A View from the IU

On July 2, 2019 Governor Wolf signed SB-621 into law as Act 67-2019.  In this new Act legislators attempted to clarify several issues related to school resource officers (SRO), school police officers (SPO) and school security guards that previously lacked clarity in either Title 35 or PA School Code

The good news is we finally have more detailed scopes of work for each of these positions.  The bad news is the new scope of work is very limited and may prevent officers from assuming additional duties outside of their legislatively defined scope of work. Also contained within this Act is the final answer on using contracted SPO's.  The answer is now an affirming YES.    If you want to read the entire  Act just click the link.  So here are the highlights:

1.  Contracted School Police Officers are now clearly permitted by law.  While this is a win for schools by providing another option for law enforcement coverage in schools it does have a few draw backs.  For starters the school must indemnify the contract officer.  Many schools like the idea of contracting in order to reduce liability.  This is not the case with contracted SPO's.  Second the contracted SPO is limited in how they can assist the school with overall safety and security preparations.  For many schools they rely upon their SPO to also be their Safety and Security Coordinator.  These additional duties appear to go beyond the authorized scope of work allowed by Harrisburg.  I think this is a mistake and reduces the SPO's positive impact  within the school but until Harrisburg changes it we will be stuck with this limited scope of work.    Hopefully this will be changed in the future.  Just make sure you add up all the costs for a contracted SPO before signing on the dotted line and do a good analysis between employee vs. contractor.  

2.  Shop around for SRO.   We now have clear authority to seek quotes from multiple police agencies for SRO duties if you do not have a municipal police department in your immediate area.   If the agencies jurisdiction touches your district boundaries you can ask them for a proposal.   Similar to SPO's Harrisburg has also created a clear scope of work for SRO's and it too is limiting. I think this is also a mistake because it reduces the SRO's ability to integrate into the school safety and security program effectively  but looks like it will take Harrisburg to change it.   

3.  NASRO training.  While training is always good I don't get this.  I think it's a bad idea.  I can't remember the last time a law specified that a school must use a certain non-profit organization for mandatory training. Yes the law states that a PDE approved alternative may be used but where is it? I don't think it exists.  They should have given a list of topics they would have liked officers to receive training on and left it at that.  While this is great for NASRO they have a history of not holding a large number of classes and not all of their instructors are "A" list presenters.  On top of that existing officers only have six months to get this training and new hires must do it before they can start.  I am afraid the law of "unintended consequences" may rear its ugly head on this one and create an unnecessary backlog and hardship for existing and new officers. The clock starts ticking September 2, 2019 when SB-621 (now Act 67-2019) takes effect.  Hopefully Harrisburg will see its error and correct this in future sessions.  As of this blog I have reached out to PDE to also get a determination as to whether officers must attend the three or five day NASRO course to qualify.  

As always if you have any questions don't hesitate to reach out.  If we don't have the answer we will try to steer you in the right direction.  Remember we are glad to help you find both free and affordable options for your school safety needs. Give us a call.  

Until then this is John Baker, CPP.