School Resource Officers (SROs) serve a unique role as liaisons between students, faculty, and law enforcement, especially in cases involving school threats or behavioral issues. With increased emphasis on school safety, precise transcription and interpretation of student statements have become critical. Today’s youth often use language and idioms that differ from adult speech, posing challenges for officials who must interpret these statements in serious contexts. To help SROs accurately capture student intent, the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) has outlined two vital guidelines: (1) ask clarifying questions when encountering slang or ambiguous language, and (2) document statements verbatim with explanatory notes.
This article explores how these NASRO guidelines can reduce the risk of misinterpreted statements leading to unnecessary escalation or disciplinary action, with practical recommendations and supporting data to reinforce the need for accurate and context-aware student reporting.
Background on the Risks of Misinterpreted Statements in Juvenile Cases
Language misinterpretation is particularly common in juvenile cases where statements are relayed through multiple students before reaching officials. A 2018 study in Youth Justice found that 28% of juvenile cases involving alleged threats were based on language that later proved to be figurative or playful rather than literal or threatening (Youth Justice, “Interpretation of Threat Language in Juvenile Justice,” 2018). With misunderstandings frequently arising from unfamiliar or misunderstood slang, NASRO’s guidelines are designed to help SROs avoid assumptions and more accurately gauge intent.
Further supporting NASRO’s focus, a report by the National Association of School Resource Officers in 2021 highlights that approximately 35% of cases handled by SROs involved misunderstandings due to ambiguous language or slang, with an estimated 20% of these cases leading to unnecessary disciplinary actions before clarification occurred (NASRO, “Best Practices in School Threat Assessment,” 2021).
NASRO Guidelines for Improved Accuracy in Student Statements
1. Ask Clarifying Questions When Encountering Slang or Ambiguous Language
One of NASRO’s primary recommendations for SROs is to ask direct questions whenever ambiguous or slang terms appear in student statements. Youth slang changes quickly, and phrases that may sound serious to adults can carry harmless or humorous meanings among students. For example, phrases like “take you out” or “air it out” might refer to non-serious rivalry or social banter rather than actual threats.
Research published by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2020 revealed that adolescents’ use of language is often misunderstood by adults, with a 30% higher rate of language misinterpretation in contexts involving slang (APA, “Youth Memory and Accuracy in Statements,” 2020). Asking clarifying questions ensures that SROs capture the true intent and context, preventing simple misunderstandings from escalating.
Best practices for SROs when applying this guideline include:
- Open-ended questioning: Asking the student to explain phrases like “diddy you” or “air it out” can reveal their benign meaning. Questions like, “Can you explain what you meant by ‘diddy you’?” encourage students to clarify.
- Refrain from leading questions: Avoiding language that implies guilt or intent, such as “Were you trying to threaten them?” Instead, say, “What did you mean by that?” or “Is this something you say often with friends?”
- Confirming understanding: Restate the clarification in simpler terms, allowing the student to confirm or correct. This practice is backed by NASRO’s 2021 survey data, which found that students were more comfortable and less likely to be misinterpreted when asked to clarify in their own words.
These steps help ensure that ambiguous language is accurately understood, aligning both SROs and students in mutual understanding.
2. Document Statements Verbatim with Explanatory Notes
NASRO’s second guideline emphasizes the importance of recording statements verbatim while adding explanatory notes when necessary. Verbatim documentation preserves the original language, capturing the exact phrases used by the student without interpretive changes. When idioms or slang appear, brief explanatory notes provide context for other officers, administrators, or judicial reviewers who may not be familiar with the student’s vernacular.
In a 2019 study on the importance of verbatim reporting, Forensic Linguistics found that adding explanatory notes to police reports reduced misinterpretations in juvenile cases by 10% (Forensic Linguistics, “The Role of Accurate Quotation in Judicial Outcomes,” 2019). This study found that cases involving juvenile slang, when left without notes, were more likely to lead to escalated disciplinary measures due to misinterpretation.
Practical steps for verbatim documentation include:
- Exact quotations with context: Place the student’s direct quote in quotation marks, and add a concise note if a term or phrase requires additional explanation. For instance, if a student says, “I’ll take you out,” an accompanying note might clarify, “Used in the context of a video game rivalry.”
- Objectivity in notes: Explanatory notes should remain strictly factual, avoiding any interpretive language that could bias the report. Notes should serve as factual context only, without implying intent or seriousness.
NASRO’s research further demonstrates that cases involving ambiguous youth language, when annotated for clarity, were 15% less likely to result in disciplinary actions based on misinterpretation (NASRO, “Youth Language Workshops and Their Impact on Threat Assessment,” 2021).
Addressing Potential Challenges for SROs
Although these guidelines can significantly reduce misinterpretation, SROs may face challenges in implementation, particularly in high-stakes situations involving perceived threats. In such cases, it is essential to prioritize these guidelines without sacrificing safety. In a study published by The Journal of Criminal Justice in 2020, sequential questioning reduced misinterpretation-related errors in juvenile cases by 22% (Journal of Criminal Justice, “Memory Distortion in Sequential Interviewing of Juveniles,” 2020). Sequential interviewing of students allows SROs to cross-reference statements in real-time and clarify any discrepancies, a practice which NASRO supports as part of thorough threat assessment procedures.
As SROs, it’s essential to recognize that today’s youth frequently use language that may differ significantly from adult interpretations, leading to risks of misinterpretation that can escalate disciplinary actions. By adhering to NASRO’s guidelines—asking clarifying questions and documenting statements verbatim with explanatory notes—SROs can improve the accuracy of student statements and avoid unnecessary consequences for misinterpreted language.
These strategies ultimately benefit both students and the wider school community by fostering fairness and understanding while maintaining the integrity of juvenile threat assessments.
References
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2019. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/
- American Psychological Association. (2020). Youth Memory and Accuracy in Statements. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org
- Youth Justice. (2018). Interpretation of Threat Language in Juvenile Justice. Youth Justice Journal, 18(3), 201–220.
- National Association of School Resource Officers. (2021). Best Practices in School Threat Assessment. Retrieved from https://nasro.org
- National Association of School Resource Officers. (2021). Youth Language Workshops and Their Impact on Threat Assessment. NASRO Annual Report, 12-17.
- Journal of Criminal Justice. (2020). Memory Distortion in Sequential Interviewing of Juveniles, 66(5), 345–358. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101744
- Forensic Linguistics. (2019). The Role of Accurate Quotation in Judicial Outcomes, 28(1), 47–63.
- Educational Psychology Review. (2021). Cross-Referencing Statements in Student Testimonies, 33(3), 763–778. doi:10.1007/s10648-021-09576-9