were identified with the problem-oriented policing model or the problem-solving model? None. 6. What general resources (financial and/or personnel) were committed to this project, and of those resources, what went beyond the existing department budget? One Sergeant worked approximately eight hours per week in establishing the program, submitting grant applications and compiling end-of-year reports. All enforcement hours were paid from an annual grant of approximately $\$ 30,000$. 7. Project Contact Person: a. Name Michael L. Mobley b. Rank Sergeant c. Address 401 Industrial Drive, Suite A d. City/Sate Effingham, Illinois 62401 e. Phone 217-347-2711 f Fax 217-347-2740 g. E-mail michael_mobley@isp.state.il.us # Assessment Tool for Predicting Violent Juvenile Behavior from the National School Safety Center 1. Has a history of tantrums and uncontrollable angry outbursts. 2. Characteristically resorts to name calling, cursing, or abusive language. 3. Habitually makes violent threats when angry. 4. Has previously brought a weapon to school. 5. Has a background of serious disciplinary problems at school and in the community. 6. Has a background of drug, alcohol, or other substance abuse or dependency. 7. Is on the fringe of his/her peer group with few or no close friends. 8. Is preoccupied with weapons, explosives, or other incendiary devices. 9. Has previously been truant, suspended, or expelled from school. 10. Displays cruelty to animals. 11. Has little or no supervision and support from parents or a caring adult. 12. Has witnessed or been a victim of abuse or neglect in the home. 13. Has been bullied and/or bullies or intimidates peers or younger children. 14. Tends to blame others for difficulties and problems she or he causes her/himself. 15. Consistently prefers TV shows, movies, or music expressing violent themes and acts. 16. Prefers reading materials dealing with violent themes, rituals, and abuse. 17. Reflects anger, frustration, and the dark side of life in school essays, or writing projects. 18. Is involved with gang or an antisocial group, on the fringe of peer acceptance. 19. Is often depressed and/or has significant mood swings. 20. Has threatened or attempted suicide. Answer Key: Each affirmative answer is assigned five points. Add the total affirmative answers to determine this youth's level of risk for juvenile violence. 5 - 20: Youngster is potentially at risk for juvenile misbehavior. 25 - 50: Youngster is at risk and needs a significant amount of positive support, mentoring, role modeling and positive skill building. 55 and above: Youngster is a "ticking time bomb." The child and his or her immediate family is at risk; get some help immediately. Seek support from law enforcement, social and health services, parenting classes and the family court or other youth-serving professionals. # Graduated Enforcement 1. First Minor Offense (minor violations occurring on school property, minor traffic, ordinance violations, school code violations and others as defined by the school handbook) will be handled administratively by the school. Infractions will result in placement in a crisis class or similar corrective measure. The SRO will complete an ISP Juvenile Process Form and forward it to the Juvenile Coordinator at ISP District 12 headquarters. The School Law Enforcement Unit would contact the parents and document the incident in the Law Enforcement Unit File. 2. Second and Subsequent Violations. The affected student will be placed in a crisis class or similar corrective measure as school code directs, processed as the crime dictates (see reference statutes), and referred to the School Law Enforcement Unit. The unit will take either of the following actions: - If applicable, an ISP citation will be completed for an Illinois Statute violation and, if applicable, a juvenile report will be completed for the violation. The information will then be provided to the county juvenile probation officer for diversion (see Youth in Crisis Field Guide). - If applicable, an ISP citation will be completed for a city ordinance violation and provided to the city attorney for prosecution. If required, a juvenile report will be completed for the violation. 3. Felonies and Misdemeanors. All felonies and misdemeanors will be investigated and handled according to the Juvenile Court Act.705ILCS. Attachment 3 2002 Illinois State Police - Youth in Crisis Field Guide | Category | Required Police Action | Custody Requirements | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | Custody Type | Juvenile Officer | Crisis Intervention | DCFS* | | I. DELINQUENT MINOR (Criminal Offense) [705 ILCS 405/5-10_5] | | | | | | | A. UNDER AGE 10 | Release to parent/guardian or appropriate custodian. No secure detention for a delinquent minor under age 10 + 6 hours hold. | Temporary Custody Non-Secure | YES | YES | NO | | B. AGE 10 THROUGH 16 | Secure custody allowed for: 6 hours (ages 10 & 11) 12 hours (ages 12 - 16) 24 hours (for Violent Crime) | Arrest Custody Secure | YES | NO | NO | | II. STATUS OFFENSES (Ex-pi II1 mat Consumption of Alcohol) | | | | | | | A. UNDER AGE 17 | Notice to Appear | Custody Non-Secure | YES | NO | NO | | B. 17 AND OVER | Process as an adult; Cash, I-Bond, NTA | | NO | NO | NO | | III. MRAI Minor Requiring Authoritative Intervention (runaway) [705 ILCS 40513 3] | | | | | | | UNDER AGE 18 | Notify parents/guardians: attempt to reunify family 6 hour time limit from first encounter | Limited Custody Non-Secure | YES | YES | NO | | A. Parents accept youth | Release to parent/guardian | Limited | YES | YES | NO | | B. Parents accept youth but youth refuses to return home. | Turn youth over to Crisis Intervention Service " | Limited | YES | YES | NO | | C. Parents/Guardians cannot be contacted. | Turn youth over to Crisis Intervention Service " | Limited | YES | YES | NO | | IV. DEPENDENT Minor UNDER AGE 18 [1705 ILCS 4051241] | | | | | | | Parent cannot care for child (e.g. parents arrested and cannot care for youth) | Turn youth over to DOES or Crisis Intervention Service | "Possible" Protective Custody Non-Secure | NO | YES | YES | | V. NEGLECT'EI) OR ABUSED MINOR [05 ILCS 405/2-31] | | | | | | | UNDER AGE 18 | Call Child Abuse Hotline (800) 252-2873 | "Possible" Protective Custody Non-Secure | YES ISP Policy | NO | YES | | VI. LOCKOUT [705 ILCS 40512-31 (7)1: ILCS 4052-41] | | | | | | | A. AGES 11 THROUGH 17 Youth reports lockout and wants to return home, and parent accept youth home. | Notify and release youth to parents/guardians | "Possible" Protective Custody Non-Secure | NO | NO | NO | | B. AGES 11 THROUGH 17 Parents refuse to accept youth or cannot be contacted | Turn youth over to Crisis Intervention Service" | Protective Custody Non-Secure | NO | YES | NO | | C. UNDER AGE 11 | Call Child Abuse Hotline (800) 252-2873 | Protective Custody Non-secure | NO | YES | YES | - Illinois Department of Children and Family Services "Hudelson Home Illinois State Police, A dopt -A -School -21- # Illinois State Police Adopt-A-School Student Survey Summary May 2000 - May 2001 | Number of Students Responding | Salem Community High School | Vaurialia Community High School | Change | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | 71 | 66 | 300 | | In your opinion, are the following a problem at your school? | Pre | Post | Post | | 1. Alcohol | Yes | 54% | 59% | | 2. Drugs | Yes | 69% | 70% | | 3. Gangs | Yes | 7% | 6% | | 4. Racial Conflicts | Yes | 17% | 24% | | 5. Tobacco | Yes | 75% | 75% | | 6. Truancy | Yes | 33% | 42% | | 7. Weapons, guns, knives, etc. | Yes | 3% | 12% | | 8. Vandalism | Yes | 36% | 59% | | 9. Violence | Yes | 37% | 38% | | 10. I have had things stolen from me at school. | Yes | 27% | 36% | | 11. I have had money or things taken from me by force. | Yes | 1% | 5% | | 12. I have been physically threatened. | Yes | 21% | 27% | | 13. I have had to fight to protect myself | Yes | 11% | 9% | | 14. I have been physically hurt or injured at school due to others. | Yes | 6% | 9% | | 15. I have had unwelcome sexual advances or propositions at school. | Yes | 9% | 18% | | 16. I have witnessed fights at school. | Yes | 84% | 75% | | 17. I have witnessed fights on the school bus. | Yes | 14% | 9% | | | | Salem Community High School | | Vandalia Community High School | | Change | | | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | :--: | | | | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | SCHS | VCHS | | 18. I have seen students carrying a weapon: Gun, Knife, Club, Chemical (mace) at school or on the bus. | Yes | $19 \%$ | $20 \%$ | $30 \%$ | $25 \%$ | $+1$ | $-5$ | | 19. I have seen students possessing or using illegal drugs, during school hours, at or around the school, or on the bus. | Yes | $39 \%$ | $47 \%$ | $33 \%$ | $38 \%$ | $+8$ | $+5$ | | 20. I have seen students possessing or using Alcohol during school hours, at or around the school, or on the bus. | Yes | $26 \%$ | $26 \%$ | $20 \%$ | $20 \%$ | 0 | 0 | | 21. I have seen students possessing or using Tobacco products, during school hours, at or around the school, or on the bus. | Yes | $77 \%$ | $79 \%$ | $70 \%$ | $77 \%$ | $+2$ | $+7$ | | 22. Is there a process or place in your school for students to report disruptions such as: crime, violence, bullies, threats, problems, etc.? | Yes | $97 \%$ | $83 \%$ | $78 \%$ | $74 \%$ | $-14$ | 4 | | 23. Do school staff or officials follow up on reports of disruptions? | yes | $74 \%$ | $74 \%$ | $73 \%$ | $59 \%$ | 0 | $-14$ | | 24. Do the Police in your area appear to work with the school to identify and correct these problems? | Yes | $61 \%$ | $68 \%$ | $68 \%$ | $81 \%$ | $+7$ | $+13$ | | 25. In your estimation, what percentage of the school population have been involved with "gang" related activities such as: drugs, parties, weapons, social gatherings, etc. | None $<25 \%$ $25 \%$ $50 \%$ $75 \%$ $>75 \%$ | $\begin{gathered} 10 \% \\ 30 \% \\ 11 \% \\ 19 \% \\ 30 \% \\ 0 \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} 17 \% \\ 23 \% \\ 12 \% \\ 18 \% \\ 30 \% \\ 0 \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} 39 \% \\ 42 \% \\ 36 \% \\ 22 \% \\ 4 \% \\ 7 \% \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} 85 \% \\ 87 \% \\ 23 \% \\ 25 \% \\ 0 \% \\ 5 \% \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} +7 \\ -7 \\ +1 \\ -1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} +46 \\ +45 \\ -13 \\ +3 \\ -10 \\ -2 \end{gathered}$ | | 26. To what extent are gangs involved with disruptions at your school: fights, disturbances, thefts, violence, or drugs. | None $<25 \%$ $25 \%$ $50 \%$ $75 \%$ $>75 \%$ | $\begin{gathered} 47 \% \\ 41 \% \\ 11 \% \\ 1 \% \\ 0 \% \\ 0 \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} 40 \% \\ 41 \% \\ 06 \% \\ 5 \% \\ 5 \% \\ 0 \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} 71 \% \\ 42 \% \\ 25 \% \\ 17 \% \\ 4 \% \\ 7 \% \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} 85 \% \\ 49 \% \\ 15 \% \\ 8 \% \\ 0 \% \\ 5 \% \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} -7 \\ 0 \\ -5 \\ +4 \\ +5 \\ 0 \end{gathered}$ | $\begin{gathered} +14 \\ +7 \\ -10 \\ -9 \\ -4 \\ -2 \end{gathered}$ | | | | Salem Community High School | | Vandalia Community High School | | Change | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | | | Pre | Post | Pre | Post | SCHS | VCHS | | 27. Does the school administration seem aware of the extent of any gang problems in the school and communities? | Yes | $45 \%$ | $48 \%$ | $45 \%$ | $43 \%$ | $+3$ | $-2$ | | 28. Does the school administration have clear guidelines for reporting and handling gang and violence problems in the school and surrounding communities? | Yes | $68 \%$ | $67 \%$ | $60 \%$ | $60 \%$ | $-1$ | 0 | | 29. Does it appear the police work in and around the school on a regular basis to suppress: gang, violence, and drug activities? | Yes | $59 \%$ | $55 \%$ | $67 \%$ | $74 \%$ | | $+7$ | | 30. Do you believe that the school administration and police are doing all they can to identify and address: gang or gangs, violence, and drug problems in and around the schools | Yes | $45 \%$ | $44 \%$ | $53 \%$ | $60 \%$ | $-1$ | $+7$ | | 31. Would you say it was EASY or HARD for people under age 18 to get Illegal drugs; including alcohol and tobacco AT SCHOOL? | Easy | $67 \%$ | $76 \%$ | $72 \%$ | $73 \%$ | $+9$ | $+1$ | | 32. Would you say it is EASY or HARD for people under age 18 to get Illegal drugs; including alcohol and tobacco? | Easy | $90 \%$ | $94 \%$ | $84 \%$ | $86 \%$ | $+4$ | $+2$ | | 33. In your opinion, have the Police and Courts been effective at deterring: violence, crime, drugs, and gangs at your school and community? | Yes | $37 \%$ | $30 \%$ | $53 \%$ | $55 \%$ | $-7$ | $+2$ | | 34. Do you know of any students that say they are gang members? | Yes | $13 \%$ | $18 \%$ | $25 \%$ | $18 \%$ | $+5$ | $-7$ | | 35. In general, how fairly do you think the rules and laws are enforced at school? | Fairly | $64 \%$ | $53 \%$ | $66 \%$ | $43 \%$ | $-11$ | $-23$ | | 36. In general, how fairly do you think the rules and laws are enforced in your community? | Fairly | $73 \%$ | $50 \%$ | $65 \%$ | i $85 \%$ | $-23$ | $+20$ | | 37. I feel safe at school all the time. | Yes | $66 \%$ | $40 \%$ | $72 \%$ | $73 \%$ | $-26$ | $+1$ |