---

NAACP 2025 Statement on School Safety
​
​Addressing the issue of School Resource Officers on Campus is not new to our organization. Please see the National Resolu-tion from July 2018 for NAACP’s Policy. 

The Santa Rosa-Sonoma County NAACP branch is deeply impacted by events in Sonoma County schools. We are still seeing the long term effects of social isolation and virtual learning during the Covid-19 pandemic and climate crisis events. Our youth need intentional and guided support on what can be an extremely challenging path to graduation and adulthood. We are devastated by the tragedies that have brought pain and trauma to the community. 

We are also deeply aware of the tendency to utilize these events to call for increased police presence on school campuses which disproportionately affects Black, Indigenous students of color and students with disabilities and feeds the school-to-prison pipeline. We are in alignment with the national NAACP’s stance on school resource officers, which notes that most SRO policies do not empower parents to intervene on their children’s behalf to protect against self-incrimination or unwarranted searches. Many of our children aren’t afforded the appropriate support needed to overcome the challenges posed by socioeconomic impacts. Additionally, intentionally ambiguous School Resource Officer policies allow officers to conduct activities such as searches and seizures, stop and frisk, or interrogations that would otherwise be prohibited and potentially create constitutional violations that the average child would not be aware of or have the wherewithal to defend against. Above all, school districts must minimize police presence in schools. 

Santa Rosa-Sonoma NAACP chose to participate in discussions around the proposed MOU for an SRO program at Santa Rosa City Schools in good faith, to ensure that the concerns of the communities that are most disproportionately impacted were considered. At no point did our branch agree to be named as a supporter of the Memorandum of Understanding contract. Despite this, our branch and members of the executive committee were named repeatedly at the March 25 Santa Rosa City Schools board meeting by Trustee De La Torre as supporters of the MOU agreement for Santa Rosa Police Department to provide SRO programming. This misrepresents our position and is not what we intended. We do not support the current iteration of the MOU. We did not consent to be listed as supporters. This is disingenuous and manipulates our partnership to insinuate our support of the current iteration of this new plan without our knowledge or consent.

We recognize the lack of evidence and the deficit of statistically significant correlation between student safety and the presence of law enforcement on campuses. We acknowledge the importance of truly listening to the voices of the community—especially those who are most affected by this decision. The impacts on our community are profound, leaving lasting scars on individuals and their families, especially given our political climate and weaponization of law enforcement for federal agenda purposes. As we reflect on this, it’s crucial that we dive deeper into the data to better understand the nuanced effects of law enforcement presence. It is only through a thorough analysis of both qualitative experiences and quantitative data that we can make informed decisions that prioritize the well-being of everyone in the community which SRCS did not embark on.

We are not in alignment with the outlined policy on SRO access to student records as it is currently written. The language of the policy grants law enforcement broad access to student directory information, attendance records, and discipline files with minimal safeguards to protect student privacy. While we understand the importance of ensuring school safety, the policy lacks clear and specific limitations on when and how student records can be accessed. Additionally, the provision allowing the disclosure of con- fidential student information during emergencies is overly subjective, relying on vague terms like “seriousness of the threat” without clear criteria. This presents a concern for potential violations of student confidentiality laws under FERPA.

The stance of this branch is clear. We do not support SRO programming. Our previous public statements and actions have re- mained clear and steadfast on this issue. Unfortunately, there are loud voices in the community that would push our school districts to implement SROs when they are dealing with crucial budget deficits and staffing issues that impact the daily lives of teachers and students. SRCS must consider the larger impact that this expenditure would have on our localized economy with regard to attrition and displacement of staff, teachers and families. The California Department of Education has provided guidance through its Transforming Schools Initiative that investment in restorative justice programs, mental health and counseling services, McKinney-Vento resources, youth development, ensuring safe havens and eliminating bias and discrimination are more effective strategies to help students and support fiscal sustainability.

No student should be unsafe at school. And disproportionately impacted students should not have their safety compromised by increased police presence at Santa Rosa City Schools. Santa Rosa- Sonoma County NAACP has not changed its position on police in schools, and we will not accept our branch or our executive committee members being named or utilized to uphold policies we do not support. We stand by our previous statements in support of students and police free schools. We Came to Learn. 

---

Santa Rosa-Sonoma County NAACP Branch Executive Committee

---