Duluth schools report increased SRO visibility and restorative outcomes; survey response rates and training cadence flagged for follow-up

Director of Secondary Schools (presentation lead identified in packet) and Sergeant Mike Jamber presented the school resource officer (SRO) program evaluation to the Duluth Public Schools Committee of the Whole on Oct. 1, saying the assessment checklist developed by an advisory committee showed SROs met expectations in relationship-building, professional development and communication.

The district reported marked year-over-year increases in metrics the SRO team tracks as evidence of relationship- and trust-building: student group visits rose (from 28 to 98 in the period cited), after-school activity attendance was high (165 as of May reporting, with additional events later in the year), and positive student interactions increased substantially. The district’s student-family survey responses that directly referenced SRO interactions indicated 83.8 percent of respondents viewed SRO visibility positively and 91 percent of those respondents said they felt comfortable speaking with an SRO.

The presenters emphasized restorative approaches: the district logged 254 restorative-action opportunities during the most recent year in which an officer could have issued a citation but, after consultation, the team instead pursued restorative measures. By comparison, the district reported 22 citations issued across secondary sites in the most recent school year (charges totaled 25 because multiple charges can be on a single citation).

"These are opportunities where the SROs dealt with the situation with their building admin. The decision was to go the restorative route instead of issue a citation," Sergeant Jamber said in describing how officers weigh context and prior interactions in deciding whether to issue citations.

Director of Secondary Schools and the advisory committee reported the SRO assessment tool was piloted and generally accepted by committee members. However, board members and staff noted two data issues for follow-up: the district received just 142 student responses to the SRO survey fielded in conjunction with the spring climate survey this year, down from 1,080 responses in 2024; and some materials used the term "counseling" in ways that could cause confusion because SROs are not licensed school counselors.

"They are not licensed counselors," the director clarified after board members raised concerns, and said the district would change language to describe officers' nonclinical support work as mentoring or guidance rather than counseling.

Board members also asked about equitable outcomes and training. The district said implicit-bias and culturally responsive training is part of officers' post licensing/post certification cycle: officers must complete that training at least once every three years as part of their post licensing requirements, though some have received additional trainings via conferences and online courses. The presenters listed several training topics SROs had attended, including crisis intervention, conflict mediation, implicit bias, autism training and wellness.

Principals and SROs described how restorative practices operate in schools. At Lincoln and Denfeld, staff described alternatives to suspension and pre-referral interventions (program names cited verbally as PAWS and DEN); school leaders said many incidents are resolved through conversations and school-based interventions rather than formal charges. Denfeld and Lincoln principals described coordinated responses that include the SRO, administrators and MTSS (multi-tiered system of supports) staff.

Board members also asked for operational clarifications: how officers document positive interactions (presenters described the counts as best approximations, not mechanically tallied), where the SROs work in elementary schools (the contract requires SRO presence in elementaries and the district funds that time as part of contracted services), and how SRO performance evaluations incorporate input from building administrators (principals provide survey-based input and the district is seeking a better annual cadence for those evaluations).

Other operational notes: the district maintains a public webpage with citation data, student/family survey data and activity tracking that is updated monthly; the SRO advisory committee convened twice last year and is open to community members; and the district contracts with an outside security firm for the Alternative Learning Center (ALC).

Board members praised the increased visibility and relationship-building work but asked the administration to improve survey response rates, clarify terminology and continue to ensure principals’ input is captured in SRO evaluations. Several board members also requested opportunities to meet SROs in the schools to strengthen relationships.

Ending: District staff said they will circulate the SRO assessment tool (board members had difficulty locating it in the board packet but the director emailed it during the meeting), run the citation report monthly (the report is generated each month and is uploaded to the district website) and review survey timing and administration to increase response rates and evaluate SRO performance with more principal input.