Bill would require Nevada school districts that employ police to publish annual use‑of‑force reports

CARSON CITY — Assembly Bill 420 would require any Nevada school district that employs or contracts school police officers to publish an annual internet report summarizing use‑of‑force incidents on campus, sponsor Assemblymember Cecilia Gonzales told the Senate Committee on Education at a Feb. 1 hearing.

The bill—co‑presented by Nyle Usher of Make the Road Nevada—would ask districts to report aggregated counts by type of force (for example, chemical agents such as pepper spray, electronic stun devices, and hands‑on physical force), the general location (school or event), whether the incident occurred during school hours or a school‑sponsored event, basic age ranges and demographic categories of the student involved, and rank/years of service of the officer involved.

Supporters said the data are already recorded by school police but are not routinely available to the public except through time‑consuming public‑records requests. ‘‘Transparency shouldn’t be a privilege,’’ Usher said, and provided data obtained via such requests showing repeated deployments: for the 2019–20 academic year, Make the Road’s figures showed 30 uses of pepper spray, six taser deployments and 22 incidents catalogued as physical force; comparable counts were presented for subsequent years.

Supporters and witnesses—including representatives of Make the Road Nevada, Progressive Leadership Alliance, Native Voters Alliance Nevada, Youth Power Project and parents—said public reporting would help communities identify schools that may over‑rely on force and spur investment in de‑escalation, counseling or alternative supports. Several student witnesses described personal experiences they said illustrated harms from force used on campus.

Committee members questioned how the bill would protect individual privacy and avoid identifying students or officers in small districts. Sponsors described amendments and threshold rules to redact or aggregate data to prevent identification in small agencies and said the report would present age categories and aggregate demographic breakdowns rather than names or precise timestamps.

Lawmakers also asked whether charter schools or very small districts that contract with sheriffs would be covered. Sponsors said the bill targets districts that employ school police departments (not every district) and that language was amended to clarify applicability; they also said additional clarifications could be taken up with districts outside Clark and Washoe during the interim.

No formal committee vote was recorded at the conclusion of the hearing. Supporters urged approval to build public trust and to provide a basis for targeted prevention and training; no organized opposition testified during the committee’s allotted time.

Why it matters: The requirement would make data on in‑school uses of force accessible without a public‑records request and could change how districts allocate resources for safety, training and behavioral supports. Supporters view the reports as a tool to reduce disproportionate discipline and to inform community oversight.

What’s next: Sponsors said they would continue to work with districts to refine privacy safeguards and applicability for smaller districts; the measure was left in committee pending possible amendment or referral.