HomeMy WebLinkAboutPolice Advisory & Accountability Committee 2024-09-18 Agenda Packet
POLICE ADVISORY AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE
WEDNESDAY, September 18, 2024, AT 6:00 PM
In-Person:
San Rafael City Council Chambers
1400 Fifth Ave, San Rafael, California
Virtual:
Watch Online: https://tinyurl.com/PAACZOOM
Listen by Phone: (669) 444-9171
Meeting ID: 898-5264-7245#
AGENDA
How to participate in the meeting:
• You are welcome to provide comments in-person at the meeting. Each speaker
will have 2-minutes to provide public comment.
• Submit your comments by email to PAAC@cityofsanrafael.org by 4:00 p.m. the
day of the meeting.
CALL TO ORDER – 6:00PM
MINUTES
1. Approve regular meeting minutes from the meeting of August 21, 2024.
OPEN TIME FOR PUBLIC EXPRESSION
The public is welcome to address the Police Advisory and Accountability Committee
at this time on matters not on the agenda that are within its
jurisdiction. Comments may be no longer than 2 minutes and should be respectful
to the community.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
2. Special Presentations
a. Senate Bill 2 (SB2), Mark Wilson, Attorney for Burke, Williams & Sorensen,
LLP
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS
If necessary to ensure the completion of the following items, the Chairperson may
establish time limits for the presentations by individual speakers.
3. Other Agenda Items:
a. Provide feedback on the San Rafael Police Department’s Use of Force
Presentation.
Recommendation: Accept the informational report.
b. Youth and Policing.
Recommendation: Accept the informational report.
STAFF LIAISON REPORT
4. Other brief program updates or reports on any meetings, conferences,
and/or seminars attended by staff.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
5. Other brief reports on any meetings, conferences, and/or seminars attended by the
Committee members.
ADJOURNMENT
Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Board less than 72 hours before the meeting, sh all be
available for inspection online and in the city hall large conference room, third floor, 1400 5th Avenue, San Rafael, Califo rnia placed
with other agenda-related materials on the table in front of the location prior to the meeting. Sign Language interpreters may be
requested by calling (415) 485-3066 (voice), emailing city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or using the California Telecommunications Relay
Service by dialing “711”, at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon
request
POLICE ADVISORY AND ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE (PAAC)
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2024, AT 6:00 PM
In-Person:
San Rafael Public Safety Center
1375 Fifth Ave, San Rafael, California
Virtual:
Watch Online:
https://tinyurl.com/PAACZOOM
Listen by Phone: (669) 444-9171
Meeting ID: 898-5264-7245#
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Kamena called the meeting to order at 6:17 PM and requested a roll call.
ROLL CALL
Present: Member Daniel Alm
Member Marilyn Alvarez
Member Fatai Tokolahi
Member Daryoush Davidi
Member Darlin Ruiz
Member Paula Kamena
Member Mydung Nguyen (arrived at 6:24 PM)
Alternate Member Salamah Locks
Absent: Member Karla Valdez
Staff Present: Angela Robinson Piñon, Assistant City Manager
David Spiller, Chief of Police, San Rafael Police Department
Scott Eberle, Lieutenant, San Rafael Police Department
Teresa Olson, Sr. Mgmnt Analyst, San Rafael Police Department
Lieutenant Scott Eberle informed the community that the in -person meeting would also
be recorded and streamed live to YouTube and through Zoom. He noted the two-minute
timer for public comment and closed captioning on Zoom.
1. MINUTES
Member Tokolahi moved to approve the July 17, 2024. Member Davidi seconded
the motion.
AYES: MEMBERS: Alm, Alvarez, Davidi, Kamena, Ruiz, Tokolahi,
NOES: MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: MEMBERS: Valdez
The motion carried 6-0-1.
OPEN TIME FOR PUBLIC EXPRESSION
Chair Kamena opened public comment, however, there was none.
Chief Spiller introduced Teresa Olson, Senior Management Analyst, and staff
support to the PAAC.
2. OTHER AGENDA ITEMS
a. Provide feedback on the San Rafael Police Department’s Domestic Violence
Presentation.
Lieutenant Scott Eberle presented the staff report.
Staff responded to the Committee’s questions.
Chair Kamena invited public comment, however, there was none.
The Committee provided comments and recommended to accept the
informational report.
b. Use of Force
Sergeant Robert Cleland gave a presentation.
Staff responded to the Committee’s questions.
Chair Kamena invited public comment, however, there was none.
The Committee provided comments.
STAFF LIAISON REPORT
3. Staff Liaison Report:
Lieutenant Eberle advised the committee the topic of Youth and Policing will
be presented during the September 18, 2024, meeting.
He reminded members to sign up for ride-along shifts with SRPD.
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
4. Committee Member Reports:
• Member Alvarez commented she has been conducting outreach in her
community and noted concerns about recent assaults involving teens.
• Member Nguyen nothing to note.
• Member Tokolahi mentioned his interactions with outreach workers and
relayed positive feedback.
• Member Davidi attended a Cub Scout meeting at Pickleweed.
• Member Alm mentioned his experience participating in National Night Out
for the West End neighborhood and thanked SRPD staff for their
participation. He also shared he met with Teresa Olson for coffee for
introductions and encouraged other committee members to do the same.
• Member Ruiz attended a community meeting at Pickleweed on August 7 th.
• Member Locks attended the latest City Council meeting and commented on
the presentation on homelessness in San Rafael.
• Chair Kamena nothing to note.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Kamena adjourned the meeting at 7:39 p.m.
___________________________
SCOTT EBERLE, Staff Liaison
APPROVED THIS _____DAY OF_______, 2024
POLICE ADVISORY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE
AGENDA REPORT
September 18, 2024
Item 2a
TITLE: SAN RAFAEL POLICE DEPARTMENT USE OF FORCE PRESENTATION
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the informational report.
BACKGROUND:
At the August 21, 2024, meeting of the Police Advisory and Accountability Committee, the
Committee heard presentations from SRPD staff on the use of force by law enforcement. The
presentation is provided as Attachment 1, and the staff report is provided as Attachment 2.
DISCUSSION:
The San Rafael Police Department prioritizes the reverence for human life as its fundamental
principle when using force. Officers are encouraged to manage incidents through time, distance,
communication, and available resources to de-escalate situations whenever it is safe, feasible,
and reasonable to do so. However, officers do not have to retreat or desist from lawful
enforcement actions.
The use of force by law enforcement is a critical concern for both the public and the police. It is
understood that some individuals may not comply with the law or submit to control unless
compelled by force, necessitating officers to use force in certain situations. Officers may only use
the force that is objectively reasonable to effectively gain control of an incident while protecting the
safety of the officer and others. The San Rafael Police Department acknowledges that law
enforcement officers must remain ever mindful that they are both guardians and servants of the
public.
Please note that City staff presented much of the background and context about the use of force,
legal guidelines, and definitions at the August 21, 2024, meeting. Therefore, staff recommends
that the Committee direct its feedback on topics covered in the presentation. Staff can also
respond to any questions related to the August 1, 2024, PAAC meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
Submitted by:
Scott Eberle
Lieutenant, San Rafael Police Department
ATTACHMENTS:
1. August 21, 2024 - Use of Force Presentation by Sergeant Rob Cleland
2. August 21, 2024 - Item 2b San Rafael Police Department Use of Force Staff Report
USE OF FORCE
SGT. ROB CLELAND
Federal Case Law, State Law,
and Department Police must
be followed
•Graham V Connor
•Tennessee V Garner
•Penal Code 835a
•Lexipol policy 300
Graham V Conner
The 1989 Supreme Court decision
established an objective
reasonableness standard for when
an officer can legally use force on
a suspect and how much force can
be used.
Tennessee V Garner
Also known as the fleeing felon rule. The
1985 Supreme Court decision established
that an officer may use deadly force to
prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect
with the belief that the suspect poses
significant threat of death or serious
physical injury to officers or others.
Penal Code 835a
Re -written into state law in 2020
after the passage of AB 392. Penal
Code 835a set the guidelines when
officers in California can use force
upon a person up to and including
deadly force.
Lexipol Policy 300
This policy provides guidelines on the
reasonable use of force. While there is no way
to specify the exact amount or type of
reasonable force to be applied in any situation,
every member of this department is expected
to use guidelines in 835a PC and this policy to
make such decisions in a professional,
impartial, and reasonable manner (Government
Code §7286).
Policy 300 includes
•Duty to intercede, reporting excessive force
and carrying out their duties in a fair and
unbiased manner.
•Alternative tactics -de-escalation
•Reporting and investigating the use of force
•Medical considerations after a UOF
•Supervisor responsibility
•Training
Required Bi -annual
training must include:
•Arrest and control techniques
•Legal updates.
•De-escalation tactics, including alternatives to
force.
•The duty to intercede.
•The duty to request and/or render medical aid.
•All other subjects covered in this policy (e.g.,
use of deadly force, ban on chokeholds and
carotid holds, discharge of a firearm at a moving
vehicle, verbal warnings prior to deadly force).
We Will Never Wait (2020)
Review of and changes implemented to policy
•Ban Chokeholds
•De-Escalation when feasible
•Verbal warning before deadly force
•Exhaust other means when feasible
We Will Never Wait (Cont.)
•Duty to intercede
•Ban shooting at vehicles
•Force continuum
•More comprehensive reporting (AB 71)
When can an officer use
Force?
When a person has committed a public
offense, an officer may use the objectively
reasonable amount of force based on the
totality of the circumstances to:
•Effect an arrest
•Overcome resistance
•Prevent escape
An officer can use deadly
force for two reasons:
A peace officer is justified in using
deadly force upon another person only
when the officer reasonably believes,
based on the totality of the
circumstances, that such force is
necessary for either of the following
reasons:
First reason -
To defend against an
imminent threat of death or
serious bodily injury to the
officer or to another person.
P.O.A
The suspect must present all of the
following in order to use deadly force:
P -Present ability (ie:Weapon )
O -Opportunity (Victims)
A -Apparent Intent (Actions or Statements)
Second reason -
To apprehend a fleeing person for any
felony that threatened or resulted in
death or serious bodily injury, if the
officer reasonably believes that the
person will cause death or serious bodily
injury to another unless immediately
apprehended.
Threat to self only?
A peace officer shall not use deadly force
against a person based on the danger
that person poses to themselves, if an
objectively reasonable officer would
believe the person does not pose an
imminent threat of death or serious bodily
injury to the peace officer or to another
person.
Use of Force Investigations
Every use of force is reviewed by a
supervisor, administrator, and a
member of the instructor staff. Any
use of force believed to be
excessive is thoroughly
investigated.
What does San Rafael PD
do to ensure our officers
use only necessary force?
•We strive to exceed the minimum training hours set
by P.O.S.T (Police Officer Standards and Training)
•We send officers to specialized training (CIT)
•Incorporate De -escalation into all UOF training
•We expect our officers to police with respect and
compassion
•We use alternate resources in addition to patrol
officers (SAFE Team, Mobile Crisis, CNT)
THANK YOU
Sgt. Rob Cleland
San Rafael Police Sergeant
526@srpd.org
Page 1 of 6
POLICE ADVISORY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE
AGENDA REPORT
August 21, 2024
Item 2b
TITLE: Use of Force
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the informational report.
BACKGROUND:
The San Rafael Police Department prioritizes the reverence for human life as its fundamental
principle when using force. Officers are encouraged to manage incidents through time, distance,
communication, and available resources to de -escalate situations whenever it is safe, feasible,
and reasonable to do so. However, officers do not have to retreat or desist from lawful
enforcement actions.
The purpose of this report is to provide the Police Advisory and Accountability Committee a
summary of the policies and procedures that inform use of force in law enforcement and to provide
data regarding the San Rafael Police Department’s use of force in 2023.
The use of force by law enforcement is a critical concern for both the public and the police. It is
understood that some individuals may not comply with the law or submit to control unless
compelled by force, necessitating officers to use force in certain situations. Officers may only use
the force that is objectively reasonable to effectively gain control of an incident, while protecting
the safety of the officer and others. The San Rafael Police Department acknowledges that law
enforcement officers must remain ever mindful that they are both guardians and servants of the
public.
In support of this commitment, in June 2020, Mayor Phillips signed President Barack Obama’s
“Mayor’s Pledge” to review San Rafael’s use of force policing policies. Additionally, Mayor Phillips
assembled a community task force to help City leaders in reviewing and determining whether the
City should make any changes to the Police Department’s Use of Force Policy, particularly in light
of Campaign Zero’s #8cantwait policy recommendations. The task force members worked
collaboratively alongside City leaders and provided input resulting in the Chief of Police
recommending many proposed changes to the use of force policy, including the banning of the
carotid and choke hold and enhancing the language regarding use of de -escalation techniques.
On June 19, 2020, the San Rafael Police Department published "We Will Never Wait- A
Commitment to our Community”, which outlines the mission of the department with respect to use
of force. In part, it states,
The men and women of the San Rafael Police Department are committed to
providing professional, fair, compassionate, and dedicated law enforcement with
integrity and respect. We place the highest value on human life and that value
supports our training in ar eas such as de-escalation, use of force options, and
Crisis Intervention Training. We strive to hire officers who are empathetic,
compassionate, have a strong duty to serve, and who want to make a positive
Page 2 of 6
difference in their community. No officer wants to use force in the course of his or
her duties.
More recently, in 2022 and 2023, the City of San Rafael held community meetings on the topic of
“Policing in San Rafael” following a 2022 police incident that occurred in the Canal neighborhood.
At these meetings, Police Chief Dave Spiller , Mayor Kate Colin, and City leadership listened
directly to the community’s concerns and committed to developing what would become the Police
Advisory and Accountability Committee (PAAC). For more information regarding these meetings,
please visit https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/policinginsanrafael/.
Information from “We Will Never Wait” was used to substantially revise the San Rafael Police
Department’s Use of Force Policy (§ 300). On August 17, 2020, the San Rafael City Council
received a report from the Police Chief and directed them to implement the proposed revisions to
the Use of Force Policy. This staff report is provided as Attachment 2. The Use of Force Policy
was last updated by the Department on February 1, 2024, and is provided in this report as
Attachment 1.
DISCUSSION:
Federal and state laws strictly govern how a police officer can use force to effect an arrest,
ensuring that such actions are both lawful and proportional to the situation . This section briefly
summarizes these laws.
1. Federal Law
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens against unreasonable
searches and seizures, including the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.
Key Supreme Court rulings, such as Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) and Tennessee v.
Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), establish the legal standards for evaluating the reasonableness of use
of force incidents.
In the 1985 case Tennessee v. Garner, the U.S. Supreme Court established a two -prong test1
that guides police officers' use of deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect:
Probable cause: The officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect is dangerous.
Necessity: The use of deadly force must be necessary to prevent the suspect's escape.
In the 1989 case Graham v. Connor2, the U.S. Supreme Court outlined a list of factors to
determine if an officer’s use of force is objectively reasonable – these are often referred to as
“Graham Factors.” The Graham factors are the severity of the crime at issue; whether the suspect
posed an immediate threat; and whether the suspect was actively resisting or trying to evade
arrest by flight. The “severity of the crime” generally refers to the reason for sei zing someone in
the first place. The case requires officers to carefully articulate facts and events that made their
1 Source: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/use-deadly-force-prevent-
escape#:~:text=First%2C%20an%20officer%20must%20have,brief%20discussions%20of%20Krueger%2
0v.
2 Source: https://www.fletc.gov/use -force-part-
ii#:~:text=The%20Graham%20factors%20are%20the,to%20evade%20arrest%20by%20flight.&text=The
%20%E2%80%9Cseverity%20of%20the%20crime,someone%20in%20the%20first%20place .
Page 3 of 6
use of force objectively reasonable, rather than justifying their actions based on a hunch or good
faith.
2. State Law
California Penal Code §835a provides the legal parameters for the use of force by peace officers,
emphasizing the need for de -escalation and proportionality in response to threats.
Assembly Bill 392 (2019) and Senate Bill 230 (2019) further refine the state’s use of force
standards, requiring that force be used only when necessary and that officers receive adequate
training on de-escalation techniques.
The San Rafael Police Department’s Use of Force Policy is comprehensive, emphasizing the
sanctity of human life and the importance of de -escalation. Key components of the policy include:
• Duty or failure to intercede, reporting excessive force and carrying out their duties in a fair
and unbiased manner. The Shift Supervisor shall review each use of force (UOF) by any
personnel within his/her command to ensure compliance with this policy. If the UOF is
determined to be out of policy, it shall be sent to the Lieutenant.
• In addition to the Supervisory review, after every use of force incident a Use of Force
Review form is completed and sent to the employee’s supervisor and manager. Th is
process is outlined in § 300.11. The form is not only used as a secondary method to
review the UOF but also to ensure the UOF met the stated objectives of this policy.
• Prohibited uses of force are outlined in § 300.4.5- §300.4.8 of the SRPD Use of Force
Policy and include:
o Restrictions on the use of the carotid control hold
o Restrictions on the use of a choke hold
o Additional Restrictions - Officers are not authorized to use any restraint or
transportation method which might unreasonably impair an individual's breathing
or respiratory capacity for a period beyond the point when the individual has been
adequately and safely controlled. Once the individual is safely secured, officers
should promptly check and continuously monitor the individual's condition for signs
of medical distress (Government Code § 7286.5).
• Reporting to California Department of Justice.
o Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 71, any use of force resulting in serious or great
bodily injury is reportable to the California Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ
publishes an annual report titled URSUS which is the Use of Force Incident
Reporting. The URSUS report presents a summary overview of use of force and
discharge of firearm incidents as defined in Government Code § 12525.2. Due to
the narrow definition of this statute, the data contained in this report only represent
incidents where use of force resulted in serious bodily injury or death ,
or the discharge of a firearm.
• The policy further outlines reporting use of force to a supervisor in §300.6 which states,
Any use of force by a member of this department shall be documented promptly,
completely, and accurately in an appropriate report, depending on the nature of
the incident. The officer should articulate the factors perceived and why he/she
believed the use of force was reasonable under the circumstances. To collect data
for purposes of training, resource allocation, analysis, and related purposes, the
Department may require the completion of additional report forms, as specified in
department policy, procedure, or law.
Page 4 of 6
• Alternative tactics - de-escalation
o Active Listening
o Using a calm voice
o Relaxed Body Language
o Containment
o Gathering additional resources
o Coordination of resources
o Use of time/slow down
o Use of distance
o Use of Cover
• Medical considerations - Once it is reasonably safe to do so, properly trained officers
should promptly provide or procure medical assistance for any person injured or claiming
to have been injured in a use of force incident (Government Code § 7286(b)).
• Supervisor responsibility - Among the responsibilities of a supervisor, they shall respond
to all uses of force, they should obtain the facts from the involved officers, ensure injured
parties are examined and treated and when possible, obtain a recorded interview with the
subject. A full list of responsibilities is found in policy § 300.8.
• Training, which include legal updates, de-escalation tactics, including alternatives to force ,
and training courses required by and consistent with the Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training (POST) guidelines set forth in Penal Code §13519.10.
Trends and Analysis
In 2023, the San Rafael Police Department handled 44,4653 police incidents, resulting in 1 ,653
arrests. There were 53 UOF incidents in 2023. Overall, this reflects UOF was needed during
0.12% of all police incidents and necessary in 3.75% of all arrests in 2023. It is worth noting calls
for service did increase seven percent (7%) in 2023 vs. 2022; however, the number of calls
resulting in arrest fell 23%, and calls for service that resulted in the use of force fell 6%. The
number of use of force incidents remained the same in 2022 and 2023. In addition, none of the
UOF incidents in 2023 resulted in serious bodily injury or death; therefore, the no use of force
incidents were reported to the DOJ. As stated in the 2023 UOF Statistics (Attachment 3), the most
frequently used force option was a control takedown.
Last year, the Specialized Assistance for Everyone (SAFE) team successfully diverted over 2,600
calls for service. Although it is impossible to quantify how many of these incidents might have
escalated to a situation requiring the use of force by police officers, it is noteworthy that every one
of these calls resulted in a positive outcome without any need for forceful intervention. The
proactive approach taken by the SAFE team underscores the value of providing tailored
assistance in situations where de -escalation and supportive measures can lead to safer and more
constructive resolutions for all parties involved. The SAFE team was discussed at the July 17,
2024, PAAC meeting. The staff report may be accessed here.
Over the past five years, the San Rafael Police Department has dealt with an average of 43,309
police incidents each year and made an average of 1 ,990 arrests. Use of force incidents have
averaged 0.15% of all police incidents and 3.6% of all arrests over the same period. Both police
incidents and total arrests have shown a consistent decrease over this period. Please see the
chart on the next page and Attachment 4 for further details. Moreover, the percentage of use of
force incidents compared to total police incidents has decreased over the past five years .
It is nearly impossible to determine the contributing factors for a detainee’s actions. A variety of
3 All figures are subject to revision and further analysis.
Page 5 of 6
factors including mental health, criminal pathology. level of intoxication, and other issues play a
part in a person’s decision to commit a crime and to resist the intervention of law enforcement.
However, each member of the San Rafael Police Department is expected to use only the amount
of force that is reasonably necessary given the facts and the totality of the circumstances known
to or perceived by the officer at the time of the event to accomplish a legitimate law enforcement
response (Penal Code §835a ).
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with accepting this report.
Submitted by:
Scott Eberle
Lieutenant
ATTACHMENTS:
1. San Rafael Police Department Use of Force Policy
2. San Rafael Police Department Use of Force Policy -Proposed Revisions City Council Staff
Report August 17, 2020
Page 6 of 6
3. San Rafael Police Department 2023 Use of Force Statistics
4. San Rafael Police Department Five Year Comparison
Page 1 of 3
POLICE ADVISORY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE
AGENDA REPORT
September 18, 2024
Item 2b
TITLE: YOUTH AND POLICING
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the informational report.
BACKGROUND:
The Task Force on 21st Century Policing (“Task Force”), established by U.S. President Barack
Obama in 2014, gathered input from practitioners, subject matter experts, and other stakeholders
through listening sessions and written testimonies. The United States Department of Justice published
a final report on the Task Force in 2015. The recurring theme of juvenile justice emerged, highlighting
the importance of positive engagement between police and youth. This positive engagement can
enhance public safety, reduce crime and victimization, decrease repeat offenses, and build trust
between young people and law enforcement. The purpose of this report is to describe current and
past youth intervention strategies used by the San Rafael Police Department. In addition, this
report identifies future opportunities for positive youth and police interactions.
DISCUSSION:
Encounters with law enforcement can significantly impact young people’s development and future
interactions with the justice system. Through youth mentoring programs, law enforcement and
others can support the positive development of youth, improve self-esteem, and reduce
delinquent acts. This section of the report briefly summarizes past and recent programs that
provide opportunities for positive police-youth interactions.
School Resource Officers
The School Resource Officer (SRO) is often the primary connection between law enforcement
and juveniles nationwide. A SRO is a sworn law enforcement officer assigned to a school long-
term to help create a safe environment for students, staff, parents, and guardians.
In May 2019, the Marin County Civil Grand Jury (“Grand Jury”) released a report on School Resource
Officers. The Grand Jury member interviewed Marin County Office of Education officials, current
SROs in Marin County, former SROs, police chiefs, a school district superintendent, and a
Sheriff’s officer. In summary, the report stated:
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.
The Grand Jury did not interview current or former students to provide feedback on the effects
law enforcement officers have on campus.
Page 2 of 3
The City of San Rafael City Council responded to the Marin County Civil Grand Jury in October
2019, stating that the City was committed to keeping SROs and maintaining a budget for them,
and considered adding another SRO in November 2019.
On September 14th, 2020, at a regular SRCS Board Meeting, the board voted to remove School
Resource Officers (SRO) from public schools in San Rafael. Comments from the SRCS Board
meeting suggested that law enforcement officers patrolled the schools in search of students to
arrest. These perceptions played a significant role in removing SROs from San Rafael City
Schools.
In 2021, the San Rafael Police Department spearheaded an extensive research report on the role
of School Resource Officers (SROs) in all Marin County schools regarding student arrests and
citations. The comprehensive report meticulously documented every arrest and citation issued
between 2017 and 2020, providing detailed breakdowns of student demographics, schools, and
types of arrests. The report is included in this staff report as Attachment 3.
The research revealed that SROs were not proactively arresting or citing students in San Rafael.
All arrests or citations were a direct result of reports made by either victims of crimes or made by
school staff members.
Following the removal of SROs from the San Rafael schools, the school district prioritized a
restorative justice approach. Additionally, the school district utilized internal education, the County
of Marin Probation Department, and non-profit organizations such as Youth Transforming Justice,
among others, as alternatives.
Youth Listening Sessions
In 2022 and 2023, “Youth Listening Sessions” were held at San Rafael High School (SRHS) and
Terra Linda High School (TLHS). The listening session at SRHS was conducted in 2022 and
included City staff and officials, but did not include SRPD members at the request of SRHS
administration. The listening session at Terra Linda High School was conducted in 2023 and
included City staff and officials from the City and a Captain from SRPD, at the request of TLHS
administration. Both listening sessions asked the students the same set of questions and the
students offered valuable feedback to the SRPD.
Some responses from the San Rafael High School listening session indicated students did not
feel safe in their communities and reflected skepticism about having a police officer on campus.
A few key themes emerged from the Terra Linda High School session. The students stressed the
significance of getting to know police officers personally and building relationships. They also
requested that officers take part in events such as Hispanic Heritage Night.
Police Cadet Program
Many law enforcement agencies nationwide have developed successful programs to engage
youth through nonconfrontational activities and promote positive police-youth interactions. The
San Rafael Police Department offers a Cadet program that provides an opportunity for students
interested in law enforcement. Cadets are classified as civilians and provide information and
assistance to the public. They also assist with police department functions such as crime
prevention, patrol support, community outreach, and records/front office support. The position
allows for up to 20 hours of paid work per week and is designed as a limited-term position of three
years, with the goal of the cadets completing their education and becoming members of the San
Page 3 of 3
Rafael Police Department.
One example of community outreach the cadets are involved with is Camp Chance. Camp
Chance is a program designed for at-risk and underserved youth ages 11 through 13 living in the
community. Since its inception in 1999, over 1,223 Marin and Sonoma County youth have
benefited from this enriching camping program. The Camp also provides adult leadership
opportunities for all camp activities and facilitates workshops on topics relevant to today’s youth,
such as anger management and bullying. Camp Chance is administered by The Community
Engagement Unit of the San Rafael Police Department administers Camp Chance
At Camp Chance, children participate in traditional camping activities such as swimming, hiking,
and nature studies. In addition, they are given the opportunity to create and foster rapport with
peace officers in a personal and relaxed setting. This rapport has historically continued to flourish
when the children return home.!
San Rafael police officers and cadets participate with the youth in all the activities throughout the
week. Children benefit greatly from having informal and personal contact with peace officers,
which creates a positive outcome for the kids, police, and the community. When children feel
more connected to their community and develop positive relationships with police officers, they
are less likely to engage in destructive behavior and criminal activity.
In 2019, over 60 children participated in Camp Chance. Along with these children, there were also
teenagers ranging in age from 14 to 15 who returned as Counselors-In-Training (CITs). The camp
provides an alumni program for young people who have previously attended Camp Chance and
have shown leadership qualities. They now serve as role models for the younger campers and
assist the senior staff in running the program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
Submitted by:
Scott Eberle
Lieutenant, San Rafael Police Department
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Marin County Grand Jury Report “School Resource Officers Revisited”
2. San Rafael City Council Response to the Marin County Grand Jury Report
3. Marin County Schools Report
4. Camp Chance 2024 Newsletter
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.
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 0)1 41
Attest: r LL
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
Signed:
Gary -EY:Phil , Mayor
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Rl. SRO programs in Mann 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 Mann 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 I, 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.
Date: ‘0 Nt-41
Attest:
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
Signed:
Gary S Phil '1* Mayor
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 21st and they will meet quarterly throughout the school year.
Page | 1
Officer Response to Marin County Schools
Parameters:
• Dates: August 1, 2017 – March 31, 2020 (3 school years)
• Incident must have happened on a school campus between the hours of 7:00 AM – 3:30 PM
• Students age must be between 13 and 18
• Student must have been arrested, cited, or put on a 5150 hold
• Name of school
• Agency
• Case number
• Date
• Time of incident / call made to law enforcement
• Reporting party
• Was this a proactive or reactive contact
• Clearance method (i.e., citation, arrest, 5150)
• Where the student ended up (i.e., home, juvenile hall, Unit B)
• Was the case forwarded to the DA / Who was the case forwarded to
• Students date of birth
• Age of student at time of incident
• Students race
• Offense committed by student
• Other notes deemed important (i.e., if the student was suspended, if the arrest/cite occurred off campus, etc.)
Schools (58) / Jurisdiction / Number of persons with a report taken that meet the above parameter:
School Jurisdiction # of Contacts
A.E. Kent Middle School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 2
Bayside MLK Jr. Academy Marin County Sheriff’s Office 1
Bolinas Stinson School Marin County Sherris Office 0
Compass Academy Novato Police Department 19
Davidson Middle School San Rafael Police Department 53
Del Mar School Tiburon Police Department 0
Fusion Academy Marin San Rafael Police Department 0
Good Shepherd Lutheran School Novato Police Department 0
Hall Middle School Central Marin Police Authority 4
Hamilton Meadow Park Novato Police Department 0
Lagunitas School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 0
Lycee Francais de San Francisco Sausalito Police Department 0
Madrone High School San Rafael Police Department 7
Marin Academy San Rafael Police Department 1
Marin Catholic High School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 0
Marin Christian Academy Novato Police Department 1
Marin County Day School Central Marin Police Authority 0
Marin Horizon School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 0
Marin Oaks High School Novato Police Department 6
Marin Primary & Middle School Central Marin Police Authority 0
Marin Waldorf School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 0
Page | 2
Marin County Community School San Rafael Police Department 12
Mark Day School San Rafael Police Department 0
Mill Valley Middle School Mill Valley Police Department 3
Miller Creek Middle School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 10
Mount Tamalpais School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 0
Nicasio School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 0
North Bay Christian Academy Novato Police Department 0
Novato Charter School Novato Police Department 0
Novato High School Novato Police Department 64
Our Lady of Loretto School Novato Police Department 1
Redwood High School Central Marin Police Authority 12
Ross School Ross Police Department 0
Saint Hilary School Tiburon Police Department 0
Saint Raphael School San Rafael Police Department 0
San Andreas High School Central Marin Police Authority 4
San Domenico School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 0
San Jose Middle School Novato Police Department 12
San Marin High School Novato Police Department 39
San Rafael High School San Rafael Police Department 15
Sinaloa Middle School Novato Police Department 17
Sir Francis Drake High School Central Marin Police Authority 13
St. Anselm School Central Marin Police Authority 0
St. Isabella School San Rafael Police Department 0
St. Patrick School Central Marin Police Authority 0
St. Vincent's School for Boys Marin County Sheriff’s Office 13
Tamalpais High School Mill Valley Police Department 17
Tamiscal High School Central Marin Police Authority 2
Terra Linda High School San Rafael Police Department 53
The Branson School Ross Police Department 0
The Marin School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 0
The New Village School Sausalito Police Department 0
Tomales Elementary School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 0
Tomales High School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 2
Venetia Valley School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 4
West Marin School Marin County Sheriff’s Office 0
White Hill School Fairfax Police Department 0
Willow Creek Academy Sausalito Police Department 0
TOTAL 387
27 of the 58 schools had at least one incident (46.6%) which required police services.
In order to acquire the requested information, narratives from reports taken at the above schools was read. If it was not
directly stated in the narrative, the information will appear as N/A (not available).
Page | 3
OFFICER RESPONSE (PROACTIVE VS. REACTIVE) - MENTAL HEALTH REPORTS INCLUDED
SCHOOL YEARS 2017-2020
This was determined in how the officer contacted the student at the school - was the officer dispatched or received a
call to respond to the school (reactive), or, did the officer initiate the contact with the student (proactive). That includes
the officer witnessing the activity and contacting the student.
Row Labels Count
Proactive 4
Reactive 381
N/A 2
There were four (4) proactive reports taken in which the officer was not requested by another party. Those were at
Novato High School. Furthermore, there were two (2) reports in which the reason for contact was not apparent in the
report. One was at Mill Valley Middle School and the other was at Sir Francis Drake High School.
N/A
2
1%
Proactive
4
1%
Reactive
381
98%
Proactive vs. Reactive
N/A
Proactive
Reactive
Page | 4
OFFICER RESPONSE (PROACTIVE VS. REACTIVE) BROKEN DOWN BY SCHOOL - MENTAL HEALTH REPORTS INCLUDED
SCHOOL YEARS 2017-2020
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Marin County
Community
SRPD
Mill Valley MS
MVPD
Miller Creek
MS
MCSO
Novato HS
NPD
Our Lady of
Loretto School
NPD
Redwood HS
CMPA
San Andreas
HS
CMPA
San Jose MS
NPD
San Marin HS
NPD
Proactive vs. Reactive by School
Reactive
Proactive
N/A
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
San Rafael HS
SRPD
Sinaloa MS
NPD
Sir Francis Drake
HS
CMPA
St. Vincent's
School
MCSO
Tamalpais HS
MVPD
Tamiscal HS
CMPA
Terra Linda HS
SRPD
Tomales HS
MCSO
Venetia Valley
MCSO
Proactive v. Reactive by School
Reactive
Proactive
N/A
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A.E. Kent MS
MCSO
Bayside MLK
Jr.
MCSO
Compass
Academy
NPD
Davidson MS
SRPD
Hall MS
CMPA
Madrone HS
SRPD
Marin
Academy
SRPD
Marin Christian
NPD
Marin Oaks HS
NPD
Proactive vs. Reactive by School
Reactive
Proactive
N/A
Page | 5
OFFICER RESPONSE BROKEN DOWN BY OFFENSE - MENTAL HEALTH REPORTS INCLUDED
SCHOOL YEARS 2017-2020
These statistics count every offense, including multiple offenses in a report. For example, if a student was cited for
multiple offenses, each offense would be counted. *Out of the 387 reports taken, 52 included more than one offense.
Criminal Threats 14 Criminal Conspiracy 4
Weapons Violation 13 Trespassing 4
All other drugs violations 12 Minor in possession of tobacco 3
Theft 12 False fire alarm 2
Vandalism 11 Receiving stolen property 2
False imprisonment 9 Burglary 1
Minor in possession of alcohol 9 Fireworks 1
Probation or Court Order Violation 7 Invasion of privacy 1
Resisting Arrest 6 Robbery 1
Sexual Battery 5 Warrant 1
Mental Health
126
Marijuana
87
Assault & Battery
74
Fights/Disturbances
20
Habitual Truant
19
Drunk on School
Grounds
15
Other
118
Offenses Requiring Police Services
Page | 6
BREAKDOWN OF OFFENSES BY SCHOOL - MENTAL HEALTH REPORTS INCLUDED
SCHOOL YEARS 2017-2020
3
14%
1
5%
1
5%
14
66%
1
5%
1
5%
Compass Academy (21)
NPD
Assault & Battery
Fights / Disturbances
Marijuana
Mental Health
Trespassing
Vandalism
7
13%
3
5%
3
6%
4
7%
5
9%
14
26%
15
28%
2
4%
1
2%Davidson MS (54)
SRPD
Assault & Battery
Criminal Threats
Drunk in Public
Fights / Disturbances
Habitual Truant
Marijuana
Mental Health
Theft
Weapons Violation
Fireworks,
1, 25%
Mental
Health, 1,
25%
Vandalism,
1, 25%
Weapons
Violation, 1,
25%
A.E. Kent MS (4)
MCSO
Receiving
Stolen
Property, 1,
100%
Bayside MLK Jr. (1)
MCSO
Page | 7
All Other
Drugs , 1,
25%
Marijuana,
1, 25%
Mental
Health, 2,
50%
Hall MS (4)
CMPA
All Other
Drugs , 2,
22%
Drunk in
Public, 1,
11%
Marijuana,
3, 34%
Minor in
Possession
of Tobacco,
1, 11%
Trespassing , 1,
11%
Violate
Court
Order, 1,
11%
Madrone HS (9)
SRPD
Mental
Health, 1,
100%
Marin Academy (1)
SRPD
Mental
Health, 1,
100%
Marin Christian (1)
NPD
Assault &
Battery, 3,
16%
Drunk in
Public, 3,
16%
Fights /
Disturbances,
3, 16%Habitual
Truant, 1,
5%
Marijuana,
4, 21%
Probation
Violation , 2,
10%
Resisting
Arrest, 3,
16%
Marin County
Community
(19)
SRPD
Assault &
Battery, 1,
16%
Criminal
Threats, 1,
16%
Drunk in
Public, 1,
17%
Fights /
Disturbances,
1, 17%
Marijuana ,
1, 17%
Mental
Health, 1,
17%
Marin Oaks HS
(6)
NPD
Page | 8
Criminal
Threats, 1,
33%
Marijuana,
1, 33%
Weapons
Violation , 1,
33%
Mill Valley MS
(3)
MVPD
Assault &
Battery, 1,
5%
False Fire
Alarm , 1,
5%
Fights /
Disturbances,
1, 6%
Habitual
Truant, 1,
6%
Marijuana,
12, 67%
Mental
Health, 2,
11%
Miller Creek MS
(18)
MCSO
1
1%
24
30%
1
1%1
1%
2
2%1
1%1
1%
16
20%
10
12%
3
4%
1
1%
3
4%
2
2%4
5%
1
1%
2
2%
1
1%7
9%
Novato HS (81)
NPD
All Other Drugs
Assault & Battery
Criminal Threats
False Fire Alarm
False Imprisonment
Fights / Disturbances
Habitual Truant
Marijuana
Mental Health
Minor in Possession of Alcohol
Probation Violation
Resisting Arrest
Sexual Battery
Theft
Trespassing
Vandalism
Warrant
Weapons Violation
Sexual
Battery, 1,
100%
Our Lady of
Loretto
School (1)
NPD
All Other
Drugs , 2,
17%
Assault &
Battery, 1,
8%
Marijuana,
2, 17%
Mental
Health, 6,
50%
Violate
Court
Order, 1, 8%
Redwood HS
(12)
CMPA
Page | 9
Assault &
Battery, 1,
20%
Mental
Health, 2,
40%
Vandalism ,
2, 40%
San Andreas HS
(5)
CMPA
Assault &
Battery, 4,
27%
Criminal
Threats, 1,
7%
False
Imprisonment,
1, 7%
Fights /
Disturbances,
1, 7%
Habitual
Truant, 2,
13%
Marijuana ,
2, 13%
Mental
Health, 4,
27%
San Jose MS
(15)
NPD
2
4%
9
19%
1
2%
4
9%
2
4%
7
15%
14
30%
1
2%
1
2%
1
2%
2
4%
1
2%
2
4%
San Marin HS (47)
NPD
All Other Drugs
Assault & Battery
Drunk in Public
False Imprisonment
Fights / Disturbances
Marijuana
Mental Health
Minor in Possession of Alcohol
Robbery
Sexual Battery
Theft
Trespassing
Vandalism
All Other
Drugs , 1, 7%
Assault &
Battery, 2,
13%
Criminal
Threats, 2,
13%Habitual
Truant, 3,
20%
Marijuana,
4, 27%
Mental
Health, 2,
13%
Theft,
1, 7%
San Rafael HS
(15)
SRPD
Assault &
Battery, 3,
15%
Criminal
Conspiracy,
1, 5%
False
Imprisonment,
2, 10%
Marijuana ,
1, 5%
Mental
Health, 9,
45%
Receiving
Stolen
Property, 1,
5%Theft, 2,
10%
Weapons
Violation , 1,
5%
Sinaloa MS
(20)
NPD
Page | 10
Marijuana,
3, 19%
Mental
Health, 8,
50%
Minor in
Possession
of Alcohol,
1, 6%
Minor in
Possession of
Ammunition,
1, 6%
Theft, 1, 6%
Violate
Court
Order, 1, 6%
Weapons
Violation , 1,
6%
Sir Francis
Drake HS
(16)
CMPA
Assault &
Battery, 8,
44%
Burglary, 1,
6%
Criminal
Conspiracy,
3, 17%
Criminal
Threats , 3,
17%
Mental
Health, 2,
11%
Vandalism,
1, 6%
St. Vincent's
School
(18)
MCSO
All Other
Drugs , 2,
11%
Assault &
Battery, 2,
11%
Criminal
Threats, 1,
5%
Drunk
in
Public,
1, 5%
Habitual
Truant, 1,
5%
Marijuan
a , 2, 11%
Mental
Health, 8,
42%
Sexual
Battery, 1,
5%
Vandalism ,
1, 5%
Tamalpais HS
(19)
MVPD
Mental
Health, 2,
100%
Tamiscal HS
(2)
CMPA
1
2%3
6%
6
11%
1
2%
1
2%
5
9%
12
22%
19
35%
4
7%1
2%1
2%
Terra Linda HS (54)
SRPD
All Other Drugs
Assault & Battery
Drunk in Public
Fights / Disturbances
Furnish Tobacco to a Minor
Habitual Truant
Marijuana
Mental Health
Minor in Possession of Alcohol
Minor in Possession of Tobacco
Probation Violation
Page | 11
Marijuana,
1, 50%
Mental
Health, 1,
50%
Tomales HS
(2)
MCSO
Assault &
Battery, 2,
50%
Mental
Health, 2,
50%
Venetia Valley
(4)
MCSO
Page | 12
ARRESTS BROKEN DOWN BY RACE AND SCHOOL - MENTAL HEALTH REPORTS EXCLUDED
SCHOOL YEARS 2017-2020
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
A.E. Kent MS
MCSO
Bayside MLK
Jr.
MCSO
Compass
Academy
NPD
Davidson MS
SRPD
Hall MS
CMPA
Madrone HS
SRPD
Marin
Academy
SRPD
Marin
Christian
NPD
Marin Oaks HS
NPD
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Other White N/A
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Marin County
Community
SRPD
Mill Valley MS
MVPD
Miller Creek
MS
MCSO
Novato HS
NPD
Our Lady of
Loretto School
NPD
Redwood HS
CMPA
San Andreas
HS
CMPA
San Jose MS
NPD
San Marin HS
NPD
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Other White N/A
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
San Rafael HS
SRPD
Sinaloa MS
NPD
Sir Francis
Drake HS
CMPA
St. Vincent's
School
MCSO
Tamalpais HS
MVPD
Tamiscal HS
CMPA
Terra Linda HS
SRPD
Tomales HS
MCSO
Venetia Valley
MCSO
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Other White N/A
Page | 13
ARRESTS BROKEN DOWN BY RACE AND SCHOOL YEAR - MENTAL HEALTH REPORTS EXCLUDED
SCHOOL YEARS 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020
0
5
10
15
20
'17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20
A.E. Kent MS
MCSO
Bayside MLK Jr.
MCSO
Compass Academy
NPD
Davidson MS
SRPD
Hall MS
CMPA
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Other White N/A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
'17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20
Madrone HS
SRPD
Marin Oaks HS
NPD
Marin County Community
SRPD
Mill Valley MS
MVPD
Miller Creek MS
MCSO
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Other White N/A
0
5
10
15
20
25
'17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20
Novato HS
NPD
Our Lady of Loretto
NPD
Redwood HS
CMPA
San Andreas HS
CMPA
San Jose MS
NPD
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Other White N/A
Page | 14
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
'17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20
San Marin HS
NPD
San Rafael HS
SRPD
Sinaloa MS
NPD
Sir Francis Drake HS
CMPA
St. Vincent's
MCSO
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Other White N/A
0
5
10
15
20
'17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20 '17-'18 '18-'19 '19-'20
Tamalpais HS
MVPD
Terra Linda HS
SRPD
Tomales HS
MCSO
Venetia Valley
MCSO
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Other White N/A
Page | 15
MENTAL HEALTH REPORTS BROKEN DOWN BY RACE AND SCHOOL
SCHOOL YEARS 2017-2020
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
A.E. Kent MS
MCSO
Davidson MS
SRPD
Hall MS
CMPA
Compass
Academy
NPD
Marin Academy
SRPD
Marin Christian
Academy
Marin Oaks HS
NPD
Miller Creek MS
MCSO
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Other White N/A
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Novato HS
NPD
Redwood HS
CMPA
San Andreas HS
CMPA
San Jose MS
NPD
San Marin HS
NPD
San Rafael HS
SRPD
Sinaloa MS
NPD
Sir Francis Drake
HS
CMPA
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Other White N/A
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
St. Vincent's School
MCSO
Tamalpais HS
MVPD
Tamiscal HS
CMPA
Terra Linda HS
SRPD
Tomales HS
MCSO
Venetia Valley
MCSO
Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic Other White N/A
Page | 16
CASE REFERRALS BROKEN DOWN BY SCHOOL - MENTAL HEALTH REPORTS EXCLUDED
SCHOOL YEARS 2017-2020
0
10
20
30
40
A.E. Kent MS
MCSO
Bayside MLK Jr.
Academy
MCSO
Davidson MS
SRPD
Hall MS
CMPA
Compass
Academy
NPD
Madrone HS
SRPD
Marin Oaks HS
NPD
Marin County
Community
SRPD
DA / Court Juvenile Hall N/A Probation Traffic Court YSB
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Mill Valley MS
MVPD
Miller Creek MS
MCSO
Novato HS
NPD
Our Lady of
Loretto
NPD
Redwood HS
CMPA
San Andreas HS
CMPA
San Jose MS
NPD
San Marin HS
NPD
DA / Court Juvenile Hall N/A Probation Traffic Court YSB Marin CFS
0
10
20
30
40
San Rafael HS
SRPD
Sinaloa MS
NPD
Sir Francis Drake
HS
CMPA
St. Vincent's
School
MCSO
Tamalpais HS
MVPD
Terra Linda HS
SRPD
Tomales HS
MCSO
Venetia Valley
MCSO
DA / Court Juvenile Hall N/A Probation Traffic Court YSB
Page | 17
RACIAL BREAKDOWN BY SCHOOL (2019-20 ENROLLMENT BY ETHNICITY – www.dq.cde.ca.gov)
A.E. KENT MIDDLE– MCSO
Total Students: 557
African American: 0.7%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.2%
Asian: 4.1%
Filipino: 0.4%
Hispanic or Latino: 13.8%
Pacific Islander: 0.0%
White: 68.9%
Two or More Races: 9.5%
Not Reported: 2.3%
BAYSIDE MLK JR. - MCSO
Total Students: 108
African American: 50.9%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.9%
Asian: 1.9%
Filipino: 0.4%
Hispanic or Latino: 32.4%
Pacific Islander: 0.0%
White: 3.7%
Two or More Races: 6.5%
Not Reported: 2.8%
COMPASS ACADEMY - NPD
Total Students: 83
African American: 7.2%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 1.2%
Asian: 0.0%
Filipino: 2.4%
Hispanic or Latino: 54.2%
Pacific Islander: 0.0%
White: 28.9%
Two or More Races: 4.8%
Not Reported: 1.2%
DAVIDSON MIDDLE - SRPD
Total Students: 1,191
African American: 0.9%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.2%
Asian: 3.2%
Filipino: 0.3%
Hispanic or Latino: 69.9%
Pacific Islander: 0.2%
White: 25.1%
Two or More Races: 0.3%
Not Reported: 0.0%
HALL MIDDLE SCHOOL – CMPA
Total Students: 522
African American: 1.0%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.2%
Asian: 5.9%
Filipino: 0.8%
Hispanic or Latino: 13.2%
Pacific Islander: 0.2%
White: 69.9%
Two or More Races: 8.4%
Not Reported: 0.4%
MADRONE HIGH – SRPD
Total Students: 53
African American: 3.8%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.0%
Asian: 0.0%
Filipino: 0.0%
Hispanic or Latino: 90.6%
Pacific Islander: 0.0%
White: 5.7%
Two or More Races: 0.0%
Not Reported: 0.0%
MARIN OAKS HIGH – NPD
Total Students: 83
African American: 7.2%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 1.2%
Asian: 0.0%
Filipino: 2.4%
Hispanic or Latino: 54.2%
Pacific Islander: 0.0%
White: 28.9%
Two or More Races: 4.8%
Not Reported: 1.2%
COUNTY COMMUNITY – SRPD
Total Students: 56
African American: 0.0%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 1.8%
Asian: 3.6%
Filipino: 1.8%
Hispanic or Latino: 75.0%
Pacific Islander: 0.0%
White: 12.5%
Two or More Races: 5.4%
Not Reported: 0.0%
MILL VALLEY MIDDLE - MVPD
Total Students: 1,007
African American: 0.5%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.6%
Asian: 4.7%
Filipino: 0.3%
Hispanic or Latino: 8.1%
Pacific Islander: 0.1%
White: 75.7%
Two or More Races: 10.0%
Not Reported: 0.0%
Page | 18
MILLER CREEK MIDDLE - MCSO
Total Students: 690
African American: 1.4%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.1%
Asian: 6.5%
Filipino: 1.4%
Hispanic or Latino: 19.0%
Pacific Islander: 0.1%
White: 60.3%
Two or More Races: 10.9%
Not Reported: 0.1%
NOVATO HIGH SCHOOL - NPD
Total Students: 1,447
African American: 3.5%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 1.6%
Asian: 5.4%
Filipino: 0.9%
Hispanic or Latino: 37.7%
Pacific Islander: 0.4%
White: 45.0%
Two or More Races: 5.3%
Not Reported: 0.2%
REDWOOD HIGH - CMPA
Total Students: 1,947
African American: 1.0%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.4%
Asian: 4.9%
Filipino: 0.7%
Hispanic or Latino: 15.7%
Pacific Islander: 0.4%
White: 70.0%
Two or More Races: 3.2%
Not Reported: 3.7%
SAN ANDREAS HIGH - CMPA
Total Students: 69
African American: 5.8%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.0%
Asian: 4.3%
Filipino: 4.3%
Hispanic or Latino: 27.5%
Pacific Islander: 0.0%
White: 49.3%
Two or More Races: 4.3%
Not Reported: 4.3%
SAN JOSE MIDDLE - NPD
Total Students: 692
African American: 3.0%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.9%
Asian: 7.2%
Filipino: 1.2%
Hispanic or Latino: 49.7%
Pacific Islander: 0.6%
White: 33.5%
Two or More Races: 3.8%
Not Reported: 0.1%
SAN MARIN HIGH - NPD
Total Students: 1,127
African American: 1.2%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.4%
Asian: 4.7%
Filipino: 1.9%
Hispanic or Latino: 31.1%
Pacific Islander: 0.1%
White: 54.1%
Two or More Races: 6.4%
Not Reported: 20.0%
SAN RAFAEL HIGH - SRPD
Total Students: 1,379
African American: 0.5%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.3%
Asian: 3.3%
Filipino: 0.3%
Hispanic or Latino: 67.2%
Pacific Islander: 0.4%
White: 27.2%
Two or More Races: 0.7%
Not Reported: 0.1%
SINALOA MIDDLE - NPD
Total Students: 833
African American: 1.1%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.2%
Asian: 5.5%
Filipino: 0.7%
Hispanic or Latino: 30.1%
Pacific Islander: 0.1%
White: 54.1%
Two or More Races: 7.7%
Not Reported: 0.4%
SIR FRANCIS DRAKE HS - CMPA
Total Students: 1,342
African American: 0.7%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.2%
Asian: 2.9%
Filipino: 0.5%
Hispanic or Latino: 13.3%
Pacific Islander: 0.4%
White: 75.9%
Two or More Races: 3.0%
Not Reported: 3.1%
Page | 19
There were four (4) schools in which enrollment by ethnicity was not available on the website. Those schools are:
• Marin Academy – SRPD
• Marin Christian – NPD
• Our Lady of Loretto School – NPD
• St. Vincent’s School - MCSO
TAMALPAIS HIGH - MVPD
Total Students: 1,590
African American: 3.2%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.1%
Asian: 6.7%
Filipino: 0.6%
Hispanic or Latino: 11.4%
Pacific Islander: 0.5%
White: 69.2%
Two or More Races: 4.3%
Not Reported: 4.0%
TAMISCAL HS - CMPA
Total Students: 147
African American: 0.7%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.0%
Asian: 7.5%
Filipino: 0.0%
Hispanic or Latino: 15.0%
Pacific Islander: 0.0%
White: 73.5%
Two or More Races: 2.0%
Not Reported: 1.4%
TERRA LINDA HS - SRPD
Total Students: 1,317
African American: 1.4%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.5%
Asian: 6.2%
Filipino: 0.5%
Hispanic or Latino: 47.2%
Pacific Islander: 0.2%
White: 40.3%
Two or More Races: 3.5%
Not Reported: 0.3%
TOMALES HIGH - MCSO
Total Students: 165
African American: 0.0%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.6%
Asian: 1.2%
Filipino: 0.0%
Hispanic or Latino: 67.9%
Pacific Islander: 1.2%
White: 27.3%
Two or More Races: 1.2%
Not Reported: 0.6%
VENETIA VALLEY - MCSO
Total Students: 703
African American: 0.4%
American Indian or Alaska
Native: 0.4%
Asian: 3.0%
Filipino: 0.7%
Hispanic or Latino: 86.9%
Pacific Islander: 0.0%
White: 7.5%
Two or More Races: 1.0%
Not Reported: 0.0%
Chief David C. Spiller, San Rafael Police Department
Sheriff Jamie Scardina, Marin County Sheriff
City of San Rafael
1375 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael CA 94901
Cops & Kids Together:
Become Our Community Partner
Become Our Community Partner
Every summer, the San Rafael Police
Department hosts a camp for youth,
ages 11–13. This 5-day residential
camp offers a structured camping
and counseling experience with a
wide variety of activities. Students
that attend schools in the Marin
County district are nominated by
their teachers, counselors, or office
administrators for an opportunity to
attend Camp Chance.
Walker Creek Ranch in West Marin provides adult leadership for all camp activities
along with both San Rafael Police Department and Marin County Sheriff personnel.
The peace officers participate with the kids in activities throughout the week whether
it’s a first responder demonstration, meeting a comfort canine or playing soccer on
the beach. This informal and personal contact with police personnel has proven to
be a big win-win to bridge the gap between the kids, police and community. Our goal
is for the kids to feel more connected and build good relationships with local law
enforcement.
campchanceconnect.org
S A N R AFA
E
L
T
H
E
C
ITY WI T H A M I S SION
Your support enables
us to provide this
camping experience
for kids whose
families are not able
to otherwise afford
residential summer
camps.
And they’re off!
From the moment the campers
arrived, they were welcomed
into their cabins, met their new
friends, and got acquainted with
their counselors. Walker Creek
Ranch personnel provided an
overview of the exciting activities
and presentations lined up for the week, ensuring the
campers were ready for an unforgettable experience.
The annual Walker Creek Olympics kicked off with
spirited potato sack races, donut-eating contests, and
team-building relay races. One challenge had campers
racing to fill buckets using
just a sponge, while another
involved creating a human
pipeline to get a ball into
a bucket. The fun was
endless! Campers also
participated in a swim test
for those eager to take a dip
in the pond throughout the
week.
Presentations and Demonstrations
San Rafael Fire Station 51’s
Captain Cespedes, Engineer
Beal, and Firefighter
Mahon gave a captivating
demonstration of firefighting
techniques and equipment,
inspiring some campers
to consider a future in
firefighting.
Marin County Search and Rescue (SAR) also made a
grand appearance led by Frank Gerber, Emily Alpert,
Mike Cann, Robert Eichstaedt, and several SAR team
members. They set up stations where campers learned
how to use a rope system for heavy load transport,
tried out the “litter basket” used for patient rescues,
and enjoyed a thrilling search exercise with Naomi
Harada’s search dog, Cat,
who expertly tracked hidden
campers. The second half
of the campers attended a
learning session with SRPD
Officer Sanchez, McCarthy,
Ortiz, and Deputy Gasparini on
Police Procedures and what it
takes to start a career in law
enforcement. They also shared
their own personal journey to
becoming a police officer.
Other campers learned about the Crisis Response
Team from Lieutenant Eberle and Officer Rodriguez,
with hands-on opportunities to try on tactical gear and
understand the roles of each team member. Deputies
White and Brady from the Marin County Sheriff’s
Department wowed the kids with a live demonstration
of their Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) — also known
as a drone — and a tour of the Bearcat vehicle.
campchanceconnect.org
Camp Chance 2024: Another Magical Summer!
This year’s Camp Chance was a resounding success! We hosted 61 enthusiastic
campers for a 5-day adventure at the beautiful Walker Creek Ranch in West Marin.
With the support of 18 dedicated counselors — including 12 returning veterans — the
camp was filled with excitement, learning, and fun.
Camp Chance is sponsored by the San Rafael Police Department (SRPD) in collaboration with Marin County Sheriff’s
Department (MCSO). SRPD personnel included Community Service Officer Bullock, Officer Sanchez, Officer Ortiz,
Officer McCarthy, Mental Health Supervisor Murphy, School Resource Deputy Gasparini, Cadet Taylor, Cadet Collins, and
Cadet Rodas.
campchanceconnect.org
A Helicopter Surprise! One of the
highlights of the week was a visit from
the United States Coast Guard! Pilots
Lieutenant Straits, Lieutenant Flynn, and
Aviation Maintenance Technician Young
made a spectacular entrance, landing
their bright red helicopter in the field
at Walker Creek Ranch. The kids were
thrilled to explore the helicopter, ask
the pilots endless questions, and hear
gripping stories of real-life rescues.
A Day at the Beach
No Camp Chance experience would
be complete without the much-
anticipated Beach Day! Campers,
counselors, and staff took a bus
ride to Drakes Beach at Point Reyes
National Seashore. The day was
filled with arts and crafts, soccer,
football, kite flying, and relaxation by
the shore.
Mona, Genevieve, Mika and Lynn Murphy.
Blue is in front!
Mental Health Awareness
A fantastic new addition to this year’s program was centered
around Mental Health Awareness, especially for middle
schoolers. Three Marin Academy High School students,
Mona, Genevieve, and Mika — fellows of the Dragon Kim Foundation —
partnered with San Rafael Police to bring their non-profit initiative,
Mindful Futures: Empowering Youth Wellness for All, to Camp Chance.
Their mission is to equip young people with essential mental health
techniques and coping skills.
With the help of our Mental Health Supervisor, Lynn Murphy, and of
course, our comfort dog Blue, they facilitated impactful activities such
as journal decorating, gardening, nature meditation walks, and scenario-
based discussions about navigating teenage challenges. These activities
left a lasting impression on the campers, equipping them with skills they
can use both at home and in school.
campchanceconnect.org
Project Linus North Bay/Sonoma
Project Linus is a nation-wide organization, with a mission
to provide love, a sense of security, warmth and comfort
to children who are seriously ill, traumatized, or otherwise
in need. They do this by giving children gifts of new,
handmade blankets lovingly created for Project Linus by
volunteer “blanketeers”. Our gratitude is huge that Camp
Chance benefited from their kind donation of 65 blankets.
Marin Airporter
We thank Marin Airporter for
safely transporting campers on
their buses from two locations in
San Rafael to Walker Creek Ranch
in Petaluma.
Special Thanks to Our Counselors and CITs
A heartfelt thank you goes out to our counselors and
Walker Creek Ranch staff for their tireless dedication
throughout the week.
A special shoutout to our Counselors in Training (CITs),
who played an essential role in supporting the campers
while the counselors took much-needed breaks. Though
three of our four CITs were new, they quickly adapted and
handled their responsibilities with maturity and grace.
There’s no doubt these teenagers will continue to grow and
become future leaders at Camp Chance!
We don’t do this alone. We appreciate everyone who makes Camp Chance happen!
Donate online at: www.cityofsanrafael.org/donate-to-camp-chance
Keep the Magic Alive!
Help us send 65 students to Camp Chance 2025
Plans have begun and
we need your help
It costs about $500 to send one youth
to Camp Chance and the need for
this program continues to grow. With
your help we can continue to infuse
enthusiasm and hope for our future
adults. The transformation these
campers experience in the five days
can only be described as magical.
Camp Chance is funded by local citizens and businesses
— we rely on people like you who can give the campers
this experience. There is no contribution too small. Your
tax-deductible donation will help impact the lives of young
people in our community.
Pay by check: Payable to “San Rafael Camp Chance”
Camp Chance Fund
San Rafael Police Department
1375 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Our tax-exempt number is 94-6000424