Evaluating the Lower Cape May (NJ) Regional School-Based Partnership: School-Related Crime Prevention and Safety Initiative Theft Eradication Program Prepared and Written by Center for the Prevention of School Violence Raleigh, North Carolina Edited by Craig D. Uchida 21st Century Solutions, Inc. December 2001 Evaluating the Lower Cape May Regional School-Based Partnership: School-Related Crime Prevention and Safety Initiative Theft Eradication Program Introduction Lower Township (NJ) Police Department received a school-based partnership grant from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice in 1998. The grant partnered the police department with Lower Cape May Regional High School. Specific partners included the School Resource Officer (SRO) assigned to Lower Cape May Regional High School, other officers of the Lower Township Police Department, and students and teachers at the school. The Center for the Prevention of School Violence served as a project consultant and external evaluator. The partners worked together on the School-Related Crime Prevention and Safety Initiative Theft Eradication Program. The problem-solving approach of SARA (scanning, analyzing, responding, and assessing) was employed. The problem of theft was identified during the scanning phase and then analyzed. The police department, students and school staff, and the Center developed and implemented a response to the problem and then assessed the impact of the response. The following report provides background information about the Lower Township Police Department and the school. It offers a description of the problem-solving method that was employed and describes the impact of the project. Finally, it furnishes recommendations and a conclusion about the project. Background The Lower Township Police Department consists of 42 full-time sworn police officers. The department has a patrol bureau, detective bureau, and community services unit. The Community service unit is comprised of two community-policing officers and two SROs. Community policing is a very important characteristic of the services provided by the department, and the SRO program reflects this importance. The SRO program grew out of Lower Township’s DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program which dates back to 1991. Because of the success of the DARE program in Lower Cape May, the SRO program was started in 1994 with the following intentions: - to assist in the implementation of all aspects of drug abuse/awareness; - to increase communication and act as liaisons between the Police Department, the schools, and community agencies; - to provide students with opportunities to get acquainted with police officers in informal, non-authoritarian settings; and - to assist in the maintenance of positive, proactive school environments that focus on the prevention of undesirable behaviors, attitudes, and activities. In school year 2000-2001 the SRO program will provide services to 3800 students plus school staff and, importantly, parents and others in the community. Since its initial implementation in 1994, the program, in the eyes of the police department, has become a necessary part of the policing operation in the Township. According to Sergeant Brian Marker of the police department: On a daily basis, the SROs handle many calls that would normally require a patrol officer to handle, thus allowing our patrol officers to be more accessible and visible to the community at large. The involvement of our SROs in school-based programs has changed the attitude of many young people who would have been constantly “in contact” with officers in a negative way. According to Marker, the police department sees SROs as problem solvers who also serve as “positive role models for many students who are not exposed to such role models in today’s society” Sgt. Marker is the supervisor of the community services unit of the Lower Township Police Department. Marker served as the SRO of Lower Cape May High School at the time the grant was awarded and managed the grant project implementation. Patrolman Ted Nagel is the current SRO at the school and served in that capacity for a majority of the project. Detective Tom Keywood, a juvenile officer, and patrolmen Ed Musick and Doug Whitten, community policing officers, were involved in the project from its inception. The stability of these officers’ involvement in the project as well as their commitment its success and, more importantly, to the success of youth in their community, provided a solid foundation for the project. Lower Cape May Regional High School Lower Cape May Regional High School has approximately 1,150 students: 330 ninth graders; 300 tenth graders; 285 eleventh graders; 247 twelfth graders. There are 124 staffers: three administrators; 99 teachers; nine teacher aides; and nine support staff. The school shares a campus with its feeder middle school. Students are drawn from throughout the community and are reflective of the community’s demographics. Prior to the School-Based Partnership Grant project, the relationship between the school and the police had been a good one. The placement of SROs in 1994 had personalized the relationship between the two and allowed for joint treatment of concerns. Some of the concerns or issues of interest at the school and in the district include theft, smoking, parking problems, criminal mischief, and school violence. Implementing Problem Solvin The Lower Township Police Department and Lower Cape May Regional High School worked together on the School-Related Crime Prevention and Safety Initiative Theft Eradication Program. The problem-solving approach of SARA (scanning, analyzing, responding, and assessing) was employed. Scanning involves identifying a “priority problem” and verifying its existence. During scanning, a potential “priority problem” is identified by the school community and other related stakeholders. The next phase is analyzing which involves examining information and data gathered about the “priority problem.” Determining characteristics of the problem and the reasons why the problem exists takes place in this phase. Responding is the next phase. It involves taking the information from the analysis phase and formulating a response or solution to the “priority problem.” The last phase is assessing and involves determining if the solution implemented helped solve the problem. The impact and effectiveness of the solution can be determined by a post-test survey of students as well as other means (e.g., site visits; interviews; data tracking) of assessment. The School-Related Crime Prevention and Safety Initiative Theft Eradication Program project followed the SARA model. Scanning was initially pursued by the Lower Township Police Department with the implementation of a “priority problem” survey of students and staff, discussion groups, and interviews. Taken together, the information gathered revealed that theft was considered a “priority problem” by the school community. This information was used to obtain the school-based partnership grant. With the award of the grant, the Center for the Prevention of School Violence began its service as a project consultant and external evaluator. The Center worked with the police department and students to develop a pre-test survey which was designed to verify the existence of the “priority problem” and to offer a means to analyze the problem. Students distributed the survey, and the Center processed the survey data. Results from the survey confirmed theft as a “priority problem.” For purposes of the project, “theft” was operationalized as “the taking of someone else’s belongings without permission.” Analysis Phase Survey results served as the focus for the analysis phase of the project. The Center analyzed the data that were collected and shared the results with the police department, students, and staff. All aspects of theft (who [victim and perpetrator]; what; where; when; how) were revealed during this process that took place during the spring of 1999. To add an understanding of the possible influence of the physical setting of the school on the occurrence of theft, a physical site assessment was conducted by the police department, students, and staff to employ CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design) principles to the project. Stimulating the interest and involvement of staff was the greatest challenge faced by the project during this phase as well as during the entire project. Efforts to reach out to staff to gain support were pursued throughout the project. The inherent nature of high school culture with its characteristically overburdened staff likely explains why this challenge continued despite the efforts of the Police Department and students to include staff. Response Phas The response phase essentially began when the Center shared the survey results with the police department, students, and staff. The presentation of the results to the police department and staff initiated discussion about the response phase. A student advisory board was selected to provide a voice for the entire student body and also provide leadership in the school efforts to eradicate theft. The advisory board consisted of students from ninth to twelfth grades and were representative of other core organizations within the school (e.g., student government; key club; performing arts; athletics). These students were able to provide insight into areas of concern and to work together to develop an appropriate response. Strategies were developed, and the feasibility of certain strategies was weighed against the resources available from the school. Ultimately the students and School Resource Officer came to terms about a number of strategies that addressed the key issues highlighted in the analysis phase. The initial steps that had to be taken were to inform students about how to avoid being a victim of theft. Survey results highlighted that students at Lower Cape May Regional High School were not taking responsibility for securing their valuables. In hallways and locker rooms, students were being negligent and careless about locking up their possessions. Lockers found unlocked within the school was a major issue due in part to students either pre-setting their combinations, not closing them completely, or sharing their locker numbers with other students. To alleviate this problem, students came up with a plan to increase awareness of the possibility of their belongings being taken. Blue cards that contained a message indicating that a student’s locker was found unlocked were produced by the student advisory board. The School Resource Officer patrolled the hallways and locker rooms to randomly search for unlocked lockers and, when found, placed a card inside. By doing so, students returned to their lockers with this warning of a possible theft. This type of approach made students more conscious of securing their lockers and of taking care of their belongings at all times. Beyond increasing awareness, how to handle the problem of theft when a victim became a focus. Reporting theft to the proper authority was a concern because the analysis revealed that many students did not know what to do when their property was taken. To promote awareness on this subject, the police department and the Center provided an informative assembly to the entire school in Fall, 1999, about what to do if belongings were taken. The focus was primarily on how not to be a victim of theft and different theft prevention strategies. An emphasis was again placed on taking responsibility that meant locking lockers, not giving out combinations, and avoiding bringing excessive amounts of money and valuables to school. Presenters highlighted what to do if a student becomes a victim of theft. Students were directed to report thefts to the vice principal and were informed that appropriate actions would be taken from that point. Law enforcement officers reiterated that the problem could not be solved unless reported. A tightening of the reporting process was instituted to ensure ease of reporting and responsiveness. Additionally, the school advisory board produced a brochure that explained the school’s theft eradication project and once again explained the importance of theft prevention. This brochure was distributed to all students and staff to inform them of all the efforts being taken to address the problem of theft within the school. The student advisory board employed this strategy with the intent of getting the message out and with the understanding that the message had to be repeated numerous times in order to see a difference in student behavior in regards to theft prevention. A poster contest was also used to get the message across to the school community. One additional response was the installation of a security camera system. Funded with state monies, this camera system allows for surveillance of both the interior and exterior of the school building. The response phase was conducted throughout the entire 1999-2000 school year. Staff involvement, as stated previously, was the biggest challenge. Maintaining student involvement was also difficult but was largely overcome because students who were involved had ownership of the response phase and communicated that ownership to their fellow students. Assessment Phas The assessment phase began with a site visit by Center staff in Spring 2000. Observations and interviews were conducted during the visit. The assessment phase was completed by implementation of a post-test survey. Because of scheduling difficulties, the post-test survey was not conducted until Fall 2000. This is an important fact because a new class of ninth graders as well as other new students who had not experienced the response phase were included in the survey that was conducted. With their inclusion, only a slight improvement in the perception that theft was a “major problem” occurred between the pre-test and post-test surveys. However, importantly, there was a decrease in the number of thefts from lockers and an increase in knowledge and motivation regarding reporting. Both locker theft and reporting had been targeted in the response phase. Additionally, through its data tracking, the police department reported an initial increase in reporting (correlating with the assembly and awareness efforts) and then an ultimate decrease in the number of thefts as well as in the dollar amount associated with the thefts that occurred. The police department, students, and staff worked in concert to carry out this project. The “good” relationship between the police department and the school became a true partnership as they worked together with a common purpose. The student advisory board, in particular, set high expectations for the project with aims of eradicating theft and therefore reducing victimization and improving the reporting of thefts. Despite the typical challenges of maintaining energy in such a project, the partners were able to generate some positive results. Impact of the Projec Interviews with police department officials and students revealed that the project impacted three areas: security; relationships; and communication. Everyone is in agreement that the school is more secure. Lockers are routinely locked now. The improved reporting process is known and being used. And the camera system is seen as both a deterrent and a mechanism that enhances the investigative capacity of law enforcement and school officials. The relationships between/among officers, students, and staff have improved. There is a level of comfort that working together on a project brings, and there is a sense that police officers can be trusted. The communication of information is more easily accomplished. The new reporting procedures are part of this, but there also is more direct contact between the police department and school community. More conversations are taking place, and more information is being shared. Recommendations The School-Related Crime Prevention and Safety Initiative Theft Eradication Program project at Lower Cape May High School in Cape May, New Jersey, provides the opportunity to generate recommendations about the conduct of similar projects in the future. Foremost among these recommendations is that such projects allow for as much student participation as possible. Student ownership of a “priority problem” in a school fosters an environment in which responses directed at solving the problem are more likely to be successful. Additionally, having an existing program on which to build the project, in this case, the SRO program, can be an asset. The relationship between the police department and the school that already was in place allowed for quick project initiation. Being open to the notion that awareness and education are the most important approaches to crime prevention is also important. Technological devices such as cameras may be determined appropriate to be part of the response but are not sufficient to generate the changes in behavior that are needed. Recognizing how challenging project implementation is going to be is necessary. Keeping students and staff interested and motivated likely will fall upon the shoulders of the officers who are involved. Interest and motivation cannot be assumed or taken for granted and must be continuously sought and supported. Finally, “flexibility” must be a watchword for such projects. There must be flexibility with regard to expectations, communications, schedule, and outcome. Project participants need to be willing to compromise and develop partnerships that truly work with a common purpose put forward as a solidifying mechanism. Conclusion Those involved with the Lower Township Police Department school-partnership grant project would contend that such a project is worth doing and worth doing well. We witnessed changes in the school since the project’s initiation and know that these changes are the result of the work of the partnership of the Lower Cape May Police Department and the students and staff of Lower Cape May Regional High School. We conclude that ensuring that schools are safe and crime-free environments is the responsibility of all stakeholders and one that can be best accomplished through true partnership.