Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 14716 (Grand Jury Report - School Resource Officers Revisited)RESOLUTION NO. 14716 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE RESPONSE TO THE MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT ENTITLED, “SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS REVISTED” WHEREAS, pursuant to Penal Code section 933, a public agency which receives a Grand Jury Report addressing aspects of the public agency’s operations, must comment on the Report’s findings and recommendations contained in the Report in writing within ninety (90) days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court with a copy to the Foreperson of the Grand Jury; and WHEREAS, Penal Code section 933 specifically requires that the “governing body” of the public agency provide said response and, in order to lawfully comply, the governing body must consider and adopt the response at a noticed public meeting pursuant to the Brown Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael has received and reviewed the 2018-2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report, issued May 30, 2019, entitled “School Resource Officers Revisited” and has agenized it at this meeting for a response. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby: 1. Approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the City of San Rafael’s response to the 2018-2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report, issued May 30, 2019, entitled “School Resource Officers Revisited”, a copy of which is attached hereto. 2. Directs the City Clerk to forward the City’s Grand Jury Report response to the Presiding Judge of the Marin County Superior Court and to the Foreperson of the Marin County Civil Grand Jury. I, Lindsay Lara, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Rafael City Council held on August 5, 2019 by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin & Mayor Phillips NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: McCullough _______________________ LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk AMENDED RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY REPORT FORM Report Title: School Resource Officers Revisited Report Date: May 23, 2019 Public Release Date: May 30, 2019 Response By: Mayor Gary Phillips and San Rafael City Council (Revised October 14, 2019) FINDINGS: • We agree with the findings numbered N/A • We disagree wholly or partially with the findings numbered N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: • Recommendations numbered R1, R2, R7, R8 and R10 have been implemented. (See Attachment A) • Recommendation numbered R12 has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. (See Attachment A) • Recommendations numbered R5, R11 requires further analysis. (See Attachment A) Recommendations numbered R3 will not be implemented because they are not warranted or are not reasonable. (See Attachment A) Date: 1 Signed: Attest: 9 ALL Lindsay Lara, City Clerk RECOMMENDATIONS: R1. SRO programs in Marin County should be retained or expanded where they now exist. SRO programs should be established to cover those school districts where they do not exist. Response: Agreed. The City of San Rafael has no plans to eliminate the SRO program and is continually researching for funding to add another position. R2. Municipalities, school districts, and law enforcement agencies in Marin County should make SRO programs a high budgetary priority. Response: Agreed. Our SRO position is extremely important for the schools, the community and the police department. The position is funded by the police department budget and was maintained even through the most recent economic recession. R3. To insure continuity, each SRO should be assigned to serve for at least a four-year term. Response: Disagree. Our SRO position has historically been a three-year assignment. This allows for more opportunity for our officers to be an SRO. We have not seen a necessity to extend it to four years. R5. The City of San Rafael should have at least one additional full-time SRO. Response: Agreed. We value the SRO position and continue to seek funding for another SRO. A second SRO would be very beneficial to the community. We have partnered with the San Rafael City Schools and applied for a grant to fund a second SRO. We are still waiting on a response from the grantor and should know by November 30, 2019. R7. All SRO's should complete SRO POST training by July 1, 2020. Response: Our current SRO attended POST SRO Training in October 2018. R8. Law Enforcement agencies should fund additional training for SROs that will help them keep up with and handle their responsibilities. Response: Agreed. Upon entering the assignment of School Resource Officer, our officer is scheduled for POST School Resource Officer training as soon as possible. The SRO also attends 80 hours / two-week Core Investigative course along with Parent Project training as part of their duties. R10. School districts and municipalities should explore funding sources such as grants, bond issues, special taxes, and other sources. Response: We are partnering with the San Rafael City Schools to apply for a grant for a School Resource Officer (SRO) to conduct Tobacco education and enforcement at the 13 schools within the district. The California Healthcare, Research and Prevention Tax Act of 2016 (Proposition 56) provides local public agencies with funding to promote a healthier California by reducing illegal sales and marketing of cigarettes and tobacco products to minors. The Office of the Attorney General makes these annual funds available to local law enforcement agencies through the California Department of Justice Tobacco Grant Program. If approved, this grant would provide funding for a second SRO through 2024. R11. School Districts and municipalities should consider sharing the costs and services of SRO programs. Response: Agreed. The cost of the SRO program whether there is one or two SROs, should involve cost sharing between the school districts and municipalities. The San Rafael Police Administration looks forward to working with the new San Rafael City Schools Superintendent and should have a proposal moving forward by November 30, 2019. R12. County law enforcement agencies should provide the time and facilities for the SROs to meet regularly to exchange information, ideas, and discuss new trends by October 1, 2019. Response: Agreed. The county's SROs are meeting regularly to exchange information. The county's SROs met on August 215` and they will meet quarterly throughout the school year. Date:71 Si ned. r g b Gary O. Attest: A - Lindsay Lara, City Clerk ips, Mayor 2018–2019 MARIN COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY School Resource Officers Revisited Report Date: May 23, 2019 Public Release Date: May 30, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury School Resource Officers Revisited SUMMARY School Resource Officers (SROs) are law enforcement officers who serve as counselors, role models, and advocates for students while keeping them safe. They have received specialized training that enables them to develop positive working relationships with students, school staff, law enforcement, other first responders, and community groups. Because of this, their physical presence at schools gives students, parents, teachers, and community members greater assurance that their schools are safe learning environments. SROs primary assignments are to: 1. Help provide a safe learning environment for students. 2. Counsel, educate, and build relationships with students. 3. Enforce laws. Although SROs are sworn law enforcement officers, they do not enforce school policies or maintain discipline. Instead, they focus on building strong, approachable relationships with students and staff, and on identifying and preventing inappropriate behavior on school grounds and throughout the community. School safety is a concern for every community in Marin and in preparing this report, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury consistently heard positive comments about the importance of SROs in maintaining school safety. The Grand Jury also learned that resources to help provide safety at schools differ significantly throughout the county. Only a few school districts have full-time SROs. Others are served by the single SRO employed by the Sheriff’s Office, who covers 34 schools with over 9,200 students, throughout a 521 square mile territory. Disturbingly, some schools have no assigned SRO coverage. Funding SROs to serve at schools in Marin County is a sound investment because it prevents crime and teaches students to trust and work with law enforcement officers and other authority figures. It also helps students become more civic-minded and involved in local affairs. Municipalities and school districts in Marin should work to find funding so they can provide SRO services at their schools. BACKGROUND The 2009-2010 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report, entitled School Resource Officers: A Proactive Approach to School Safety1, recommended that SRO programs be retained in schools where they existed and be established in those where they did not. It also made two other recommendations: 1) that the public entities in Marin County make the SRO program a budgetary priority; and 2) that school communities take the lead in working with their city 1 “School Resource Officers: A Proactive Approach to School Safety.” Marin County Civil Grand Jury. 22 Jun. 2010. School Resource Officers Revisited May 23, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 13 councils and law enforcement departments to identify sustainable funding to maintain a sufficient number of SROs. When the 2009-2010 report was issued, the Marin County Sheriff’s Department provided one SRO for the 6,187 students in the 11 school districts in the county’s unincorporated communities. The Twin Cities Police Department, now a part of the Central Marin Police Authority, had one SRO for the 2,100 students in two school districts; Novato provided two SROs for the 8,050 students in its only school district; and the San Rafael Police Department furnished one SRO for 5,900 students in its five districts. Since publication of the 2009-2010 Marin County Civil Grand Jury report, tragic incidents on school campuses have continued nationwide. During that time, the proliferation of guns, semi- automatic weapons, and drugs has skyrocketed, and social media has become a central part of students’ lives. In addition, new security techniques and standards, physical and structural improvements, and technological innovations have become available to make schools safer and more secure. In light of those and other changes, the 2018-2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury decided to revisit the county’s SRO programs, and to look into whether coverage at our local schools is sufficient, and if it is not, what changes should be made. APPROACH The 2018-2019 Grand Jury interviewed officials of the Marin County Office of Education, current SROs in the county, former SROs, police chiefs, a school district superintendent, and a Sheriff’s officer. The Grand Jury also attended presentations sponsored by community, education, law enforcement departments, and developers of school safety programs. Members of the Grand Jury joined SROs on “ride-alongs” during which they visited a number of schools and attended school safety drills. A written survey of school districts was also conducted. DISCUSSION SROs have served in Marin since the 1950s. In the late 1990s, in response to shootings on school campuses, the push to establish SRO programs gained momentum nationwide. The presence of SROs on school campuses helps students, parents, and school staff feel safer and more secure. According to a 2018 study by the National Center for Education Statistics, 42 percent of public schools surveyed reported that they had at least one SRO present at least one day a week during the 2015-2016 academic year.2 Because fewer private schools have SROs than public schools, the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) estimates that approximately 20 percent of all U.S. K-12 schools, both public and private, are served by SROs.3 It should be noted that many SROs serve more than one school and some schools have more than one SRO. Although SROs have a long history in Marin County schools, they have not been, and are not, at every school. Furthermore, officers may not be dedicated, full-time SROs and since they are police officers, they may be assigned to other non-SRO duties. 2 "Spotlight 1: Prevalence, Type, and Responsibilities of Security Staff in K –12 Public Schools.” National Center for Education Statistics. 18 Mar. 2018. 3 “Frequently Asked Questions.” National Association of School Resource Officers. Accessed 11 Apr. 2019. School Resource Officers Revisited May 23, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 13 Roles and Responsibilities of SROs In Marin County, SROs’ primary role is to ensure that students have a safe and secure learning environment. To do so, they work closely with school administrators and staff. They do not focus on enforcing school policies or disciplining students or act as “campus cops.” Disciplining students who violate school policies is the responsibility of the school. However, SROs will report or even arrest students when they observe them committing crimes. SROs have a wide range of duties and responsibilities that include: ■ Enhancing the safety of the school environment by working with staff, students, and other members of the school community to identify students who may be a danger to themselves and/or others. SROs also monitor juvenile crime trends. ■ Developing positive, trusting relationships with students by being approachable, honest, and responsive. ■ Mentoring, counseling, and mediating, all of which help to prevent negative incidents and behavior. The presence of an SRO also helps to cultivate a positive relationship between law enforcement and the community. ■ Working with students and teachers to recognize signs of students in distress and potential crisis, who may endanger themselves or others. ■ Maintaining visibility within the school by visiting campuses and interacting with students when they are not in class, attending school functions such as sports and social events, and being available to assist administrators and students during the school day. ■ Establishing and maintaining close partnerships with school administrators, counselors, and teachers by assisting in the development of school safety plans, conducting school safety drills, and responding to calls for assistance. SROs train teachers to be aware of students’ behavior and provide information on how to recognize signs of drug use, gang affiliation, and sex trafficking. ■ Teaching and working with students to help them understand the laws, the reasons they exist, and the legal implications of their actions. SROs provide classroom instruction and individual counseling on issues including gangs, drug and alcohol abuse, peer pressure, gender identification and bullying. SROs also address graffiti and other vandalism, dating violence, conflict resolution, and hate crimes. ■ Investigating allegations of criminal incidents that occur on or near school campuses. For example, officers respond to reports of theft, assault, and possession of weapons, sale or possession of illegal substances, cyber-crimes, and gang activity. ■ Participating in meetings and events presented by school, community, other groups, and other SROs. School Resource Officers Revisited May 23, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 13 Selection and Training Selecting the right person to serve is critical. In the past, SROs in Marin County tended to be older police officers who, after years of service, were parked at schools awaiting retirement. This practice often discouraged young officers who wanted to work with juveniles from applying for these positions. Now, the trend in Marin County has moved toward selecting younger candidates who want to and will work well with youngsters. Since these SROs are closer in age to students, they’re more aware of student trends, needs, mindsets, and cultures. As a result, they usually relate and interact well with students. SROs must enjoy working with students. Candidates will be working in an educational environment rather than on the streets and must understand the environment in their schools and the impact that their actions, or lack of actions, could cause. Since the backgrounds and demographics of student bodies can be so diverse, SROs must also be open, flexible, well rounded, and understanding. Some police officers may not be suited to be SROs; they may not be comfortable or willing to work with students or to work in school settings. All of the SROs interviewed by the Grand Jury stressed that they enjoyed working with young people and most of them coached or were involved with youngsters in sports and other outside-of-school activities. SROs receive specialized training to develop effective communication with students, teachers, school administrators, and families. They must be able to develop trusting relationships with students so the students will have the confidence to report potentially dangerous incidents and ask for help. Most important, SROs must be vigilant. They must know how to anticipate, accurately assess, and diffuse conflict situations and know when and how to act in order to prevent crises. When they anticipate or come across problems, they must respond quickly to prevent those situations from escalating. Training for SROs in Marin County is inconsistent. Most SROs are required to complete a five- day course conducted by Police Officer Standards of Training (POST) in Sacramento. Some, however, have not completed the course. In law enforcement, numerous specialized continuing education courses are offered. Some courses may be required for specific positions or advancement. Typically, SROs try to take these additional courses in order to better understand new laws, approaches, and techniques. Subjects covered in these courses include: ■ Juvenile law ■ School law ■ Community policing ■ Instructional techniques and lesson planning ■ Communication and presentation skills ■ Counseling ■ Child abuse ■ Harassment and bullying ■ Substance abuse ■ Dysfunctional families ■ School safety ■ Students with special needs School Resource Officers Revisited May 23, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 of 13 ■ Emergency management ■ Crime prevention/proactive techniques ■ Training in juvenile trends, behavior and current interests ■ Immigration problems ■ Training in LGBTQIA issues ■ Cyber and technical crimes Requests for additional training cannot always be approved, based on budget, staffing, and other considerations. Some SROs who were interviewed questioned the relevance of particular material in their POST training. Some courses covered familiar information. Some interviewees felt that their training didn’t adequately prepare them to work with and build relationships with students. They felt the curriculum could be improved by including training on how to recognize and deal with student trends and juvenile behavior. In SRO programs, continuity is essential. When students see SROs on campus frequently, they’re more likely to feel comfortable around them and they’re more likely to respect them, rather than fear them. Continuity helps students and SROs build relationships. These relationships are strengthened when students see the same SROs in middle school and continue to see them throughout high school. Some school districts believe the ideal standard is for an SRO to serve a middle school, and also the high school that those middle schoolers will attend. The length of an SRO’s assignment is also important in building continuity and relationships. SROs have many duties and tasks. Most need time to settle in, learn the ropes, build relationships, and master their jobs. When SROs serve for short terms and have to cover multiple schools at scattered locations, it's hard, if not impossible, to establish continuity. Students also need time to become comfortable with an SRO. Currently, most dedicated SROs in Marin County serve three to five-year terms. The Grand Jury found that three-year assignments were barely adequate and four to five-year terms were preferable. Assigning officers to be dedicated, full-time SROs for a four- or five-year term isn’t always feasible but can be a wise investment that yields substantial benefits to students, schools, and their communities. Benefits and Value of School Resource Officers Measuring the full value of an SRO is difficult because of the preventative nature of the job. In addition, the benefits of relationships forged with students, school personnel, and community members may not manifest themselves for years. Society is constantly changing, and many changes often begin and take root in schools. SROs must adapt to those changes as their roles and conditions also change. The benefits that SROs provide, according to NASRO are: ■ Prevention or minimization of property damage at the school and surrounding areas. ■ Prevention of student injuries and even death due to violence, drug overdoses, etc. ■ Reduction of the need for schools to call 911. ■ Reduction of the likelihood that a student will get a criminal record. ■ Increased likelihood that students (particularly those with mental health issues) will get the help they need from the social service and health care systems. ■ Increased feelings of safety among students and staff. School Resource Officers Revisited May 23, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 of 13 In Marin County, SROs provide these benefits, but their emphasis has changed. Their top priority is safety. Keeping schools safe and assuring that students have safe learning environments is paramount. SROs also focus on building trusting relationships with students, which frequently entails protecting those students’ confidentiality. Building strong relationships helps keep schools safe. It helps to deter students from committing crimes, decreases students’ fear and hostility toward police and other authorities, and encourages students to become involved in civic activities. When young people build trusting relationships with SROs, they learn lessons that can remain with them into adulthood and throughout their lives. Students today live in a complex world; they face enormous pressures and demands that can be confusing. Some youngsters have it very hard. Many have to deal with issues including gangs, driving safety, cyber-bullying, being outcast, sex and race identification, sexual and parental harassment and abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and immigration issues. Students have to know laws and regulations and develop sound judgement. Often, students feel they can’t talk to anyone about their problems or what’s going on in their lives. When students are used to seeing SROs on campus, they often feel comfortable walking up and speaking with them, and simply speaking with an SRO can help. When students and SROs speak, they can form relationships. Those relationships can give students opportunities to open up to SROs about their problems. When students are comfortable with SROs, students may be more likely to report when they hear about or observe students who are thinking about harming others or themselves. Early detection and intervention are in everyone’s best interest. When students and SROs talk, the SROs can refer students to others, such as experts or specialists. In some communities, gang activity is increasing. The disparity between the haves and the have nots is extreme. Drugs, illegal substances, and vaping are commonplace and bullying and intimidation occur both on and off campus. Student suicide is an ongoing concern. Often, SROs are the first responders, the only ports in storms, the ones who see smoke before fires erupt. Students break laws; for many, it’s a part of growing up. They want to test the waters and see how far they can go. When students break laws, consequences exist, including arrests. SROs know their beats, they know the landscape, the culture, the players, and they know how to respond. They develop instincts that warn them of looming trouble and tell them when to act and when to back off. SROs also develop “touch,” a way to respond that can calm, defuse, and settle problems and disputes. They often follow the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law, by making lighter, more understanding responses to keep potential problems at bay. They also know when to be tough. The Grand Jury found that SROs in Marin County are approachable professionals. They take pride in having good relationships with students and in knowing that the schools where they work are safe and trouble free. SROs know that the work they perform is special, unique, that it’s based on connecting with students in a personal, non-threatening way. Every person interviewed for this report made it clear that the reduction or loss of SRO programs would have a negative impact on the safety of schools, and of their communities. Most emphasized the need for more SROs. School Resource Officers Revisited May 23, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 of 13 Opposition to SROs While the positive value of SROs on school campuses is widely accepted, opposing viewpoints exist. Opponents argue that funds allocated to pay for SROs would be better spent hiring additional school personnel such as counselors or social workers. Others believe these monies could fund more important projects such as those to increase school safety and to develop joint student/school programs. Opponents also note that the presence of SROs did not prevent some on-campus shootings and that others were avoided because school staff and students were trained how to act when incidents on campus occurred. Another fear is that having armed, uniformed SROs patrolling school grounds may psychologically affect students — especially when they can discipline and threaten students and make arrests. The Grand Jury learned that SROs may dress differently at different sites and on different occasions. Dress ranges from standard police uniforms to less intimidating outfits, but they are still required to carry weapons. Objections to SROs regarding privacy have also been raised. The objectors believe that SROs may intentionally or unintentionally violate students’ rights to privacy by reporting what they observe or hear while they’re on campus. In addition, opponents point out that the presence of law enforcement on school campuses results in more student arrests, some of which would have been handled by internal disciplinary systems. Arrests at school, they claim, can alienate students, create hostility to law enforcement and other authorities, and prematurely and unnecessarily expose students to the criminal justice system.4 Those in favor of SROs say that the increase in arrests is attributable to the fact that students are more willing to report problems to SROs who they trust and with whom they have forged relationships. While students may have been more forthcoming in some instances, no strong evidence exists that students’ actions have significantly changed. Opponents of SROs also state that no empirical evidence exists that SROs keep schools safe. After surveying 23 schools where shootings occurred, including seven that employed an SRO, the Washington Post found that since 1999, only two cases existed where an SRO stopped an active shooter.5 “During that same time period, at least seven shootings were halted when the gunman’s weapons malfunctioned, or they were unable to handle them.” While the mere presence of the officers may deter some violence, The Post found dozens of cases where it did not.”6 Furthermore, those who oppose SROs cite the fact the officer on campus during the February 14, 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida did not enter the building while the shooting was taking place. In addition to his inaction, they note that his presence on campus did not hinder the shooter in any meaningful way. In response, SRO advocates contend that in addition to providing for school safety, SROs provide positive role models for students and help thwart crime and gang activity. They cite numerous instances where SROs’ intervention helped students change or avoid antisocial behavior and begin to build productive, law abiding lives. Opponents to this argument point to the lack of evidence that SROs on campus significantly help hinder violent behavior or gang 4 “EDUCATION UNDER ARREST: THE CASE AGAINST POLICE IN SCHOOLS.” Justice Policy Institute. Nov. 2011. 5 Cox, John Woodrow and Rich, Steven. “Armored school doors, bulletproof whiteboards and secret snipers.” Washington Post.13 Nov. 2018. 6 ibid. School Resource Officers Revisited May 23, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 of 13 activity. They argue that public policy should be based on solid evidence not anecdotal feel good stories. Current Status of Marin’s SRO Programs Since the 2009-2010 Grand Jury report, changes in budgets, student populations, and the number of SROs in the county have occurred. For example, Novato went from two officers, down to zero, and now is back up to two. While the total number of SROs has remained relatively flat, the burden on the Sheriff’s sole SRO has increased because the student population in the area covered has grown significantly. During the 2018-2019 school year, five full-time SROs were assigned to cover schools in the county and one police officer was on call to schools. The Sheriff’s Department has one dedicated, full-time SRO covering 34 schools and 9,200 students in a 521 square mile territory and is available as a resource for all schools and SROs in the county. NASRO recommends one SRO per 1000 kids.7 The span of each SRO’s jurisdiction is as varied as the communities they serve. Assignments range from a small number of schools in relatively close proximity to many schools spread throughout the county. Some SROs cover more than one district. When SROs are assigned elsewhere, other officers handle their school assignments when possible. SROs who work in Marin County know each other, and in interviews, expressed a sense of camaraderie. Some communicate with each other and occasionally meet. When they do, they often share information, discuss their experiences, and give and receive advice. However, no formal organization exists, and they do not meet on a regular basis. All expressed a desire to meet regularly, beyond their quarterly meetings with the School/Law Enforcement Partnership.8 Funding All school, law enforcement, and community organizations in Marin operate under tight budgets. Funds are in short supply and their allocation is an endless dilemma. Most officials in the county acknowledge the benefits of SRO programs. They would like to have SRO programs, or employ more SROs, but they’ve concluded that they can’t afford them. Even if funds became available, other, more pressing needs would probably take precedence, the Grand Jury was told. The Grand Jury found that school, law enforcement, and community groups made only minimal efforts to secure SRO funding. When funds were not in the budget, only a few sought grants, joint agreements, specially earmarked taxes, or nontraditional funding sources. As a result, with the exception of Novato, the SRO coverage in Marin County is not sufficient. The cost per SRO ranges from $80,000 to $110,000 per year, not including overtime and benefits. California ranks number four out of 50 states nationwide for SRO salaries. 7 “Frequently Asked Questions.” National Association of School Resource Officers. Accessed 11 Apr. 2019. 8 “SCHOOL/LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERSHIP.” Marin County Office of Education. Accessed 17 Apr. 2019. School Resource Officers Revisited May 23, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 of 13 The current funding for Marin’s SROs is: ■ Unincorporated county areas: One SRO serves the unincorporated areas in Marin County. That position is funded by the Marin County Sheriff’s Department. Future funding will be determined on a year-to-year basis. ■ Novato: For the 2018/2019 school year, two full time SROs in Novato are funded by the Novato Police Department. In the upcoming school year, one of the two SRO positions will be funded by a grant to the Novato School District and the other will come from the police department budget. ■ San Rafael: The SRO is a San Rafael police officer who is paid out of the police department budget. Future funding for this officer, who is responsible for all schools in San Rafael, will be determined on a year-to-year basis. ■ Corte Madera, Larkspur, San Anselmo, and parts of Greenbrae are covered by the Central Marin Police Authority. One SRO position is funded through a ballot initiative (Measure E) passed by voters in 2009, which guaranteed SRO funding for 30 years. The Central Marin Police Authority has the only long-term funded SRO program in Marin County. ■ Mill Valley: A Mill Valley Police Department juvenile detective is assigned to respond to incidents at schools. That officer has received SRO training, but is not an SRO, and he performs other police duties. Essentially, he is on call to Mill Valley schools and responds as needed. He occasionally makes unsolicited campus visits, but rarely interacts with students. Strategies for Sustainable Funding Funding SRO programs is a problem for most school districts, police departments, and municipalities in Marin County. Although they acknowledge the benefits of having SROs, they often have other pressing priorities. School administrators, staff, and law enforcement personnel are well aware of the difficulties involved in securing long-term funding not only for SROs, but for virtually all of their needs. Since schools and law enforcement agencies are constantly looking for possible budget reductions, these positions are always on shaky ground. As a result, new funding sources should be explored. Traditionally, SRO funding comes from local law enforcement and/or from school districts. Novato’s SROs are funded by both. Other potential funding options include: ■ Sharing by schools and local law enforcement agencies. ■ Local, state, or federal funds, including grants, or combinations of these. ■ From local sales or parcel taxes. In light of the benefits to schools, law enforcement, and the community, efforts should be made to share the costs of funding SRO programs. Marin school boards must take the lead in working with city councils and law enforcement to identify sustainable funding for programs in their communities and work together to secure them. School districts, communities, and law enforcement departments should make concerted efforts to find grants that will fund SROs. Grants may be available under anti-tobacco programs, law enforcement programs, homeland security, and other sources. Grant writers should be hired to identify likely grants and to apply for them. School Resource Officers Revisited May 23, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 of 13 In a survey of Marin school districts, only one respondent indicated that it did not have or want an SRO, due to lack of a perceived need. A district that did not have an SRO stated, “In another district, I had the benefit of having an SRO on site four days per week. The contributions they made to the school were immeasurable.” Other comments from those working with SROs were: ■ “SROs play an important role. Their presence cultivates a positive relationship between law enforcement and the community.” ■ “Having the SRO physically present on campus and thus a recognizable face is an asset that as school administrators (we) will never take for granted.” ■ “.... it also allows the police department to have an important connection with the youth of our town.” ■ “... we are stronger in our efforts to keep students safe during their formative years than we ever could be if we acted as independent districts without the support of the SRO officers.” ■ “The SRO seeks to solve problems and work with young people, not just make arrests.” ■ “We don't have an SRO on staff, but we are lucky enough to have [the SRO from] the Marin Sheriff's Department on speed dial.” School Resource Officers Revisited May 23, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 11 of 13 FINDINGS F1. School Resource Officers promote strong collaborative relationships between schools and law enforcement that benefits the entire community. School districts and municipalities that have SRO programs praise them highly. F2. SRO programs are wise investments that help provide safe learning environments for students, reduce crime, and build strong relationships with students, parents, and school staff. F3. Assigning officers to be dedicated, full-time SROs for longer terms isn’t always a high priority or financially feasible but can be a wise investment that yields substantial benefits to students, schools, and their communities. F4. Continuity is essential for SRO programs to thrive. When SROs serve for limited or uncertain terms, their effectiveness can decrease. F5. The Sheriff Department’s has one SRO to cover all the county’s unincorporated areas and assists any school or SRO in the county that requests help, which is insufficient. F6. The City of San Rafael has one SRO for over 7300 students, which is insufficient. F7. Mill Valley does not have a full time SRO to regularly visit its schools, which limits its SRO’s ability to build relationships with students and school staff. F8. Training for SROs in Marin County is inconsistent. The role of an SRO significantly differs from that of a patrol officer and requires specialized training. F9. Officers serve as SROs for terms varying from three to five years. Three-year assignments are barely adequate, and four to five-year terms are preferable. F10. With the exception of Central Marin Police Authority, most communities fund SRO programs on a year to year basis. Other communities lack reliable sources of funding. F11. With the exception of Novato, the costs of the SRO programs are financed by the local police budgets or the Sheriff’s budget with no financial contribution by the school districts. The districts’ participation in SRO funding is lacking. F12. Collaboration between the SROs improves their effectiveness, but they do not meet regularly or frequently to exchange ideas and information. MCOE’s School / Law Enforcement Partnership (SLEP) partially fills that deficiency, but additional organization is needed. School Resource Officers Revisited May 23, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 12 of 13 RECOMMENDATIONS R1. SRO programs in Marin County should be retained or expanded where they now exist. SRO programs should be established to cover those school districts where they do not exist. R2. Municipalities, school districts, and law enforcement agencies in Marin County should make SRO programs a high budgetary priority. R3. To insure continuity, each SRO should be assigned to serve for at least a four-year term. R4. The Marin County Sheriff’s Office should have two additional full-time SRO positions. R5. The City of San Rafael should have at least one additional full-time SRO. R6. Mill Valley should employ a full-time SRO who regularly visits its schools rather than simply assigning an officer to be on call for its schools. R7. All SROs should complete SRO POST training by July 1, 2020. R8. Law enforcement agencies should fund additional training for SROs that will help them keep up with and handle their responsibilities. R9. School districts should take the lead in working with their city councils and law enforcement agencies to employ and maintain a sufficient number of SROs. R10. School districts and municipalities should explore funding sources such as grants, bond issues, special taxes, and other sources. R11. School districts and municipalities should consider sharing the costs and services of SRO programs. R12. County law enforcement agencies should provide the time and facilities for the SROs to meet regularly to exchange information, ideas, and discuss new trends by October 1, 2019. School Resource Officers Revisited May 23, 2019 Marin County Civil Grand Jury Page 13 of 13 REQUEST FOR RESPONSES Pursuant to Penal code section 933.05, the grand jury requests responses as follows: From the following governing bodies: ■ Marin County Office of Education Board of Directors (R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Marin County Board of Supervisors (R2, R4) ■ Belvedere City Council (R1, R2, R3, R7, R8, R10, R11, R12) ■ Fairfax Town Council (R1, R2, R3, R7, R8, R10, R11, R12) ■ Mill Valley City Council (R1, R2, R3, R6, R7, R8, R10, R11, R12) ■ Novato City Council (R1, R2, R3, R7, R8, R10, R11, R12) ■ Ross Town Council (R1, R2, R3, R7, R8, R10, R11, R12) ■ San Rafael City Council (R1, R2, R3, R5, R7, R8, R10, R11, R12) ■ Sausalito City Council (R1, R2, R3, R7, R8, R10, R11, R12) ■ Tiburon Town Council (R1, R2, R3, R7, R8, R10, R11, R12) ■ Bolinas-Stinson Union School District Board of Trustees (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Dixie School District Governing Board (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Kentfield School District Board of Trustees (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Lagunitas School District Governing Board (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Larkspur - Corte Madera School District Board of Trustees (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Mill Valley School District Board of Trustees (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Novato Unified School District Board of Trustees (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Reed Union School District Board of Trustees (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Ross School District Board of Trustees (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Ross Valley School District Board of Trustees (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ San Rafael School District Board of Education (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Sausalito-Marin City School District Board of Trustees (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Shoreline Unified School District Board of Trustees (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Tamalpais Union School District Board of Trustees (R1, R2, R9, R10, R11) ■ Central Marin Police Authority Police Council (R1, R2, R3, R7, R8, R10, R12) The governing bodies indicated above should be aware that the comment or response of the governing body must be conducted in accordance with Penal Code section 933 (c) and subject to the notice, agenda and open meeting requirements of the Brown Act. From the following individuals: ■ Marin County Sheriff (R1, R2, R3, R4, R7, R8, R12) Note: At the time this report was prepared information was available at the websites listed. Reports issued by the Civil Grand Jury do not identify individuals interviewed. Penal Code Section 929 requires that reports of the Grand Jury not contain the name of any person or facts leading to the identity of any person who provides information to the Civil Grand Jury. The California State Legislature has stated that it intends the provisions of Penal Code Section 929 prohibiting disclosure of witness identities to encourage full candor in testimony in Grand Jury investigations by protecting the privacy and confidentiality of those who participate in any Civil Grand Jury investigation.