Overview:
Transforming School Resource Officers into School Relationship Officers using the RELATE framework fosters safer, more supportive, and equitable school environments through relationships and restorative practices.
Authors: Leigh Reagan Alley, Ed.D., University of Maine at Augusta
Chief (ret.) Noel C. March, M.A., University of Maine at Augusta
A Morning That Could Go Either Way . . .
It’s first period. A freshman slams a locker and stalks down the hall, hood up, eyes on the floor. He’s late again, and a teacher steps out to intercept him. A uniformed adult turns the corner.
In many schools, this is the inflection point. Voices rise. Rules are recited. The student stiffens, the “temperature” rises, and lateness becomes a confrontation. Immediately, everyone’s day gets harder.
Let’s imagine a different scenario. The uniformed adult greets the student by name and falls into step with them. “You look stirred up. Want two minutes to reset, or do you want to walk with me and we’ll talk?” The student exhales. By the time they reach the classroom, the adult has heard the quick story—missed bus, rough morning at home—and loops the teacher into a simple plan: a late slip now and a check-in after class. There is no spectacle, no removal. The day is salvaged.
What changed in this scenario isn’t the student. It’s the role and the habits of the adults in the hallway.
Why Reframe the SRO Role at All?
Schools that invest in relationship-rich climates, teach social-emotional learning skills, use restorative responses, and practice procedural fairness (or procedural justice, as our police colleagues would say) see steadier classrooms and fewer harms. Belonging is not a bonus; it is a core protective factor. Clear expectations and recognition systems reduce conduct problems. Restorative conversations, conducted with coaching and fidelity, repair harm and return students to learning. Fair, transparent processes invite cooperation and trust in the system. Most cases resolve without harsh exclusion.
The implication is straightforward: relationships regulate behavior. If the safety role is built to create relationships, safety becomes easier to build. The real question is not whether a uniformed adult belongs in schools; it’s what role the adult is meant to fill, how their work is meant to be done, and what counts as success in the near- and long term.
From School Resource Officer to School Relationship Officer
A School Relationship Officer represents the next generation of school safety, shaped by lessons gleaned from the wide range of approaches used across the country. Officers selected for this specialized role must be chosen through a deliberate and thoughtful process. This model of school climate and behavior management requires school and law enforcement administrators to recruit and assign officers who have demonstrated a strong understanding of—and ability to apply—community-oriented policing principles. These principles emphasize building trust through strong partnerships and leveraging those relationships to support proactive problem-solving with a focus on prevention and reduction of harm. Nothing in our approach suggests that schools will disregard emergencies or fail to meet their legal obligations. Our redesign merely clarifies the purpose, everyday practice, and accountability of the role.
RELATE: The Framework That Powers Our Redesign
Our Pillars: Respect • Empathy • Listening • Accountability • Trust • Equity
Each translates into visible behaviors that teams can coach and measure.
R––RESPECT
Students watch how we speak, where we stand, and whether we keep our word. School Relationship Officers use names; offer small, sincere affirmations (“Glad you made it in.”); explain decisions; and follow through. Respect is steady and concrete: eye level, calm tone, transparent expectations. Each of these micro-moves and micro-moments add up. Where respect and relationship are protected, correction can land without humiliation because dignity is already established.
Why it regulates behavior: Respect lowers social threat. When students feel respected, they can spend less energy scanning for danger and more energy cooperating.
Possible observable indicators: A rising positive-to-corrective contact ratio; student survey gains on items such as, “Adults treat me with respect.”
E––EMPATHY
De-escalation has to be an established stance before it can become a script. School Relationship Officers open their conversations with curiosity rather than assumptions and foregone conclusions—“Help me understand what happened and what you need next.”—and pair calm-down options with a predictable re-entry routine. When harm occurs, they facilitate reintegration conversations that separate the person from their behavior, and they focus on repair.
Why it regulates behavior: Empathy signals safety and possibility. Feeling understood increases willingness to accept limits and make amends.
Possible observable indicators: Time-to-calm under 10 minutes; fewer removals for defiance; student voice reflected in agreements.
L––LISTENING
Voice matters, especially before decisions are made. School Relationship Officers use a simple “listen—summarize—check” loop with students and families and bring those stakeholder voices into advisory groups and safety walk-throughs. Our Listening Loop becomes automatic: “Here’s what I heard. Here’s what we’ll do. Here’s when we’ll circle back.”
Why it regulates behavior: Being heard reduces reactance. When students and families trust that their perspective will be weighed, they are less likely to escalate and more likely to engage and problem-solve.
Possible observable indicators: Documented perspectives; gains on “My perspective is heard”; more early self-referrals for help.
A––ACCOUNTABILITY
Accountability is shared. School Relationship Officers own the impact of their actions, not just their intentions, and they co-create repair plans with clear steps and timelines. They help schools post role guardrails and publish diversion metrics in plain language so that the school community can see both the role’s purpose and how the role is working.
Why it regulates behavior: Clear expectations with consistent follow-through build predictability. Predictability invites self-regulation.
Possible observable indicators: High completion of restorative agreements; on-time follow-ups.
T––TRUST
Trust takes root when adults are neutral, transparent, and reliable. School Relationship Officers explain the “why,” keep confidences unless safety is at risk, and maintain a clear boundary between school discipline and criminal enforcement. When enforcement is necessary, School Relationship Officers act proportionately and explain each step.
Why it regulates behavior: Trust turns compliance into cooperation. Students cooperate not only because they must but because the system feels fair.
Possible observable indicators: Gains on fairness/clarity/trust items; earlier reporting of concerns; fewer anonymous complaints.
E––EQUITY
Safety is for everyone. Officers and administrators disaggregate outcomes, interrupt bias in realtime, expand access to supports (e.g., translation, transportation, flexible meeting times), and ensure that all stakeholders are included in design. Equity is not a parallel program or objective; it is a necessary ingredient of the work.
Why it regulates behavior: Equity is a precondition for legitimacy. When treatment is equitable, conflicts resolve faster and with less resistance.
Possible observable indicators: Narrowing subgroup gaps in referrals and suspensions; representative student advisory groups; equity notes in threat-assessment logs.
How Time Is Used
Most days, the School Relationship Officer’s time will cluster around four categories of effort:
- Relational Presence & Belonging (40–60%). Hallway “relational rounds,” classroom drop-ins, advisory circles, and family outreach become the reliable rhythms of the role. This is also where officers broker future-readiness: a visit to the CTE center, a shadow day with a community partner, a service-learning placement. The message serves as a steady beacon: you belong here, we want you here, you can succeed here, and your future is visible from here.
- Prevention (20–30%). School Relationship Officers coach routines aligned with SEL core competencies, the tenets of Whole-Child Education, et cetera, model shared skill language, and help teams design predictable de-escalation pathways that protect instructional time.
- Problem-Solving & Threat Assessment (10–20%). As members of the threat-assessment team, School Relationship Officers help to clarify risk and craft minimally intrusive safety plans, tracking supports provided and following up about how plans are working.
- Last-Resort Enforcement (under 10%). When legal thresholds are met or an imminent risk is present, the School Relationship Officer acts. Even then, the process is procedurally just: steps are explained, actions are proportionate, and dignity is preserved.
What RELATE Looks Like in Action
In the cafeteria.
Before lunch, the School Relationship Officer and an assistant principal walk the space, greeting students by name and checking in with two who clashed last week. Near the back, the officer pauses: “We’re collecting two-minute ideas to make lunch calmer. What would you change if you held the magic wand?” Students suggest staggered lines and a clearer exit flow. The next day, a simple “You said / We did” note appears by the doors. Lunchtime improves, and students recognize their fingerprints on a better routine.
At the front desk.
A caregiver arrives worried about online threats. Instead of a vague promise to “look into it,” the officer invites them to a same-day consult with the threat-assessment team. The team listens, clarifies risks, checks in with students named in the report, and drafts a plan that includes adult monitoring, a restorative option, device norms, and clear reporting channels. The family leaves with a written plan, names, and numbers—not just a case number.
After attendance.
Attendance slides for a student who used to arrive every day like clockwork. The officer notices the trend, learns that the student is caring for a sibling before school, and brokers a late-start elective and a two-day job-shadow. Attendance rebounds. The student says he can “see a lane” after graduation. Safety and readiness move together.
None of these scenarios relies on heroics. Each relies on a role intentionally designed to RELATE—and on adults practicing together until making these moves is the norm.
Keeping the Work Humane and Effective
To protect students and staff and keep the role anchored in prevention, districts should write expectations into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), so they outlast the leadership of any one person.
- Clear roles. School Relationship Officers do not manage routine classroom behavior, pass checks, or non-criminal code violations; they do not run attendance sweeps; and any custodial interviews follow administrator/guardian protocols.
- Data governance. School discipline data stay in school systems. Law enforcement databases are used only for legally required reporting or imminent safety threats. When in doubt, default to educational data systems and privacy norms.
- Joint supervision & evaluation. The officer answers to both the district and the partner agency. Evaluation weights climate, belonging, perceived fairness, diversions, and supports.
- Equity reviews. Each quarter, teams disaggregate referrals, removals, and police contacts by subgroup. When disparities appear, leaders identify drivers and adjust practices quickly. If the data reveal gaps, the response is instructional, not punitive.
- Transparency. A plain-language role description is posted clearly so the school community can see what the officer does—and, just as importantly, what the officer does not do.
Our Implementation Blueprint: Start Small, and Start Now
Phase 1 — Co-design & readiness (3–6 months)
Bring a design team together—students (including those with discipline history), families, classroom staff, special services, union reps, the officer, and community partners. Write the MOU with them. Codify RELATE expectations, the threat-assessment partnership, data-sharing limits, the least-intrusive-means principle, and a clear grievance pathway.
Set a simple baseline: office referrals; suspensions/expulsions; arrests or referrals to law enforcement; short student surveys on belonging and perceived fairness; basic threat-assessment metrics (time to resolution; proportion resolved without exclusion). Then tell the story publicly and plainly: we are building safety with you.
Phase 2 — Capacity-building (year 1)
Provide practice-based learning (40–60 hours): adolescent development; trauma and disability basics; alignment to SEL and whole-child tenets; restorative conferencing; procedural-justice micro-skills; and the nuts and bolts of threat assessment. Create coaching triads—administrator, officer, and counselor, for example—that meet monthly to review logs, rehearse de-escalation language, and look for disproportionality. Use simple fidelity tools: a one-page RELATE look-for sheet, a short threat-assessment checklist, and a brief quality rubric for restorative conversations. Model two-minute hallway huddles and five-minute advisory circles. Co-teach, don’t police.
Phase 3 — Continuous improvement (year 2+)
Run 8–12-week cycles targeting one friction at a time (e.g., tardies, lunchroom noise, hallway conflicts, classroom disruptions). Engage in a cycle of continuous improvement: plan, try, study, adjust. Share data each quarter: diversions, referrals/removals, student-reported belonging and fairness, and simple readiness proxies like attendance and on-track indicators. Share bright spots and fixes. Throughout it all, keep students and families at the table.
Our One-Page Toolkit
- One hundred names, one hundred greetings. Commit to 100 genuine positive contacts. Track how many students initiate the interaction the next week.
- An advisory mini-circle. Five minutes: “When I’m stressed at school, one thing that helps is . . . ” Close with a thank-you round and one next step the class can try.
- Adopt one phrase. Use “Help me understand what happened and what you need next” in every conflict conversation for a week, for example. Notice what changes.
- Map five partners. With counselors, identify five community organizations for shadow days or micro-internships. Schedule two visits this month.
- Fairness audit: one routine. Choose a common infraction (e.g., tardiness). Replace the punitive sequence with instructional, restorative steps and a short re-entry script.
- Join threat-assessment prep. Review one case with the team. Draft a support-first plan and check it against the least-intrusive-means principle. Follow up in two weeks.
Print this list. Put it on the officer’s clipboard and the principal’s desk.
Curious Questions and Clear Answers
Is your RELATE model softer on safety?
No. School Relationship Officers keep full emergency authority. The shift is in the default: we choose prevention, clarity, and connection first because they work. Enforcement remains available when truly needed—and is more effective within a trusted relationship.
Will your model add to teachers’ plates?
Done well, it lightens them. Officers co-design routines, model de-escalation, and shoulder some relational work that teachers already do. The aim is to protect instructional time, not erode it.
What if our current officer isn’t a fit?
Selection matters. Hire (or reassign) for youth-development orientation, cultural humility, and collaborative problem-solving. Then coach to RELATE-aligned observable indicators and evaluate against them. People rise to clear expectations and useful feedback.
How will we know the RELATE Model is working?
Watch near-term indicators: fewer removals, more diversions, faster recovery after conflicts, rising student ratings of fairness and belonging, earlier reports of concern, and stronger attendance and other on-track evidence. Share the stories behind the numbers so the community understands the mechanisms of human change, not just the metrics.
Concluding Thoughts from Dr. Alley and Chief March
Relationship work is safety work. When schools and stations both promote an SRO role designed to help their officer to RELATE through Respect, Empathy, Listening, Accountability, Trust, and Equity, students and other stakeholders experience school as a place that protects dignity, teaches skills, and opens doors. This is how we regulate behavior today and build future-readiness for tomorrow. This is not wishful thinking. Our RELATE Framework foregrounds a set of routines any school can practice. This week, start with names and greetings. Add a short advisory circle. Rewrite one policy for fairness. Bring students and families into the design. Post our RELATE Framework where the radios charge. Then keep going.
Bibliography
Allen, K. A., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2018). What schools needto know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 1–34.
Cipriano, C., Strambler, M. J., Naples, L. H., et al. (2023). The state of evidence for social and emotional learning: A contemporary meta-analysis of universal school-based SEL interventions. Child Development, 94(5), 1181–1204.
Cornell, D. G. (2020). Threat assessment as a school violence prevention strategy. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 235–252.
Karlberg, M., Klang, N., & Svahn, J. (2024). Positive behavior support in school: a quasi-experimental mixed methods study and a randomized controlled trial [Study protocol]. BMC Psychology, 12, 521.
Augustine, C. H., Engberg, J., Grimm, G. E., Lee, E., Wang, E. L., Christianson, K., & Joseph,
A. A. (2018). Can restorative practices improve school climate and curb suspensions? An evaluation of the impact of restorative practices in a mid-sized urban school district (RR-2840). RAND Corporation.
Paige, J. W., & Bushway, S. D. (2024). The role and impact of school resource officers: A brief discussion (PE-A243-2). RAND Corporation.
Soderstrom, M. F. P. (2024). Formalizing and expanding school resource officer presence: Examining the influence on student arrests. Journal of Criminal Justice, 94, 102236.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–547.
Taylor, R. D., Oberle, E., Durlak, J. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development, 88(4), 1156–1171.
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 award-winning Social-Emotional Learning texts for children and educators.
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.
