Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SRO Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gilroy Unified says SROs focus on prevention as juvenile arrests fall; some board members ask for more data
Summary
District staff and SROs presented survey results showing majority support for SROs and large reductions in arrests over three years; board members requested additional breakdowns of calls for service and the composition of negative responses in surveys.
Gilroy Unified staff and the city’s school resource officers (SROs) presented an informational update on the district’s SRO program, stressing prevention and relationship‑building.
A district presenter summarized LCAP survey results showing high levels of staff and parent support for SROs on campus (staff ~93% agree or strongly agree; parents and guardians at comparable levels) and majority student support across grade levels. Captain Kevin Powell said the program has shifted toward early intervention and diversion, reporting a multi‑year reduction in juvenile arrests by SROs — from 78 in 2324 to 37 in 2425 and 11 in 2526 — while noting SROs still respond to more than 1,300 calls for service district‑wide in the most recent year.
District staff highlighted non‑enforcement activity: SROs participate in community presentations, counseling‑style interactions, and positive student engagement. The district also described collaborative prevention work with site administrators, counselors and community mental‑health partners.
Several board and council members thanked SROs but asked for more granular data. One council member requested counts and types of calls for service (e.g., fights versus weapon incidents) and whether the reduced arrests correspond with reduced recidivism. Another member noted that while broad approval percentages are high, the presence of 10–20% who disagree warrants follow‑up questions to understand and address concerns.
The presenters said some of that detail can be provided in follow‑up reporting to the board and that SRO selection and training include district participation. The board did not take formal action; members requested further data and clarification on restorative‑practice implementation at specific schools.
Next steps: district staff agreed to follow up with more detailed breakdowns of calls for service and to clarify how restorative practices are applied at the school‑site level.
