SRO agency responses in the original county compilation

Response says

YCSO says it agrees with MJUSD, whose core roles it describes as standardized; daily assignment differences are attributed to geography and mutual aid. A jointly agreed role matrix follows on page 2.

Audit analysis

The response implies disagreement with the jury’s lack-of-standardization conclusion while acknowledging variation. The named matrix is support within the response, not proof of countywide adoption.

Response says

YCSO agrees with MJUSD’s position that school discipline remains separate from law enforcement; searches and crisis support have defined safety roles.

Audit analysis

The response addresses discipline, behavioral health and criminal intervention but does not explicitly say whether YCSO agrees or disagrees with the jury’s finding. The matrix continues on page 3.

Response says

YCSO aligns with MJUSD. The quoted district position acknowledges qualitative rather than centralized data-driven evaluation and proposes surveys, logs and diversion measures.

Audit analysis

The finding response describes a future district framework, whereas YCSO’s R3 answer on page 5 only promises to consider metrics. Do not treat these as a single unconditional Sheriff implementation promise.

Response says

YCSO agrees with MJUSD’s response and says the program is not decentralized or lacking supervision, citing the district director and law-enforcement sergeants.

Audit analysis

Page 4 proposes formalizing MJUSD oversight roles. Page 5 separately says a dedicated SRO supervisor is desired but infeasible without allocations. These distinct statements are preserved rather than treated as proof that additional oversight is unnecessary.

Response says

YCSO will collaborate to develop and document standardized roles but cautions that prescriptive documentation cannot cover every scenario.

Audit analysis

A future collaborative action is stated, with reservations about limiting roles. The answer does not adopt the December 31 deadline or explicitly cover every listed partner.

Response says

YCSO will collaborate with partners to develop written protocols where applicable, focusing on health and welfare.

Audit analysis

The commitment is qualified by applicability; the answer does not specify the proposed deadline or all discipline and behavioral-health decision-making details.

Response says

YCSO will coordinate with participating schools to consider measurable program metrics and points to existing annual employee evaluations.

Audit analysis

Considering metrics is not a commitment to implement the jury’s indicators. No scope of a formal study or timeframe is supplied; December 31 appears only in the quoted recommendation.

Response says

YCSO wants a dedicated supervisor but says existing sergeant allocations make it infeasible without additional positions. It will evaluate policy standardization and performance monitoring with partners.

Audit analysis

The response explains current staffing limits and promises further evaluation, not a funded supervisory post or a dated feasibility deliverable. Existing shift supervision continues while resources remain unresolved.

Response says

The Board agrees that countywide roles were not historically standardized; it says its spring 2026 manual substantially addresses the local gap.

Audit analysis

The local manual is supplied at pages 51–84. A local implementation claim does not establish countywide standardization.

Response says

The Board agrees that the frameworks operate concurrently, cites its written decision and notification protocols, and says behavioral-health lines are being further documented.

Audit analysis

The response distinguishes existing discipline/crime protocols from a behavioral-health component still being formalized.

Response says

The Board agrees there is no countywide standardized evaluation framework to its knowledge and will supply site data to a Sheriff-led effort.

Audit analysis

The response assigns primary program-level responsibility to the Sheriff while offering collaboration; it does not claim a framework already exists.

Response says

The Board agrees oversight is decentralized and additional Sheriff supervision was identified; it places supervisory decisions with the employing agency.

Audit analysis

Support for Sheriff-led strengthening is not an adopted local supervisory reorganization.

Response says

The district says written local roles are implemented in its attached spring 2026 manual and will participate in broader countywide standardization.

Audit analysis

Implemented refers to the district’s local scope only; the answer expressly leaves countywide coordination as future participation.

Response says

The district reports existing protocols and expects its SRO and administrators to complete and present behavioral-health decision-making lines before December 31, 2026.

Audit analysis

The remaining behavioral-health component is future work, so the whole recommendation is not marked fully implemented. This is the district’s stated completion expectation, not independently observed completion.

Response says

The district says metrics are not yet implemented but will be implemented in the future, and will provide available attendance and discipline data to the coordinated effort.

Audit analysis

The answer continues on page 49 with anticipated participation through December 31, 2026. The commitment is district participation and site data, not unilateral creation of a countywide framework.

Response says

The district supports the evaluation, says it is outside district authority and will cooperate with the Sheriff as requested.

Audit analysis

The district explains its limited authority rather than selecting a disposition for the proposed feasibility evaluation. No completed evaluation or timeframe is claimed.

Response says

MJUSD partially disagrees: physical assignments vary but core roles and oversight are said to be standardized. A jointly agreed written role matrix appears in the packet.

Audit analysis

The packet supplies written definitions, not independent evidence of consistent execution at every county site. The matrix continues on page 89.

Response says

MJUSD disagrees, distinguishes administrator discipline from safety-related searches and protective behavioral-health support, and supplies an enforcement boundary matrix.

Audit analysis

This is MJUSD’s described operational boundary, not a legal determination that every intervention follows it.

Response says

MJUSD partially disagrees but acknowledges historical reliance on qualitative rather than a formal centralized metric system. It will develop surveys, activity logs and diversion measures.

Audit analysis

The disagreement label and qualitative-evaluation admission are both retained. No completion date is stated for the new framework.

Response says

MJUSD disagrees, describes director/sergeant dual oversight and will formalize existing roles with law-enforcement partners within the next fiscal year.

Audit analysis

Page 92 specifies the next MOU revision, documented command loop and monthly leadership briefings. The relative fiscal-year timing is preserved without inventing a calendar deadline.