Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Youth Policing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police Advisory and Accountability Committee reviews youth-police study, recommends annual follow-up
Summary
A working group presented a mixed-methods study of 26 San Rafael youth finding both support for police and significant trust gaps tied to race and prior negative encounters; the PAC asked staff to include recommendations in its annual report and agreed to revisit youth-police relations annually.
The Police Advisory and Accountability Committee on Wednesday heard the findings of a 15‑month youth-policing study and agreed to keep the issue on next year’s calendar for continued review.
The presentation, led by Member Daniel Alm and Antonio Zavala of Youth Transforming Justice, described a mixed-method study of 26 participants aged 15–25 who live or attend school in San Rafael. Presenters said participants completed an anonymous survey and participated in listening sessions to document youths’ perceptions of the San Rafael Police Department (SRPD) and identify steps to build trust.
The study’s quantitative findings showed 69 juvenile referrals to probation in 2023 (24 leading to bookings) and 67 referrals in 2024 (25 bookings); presenters said Latino youth were disproportionately represented among referrals relative to their share of the youth population. Presenters cautioned the sample size was small and not intended to represent every young person in the city.
Qualitative results highlighted a range of youth views. Presenters summarized two recurring patterns: some youth reported positive, non‑enforcement interactions with officers and said those experiences made them more willing to call police, while others described interactions that eroded trust. As one participant reported in the listening sessions, “My first interaction with the police was when I was asking for mental health support. I was put in handcuffs. I told them excessive force was being used on me and I was ignored.” The presenters said such experiences reduce young people’s willingness to seek help.
Recommendations included expanded youth‑focused training for officers in adolescent development and de‑escalation, more casual community engagement opportunities, an annual "courageous conversation" jointly hosted by SRPD, Youth Transforming Justice and the PAC, and adding a youth member to the PAC to elevate youth voices. Member Alm also urged an ongoing subcommittee or scheduled annual review so the PAC can monitor progress without creating an unannounced Brown Act body.
Committee members questioned the study’s sample and recruitment. Presenters said direct on‑campus recruitment was rescinded by school district leadership at the last hour, limiting the pool; they described recruitment done through college professors and youth-serving organizations. Committee members acknowledged the study’s limits but said the findings provide useful direction for training, community outreach and future, larger studies.
Public commenters at the meeting urged the city to prioritize mental‑health and school-based supports over police presence in schools, and several called for careful attention to racial disparities highlighted in the study. The committee directed staff to include the study’s recommendations in the PAC annual report to city council and accepted member suggestions to revisit youth‑policing as an agenda item during annual planning.
The committee did not vote on policy changes at the meeting; presenters and members emphasized the study’s role as a starting point for further community engagement and analysis.
