EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background and methodology
1. The use of campus officers 1 is one way in which the education and police services are working together to help young people engage in positive behaviour and steer away from antisocial activity and crime. As of summer 2009, there were a total of 55 campus officers in 65 secondary schools, across 6 police forces and 15 local authority areas.
2. A mixed method case study approach to this evaluation was adopted. The mapping stage consisted of telephone interviews with campus officers, headteachers and other members of staff closely involved with the work of the campus officer(s). This information was used to help select the 11 case study schools visited by the research team to undertake in depth analysis of the campus officer role and its impact. A range of stakeholder interviews were also conducted to explore attitudes towards the role and to collect funding and cost information.
3. National school statistics, crime data and data from the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration ( SCRA) were also collected to support the findings of the qualitative data. Eleven comparison schools were selected (where campus officers were not operational) to enable comparison of data trends pre and post the deployment date of a campus officer 2. Telephone interviews were also conducted with headteachers at each comparison school.
4. A set of success criteria was devised to evaluate the potential impact and effectiveness of campus officers using both qualitative and quantitative data. Generally, it was assumed that the better a campus officer's performance on each of these criteria, the more successful the role of the campus officer in relation to the school, the wider community and/or improving the lives of challenging children and/or children at risk.
Main findings
Deployment of campus officers
5. There were no standard, national criteria for deploying campus officers and deployment decisions were typically police-led, with decisions made at a divisional level.
6. There were 3 main factors considered when selecting schools in which to deploy campus officers. These centred on police intelligence that related to the school community, the size of the school roll and the availability of funding.
7. There was a view amongst most educational staff, campus officers and stakeholders that the main purpose of a campus officer was to improve relationships between young people and the police.
8. Job descriptions were rarely used operationally and where they were used they did not always reflect an officer's day-to-day activities. This gap sometimes led to confusion over the officer's role.
9. Successful deployment of a campus officer was dependant on good communication between the relevant agencies (usually the police, the local authority and the school) and on getting the right person for the post.
10. A number of educational staff, parents and pupils expressed initial negativity about having a campus officer in their school. This negativity commonly centred around 3 key concerns, that: the officers would become involved in enforcing school discipline; the use of campus officers was a subtle strategy for gathering local police intelligence and having a police officer would reflect badly on the reputation of the school. However, initial concerns largely disappeared once the campus officer(s) had been in post for a short period.
The role of campus officer(s) in schools
11. Campus officers performed broadly similar roles regardless of which school they worked at.
12. Group work (targeted at challenging children and children at risk) was considered particularly important. The activity itself was not as important as the opportunity it gave pupils to receive the kind of attention that was lacking in other aspects of their lives.
13. Information sharing with educational staff and other agency workers (for example, social workers, restorative practice workers) was also viewed as an integral part of the campus officer role.
14. A less common but still valuable role for campus officers was to provide advice to parents. Although this occurred in only a few case study schools, educational staff working in these schools felt that having an officer on site meant that parents who wanted to talk to the police, but who were reluctant to go to a police station, could go to the school instead. This was thought to be of value in deprived areas where there could be a stigma attached to visiting a police station.
15. Campus officers were not usually involved in incidents of discipline unless it involved potentially criminal behaviour.
The impact and effectiveness of campus officers
16. The message from those participating in the research was largely positive. The role that campus officers played in schools was valued by educational staff, pupils and stakeholders alike.
17. Most educational staff and campus officers felt that having a police officer regularly interacting and forging positive relationships with pupils had improved the relationship between the police and pupils. This was cited as one of the main benefits of the role.
18. Amongst some pupils, it was apparent that positive feelings towards the individual campus officer did not extend to police personnel in the wider area. This could be seen as a limitation of the initiative. However, it is possible that the effects of this work on pupil/police relationships may take more time to emerge.
19. The improved information sharing between the police and school (primarily information held by the police) was deemed by police and educational staff to be one of the main benefits of the role. They felt it improved the welfare of pupils at the school, meant the school was better equipped to provide pupils with support and helped prevent offending behaviour.
20. Educational staff and campus officers held a common view that the presence of a campus officer could help to reduce serious indiscipline, physical violence, gang and criminal activity in case study schools. They felt this was due to the officer(s) forging positive relationships with pupils, conducting targeted work with challenging children and children at risk and increased levels of information sharing between the school and the police (which helped stop incidents in the local community spilling into the school environment). This view was supported by crime data trends in two of the case study schools, however, it is not possible to attribute any decrease directly to the role of campus officer.
21. A common view held by educational staff, campus officers and pupils was that having a campus officer in school increased the feeling of safety for pupils and/or staff. It was clear that some educational staff were reassured by the campus officer(s) presence when dealing with incidents of physical violence.
22. In several cases, the campus officer was shared between more than one school. Although the work of these officer(s) was viewed favourably by educational staff, it was evident that in comparison with the full time campus officers, time constraints diluted the role which was likely to reduce their performance on all of the success criteria.
23. In some schools the campus officer accompanied the Education Welfare Officer ( EWO) on home visits to speak to parents of truanting pupils. However, there was no clear evidence that in schools where the campus officer accompanied the EWO on home visits, that this had an effect on the attendance rate.
The cost of deploying officers in schools and funding
24. In most cases, the only regular reported annual cost in placing an officer in a school was the salary of the officer. The average total salary cost of placing an officer in a school was £38,161. There were also ongoing costs (such as diversionary activities and travel) and set up costs (including IT and marketing) that are likely to increase the overall level of expenditure but this information was not available.
25. Annually, it cost a little over £2 million (in salary costs) to have 55 officers in 65 schools across Scotland. Campus officers were deployed based on an allocation of resources from existing police and local authority budgets. Approximately 64% were funded by the police, 30% by local authorities and 6% by Community Planning Partnerships, from the Fairer Scotland Fund.
26. The research originally aimed to provide an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of campus officer(s). However there were difficulties with quantifying cost savings due to a lack of existing data which meant it was not possible to conduct this assessment.
Conclusion
27. Campus officers are likely to have the largest effect on each of the success criteria if they are deployed in schools where:
- perceptions of the police are especially negative
- pupils are likely to have a lack of positive role models in the community
- there are higher numbers of children exhibiting challenging behaviour or at risk
- issues from the local community sometimes spill over into the school community
- the school is situated in an area with gang activity.
28. It is important to highlight that particularly positive findings emerged in two of the case study schools. In these schools there was a reduction in the number of crimes recorded and the cases of exclusion. Both of these schools also performed particularly well on each of the success criteria. Although these outcomes cannot be directly attributed to the campus officer, triangulation of these findings with performance on the success criteria provides important indicators for best practice.
29. The picture emerging from this study is a positive one but there are lessons to be learned. The findings indicate potential benefits from deploying a campus officer but it is important to get everything right. Recommendations are made for good practice to help local decision makers through the process of deployment and management.