Committee examines school resource officer options and costs; consultants flag trade-offs

Consultants walked the Select Committee on School Finance through the court’s language on school resource officers and the practical options Wyoming faces in meeting the court’s directive that "all Wyoming public school students are entitled to the benefits of a school resource officer." The team framed multiple policy choices—whether SROs must be sworn law‑enforcement officers, whether districts or sheriffs hire them, how many officers are needed, how contracts should be structured, and whether alternatives (forensics-trained counselors, unarmed security, or a mix) could satisfy the court.

Mike Griffith, a consultant leading the SRO cost analysis, summarized national practice: 41 states have SRO policies; 27 require SROs be sworn officers; the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) defines a tri‑role expectation—teacher, informal counselor/mentor, and law‑enforcement officer. But consultants told the committee there is limited empirical evidence that SROs improve student learning outcomes. Senator members asked whether the model should fund a flexible "school safety" category rather than only SROs; several consultants agreed it would give districts choices and could better match local needs.

Key implementation questions presented to the committee included: whether SROs should be allocated per school, per campus, or by county; whether SROs must be sworn officers or could be counselors/unlicensed security; how to fund SROs (state contract with sheriff/police or state money routed through districts); hours and contract terms (school year only or including sporting events); vehicle and equipment costs in addition to salary and benefits; and jurisdictional concerns in counties with multiple districts or with schools on reservations.

Geography and shared campuses affect cost and placement. Consultants showed an interactive map of Wyoming schools and campuses and noted many small or co‑located sites—288 campuses serving 346 schools—so a county or multi‑district contract sometimes makes more sense than one contract per school. In very remote schools (one consultant cited examples with a 45‑minute drive to nearest law enforcement), the team said the mix of services might include increased counseling and periodic law enforcement presence rather than full‑time sworn officers.

Costs and evidence: consultants have reviewed national costing work and state survey data; they are collecting district-level information on existing SRO contracts and expect to present ranges of cost by type of model at a future meeting. They emphasized that SROs carry costs beyond salaries—vehicles, equipment and training—and that different staffing models (full‑time sworn officer, part‑time shared officer, counselor plus security team) produce markedly different budget outcomes.

Committee members voiced concern about criminalization of students, where law‑enforcement involvement for low‑level incidents can increase school discipline and referrals to the juvenile justice system. Several legislators supported a flexible "school safety" funding category that would allow districts to choose the mix of sworn officers, counselors, and unarmed security appropriate for their context while complying with the court’s mandate.

Next steps: the consultants will gather district survey responses, expand interviews with local law enforcement and SRO organizations, and present cost scenarios (including salary/benefit assumptions and equipment costs) at a future meeting. The committee left open whether to require sworn SROs or allow a broader safety‑team approach as part of the model.