Between Concern and Crisis: Why schools and campuses need clear concern pathways

Schools and campuses have spent years telling students, families, faculty, and staff to speak up when something feels wrong.

• If you see something, say so. 
• Tell a trusted adult.
• Use the reporting form.
• Call campus safety.
• Contact the school.
• Reach out before it gets worse.

The message matters. Silence can be dangerous, and many of the most serious safety concerns do not begin as emergencies. They begin as informational fragments: a comment, a change in behavior, a post, a rumor, a threat, a fear, a withdrawal, a pattern someone notices but is not yet sure how to name. K–12 school safety research and federal guidance have repeatedly emphasized that concerning behaviors are often observable before targeted violence occurs and that bystander reporting can play an important role in prevention (National Threat Assessment Center, 2018, 2019, 2021; Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency & U.S. Secret Service, 2023).

But “say something” is only the first step. A student may say something. A parent may send the email. A teacher may share the gut concern. A residence life staff member may pass along the troubling comment. A bus driver, coach, cafeteria worker, adjunct faculty member, school nurse, school resource officer, or campus safety officer may notice a shift before anyone else does. The deeper question is what happens next.

Concern is often ambiguous. It may come as a passing comment, a shift in tone, a peer disclosure, a parent’s unease, a troubling assignment, a hallway observation, a residence hall rumor, or a staff member’s instinct that something just isn’t right. Remember:

• It may not be an emergency.
• It may not be a discipline matter.
• It may not be a threat.
• But it is not nothing.

In earlier work, we argued that psychological safety is not separate from school safety because it shapes whether students and adults trust a system enough to surface concerns before those concerns coalesce into crisis (Alley & March, 2026a). That foundation still matters. But once concern is voiced, schools and campuses face another essential question: Does that concern have somewhere wise, clear, and responsible to go? Between concern and crisis is where prevention lives, yet prevention depends on more than awareness. It depends on clear, trusted, proportionate pathways that help schools and campuses move concern toward wise action.

Concern Often Has No Clear Home

Most schools and campuses have many formal systems: discipline, counseling, threat assessment, Title IX or civil rights processes, special education, student conduct, emergency response, campus safety, family engagement, academic support, behavioral intervention teams, and more.

These systems matter. But it isn’t always clear where to lodge an early concern.

• A fifth grader tells a teacher that a classmate keeps saying scary things at recess.
• A high school student sees something disturbing in a group chat but does not know whether it is serious enough to report.
• A parent senses that their child is afraid of someone at school but is unsure whether to contact the teacher, counselor, principal, or school resource officer.
• A faculty member notices that a college student’s writing has become darker, more isolated, and more despairing.
• A residence life staff member hears vague comments about hazing but does not yet have a formal report.
• A coach notices that a student-athlete is suddenly volatile, withdrawn, and missing practice.

In each case, someone is concerned. But concern needs a clear place to land. When concern has no home, people improvise. Some hold information for too long. Some send it to the wrong place. Some escalate too quickly because they are afraid of missing something. Others minimize the information because they do not want to overreact, make trouble, or damage a relationship. Some assume someone else already knows. Some document but do not connect. Some refer but do not follow up. This is how concern gets lost. A prevention-centered safety system must make concern easier to name, easier to route, and harder to lose.

A Concern Is Not One Thing

One of the most common mistakes in school and campus safety is treating concern as a single category.

Concern can mean emotional distress. It can mean bullying, harassment, peer conflict, bias, social isolation, self-harm risk, threatening language, fixation, grievance, relationship violence, hazing, substance use, family instability, academic disengagement, disability-related need, grief, trauma, conduct concerns, or fear without a fully formed report. Those are not the same thing.

A student who is being bullied needs protection and support. A student who has made a threat needs assessment and intervention. A student who is grieving may need connection. A student who is being coercively controlled in a relationship may need confidential advocacy and safety planning. A student whose behavior is escalating may need coordinated adult attention. A student who has harmed another student may need accountability, boundaries, and intervention. A student who has posted something disturbing online may require a fact-based assessment before assumptions become labels.

Schools and campuses undermine trust when they treat all categories of concern as either nothing or emergency. A mature system does not flatten concern. It sorts, routes, and responds with discernment. The goal is not to make every concern bigger. The goal is to make every concern clearer.

The Risk of Underreaction and Overreaction

Educational communities can fail in two opposite ways. They can underreact. A concern is dismissed, delayed, minimized, fragmented, or passed around until no one owns it:

• It’s probably just drama.
• He is always like that.
• Her older brother was the same way.
• They’re just looking for attention.
• He did not make a direct threat.
• No one filed a formal complaint.
• We did not have enough information to act.

Underreaction teaches students, families, and staff that sharing concern may not matter. It also allows patterns to remain invisible until they become harder to interrupt.

But schools and campuses can also overreact. A student in distress becomes a problem. A child needing support becomes a discipline case. A vague worry becomes a punitive response. A student from a marginalized group may be watched more closely, believed less often, escalated more quickly, or punished more harshly. The National Association of School Psychologists has cautioned that behavioral threat assessment and management should focus on interventions and supports, not simply punishment, and should be embedded within comprehensive systems of support (NASP School Safety and Crisis Response Committee, 2021). Research on student threat assessment also suggests that structured threat assessment can function as an alternative to exclusionary discipline, with evidence of reduced reliance on suspension and law enforcement action when compared with more general approaches (Maeng et al., 2020). That distinction matters. 

Safety work should not become a machine that turns every worry into exclusion, every behavior into danger, or every student in pain into a threat. An elegant concern pathway protects against both neglect and overreach. It helps adults take concern seriously without treating every concern identically. The space between concern and crisis requires discernment, not panic. What schools and campuses need is not the smallest response or the strongest response by default, but the least harmful effective response: the response sufficient to protect people and address the concern while avoiding unnecessary damage.

The Concern Pathway

A concern pathway does not need to be complicated, but it does need to be visible, understood, and practiced. At minimum, schools and campuses need a shared process for how concern moves from first noticing to appropriate response. One way to understand that pathway is: Notice. Name. Share. Triage. Respond. Follow up. Learn.

Notice

Someone sees, hears, senses, or receives something that raises concern. This could be a student, educator, parent, staff member, peer, school resource officer, campus safety officer, advisor, coach, or resident assistant. Noticing is relational. People often notice change because they know what “usual” looks like.

This is one reason school connectedness and positive school climate are not separate from safety. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified school connectedness as a protective factor associated with lower levels of poor mental health, substance use, violence, and other risks among youth (2024). The National School Climate Center identifies five major domains of school climate: safety, teaching and learning, interpersonal relationships, institutional environment, and leadership and efficacy (National School Climate Center, n.d.).

Students are safer in communities where they are known well enough for change to be visible. As we have argued in our work on relational data, schools cannot only track grades, referrals, and attendance while leaving connection invisible. Who is connected, who is drifting, who is new, who has a trusted adult, and who is quietly disappearing from the life of the community are not soft questions. They are safety questions, too (Alley, 2026).

Name

The concern is described clearly, without exaggeration or minimization.

• Instead of “He is dangerous,” someone might say, “He has been increasingly isolated, made two comments about revenge, and posted a photo with concerning language.”
• Instead of “She is just dramatic,” someone might say, “She has come to the nurse three times this week, is crying before lunch, and says she does not want to go to math.”
• Instead of “I think something bad is happening in that residence hall,” someone might say, “Three students have separately mentioned being pressured to participate in late-night initiation activities, but none of them wants to file a formal report.”

Naming is not labeling. Naming is an act of care and accuracy. It helps systems respond to what is actually known, not to rumor, fear, assumption, or avoidance.

Share

The concern moves to the right person or team. This is where role clarity matters. Students, families, faculty, and staff should not need insider knowledge to know where concern belongs. If a student is worried about a peer, the pathway should be obvious. If a parent notices a change, the pathway should be accessible. If a teacher, advisor, or staff member sees something that feels off, the pathway should not depend on personal relationships, institutional memory, or guesswork. A concern that depends on luck to reach the right person is not yet part of a safety system.

Triage

The concern is assessed by people with the right expertise.

The question is not simply, “Is this serious?” The better questions are:

• What do we know?
• What don’t we know?
• Is anyone in immediate danger?
• Is this distress, conflict, misconduct, harm, threat, or some combination?
• Who is already connected to this student?
• What support is needed?
• What accountability is needed?
• What protection is needed?
• Who else needs to know?

Behavioral threat assessment guidance consistently emphasizes the importance of multidisciplinary teams, fact-based inquiry, and management strategies that connect assessment to intervention (Cornell & Maeng, 2024; NASP School Safety and Crisis Response Committee, 2021; University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development, n.d.). In higher education, behavioral intervention and CARE teams similarly exist to gather information, assess concern, and coordinate support or intervention across campus roles (NABITA, 2023). No single person sees the whole picture. That is why the concern pathway matters.

Respond

The response should be proportionate to the nature and level of concern. Sometimes the response is support. Sometimes it is counseling referral, family contact, restorative process, disability support, academic flexibility, conduct review, safety planning, threat assessment, increased supervision, emergency action, or law enforcement involvement when necessary. Good safety systems do not choose between care and accountability. They build pathways that know when each is needed.

Follow Up

A concern pathway is incomplete if it ends with forwarding an email, filing a report, or making a referral. When appropriate, someone should check whether the response worked. Did the student connect with support? Did the bullying stop? Did the safety plan hold? Did the faculty member receive guidance? Did the parent know the concern was received? Did the student who reported understand what could and could not be shared back? Follow-up communicates that the concern mattered. It also communicates that the person who shared it mattered.

Learn

Patterns should inform prevention. Repeated concerns about a hallway, bathroom, bus route, residence hall, online space, athletic team, transition time, group dynamic, or adult response pattern should lead to learning. If students are repeatedly afraid to report, that is data. If staff repeatedly send concerns to the wrong office, that is data. If certain students are over-referred or under-protected, that is data. If the same location keeps appearing in reports, that is data. A clear concern pathway turns scattered worry into coordinated prevention.

Role Clarity Builds Trust

In K–12 schools, concern pathways may involve classroom teachers, school counselors, administrators, school resource officers, nurses, social workers, special education teams, coaches, transportation staff, family liaisons, threat assessment teams, district leaders, parents and guardians, and community partners. In higher education, concern pathways may involve faculty, advisors, counseling centers, residence life, campus safety or police, student conduct, Title IX or civil rights offices, disability services, the dean of students, athletics, academic support, behavioral intervention teams, peer leaders, and families when appropriate and legally permissible. Role clarity does not mean everyone knows everything. It means people know how to move concern responsibly.

This is especially important because privacy, confidentiality, and safety obligations are real. FERPA permits, but does not require, certain disclosures without consent in specific circumstances, including to threat assessment team members who qualify as school officials with legitimate educational interests, and under health or safety emergency exceptions when applicable (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). But privacy rules should not be handled through rumor, fear, or improvisation. Schools and campuses need clear protocols, training, and agreements so people understand what may be shared, with whom, for what purpose, and under what limits.

Trust grows when people understand who receives concern, what happens to it, what remains private where possible, what cannot remain private, and how the institution will respond. People are more likely to use pathways they understand. They are more likely to trust pathways that tell the truth.

This is also why relationship-centered safety roles matter. In our RELATE framework, we argued for reimagining the School Resource Officer as a School Relationship Officer: a role grounded in Respect, Empathy, Listening, Accountability, Trust, and Equity. That reframing matters here because the adult receiving concern must be trained not only to enforce, but also to listen, de-escalate, connect, clarify, and route concern responsibly (Alley & March, 2026b).

The Least Harmful Effective Response

One useful principle we propose for concern pathway design is the least harmful effective response. The safest response is not always the biggest response. It is the response that protects people, addresses the concern, preserves dignity where possible, and avoids unnecessary harm. This does not mean relaxing accountability. It means matching the response to the actual need. Sometimes the need is immediate protection. Sometimes it is assessment. Sometimes it is repair. Sometimes it is support. Sometimes it is discipline. Sometimes it is some coordinated combination of these.

This principle matters because schools and campuses are not neutral systems. Some students are already over-surveilled. Some are under-believed. Some are disproportionately disciplined. Some are treated as threatening when they are dysregulated, disabled, grieving, traumatized, culturally misunderstood, or simply angry in a way adults find uncomfortable. Other students are under-protected because adults minimize peer harm, dating violence, hazing, bias, bullying, or harassment as drama, conflict, tradition, or misunderstanding.

The least harmful effective response asks institutions to avoid both errors.

• Do not ignore harm.
• Do not inflate concern without evidence.
• Do not confuse distress with danger.
• Do not confuse accountability with exclusion.
• Do not confuse confidentiality with inaction.
• Do not confuse urgency with panic.

A concern pathway should help schools and campuses act carefully, quickly when needed, and wisely at every stage.

K–12 and Higher Education Differ, But the Need Is Shared

K–12 schools and institutions of higher education operate under different developmental, legal, family, and institutional conditions. In K–12, students are minors. Families are central. Mandatory reporting duties are clearer. Developmental context is essential. School discipline, special education, school counseling, family partnership, and district policy often shape response. In higher education, students are often legal adults. Privacy considerations are more complex. Students may live on campus. Concerns may involve residence life, student conduct, Title IX, campus safety, counseling boundaries, faculty reporting, athletics, peer networks, or behavioral intervention teams. Families may care deeply but have less automatic access. Federal school safety resources now explicitly address targeted violence and threat assessment across both K–12 schools and institutions of higher education, reinforcing that concern pathways are not limited to one educational sector (U.S. Department of Education, 2026).

Both sectors need to answer the same basic questions.

• Where does concern go?
• Who receives it?
• Who assesses it?
• Who responds?
• Who follows up?

• How do we protect privacy without allowing concern to disappear?
• How do we act without overreaching?
• How do we make help-seeking feel safe enough to happen early?

Different settings need different protocols, but every educational community needs a trusted pathway between concern and crisis.

Technology Can Support Concern Pathways, But It Cannot Substitute for Them

Reporting tools, anonymous tip lines, safety apps, dashboards, alert systems, and digital forms can help people share concern quickly. They can make pathways more visible. They can reduce confusion. They can connect students, families, and staff to help. But technology cannot decide what kind of concern something is. It cannot replace relational judgment. It cannot repair mistrust. It cannot guarantee proportionality. It cannot make an institution humane. A platform can carry concern. It cannot hold it. Only people and systems can do that. The question for any safety technology is not merely whether it allows reporting. The deeper question is whether it strengthens the human pathway beneath the report.

Questions Leaders Should Be Asking

Schools and campuses do not need to wait for a crisis to examine their concern pathways. Leaders can begin with practical questions:

• Do students know where to bring a concern before it becomes an emergency?
• Do families know whom to contact when something feels wrong?
• Do staff know what to share, with whom, and when?
• Are concerns documented in ways that help us see patterns without labeling students unfairly?
• Do our systems distinguish distress from danger?
• Do we have a way to respond supportively without ignoring harm?
• Do we have a way to respond firmly without escalating unnecessarily?
• Are our pathways developmentally appropriate?
• Are they equitable?
• Do people who share concerns receive appropriate acknowledgment or follow-up?
• Do we learn from concerns over time?

The strength of a concern pathway is measured not by how many reports it collects, but by how wisely it helps people respond.

Build the Pathway Before the Alarm

The safest schools and campuses are not only those that know what to do when the alarm sounds. They are the ones that know what to do before anyone is sure whether there will be an alarm at all. They are places where a student’s worry, a parent’s unease, a teacher’s observation, a staff member’s intuition, or a peer’s fear has somewhere responsible to go. They are places where concern is neither ignored nor inflated, neither buried nor broadcast, neither treated as nothing nor automatically treated as catastrophe. 

This is not the soft side of safety. It is the human infrastructure that makes prevention possible. Between concern and crisis is where prevention lives, but prevention does not happen because people are told to speak up. It happens when schools and campuses build pathways worthy of their trust.

Authors

Chief (ret.) Noel C. March, M.A. is Director of the Maine Community Policing Institute at the University of Maine at Augusta and the former United States Marshal for the District of Maine. He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy, a Fellow of the Future Policing Institute, and a former member of the IACP Board of Directors. His work centers on community-oriented policing and cross-sector partnerships that build public trust. 

Leigh Reagan Alley, Ed.D. is Coordinator of Teacher Education at the University of Maine at Augusta, where she designed and leads the first dedicated Master of Arts in Teaching Whole Child Education. She is an architect of the xSELeratED Schools Framework, serves on the Advisory Board of the Institute for Humane Education, and is the author of multiple award-winning Social-Emotional Learning texts for children and educators. 

Bibliography

Alley, L. R. (2026). Relational data: What we should be tracking besides grades and referrals. The Educator’s Room.

Alley, L. R., & March, N. C. (2026a). Psychological safety is school safety. The Educator’s 

Room.

Alley, L. R., & March, N. C. (2026b). RELATE: A school-ready redesign to reframe SROs as 

school relationship officers. The Educator’s Room.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). School connectedness helps students thrive. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Cornell, D., & Maeng, J. (2024). School Threat Assessment Toolkit. National Center for School Safety.

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency & U.S. Secret Service. (2023). Improving school safety through bystander reporting: A toolkit for strengthening K–12 reporting programs. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Maeng, J. L., Cornell, D., & Huang, F. (2020). Student threat assessment as an alternative to exclusionary discipline. Journal of School Violence, 19(3), 377–388.

NABITA. (2023). Standards for Behavioral Intervention Teams. National Association for 

Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment.

NASP School Safety and Crisis Response Committee. (2021). Behavioral threat assessment and  management: Best practice considerations for K–12 schools. National Association of School Psychologists.

National School Climate Center. (n.d.). What is school climate and why is it important?

National Threat Assessment Center. (2018). Enhancing school safety using a threat assessment model: An operational guide for preventing targeted school violence. U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

National Threat Assessment Center. (2019). Protecting America’s schools: A U.S. Secret Service  analysis of targeted school violence. U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

National Threat Assessment Center. (2021). Averting targeted school violence: A U.S. Secret  Service analysis of plots against schools. U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Does FERPA permit the sharing of education records with outside law enforcement officials, mental health officials, and other experts in the community who serve on a school’s threat assessment team? Student Privacy Policy Office.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Communications and Outreach. (2026, March 5). 

Preventing targeted violence and threat assessment resources. University of Virginia School of Education and Human Development. (n.d.). The Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines. Youth Violence Project.